D&D (2024) Monster Change: Force Damage vs. Magic Weapons

[HammerMan]

Nerf regular Barbarian rage, while making the Bear Barbarian an even stronger choice - yuck.

I hope it's narrow, because if this is a broad change - it's a really bad one!

maybe come 2024 rage will just be 'resist damage'

 

[Weiley31]

IIRC, not very many monsters had the magic weapon trait in the first place, so it’s a pretty small nerf/buff.

DM: So, guess what guys, today's campaign we're starting for today for the next few months is Descent into Avernus.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't think its that. The Nightwalker isn't immune to non-magical weapons. It's just that a non-magical sword won't do as much damage against it.

Orcus? He's a flipping Demon Prince. A regular sword ain't gonna do jack because he's a BBEG sort of fight, compared to a Nightwalker which would be the equivalent of a Mid-Boss or late-stage boss in a video game.

So, there's a distinction of something there.

Well Orcus is immune and the nightwalker is resistant, which is fine. The inconsistency I’m complaining about is “non-magical BPS weapons” vs. “non-magical BPS attacks.” Unless the intent is for non-magical BPS attacks that aren’t weapons to be able to hurt Orcus, which seems weird.

 

[Charlaquin]

maybe come 2024 rage will just be 'resist damage'

I doubt it

 

[Stormonu]

Ooooh boy: Stay awhile and listen.

So originally, before Monsters of the Multiverse, there were a number of Monsters/Stat Blocks where they had the trait called Magic Weapon. The idea is, according to the trait, was that the attacks/weapon used by the monster, were magical in nature. This would allow things, such as Demogorgon for example, to not have to worry about silly things like not being able to damage, say, ANOTHER Demon Lord, like Baphomet or Zuggtmoy if they were all like put in one big Royal Rumble showdown, like in Out of The Abyss. (I've heard/read some posters on here insisting that was a legit thing simply because Demon Lord attacks did S/B/P damage.) So, because Demogorgon had the trait Magic Weapon in his stat block, when he punched somebody like Orcus/another Demon Lord, they would feel the full force of his blow and not have to worry about Orcus having damage immunity because Demogorgon's attacks, like his fist, are considered Magical.

But let's say suppose, one day, Demogorgon meets a Barbarian. A barbarian named, mmm, let's call him Gorg, who is a member of an adventuring company called the Vocal Machine. Now Gorg doesn't like demons very much and Demogorgon is having that moment where he doesn't like any Barbarian he sees. So he straight up punches Gorg, who has already entered into Rage by then. Now unlike Orcus, when Demogorgon punches Gorg, his magical demon fist does Bludgeon damage. It's magical Bludgeon damage, but still Bludgeon damage nonetheless. So Gorg just smiles with a bloody lip, proceeds to spit the blood back in his demonic opponents face, and only suffers half damage because Barbarians, when Raging, have Resistance to Slashing/Piercing/Bludgeoning damage.

Now, the ONLY damage type in 5E, that doesn't have to worry about getting blocked/resisted is Force Damage. Which is explained in 5E as being pure, raw, arcane/magic power. Lets circle back round to our buddy Demogorgon. He, post Monsters of the Multiverse, has been "updated/buffed" because of the trait Magical Weapon being removed from stat blocks. Instead, to emphasize the fact that Demogorgon's demon fist/attacks are magical, they were changed from doing Bludgeoning Damage to Force Damage. Meaning that poor ol Gorg the Barbarian can not only feel the full blunt of Demogorgon's wrath, but also the look of horror on his player's face when the Prince of Demons just straight up murders Gorg on the spot.

It's no laser beam or anything, unless the attack is made as that. Orcus, devils, demons, Demogorgon, and a buncha others were updated to do Force Damage with their attacks. Any reprints of prior stat blocks that had the trait Magic Weapon will probably be retroactively updated to now do Force Damage. So unless your a Shadar-Kai or something that has Necrotic Resistance, your going to be feeling ALL of Orcus's attacks when he's swinging his Wand around.

I have no problem with the Barbarian doing this. Nice things and all that.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Amethyst dragonborn and their force resistance just received a bump.

Personally I'm not a huge fan of the change, though I mostly preferred 3E's damage reduction with fixed amounts.

 

[Weiley31]

I have no problem with the Barbarian doing this. Nice things and all that.

Oh I don't either. In fact, I love how tanky a 5E Barbarian can be. Especially an Ancestral Guardian Barbarian.

But I guess this is WoTC's way of "bumping" up the threat of monsters (common complaint according to a lot of people on here: the difficulty of monsters making 5E "easy mode.") while also making sure players can't no sell things a much like before.

 

[Weiley31]

Well Orcus is immune and the nightwalker is resistant, which is fine. The inconsistency I’m complaining about is “non-magical BPS weapons” vs. “non-magical BPS attacks.” Unless the intent is for non-magical BPS attacks that aren’t weapons to be able to hurt Orcus, which seems weird.

See yeah, I get what your saying. I've noticed that with the post Monsters of The Multiverse changes, a lot of monsters still use the old language/wording for stuff like Magic Resistance what not. While PC races are now be subjected to "new wording" in regard to the same abilities. So it seems like it's intentionally trying to put things on the monster's side/favor.


PC: Wait? My mundane sword can't do damage? Guess I'll switch to my fists, clearly that's not a weapon.

WoTC: Well yes, but no, your fists count as a weapon.

PC: Oh so my fists, which are technically a natural weapon of my own body, counts as a weapon? Sweet I can't wait to Sm-

WoTC: Well, no, your Fists aren't a weapon for the purposes of stuff like Smite and all that.

PC: You.....just got done saying....
Another PC: Yeah but.............it's listed in the weapon section of my Player's Handbook

WoTC: laughs in WoTC

Yuan-Ti Anthema: But my Spell Resistance covers spells and other magical effects?

WoTC: Yes.

Yuan-Ti PC: But....................mine only covers Spells....

WoTC: SHABLAGOO!!!!! T-Poses and repeatedly starts to spin around before flying straight up to the heavens.

 

[Charlaquin]

See yeah, I get what your saying. I've noticed that with the post Monsters of The Multiverse changes, a lot of monsters still use the old language/wording for stuff like Magic Resistance what not. While PC races are now be subjected to "new wording" in regard to the same abilities. So it seems like it's intentionally trying to put things on the monster's side/favor.


PC: Wait? My mundane sword can't do damage? Guess I'll switch to my fists, clearly that's not a weapon.

WoTC: Well yes, but no, your fists count as a weapon.

PC: Oh so my fists, which are technically a natural weapon of my own body, counts as a weapon? Sweet I can't wait to Sm-

WoTC: Well, no, your Fists aren't a weapon for the purposes of stuff like Smite and all that.

This really isn’t complicated. The game-action called a (melee/ranged) weapon attack is poorly named, because not all melee weapon attacks are necessarily made with weapons. The word weapon is really only in there to differentiate it from the (melee/ranged) spell attack game-action. Any attack that is not a spell is technically a melee weapon attack, even if there isn’t a weapon involved, because those are the only categories of attack that exist. Again, it’s poorly worded, but it’s not actually difficult to understand.

PC: You.....just got done saying....
Another PC: Yeah but.............it's listed in the weapon section of my Player's Handbook

WoTC: laughs in WoTC

It’s only listed in the weapon sections of the earliest print runs of the PHB, which had terrible issues with spines coming unglued, so congratulations if your PHB does have it listed there, but it is very out of date if so.

Yuan-Ti Anthema: But my Spell Resistance covers spells and other magical effects?

WoTC: Yes.

Yuan-Ti PC: But....................mine only covers Spells....

WoTC: SHABLAGOO!!!!! T-Poses and repeatedly starts to spin around before flying straight up to the heavens.

Well, that’s PC races for you. They have never been consistent with equivalent monster stat blocks in 5e. The inconsistency I’m talking about is between different monsters with the same (or very similar) ability, not between PCs and NPCs/monsters.

 

[Weiley31]

This really isn’t complicated. The game-action called a (melee/ranged) weapon attack is poorly named, because not all melee weapon attacks are necessarily made with weapons. The word weapon is really only in there to differentiate it from the (melee/ranged) spell attack game-action. Any attack that is not a spell is technically a melee weapon attack, even if there isn’t a weapon involved, because those are the only categories of attack that exist. Again, it’s poorly worded, but it’s not actually difficult to understand.

It’s only listed in the weapon sections of the earliest print runs of the PHB, which had terrible issues with spines coming unglued, so congratulations if your PHB does have it listed there, but it is very out of date if so.

Well, that’s PC races for you. They have never been consistent with equivalent monster stat blocks in 5e. The inconsistency I’m talking about is between different monsters with the same (or very similar) ability, not between PCs and NPCs/monsters.

It's still a very overall inconsistency thing that 5E has.