>5e's guideline for starting wealth is in uselessly wide bands
>guideline for "high magic campaign" level 4 wealth is the same ratty equipment at level 1
>fighters and paladins are still stuck in chain armor if they start at level 4 even in a "high magic campaign"
>heck, fighters and paladins starting at level 10 in a "standard campaign" still have no plate armor because plate costs 1.5k, and no magic weapon either in a game full of monsters that take half/no damage from mundane weapons
Why is this the assumed baseline?
>>43944232
>entirely at your discretion
>you can use ... as a guide
>>43944232
Because 5e is gamist not simulationist, and earning wealth in-game is more fun than starting out rich.
Also, levels 1-3 are apprentice territory. You don't even get your oath as a paladin in until level 3
>>43944232
Because this game doesn't scale as strongly with equipment as other games, so there's no reason to dress people in bits and baubles like a fucking christmas tree.
Plus, as long as some functional baseline is met, it's generally speaking more interesting to have less than more in a game where acquiring interesting things is a primary motivator.
The chainmail that a level 4 character starts with is much shinier than what they get at level 1. And they bought a proper belt to hold it up, rather than using one knitted by their mom.
>>43945066
>Not wearing homeknitted adventuring gear
>"Bubula, you're fighting Frost Giants, I don't want you catching a cold, sweety. Do you remember that time you took a whole level of exhaustion? And would it kill you to Message home every once in awhile?"
Step up your game, son.
>>43944232
Because muh roleplaying.
>>43945012
>Because this game doesn't scale as strongly with equipment as other games
Doesn't that make the +2 AC from going from chain to plate even more important?
>implying there's anything wrong with killing the shopping minigame of 3.5
>>43946022
Point is, you don't *need* to stack up huge bonuses to face the sort of creatures a low level party would take on.
If you can't get by without a magic weapon, then you'll just have to go questing for one. Won't that be fun?
>>43946022
>Doesn't that make the +2 AC from going from chain to plate even more important?
No, because gear doesn't scale as strongly.
That means that much less of your to hit/damage/ac/saves/etc bonus comes from equipment. More of it is inherent to your character..
>>43946204
>If you can't get by without a magic weapon, then you'll just have to go questing for one. Won't that be fun?
The fuck do I need to quest for basic competence for at level 10?
>>43946204
>>43946312
This is completely and utterly bullshit.
Your gear actually makes up MORE of your attack bonus in 5e than in 3.X, the most Christmas tree of all editions.
>>43946441
>Gear makes up more of your bonuses
5e caps at +3 weapons, and those are legendary tier artifacts.
3.5 has +6 weapons as a baseline expectation, and boosting your stats beyond 20 with magic items is also fairly basic.
>>43947086
>5e caps at +3 weapons, and those are legendary tier artifacts.
5e base attack bonus caps at +6, meaning that a +3 weapon is equal to half your base.
3.5 had a cap at +5 weapons, and classes that could get to a +20 base bonus. The bonus is less significant in 3.5 than in 5e.
>>43946406
>magic item
>basic competence
What the fuck kind of niggardly munchkin vidya game are you playing?
Have you ever taken an action in an rpg that wasn't one of the following:
>attack
>loot
>stealth
>drink/get high lelelelelelXDDD
>>43947201
The game where "No magic weapon, half/no damage" is spread all over the Monster Manual.
>>43947235
B-but the DM can just decide not to use those!
:^)
>>43947235
Either
1. Choose different monsters as DM
2. Go on a quest to get a weapon that can deal with those monsters (because it's fun)
3. Run away from those monsters
4. Edit those monsters to not be impervious to the current party composition as DM
Or anything else you can think of. If we had to be slaves to what's printed in the books the game would be miserable
>>43947152
However, 3.5 also relied on magic items that boosted your attack stat, and magical effects that increased your attack roll.
So instead of looking for a whole constellation of bonuses, you really just want one. And that one doesn't go very high.
>>43947852
5e has Strength-setting magic items, which are way worse than 3.5 ever was with its stat raising items.
>>43947866
Strength-setting magic items are better, and they're much more DM dependent, as opposed to being a character assumption like in 3.5.
>>43947960
>Strength-setting magic items are better
>raise Strength to 20
>get item that sets Strength to 21
O-Okay...
>>43947993
>Player raises strength to 20
>Give him a useless magical item.
I know this happens, but that's a problem with a bad DM. The game's not idiot proof.
>>43944232
So it seems like the monsters that take half damage from non-magic were put there to give magic characters some time to shine in damage dealing. It's not the most elegant solution, but it's easily fixable by the DM. If your DM is constantly throwing you against stuff that takes half damage from everyone, then maybe he is just trying to be a dick instead of telling a cooperative story.
>>43947152
A character without that weapon in 5e will be hitting 15% less, while a character without it in 3.5 will be hitting 30% less.
You don't need the big numbers like you do in 3.5
Because 5e is a badly designed mess of legacy mechanics and 'Muh feels'.
>>43948343
What are you basing your numbers on? Average monster ACs? Or are you just pulling numbers from your ass?
>>43948343
Characters in 3.5 never needed anything beyond a +3 weapon AT MOST.
Accuracy was never in high demand.
>>43948477
He's treating each +1 as a 5% increment on a d20, even if that's not the actual probabilities. So yeah, pulled out of his ass.
>>43947152
Are you a fucking idiot?
>>43948545
>No u
The weapon bonus in 5e has a higher incidence on the total bonus viz the same bonus in 3.5, especially considering the scaling of monster AC.
>>43944232
>and no magic weapon either in a game full of monsters that take half/no damage from mundane weapons
You mean you might actually have to THINK your way through an encounter instead of just randomly rolling dice at the monsters? Gasp! What a novel concept!
>>43948618
You mean you might actually have to THINK your way through an encounter instead of just randomly rolling dice at the monsters? Gasp! What a novel concept!
What's there to think with a "immune to nonmagical weapons" monster in D&D? What spells to prepare?
>>43948618
Okay. So what mechanical support does 5e provide for thinking your way through encounters? How does it facilitate it, reward it or encourage it? What guidelines and advice does it give to GMs?
Because unless you can cite those, then your point can literally be applied to every game system ever made, which makes it irrelevant when discussing mechanical flaws of a system. 'The group can work around it' is so universal it doesn't need to be stated anymore, and it isn't a defense from criticism.
>>43948618
>You mean you might actually have to THINK your way through an encounter instead of just randomly rolling dice at the monsters? Gasp! What a novel concept!
If by that you mean "hope the caster can handle it", sure.
Alternatively, you can just roll twice as many times, since he just takes half damage.
>>43948618
The party encounters in the dungeon a pack of air and earth elementals.
Nobody has magic weapons.
The fighter is a generic greatsword fighter. How can the fighter help?
>>43947086
>+6 weapons
Not available outside of Epic campaigns. The cap was +5.
>>43948477
>>43948499
In his defense, that's how probabilities on a d20 WORK excepting edge cases. (meaning those rolls occuring on the edges of the range of probabilities)
If i have an attack bonus of 4, and am attacking a creature with AC 14, I have a 55% chance to hit. If I have a +1 sword, I have a 60% chance to hit.
Technically, his argument needs to contain "Against an identical monster" to be accurate. Now, if we wanted to measure actual range over an assortment...
Give me 20 minutes to figure out how having a +1 weapon at level 10 in 5e compares to NOT having one.
>>43948687
> Okay. So what mechanical support does 5e provide for thinking your way through encounters?
Thinking is your job. Maybe you grapple it, tie it up, and deal with it that way. Maybe you talk your way out of the fight. Maybe you go around, sneak past it. You can't always just murder everything in your way.
>How does it facilitate it, reward it or encourage it?
The same way it facilitates, rewards, and encourages good roleplaying... by stepping back and letting you do your thing, and only giving you concrete rules for the things you need concrete rules for.
>>43948730
Yes, because the only possible way to solve a problem is to kill it.
>>43948794
>Give me 20 minutes to figure out how having a +1 weapon at level 10 in 5e compares to NOT having one.
It's pretty damning given that "need a magic weapon to be effective against this monster's resistances" is a lot more common in 5e.
>>43948807
In other words, your point is irrelevant and in no way excuses the systems mechanical flaws. Thank you.
>>43948779
Shove and Grapple the Earth Elemental, preventing it from moving and giving advantage to hit it.
>>43948779
Depends, does somebody else in the group have a way to deal with them? If so, then you can grapple them to hold them still, help protect your allies, provide advantage, get a buff, or if you're absolutely dead set against doing something other than swinging a weapon at something, just suck it up and deal half damage.
If nobody in your group has anything to deal with them, you can be the voice of reason and say "Hey guys, maybe we should go around?"
>>43948807
>The same way it facilitates, rewards, and encourages good roleplaying... by stepping back and letting you do your thing, and only giving you concrete rules for the things you need concrete rules for.
This was an argument 4e fans used, only their game had a very tight mathematical basis to stand on.
For 5e it's just corporate speak.
>>43948829
The fighter is being reduced to dropping the weapon he's specialized in and trying to hold a monster in place for allies to hit? Seriously?
>>43948846
>The pyromancer has to use something other than fire spells against the fire elemental? Seriously?
>>43948828
"The game doesn't do my thinking for me! Waah! Mechanical flaws!"
>>43948846
If he was smart enough to have a one-handed backup weapon, this helps him out as well, since he only needs one hand free to keep it pinned and the advantage will help improve his damage output despite its resistance.
>>43948829
>>43948836
Grappling doesn't hand out advantage.
>>43948866
There is no "pyromancer" in 5e that can only do fire spells and nothing else.
5e does have a "great weapon fighter" in 5e that can fight gud with great weapon, and do everything else like mediocre ass.
I don't follow that guide. I follow the "number of treasure hoards" in the magic item section. I generate a number of them appropriate for the level then give it to the party, subtracting 25% of liquid wealth for miscellaneous expenses.
>>43948836
>>43948887
5e has rules for grappling, pinning, and making a grappled target easier to hit?
>>43948868
...How does this logically follow? Up until now your argument at least seemed sincere, but I'm not sure how you'd reach that point from what I'd said before. If you can explain I'd be interested to hear, otherwise I'll just assume trolling.
>>43948846
There's also the possibility of said fighter being an Eldritch Knight or a Battle master, meaning they'll either be able to bypass the damage resistance using magic, or have a number of combat maneuvers that could help out as well.
>>43948895
>Grappling doesn't give out advantage
But being prone does, which you can do using a Shove. Grappling then prevents them from standing back up.
>>43948922
>Eldritch Knight
Anyone who thinks casting underleveled damage evocations is a good deal is insane.
>>43945081
God damn, Even on my adventuring boards I can't get away from you. why do you think I started being an adventurer? Can't you even let me have this one thing? If I want to use my proper belt like all the other adventurers at my level I should be able to use a proper belt. This is why dad never returned from the temple of elemental evil.
Oh, and message has a 120ft range. I can't stay 120ft away from home. I'm not a child anymore. GOD.
>>43948911
>Shove target, they grant advantage and have to spend movement to stand
>Grapple target, target can't move and has to use an action to try and break out.
>>43948941
Banking on those rolls against a Strength +5 monster doesn't seem too reliable.
>>43948948
Against a monster resistant to weapon damage, it just might help.
Besides, they originally asked for how a fighter could help against air or earth elementals. They've gotten plenty of answers.
>>43948807
>Yes, because the only possible way to solve a problem is to kill it.
I'm saying you don't have to get creative to solve it, you can just grind it down as usual. Just some of your grinding will be less effective.
5e is fucking barren as far as interesting thought provoking mechanics go.
The wizard could also use a level 3 slot to cast Hypnotic Pattern at the Wis +0 elementals and incapacitate a 30-foot cube of the elementals with actual, turn-skipping action denial.
>>43949021
That's my biggest issue with 5e, desu. Aside from general sloppiness like that pointed out in the OP, 5e is just dull. It's the most safe, boring version of D&D you could possibly imagine. And depressingly, people are lapping it up.
>>43949011
>They've gotten plenty of answers.
Those all come with the caveat that the grappling + proning isn't contributing THAT much to the fight.
I mean, yeah, it's a contribution... but it's pretty small for a whole PC in a fight, you dig?
>>43948993
>Challenge 5
>Fighter with 18 strength and athletics training is gonna be at +7
And that's assuming its an entire party of level 5s against a single earth Elemental.
Having decent odds of Pinning a boss monster certainly sounds like a way the fighter could contribute, especially because he can make 2 attempts for either in the same turn, or 4 with Action Surge.
And if he's a battle master he can take the trip maneuver to better his odds further.
>>43948794
So, initial values: a 10th level 5e fighter has a proficiency bonus of +4, and can easily be assumed to have 20 Strength, giving him a +9 to attack. A +1 weapon is therefore an 11% increase to his basic hitting potential.
Here's all the CR 10 monsters in the Monster Manual
Aboleth: base hit 65%, 70% with weapon.
Deva: Same hit chance, but damage resistance without magic. (so half damage)
Yochlol: 75%, 80%, damage resist as deva.
Young Red Dragon: 60%, 65%
Young Gold Dragon: same
Stone Golem: 65% hit, 70% hit, IMMUNE to non-magical.
Guardian Naga: 60%, 65%
Death Slaad: 60%, 65%
So, at 10th level, in 5/8ths of cases, the bonus is solely increased hit chance, whose effective increase against THAT creature varies between 8% and 6.6%. Against 1/4 (2/8ths) of potential encounters, it increases your chance to hit either 7% or 6%, but effectively doubles your damage (negating resistance) against 1/8th of the threats, it's essentially necessary, given the golem's immunity.
There's no great way to measure the total efficiency increase, because of the range. Most of the time, it's around 7% more likely to hit, but there's a 37.5% chance that a magic weapon vastly increases your abilities. (200% damage versus ERROR_UNDEFINED increase in damage.)
But the base numbers are clear. 11% to base hitting potential, roughly 7% increase to hit level-appropriate encounters, and wide damage ranges.
Now, let's take a look at 3.5.
>>43944683
That's not an excuse. A shitty guide that gives you terrible advice will be ignored and/or ridiculed by most experienced people who see it, but it will manage to trick the occasional inexperienced person who doesn't know any better.
5e starting wealth seems like it's perfectly fine for the recommended beginner games (low level), so this is likely a moot point here, but in general "this is just a suggestion" isn't an excuse for giving bad advice.
>>43949070
The situation was a pack of multiple elementals.
The party is maybe level 10?
And honestly, that's kind of unimpressive to be doing.
>>43949067
>Preventing the monster from moving to attack anyone else and giving everyone an effective +5 to hit is minor
Its about as minor as the need for plate armor or a +1 magic weapon
>>43949143
>Preventing the monster from moving to attack anyone else
Bitch, please, that's what the fighter's reactions are SUPPOSED to be doing in the first place.
>and giving everyone an effective +5 to hit is minor
Prone only gives advantage to attacks within 5 feet. It does dick for any allies who attack from a far or use spells with saving throws.
Guess which party member is the one they count on for attacks within 5 feet?
>>43949070
A fighter with a magic weapon would be able to hit more reliably than he could grapple and actually try to take down the damn earth elemental.
Who is actually going to kill the elementals in the "grapple and shove them!" scenario?
>>43949226
I'm asking this because if the fighter's doing nothing but grappling and shoving and it's up to the casters to take out the elementals, then the fighter's Advantage from knocking the earth elementals prone isn't actually doing anything.
>>43949370
He has a free hand to hit them himself.
Of course, he could also be an Eldrtich Knight and cast Magic weapon on himself and kill everything in a few turns instead.
>>43949072
Alright, given 3.5's increased granularity, I have to make a lot more assumptions for the math, which I'll explain.
See, with 5e, by that level, he'd capped strength, and as long as he wasn't an archer, there weren't many ways to increase his attack bonus. (There's no attack-increasing feats, for instance)
In 3.5, things are messier. I'll start with items.
A 10th level 3.5 character has 49,000 gp worth of gear. But how that's spread out is up to the player. I've settled on a +3 armor, a +3 weapon, a belt of giant's strength (+4) and 6,000 gp on various knick knacks and wondrous items.
Abilities are another tetchy point, since the PHB in 3.5 doesn't even include the OPTION for an array or point buy. The only provided system is 4d6 drop 1. However, the 5e array matches the Elite array for MM monsters, so we'll drop that in.
With a 15 as your base Strength, it becomes impossible to have capped at 20 by level 10, instead a human maxes out at 17 pre-items, while Half-Orcs can hit 19. Let's assume a human, or at least a race without an inherent +2. That means, WITH the belt of GIant's Strength, the character has 21 Strength.
A Base Attack Bonus of +10, with +5 from Strength is +15. The fighter at this juncture has roughly 9 feats, so a Weapon Focus isn't out of the question, but we'll assume no Greater Weapon Focus. So the total pre-weapon is +16, with +3 from the weapon. That's an 18.75% increase in base hitting potential.
And there are...14 CR 10 monsters in this Monster manual. Okay. This is gonna take some time.
>>43949419
That greatsword fighter's going to be in a shit position to deal serious damage.
The fighter is supposed to be taking hits. Concentration spells = shit.
>>43949459
>A 10th level 3.5 character has 49,000 gp worth of gear. But how that's spread out is up to the player. I've settled on a +3 armor, a +3 weapon, a belt of giant's strength (+4) and 6,000 gp on various knick knacks and wondrous items.
Wrong way to go about it. That's a shit way to spend 49k at level 10.
So, let me get this straight.
You have a monster.
It has resistance to non-magical weapons.
You, as a DM, know this.
So, rather then just using any of the many, many other monsters, in the book, you insist on both A; not allowing the party any sort of magical weapon/tool to allow them to fight this, and B; using this monster, rather then any of the fucking other monsters in the book.
I think shitastic DM covers this little 'problem' well enough.
>>43949764
What do these monsters exist for to begin with?
4e made a good move by throwing out all this magic weapon-based resistance.
>>43949764
Imagine a new GM who'd never run a game before.
He decides to play D&D 5e. Following all the guidelines and instructions in the book for what's appropriate... He could still run into this exact issue. That wouldn't be his fault. That's the games guidelines being fucked.
>>43949839
Because more tools in a toolbox only hurts someone if the user is a fucking retard.
>>43949863
No...that. Would actually be his fault for not bothering to think for a goddamn minute.
"Ok, the monsters have resistance, my PCs have no tools to get around it. SEEMS LEGIT."
>>43949899
This. Also "newbie GMs can fuck everything up" is not an indicator that a system is bad. GURPS is a good system, a newbie GM who's never ran a game before is still going to cock it up more often than not.
>>43949877
What tool does "fuck over the guys without magic weapons" serve?
If the answer is "world-building," then fucking Christ, make the monsters literally hittable only by PCs and other monsters of CR X+.
>>43949920
>GURPS is a good system
Hey, man, let's not say shit we can't take back!
>>43949839
Because they are functionally stronger than expected up until the point where the party has magic weapons.
That means you can use them as a greater threat up to that point, and then utilize them as a lesser threat after that point.
>>43949931
So rather then a quest for a magical weapon to fight this monster, say, let's make abstract restrictions.
Yeah, nah. That's fucking stupid.
>>43949863
Because it still isn't an insurmountable problem.
If the Party is a Champion Fighter, Open Hand monk, Berserker Barbarian, and Thief Rogue, they'll still be able to win a fight against a few elementals.
It might take some more clever thinking and strategy, and it'd be easier if they had some, but its not going to break things on its own.
>>43949961
This. The best example in the book for this is the Scarecrow. CR 1, resistant to non-magical weapons, but vulnerable to fire. While you can just hammer away at it with normal hits, a bit of clever thinking and item usage with Flasks of Oil and Torches will make the thing go up in smoke.
>>43949955
>>43949961
Why do the casters get to go around this big resistance?
>>43950010
The scarecrow is bait for the arcane casters to demolish with Fire Bolt, actually.
>>43949899
This is obvious to you because you're experienced with RPGs. Try to put yourself in the shoes of a new player. The importance and necessity of magic weapons isn't remarked upon or highlighted, unless you know to look for it? It'd be easy to miss. This doesn't make someone dumb, it makes them fallible, like all human beings. Making things easy for a GM and giving good, accurate guidelines are important, and it's arrogant and stupid to say 'I don't need them so they don't matter'.
>>43949459
Colossal Animated Object: 95% hit chance, 95% hit chance
Bebilith: 75% hit chance, 90% hit chance. -10 damage.
Couatl: 80%, 95% *
Formian Myrmarch: 45%, 60%
Fire Giant: 70%, 85%
Clay Golem: 75%, 90% -10 Damage.
Eleven headed Hydra: 80%, 95%
9 headed cryo and pyro-hydra: 85%, 95%
Gargantuan Monstrous Scorpion: 65%, 80%
Guardian Nada: 90%, 95% *
Rakshasa: 80%, 95% * -15 damage.
Noble Salamander: 95%, 95% -15 damage to non magic!
Grey Slaad: 65%, 80%
Note that, out of those 14 monsters, only one has only DR /Magic. The rest are more specialized, and therefore would likely penalized both fighters.
The * next to multiple entries is because those monsters are spellcasters with high potential access to AC increasing spells, so their AC can only be calculated from a "totally surprised" base-level. Other monsters have potential AC increases, but they're dependent on Alignment, and therefore of limited use.
Here we see a much wider range of results. The increase to hit a Formian is 33%, while others have NO increased chance. WIthout doing the full math to find the true average, a quick check of several options reveals a consistent result in the high teens, or low twenties. I'd estimate it ends roughly around the very 18.75% of the base hitting potential.
So from that, what we can note AT LEVEL 10 is that 3.5's magic weapons have a greater effect on the math than 5e. 5e's weapon makes you think "well, it's nice". 3.5s take "good odds" to "almost certain".
Damage is a whole other story, that's a bitch and a half to calculate, given the variance in 3.5 weapons, feat bonuses to damage, etc.
However, it's worth noting that, due to how damage reduction works, a DR of 15, in a wide variety of cases reads "Immune to damage" and a DR of 10 can easily be halving damage or worse.
>>43949553
I don't give a fuck about your opinion.
>>43950090
>not calculating the average damage the monsters and the PCs are going to do to each other and compare it the opposing side's respective HP (or equivalent) when playing with a new system
This is shitty DMing right here. Also a logical thing to do, even if you are a new DM.
>>43950090
So, we should allow for people to be illiterate.
No, go fuck yourself. Being unable to fucking read and draw basic conclusions means someone is, yes, a goddamn retard.
>>43950139
> I don't give a fuck about your opinion.
Excuse me, that was overly blunt. Let me correct it.
I acknowledge there's a wide array of ways to improve on it, or change it, to produce stronger or more interesting results. However, the average player is going to go with what immediately catches their eye, and/or what makes them most effective. Sure, if I wanted to, I could do different things, but I chose simple items directly tied to the fighter's in-combat abilities. Like how the 10th level 5e guy is constricted to 1 +1 weapon.
Further, given the amateur nature of this analysis, I see no reason to unnecessarily complicate my math.
>>43949839
Because muh spirit of D&D.
>>43950200
And does the book inform you about doing that? Does the book tell you? No? Then the book is doing a bad job of teaching you how to GM.
>>43950209
That sort of thing is Only a 'basic conclusion' if you're already into gaming. If you really believe that you would have done exactly that upon your first, completely fresh RPG experience, you're a goddamn moron. People have to learn. Nobody gets all this stuff from day one. And if you're giving GM guidelines, they should be suitable for teaching someone new.
>>43950226
(cont)
For instance, by the rules provided in the DMG, I'm aware you can make a pair of gauntlets that cast True Strike on all your attacks for roughly the cost of a single +1 weapon (spell level 1 x caster level 1 x 2,000 gp)
But that takes a player having read through the PHB, and DMG, and to have noticed that specific exploit, that I'm fairly sure Wizards ended up adding some kind of errata to address.
Or using books beyond Core to get more fundamentally useful items.
>>43950272
>The book didn't spell out a totally logical conclusion I should have reached on finishing reading it.
If you are stuck at elementary school level reading abilities, maybe you shouldn't play a game with multiple 100+ pages books f rules.
>>43950272
No, you massive faggot.
It's not a basic conclusion, it's READING THE FUCKING BOOK.
Jesus goddamn christ. How fucking stupid are you, to think that "Ok, this requires a tool. I'll not give them the tool" is in any way acceptable?
If someone is not capable of this basic amount of thinking, I don't want to see them ever DMing.
>>43950272
>And does the book inform you about doing that? Does the book tell you? No? Then the book is doing a bad job of teaching you how to GM.
Dungeon World fag detected, please ignore.
>>43950336
>For instance, by the rules provided in the DMG, I'm aware you can make a pair of gauntlets that cast True Strike on all your attacks for roughly the cost of a single +1 weapon (spell level 1 x caster level 1 x 2,000 gp)
Correct.
You'll have to spend the standard actions to activate True Strike each time though.
>>43950414
Yeah, god forbid the DMG book gives new DMs advice, we might end up like them indie faggots.
>>43950358
>>43950362
>>43950414
I'm not sure if I have more or less respect for peoples intelligence than you do. I think it's pretty easy to conceive of a new GM acting in good faith based on the books suggestions running into this issue, and I don't think this makes him a retard. This seems like kinda bullshit gatekeeping to me, which isn't good for anyone. What harm is it to suggest that at least a sidebar or a warning be included in the CR section if the game does include elements like this, where a single missing piece might completely change the nature of an encounter?
>>43950449
Depends entirely on the builder. Use-Activated items are either standard actions or NOT actions at all. If you make them and say "When you swing the sword, you receive a flash of insight giving you the perfect thrust", it'll activate with no action on the user's part. (Hell "Swinging a sword" is one of the examples of "Doesn't need a separate action"
This is purely by what's printed in the core. They may have errata'd it to change that.
>>43950499
It's not bullshit gatekeeeping.
It's a basic intelligence check, my fucking god.
If you are so stupid that you can't read the book, and understand very, very basic concepts like giving them the tools for the job, no, they should put the fucking book down and walk away. Because if they are literally unable to do that, they'll never, ever be able to be a DM.
>>43950537
Why is 5e "good for beginners" again?
>>43950499
Don't monsters with Resistance also have less hit points than others of a similar level?
Do....do DMs not give moments for players to shine or something? You use the non-magic resistant creatures so the magic users can shine by giving the fighter Magic Weapon. Or coating it in some sort of oil.
Just like how you use a creature with really high saves to fuck over the cleric or enchantment wizard while the fighter has a time to shine. Everyone likes to feel more important than the others, so you just space them out.
The dungeon my players are going through has an anti-magic sigil that requires a Concentration of 15 to not have the spell fizzle, while divine casters get a nice DC of 10. So the martials are the main backbone to the fighting in this dungeon, while the mages are the ones falling behind. Couple of sessions ago they got captured and had all their shiny weapons taken away (Since I simulate the focus as being in a pocket dimension when they don't need it) so the mages were the ones that were keeping the party fighting.
>>43950583
See the above point. That players/GMs can work around it is universally applicable. It isn't relevant when discussing bad mechanics.
>>43950550
Because you don't have to have an entire separate table for how much money and what +x magic weapons your party should have at this point?
A +1 sword will bypass all of these complaints for the entire campaign. The DM just needs to give you one, and not have to worry about you shopping for more or finding new ones.
If a new DM decides they don't want to give out magic items while simultaneously throwing out monsters with Resistance to non-magic weapons, I'd expect him to realize his mistake rather quickly, if not have it pointed out when the players ask why their attacks aren't doing as much damage
>>43950550
Because if you god forbid haven't realised how resistance could be a problem the first time you read the book you sure as hell should by the third session because by then you have actually managed to see how the system works. Assuming you are an adult with normal cognitive abilities, that is.
>>43950627
It's not a shitty mechanic as much as it is shitty DMs. It's a tool to be used for a specific encounter or dungeon. A shitty, or new let's give some credit, will just throw it out without paying attention to if the party has magical items. A good DM will see this, and probably put it with something the mages wouldn't be able to handle. So that the mages can take out who they're best against, while the martials can take on the other ones.
I love having the option of mundane resisting creatures because I can tailor encounters to the party better.
>>43950557
Not necessarily, no. Only if there are many other resistances.
>>43950627
You still haven't proven the mechanic is bad unless you are a total fucking moron, unable to understand basic concepts like cause and effect.
>>43950643
So why is the suggestion that in a "standard campaign," a level 10 character comes in with no magic weapons?
What is the fucking point of "half damage against non magical" anyway?
The party will either have magic weapons and then it doesn't matter.
Or like, they don't have magic weapons, and then some dudes are just half as effective as usual. Or maybe just one of them doesn't, and it sucks to be him.
Or nobody knows magic and you basically just doubled the HP of a monster for lulz I guess. That'll make the fight memorable!
>>43950811
Camaraderie through adversity? Entertainment through a bullshit challenge? There's dozens of reasons why it would be at least an interesting encounter.
Why the fuck do people like Dark Souls with it's terribly unfair hitboxes?
>>43950811
As we said earlier, it's your choice of muh sacred cows or muh spirit of true D&D, eg, no actual reason except legacy.
>>43950846
>Camaraderie through adversity?
Normal monsters don't do this because?
>Entertainment through a bullshit challenge?
You could just sic a bigger monster on them, instead of one that may or may not have double HP for some guys. Why does it need to have THIS ability?
> There's dozens of reasons why it would be at least an interesting encounter.
So tell me one. How does taking half damage make an interesting encounter? If it does make an interesting encounter, why link it to weapon damage, why not just halve all damage?
>>43950891
1. Normal monsters do cause it, but fighting the same things with the same effects get boring.
2. Bigger monster with the same statline but double the HP is just like fighting something with half the HP and DR.
3. Could have a cool ability or effect other than the DR that makes it a fun fight. Could be an NPC that put the enchantment on himself and he's summoning things without the DR that would tear the mages apart.
>>43950968
>1. Normal monsters do cause it, but fighting the same things with the same effects get boring.
>2. Bigger monster with the same statline but double the HP is just like fighting something with half the HP and DR.
MY fucking pooint exactly.
>3. Could have a cool ability or effect other than the DR that makes it a fun fight.
>How does taking half damage make an interesting encounter?
>Could have a cool ability or effect other than the DR
>How does taking half damage
>effect other than the DR
Are you fucking retarded? Is your reading fucking impaired?
Could be an NPC that put the enchantment on himself and he's summoning things without the DR that would tear the mages apart.
>>43944232
5e's bounded accuracy removed the need for the so-called "Big 6" of 3.X
3.X expects a character to have their level-appropriate Ability score booster, Cloak of Resistance, Ring of Protection, Amulet of Natural Armor, Magic Armor, and Magic Weapon, thus the need for a more granular wealth-by-level table.
Thus, in 5e, your equipment stays far more constant and your wealth by level table mirrors the tiers of character power. 5e has big power jumps for PC's every 5 levels. Level 5 is where martials get their 2nd attack, proficiency bonuses go up, 3rd level spells become available, and so on.
Also, all these arguments about magic weapons in 5e have neglected to take into account that 5e has +0 magic weapons that exist solely to overcome the damage resistances to nonmagical weapons. So yeah, a +1 magic sword is a way bigger deal in 5e than 3.5, but a +0 magic sword is easier to get your hands on and they don't really unbalance anything if the DM hands them out to the whole party.
>>43950811
>>43950891
It's a good way to encourage some different team play. Get your casters to prep Magic Weapon for the barbarian. Get your druid into melee with Shillelagh.
Making a group's usual tactic not as effective is a good way to make an encounter interesting. A dungeon crawl where every threat is handled the same way is not very interesting.
>>43948779
Resistance means only half damage. The fighter still deals plenty of damage normally.
>>43950999
>Making a group's usual tactic not as effective is a good way to make an encounter interesting.
The monster has more effective HP, but it's not like their usual tactic is going to change. The barbarian is still going to go in and attack, because there's really shit all else it can do, short of wrestling (but as above, that's really not that useful). If the caster thinks it'll boost their DPR more, maybe he can cast magic weapon instead of whatever other buff spell he'd cast... or the barbarian already has a magic weapon anyway, in which case it's just a pointless line in the stat block.
>>43948829
It can literally sink into the earth. A generous DM would just have the fighter be prone in this situation. But since we are all on /tg/, I'm sure we or our DMs would cause the fighter to also be half sunk into the ground. Because why not?
>>43950734
The entire game was designed from the perspective of "Nobody gets Magic Items Ever" and "The Party has a Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, and Rogue and they are all well-rounded instead of specialized". Plus anything with non-magic resistance has half the health of other similar CR monsters.
>>43950999
>5e has +0 magic weapons that exist solely to overcome the damage resistances to nonmagical weapons
No magic weapons of Common rarity though.
So.
>>43950734
New DMs are advised to start at level 1 so this is a fucking non-issue.
>>43951067
I think you're looking at this as too black and white. An encounter with a single (or single type) of damage resistant enemy is already going to be a boring encounter. A fight against enemies both with and without damage resistances encourages some target prioritization beyond the basic "We hit all the things until they die."
>>43951111
Right, but martials are supposed to not easily overcome magic damage resistance before level 5, at which point they should be able to afford an Uncommon magic item. The table says 5th level characters should have 500 gp, and an uncommon magic item costs between 100 and 500 gp according to the 5e DMG.
>>43951234
>afford
You're assuming you can buy magic items.
>>43950995
>MY fucking pooint exactly.
Ok. It's a non-issue. Plus the fact that a party without some sore of spellcaster is doomed to fail in anything other than a no-magic adventure
>Are you fucking retarded? Is your reading fucking impaired?
No, but yours is. The creature could have an exclusive ability, but also had DR. This was the point I made and you apparently can't understand that. Like say, fucking Vampires and Lycanthropes? They have DR and are always a fun encounter.
>>43951266
>Ok. It's a non-issue. Plus the fact that a party without some sore of spellcaster is doomed to fail in anything other than a no-magic adventure
Or, ORRRRRRRRRRRR.
OR.
MAYBE. JUST FUCKING MAYBE.
YOU COULD. NOT BE A SHIT.
AND AS A DM. NOT USE. THOSE PARTICULAR MONSTERS.
I KNOW, I KNOW.
IT'S A REALLY FUCKING HARD CONCEPT. BUT THERE ARE OTHER MONSTERS.
>>43951341
Jesus Christ calm the fuck down.
A good DM is going to punish players for making overly shitty choices. No spellcasters is a pretty shitty choice the whole party can make.
Also, why the fuck wouldn't I use Vampires and Lycans? They are great creatures to have as an encounter because it requires the party to change up their usual plan of attack. Mostly because they are afraid to get close to it, and it has DR.
>>43951341
Did 4e make a bad move by removing that resistance against mundane weapons?
>>43951266
>No, but yours is.
You were asked to show an example of how DR makes an encounter better.
Your answer, twice now, and I quote:
> The creature could have an exclusive ability, but also had DR.
The question wasn't how a monster that has DR can be an interesting encounter. It was how DR, the ability is interesting.
You stating that the monster can have OTHER interesting abilities is dodging my point.
In other words, you either can't read, are stupid, or possibly trolling.
>>43951423
How am I dodging the point? Creatures with cool abilities that make an interesting encounter could have a DR that is in profile. Sure the DR isn't why it's an interesting giht inherently, but it's still a part of the interesting encounter. It can also make it interesting in the fact that you are now forced to change your usual plan of attack, which is never a bad thing. It spices up the combat and can make bad players better by forcing them to actually think for once.
>>43951410
Because you tailor the game to the players, you drooling retard. If they don't have something, you don't put in shit that requires the shit they don't got.
That just makes you a doubleshit.
>>43951416
It removes a tool in the box that is only a problem if you are a stupid jackass who can't understand cause/effect, or are a shitty DM anyway.
So yes, it was a pointless move.
>>43951423
>It was how DR, the ability is interesting.
Not that anon, but by making the players solve the fight creatively. Which is admittedly hard to do if you are playing in a dungeon only consisting of empty corridors and empty 4x4 rooms which you assume everyone does.
>>43951245
Considering all these complaints are stemming from the table for starting money, its not an unreasonable assumption.
>>43949931
Oddly enough? That's almost exactly what Anima does.
It has a HOST of 'Immune to supernatural' or 'Immune to non-supernatural below X damage'.
The difference though is that literally every Anima character can be supernatural with very little investment from level 1.
>>43951423
I posted the example of Scarecrows earlier. A monster having resistances can cause players to look for a weakness instead, think about the fight laterally to try and make it easier, and rewards them for clever thinking.
>>43951479
>How am I dodging the point?
Let's give a rundown:
>I ask how DR is interesting
>you answer the monster may have other insteresting abilities, but also DR
>I say this does not answer my question
>you repeat your answer
That's how.
>
>The question wasn't how a monster that has DR can be an interesting encounter. It was how DR, the ability is interesting.
>>43951534
>Not that anon, but by making the players solve the fight creatively. Which is admittedly hard to do if you are playing in a dungeon only consisting of empty corridors and empty 4x4 rooms which you assume everyone does.
What the fuck can you get creative about "this monster has twice the health of normal, but only if you don't have magic".
You either have magic and so it does diddly, or you don't have magic, so you can't do shit about it.
Like, sure, you can lure it into some trap or something but... you could do that with any monster. The monster doesn't need DR for you to get creative about killing it (and it only works on those poor fools who rolled classes that attack with weapons anyway).
>>43944732
In this anon's humble opinion, I believe that is the single worst mistake in 5e's design. You have to wait three levels to play your class and you still don't feel like a normie unlike with the level zero mechanic from Ad&D. You just suck and exist in some limbo where you are neither heroic nor mundane.
>>43947993
This is why I never upgraded strength. I was a Dex fighter until I got my strength weapon. It simply makes you a better overall character.
>>43951582
Okay, so what if the scarecrow instead just had double health and so wizards/other casters would also have to get creative, not just fighters?
What is DR giving here over double HP? How is it interesting?
>>43951621
No magicmart means you are in no way assured to ever get a magic item like that. You are 100% making a gamble.
>>43951609
>Like, sure, you can lure it into some trap or something but... you could do that with any monster. The monster doesn't need DR for you to get creative about killing it (and it only works on those poor fools who rolled classes that attack with weapons anyway).
But they don't usually do that, and you know what? It's fun to have versatility. It's fun to be able to fight some encounters and to be running around from others trying to come up with a solution.
Also Blaster mages are still one of the worst options for actually dealing damage, so it's not like a group is not fucked if they can only rely on their spellcasters for DPR.
>>43951741
>Also Blaster mages are still one of the worst options for actually dealing damage, so it's not like a group is not fucked if they can only rely on their spellcasters for DPR.
That does make me sad. Playing a blasting wizard and realizing I'm basically pointless next to the archer fighter.
>>43951715
At worst I'm a dex fighter, which is just as effective as a strength fighter.
>>43951715
I've always hated the idea of a place you can just hop in and buy magical items. Maybe it's an old-school mentality, but I do.
>>43951645
So that you can lead it on a magic rune and have it explode killing it. Or running deeper into the dungeon in hopes of finding a magical weapon that can kill it. You either have DR or double HP and 'magic deals twice as much damage.
>>43951769
He's going to be a single-target rape-train.
You got AoEs out the ass, and can with a snap of your finger have party members immune so you can drop a fireball right into that melee without a care.
You have a toolbox.
>>43951741
>It's fun to be able to fight some encounters and to be running around from others trying to come up with a solution.
But halving damage doesn't do this. Being an actually tough monster does this. You could give a kobold 2000HP, and players probably still wouldn't run from it, but just maybe kite it and whittle it down over time.
>>43951769
>That does make me sad. Playing a blasting wizard and realizing I'm basically pointless next to the archer fighter.
Warlocks/sorcerers are the pure blasters this edition. If you can, dip into sorc for bonus to your damage spells and quicken.
>>43951800
But...you're not.
You ain't trash or anything, but an str based fighter is better at pure face-munching damage.
>>43951245
It's still not even an issue for the bulk of character classes. Let's go down the line.
Unassisted by another magical party member and lacking a magic weapon...
Barbarian deals half damage.
Bard has access to damaging magic cantrips
Cleric has access to damaging magic cantrips
Druid has access to damaging magic cantrips
Fighter deals half damage, unless he's an Eldritch Knight
Monk deals half damage until level 6 at which point he deals full damage
Paladin has access to Magic Weapon as a spell at 5th level
Ranger is pretty much stuck dealing half damage
Rogue deals half damage unless he's an Arcane Trickster
Sorcerer has access to damaging magic cantrips
Warlock has access to damaging magic cantrips
Wizard has access to damaging magic cantrips
So... we have a grand total of 4 out of 12 classes that can end up not easily dealing with resistance (5 or 6 if we're not past level 5). If your party is a non Trickster Rogue, a Ranger, a Barbarian, and a non eldritch Fighter, an encounter with damage resistance will be tough.
If your DM only throws resistant enemies at that party, he's a dick. But at the same time, the occasional resistant encounter is going to be a tough and hopefully memorable fight.
>>43951613
It's not like you're not a Ranger or Rogue before level 3. You've still got the base archetypal abilities, you just don't have the more prestige-class specializations. Having all the choices laid out explicitly and clearly is a huge improvement over how 3.X operated, especially for newer players.
>>43951645
What's wrong with letting the casters shine? They get to do the most damage for once and that's a bad thing?
>>43951807
Magic-mart is not something that should really exist outside of a few special places.
The City of Brass, Sigil, Dis, and other extraplanar metropolis should have a fair number of magic items knocking about, especially ones with famous markets.
>>43951609
I'm giving different reasons, and even stated HOW it could make an interesting fight in the post you just referenced. You're just sitting there with your fingers in your ears saying you can't hear us at this point.
I'm also at the point where I think >>43951534
is correct in his assumption of you think everyone just fights in a 4x4 room. SOMETIMES a 5x5.
>>43951834
>What's wrong with letting the casters shine? They get to do the most damage for once and that's a bad thing?
Because D&D's had such a problem with underpowered casters.
>>43951831
Eh, I'm willing to take the risk for higher AC.
>>43951834
>What's wrong with letting the casters shine? They get to do the most damage for once and that's a bad thing?
Because casters shouldn't be the best at literally everything.
>>43951859
Full plate means you're basically on par, not really better.
>>43951808
>So that you can lead it on a magic rune and have it explode killing it
Which you can do with a normal monster.
>Or running deeper into the dungeon in hopes of finding a magical weapon that can kill it.
This would actually be a legit point if you needed a magic weapon, not just hitting it for twice as long (or less if casters).
"This monster can only be killed by X" is actually an OK mechanic to force players to improvise or quest, mostly because you can't just circumvent it by hitting twice as hard.
>You either have DR or double HP and 'magic deals twice as much damage.
That... is pretty much my point. Except without a stupidly large vulnerabiility like that I guess.
>>43951838
Places like that can be a fun way to have the party get in over their head in a sidequest while also feeding them strong equipment, even if it's just a diversion from the body of the campaign.
I like making it more of a hardboiled, noir-tinged thing. Like, Shadowrun-type intrigue. Make it really stand out and be alien from back home.
>>43948343
>>43948794
They should have said "reduces accuracy by X percentage POINTS" rather than "hit X percent less". They're not the same thing. Say your to-hit chance against a given target is 70% with a +3 weapon. Without that weapon, your chance to hit will be 55%. That's 15% percentage points lower, but in that case it also means you'll be hitting ~21.4% less often.
>>43951847
>I'm giving different reasons, and even stated HOW it could make an interesting fight in the post you just referenced.
You have got to be fucking kidding me.
>is correct in his assumption of you think everyone just fights in a 4x4 room. SOMETIMES a 5x5.
First off: fuck you. I never implied that, and even made posts where I went into detail why I think it doesn't make DR/magic an interesting even if you can lay traps or whatever.
Second: Okay, let's say you are in a room full of torches and scarecrows.
Is the DR making the encounter more fun? Or you know, the actual important ability, the vulnerability?
>>43951856
>>43951885
It's not 3.5, guys. Casters got huge nerfs and martials got way more flexible and effective.
The only way a caster outdamages martials in this edition is the Swift Quiver Bard. Eldritch Blast warlocks are solid, but not better than what a Dex fighter can do.
Have you guys even played 5e? The best spells got Concentration across the board and the old save-or-dies all give a save every round. Casters are still toolboxy and have AoE damage, but the classic "my Fly spell gets me out of the barbarian's range while I fireball him to death" gets shut down by "I can use STR to hit you with this javelin, say hello to the ground, asshole."
>>43949097
Yeah it is. Because there is always the option to ignore it. Unless you can't handle the freedom of making your own decisions, this really isn't a problem.
>>43952062
Casters are still better than martials man. The only thing they can't do is more damage. Casters have enormous amount of combat and out of combat versatility that martials do not.
The gap isn't as wide, but it still exists.
>>43952062
>Eldritch Blast warlocks are solid, but not better than what a Dex fighter can do.
Sorclocks are tho, in any battée that lasts at least 4 turns.
>>43951924
>Which you can do with a normal monster.
Yeah, but why would you when you can pommel it relatively safely.
>This would actually be a legit point if you needed a magic weapon, not just hitting it for twice as long (or less if casters).
While you are taking twice as much time hitting it, it's happily gnawing on your insides. The trick is, you don't HAVE twice as much time. If the party has a caster, they might just survive it with just a few casualities.
>That... is pretty much my point. Except without a stupidly large vulnerabiility like that I guess.
But DR can be explained in fewer words, so it gets into the final version of the rules.
Also vulnerabilities are the fun part in DR. Finding them and expoliting them. If you just double the HP it's boring.
>>43952094
Too bad most battles last 2-3 turns.
>>43951924
But just giving it more hit points doesn't give the players pause. A reistence makes them think of other things that can bypass it.
For the scarecrow example, Oil flasks combined with a torch can do a bunch of damage, and just requires items that most characters have on hand.
If you just give it double health, the players won't really view standard weapons as less effective against it. It makes them stop and think if there's a better way to fight this thing other than just hitting it.
>>43952178
maybe at low levels.
>>43952214
>A reistence makes them think of other things that can bypass it.
If they don't have the fucking stat block in front of them, they don't even know.
If they don't have access to magic, it doesn't even make a difference.
>
For the scarecrow example, Oil flasks combined with a torch can do a bunch of damage, and just requires items that most characters have on hand.
Which is why it's a neat feature to have, and DR is not.
>>43952092
Not disputing that casters have out of combat utility. But unlike 3.X, playing a fighter actually does mean you're probably the best at killing things.
>>43952094
4 rounds against a single target. Otherwise you're spending bonus actions retargeting Hex while the archer fighter keeps plinking away without a care in the world.
>>43952052
Let's say the scarecrows didn't have the vulnerability. Depending on how strong the characters are, using torches and oil on them to bypass DR could be viable, as could more heavy improv like oiling a sword and setting it on fire to have it deal non-slashing damage.
You don't need something with a weakness to fire specifically to make Fire a good option
>>43952092
Wrong. Certain casters are stronger than certain martials, but its no longer a garuntee. For example, Paladins and Fighters are both considered better than the Ranger, while I've heard it said many times that Sorcerers are weaker than Rogues.
Really the biggest examples are Wizards and Bards for sheer utility, but its by no means as bad as it was.
>>43952237
>If they don't have the fucking stat block in front of them, they don't even know.
Don't the characters at least try to get more information on what the fuck was it that nearly killed them? Don't they visit libraries, or sages or some shit? They have a lot of ways to figure it out and go back properly armed and kick the monster's ass. Which is kind of the point.
>>43952265
If there are multiple targets, you can use your standard spells to cast fireballs instead of EBs tho.
And you can also do it (the EBs anyway) from 400ft.
>>43952178
In 5E? Fuck no. I regularly saw 5 round combat when I played it.
>>43952362
And what are they going to find in those books?
"this monster looks like it has high HP, but it's really just DR"
or
"this monster is tough, use fire to burn it"
Again, DR is NOT what matters. It's the weakness that matters.
>>43952430
No, they are going to find "its hide is resistant to mundane attacks, although magical weapons are known to pierce it.
>Again, DR is NOT what matters. It's the weakness that matters.
Yes, but DR is a good shorthand for this kind of thing, so they'll use it.
>>43952364
Assuming your DM lets you multiclass, which is explicitly an optional rule in 5e.
>>43951416
Note that, with the way resistances work in 4e, you still have some monsters that have resistance to weapons. What 4e did remove was "you need a magic weapon to hit this monster".
>>43950734
Because clearly characters shouldn't be fighting CR 5 monsters until after level 10, duh!
>>43951834
>What's wrong with letting the casters shine? They get to do the most damage for once and that's a bad thing?
That only works if the monster is balanced around the party not having magic items.
>>43948670
You mean a DND game where the DM has to think about encounters and dynamic fights? Unacceptable. I'm going back to my vidya
>>43944232
Give it anther year before people will accept valid criticism of their pet OP.
>>43953258
If they're fighting it at or around level 5, its a singular boss monster, in which case Shoving and Grappling is an alternative strategy. If you're fightinf it at or around level 10, its one part of a larger encounter and is weaker in comparison, so powering through it won't be too difficult.
And if you're really that worried, every class save maybe the Barbarian can take options to circumvent the need for magic items to get past resistance. And the Barbarian gets resistance on his own, so anything hitting him back is in the same boat
>>43947333
check'ed
>>43948492
>>43948779
Same as normal, hit until dead.
The timing is impeccable
>>43947310
>>43947333
