my neat AC idea for dndnext

I was thinking about how best to incorporated a magical to hit requirement into a monsters AC.   And I came up with this neat way:
N-AC

In other words, if a monster with and AC of 20 requires a +2 or better weapon to hit it, it'd be:

2-20

I read that as 2 dash 20.   Instead of having to dig into the stats to find what is needed to hit it, its right there!

ha ha!

If there isn't any requirement, just use regular AC.

this has to be a hit! :D
the game is being designed around the idea that the players don't need magic items.

i also think that +x requirements are really uninspired and boring. they introduce a treadmill aspect that i'd rather keep out of the game.

I don't know if that's true or not.   I have seen some monsters that need magic items to hurt.   But there is probably something else in the rules explaining why the characters don't need em...
I don't know if that's true or not.   I have seen some monsters that need magic items to hurt.   But there is probably something else in the rules explaining why the characters don't need em...




the monsters you're thinking of take half damage from non-magical weapons, that's a lot different than what you're proposing.

and the thing about magic items not being assumed has been something the developers have been spouting every time magic items are mentioned. you can probably see numerous examples if you go read some old L&L articles or watch some of their panel videos. 
I found some rules for what your talking about:
 Resistance and Vulnerability
If a target has resistance to a type of damage, that
damage is halved against the target. If a target
has vulnerability to a type of
damage, that damage is doubled
against the target.

page 17 in How to Play

Then there are creatures that are immune to non-magical.   Take a look at the golems on page 52 of the bestiary pdf.   Its different.... at least it seems to me.

the monsters you're thinking of take half damage from non-magical weapons, that's a lot different than what you're proposing.



Some monsters (e.g. the Flesh Golem) are in fact fully immune to non-magical weapons. 
the monsters you're thinking of take half damage from non-magical weapons, that's a lot different than what you're proposing.



Some monsters (e.g. the Flesh Golem) are in fact fully immune to non-magical weapons. 




and Mearls has said that certain monsters will have immunities, but that things like that won't be a design tool that gets thrown around very lightly.
I don't know if that's true or not.   I have seen some monsters that need magic items to hurt.   But there is probably something else in the rules explaining why the characters don't need em...




the monsters you're thinking of take half damage from non-magical weapons, that's a lot different than what you're proposing.

and the thing about magic items not being assumed has been something the developers have been spouting every time magic items are mentioned. you can probably see numerous examples if you go read some old L&L articles or watch some of their panel videos. 



the monsters you're thinking of take half damage from non-magical weapons, that's a lot different than what you're proposing.



Some monsters (e.g. the Flesh Golem) are in fact fully immune to non-magical weapons. 




and Mearls has said that certain monsters will have immunities, but that things like that won't be a design tool that gets thrown around very lightly.

They won't be used lightly, but they will be used; usually to make a monster stand out or be more memorable. Even though the Flesh Golem (for starters) has immunity to non-magical weapons, it is still not assumed that the party fighting one has magical weapons. The party without magical weapons will have to come up with some creative methods to defeat the Flesh Golem.

I think the idea is still good even with resistances:
NMWR-N

where N is the AC number and MWR just designates Magic Weap Resistance.

so an AC 17 monster with resitance to magic weapons would be:

NMWR-17

thats read as "Non Magic Weapon Resistance, Armour Class 17"

I think the idea is still good even with resistances:
NMWR-N

where N is the AC number and MWR just designates Magic Weap Resistance.

so an AC 17 monster with resitance to magic weapons would be:

NMWR-17

thats read as "Non Magic Weapon Resistance, Armour Class 17"




Would it not be simpler to just use something like:

"Magic-17"  ?
Try radiance RPG. A complete D20 game that supports fantasy and steampunk. Download the FREE PDF here: http://www.radiancerpg.com
that could work or:
M-17

for Immunites: I-17
this is the craziest thing, but the entry for Wight in the Bestiary already has the immunities listed in the AC section instead of elsewhere.  The Automaton has it listed in the HP section... I think the Wight must be a mistake.

I wonder why they gave Golems immunity from normal attacks.
I could understand creatures like spectres having immunity, after all they aren't material, so you could say that you'd need magic in the item to "touch" them.

But golems?
They're basically walking raw materials... if you can chip stone you should be able to damage a stone golem with the same tools.
I suppose some DR would be logical here, but immunity?
I wonder what was the concept behind that when they developed the creature like that. 

I think people are reading "system math does not rely on magic items" as "magic items are not assumed to be in game," which is not the case.


What they're doing is assuming that you've got some magic by high level. That magic can be a +1 sword or a +5 vorpal flaming sword of speed and the system math doesn't care. Conceptually, they're assuming people do get magic weapons at some point in their career.


So it's totally appropriate to include items that have immunities that are defeated by magic items because the game assumes you get something at some point. What is inappropriate is to have those immunities based on the bonus of a given weapon because at that point you need to start assuming that by the time they reach the level appropriate of finding that monster then there's a chance of having a weapon of that quality. Since the system math doesn't assume magic items but the game's conceptual framework does, you shouldn't include specific mathematical terms when defining immunities. "Magic-15" is good; "+2-15" is bad in this instance.


And as it was said in the thread about golems, there are good reasons why the beastiary should have monsters that the players can't just fight and have to come up with other solutions to bypassing or defeating those monsters.


I don't think it was ever assumed that players needed to have "that many" magical items at each particular level.

Or if it was assumed... we've always ignored that in our games and it's never been a problem.
Cause we've always played low-magic campaigns, or maybe not so "low" magic sometimes but with very few magical items, and having those items was never a "character progression" thing, but more like something extra found on the side. So a 13th level fighter having a +1 sword for us was just as fine as a 5th level one.
Magical items for us were something extraordinary that gived an edge to the character, not something on which his progression was inherently dependent.

I've always seen monsters with DR or immunities as "tough guys" who needed some thinking (or maybe just more hard work) to beat. 
Not some measurement of what magical items the players should have to beat them as easily as any other regular monster.
That's how we've always played, and it works great.

I don't think it was ever assumed that players needed to have "that many" magical items at each particular level.

Monsters in 4e are explicitly designed to a formula that takes growing magic item contributions to raw stats into account. 3e it's less explicit but the "wealth by level" table is often used as the justification for stating that magic item contributions are assumed in 3e. Prior to that there is very little to imply that anyone gets magic items by virtue of their level.
Or if it was assumed... we've always ignored that in our games and it's never been a problem.

Which is the case, yeah. Fair dues to you, I also ignore these assumptions and it's not that much of an issue.
Magical items for us were something extraordinary that gived an edge to the character, not something on which his progression was inherently dependent.

As it should be, IMO.
I've always seen monsters with DR or immunities as "tough guys" who needed some thinking (or maybe just more hard work) to beat. 
Not some measurement of what magical items the players should have to beat them as easily as any other regular monster.
That's how we've always played, and it works great.

Yeah, I think that's really the intention of abilities like damage resistance. They're special things that require a bit extra to beat; that bit extra can be a magic item that defeats the resistance or it could be a nifty strategy neutralise the threat. Whatever it is, they should be spice rather than procedural.

Sign In to post comments