D&D (2024) Damage Threshold, the new "need a magic weapon"?

[Ancalagon]

Hello

A big change in 5.0 was how some large magical monsters were suddenly more vulnerable to massed attack than before. This was particularly notable when combined with bound accuracy.

Imagine a dragon, 200 HP 19 AC, swooping down to attack a town with her breath weapon. Unknown to her, a militia of peasants with bows lies in ambush. Say they have +3 to hit, 1d6+1 damage. Not even counting critical, on average it would take about 180 peasants to kill the dragon in a single volley. My math may be off a bit, please feel free to "reproduce" this thought experiment, but the general point remains: masses of lowly archers can murderize a lot of things.

It didn't used to be that way. In 3.X, the dragon would have had some kind of damage resistance, which could be overcome with either a lot of damage or magical weapons.

But check this out. From the Glossary:

Damage Threshold
"A creature or an object that has a damage threshold has Immunity to all damage unless it takes an amount of damage from a single attack or effect equal to or greater than its damage threshold, in which case it takes that entire instance of damage. Any damage that fails to meet or exceed the damage threshold is superficial and doesn’t reduce Hit Points. For example, if an object has a damage threshold of 10, the object takes no damage if 9 damage is dealt to it, since that damage fails to exceed the threshold. If the same object is dealt 11 damage, it takes all of that damage."

I speculate that this is the new 5.5 "you need a magic weapon or a spell to hurt this powerful monster" rule.

This damage threshold of 10 (for an example) can easily be defeated by tier 2 heroes! Now, weak attacks like cantrips may not be reliable, but it's a reasonable obstacle. The same damage threshold would make the dragon virtually immune to the lowly archers.

So heroes are needed again, but said heroes don't have to have a magical sword.

I've been informed that this rule existed in 5.0, but only for ships (from Saltmarsh).

Am I correct in predicting this? If I'm wrong, would it be a nice house rule? It would favor "a few big hits" vs the "many small hits" type of martials...

 

[aco175]

I could be in favor of this. It seems to add a bit more to tracking of things, but not much to make the rule not worth using. I would likely just tell the players that you need to deal more than 10 damage to get through and damage this monster.

The other problem would be multiple attacks. I take one action to attack twice and does each attack need to clear the 10 points of just the total of the action. I can see where this favors some over others.

What about something like the cleave property? What determines if I hit the monster? Do I need to do damage to use cleave, or do I still hit and can use cleave if I do no damage. Stuff like this.

Back to the dragon example, how many peasants would stay and fight a dragon? How many make the frightful presence save? How they all make the initiative or most are dead from the breath weapon.

 

[ezo]

Damage Threshold existed for large objects in 5E.

I hope they implement something like this in 2024. We use it in our game and it makes so much sense.

 

[Xeviat]

I like damage threshold or damage reduction a lot more than damage resistance. Sure, subtraction can be oddly harder than halving, but DR solves so many flavor issues.

 

[Ancalagon]

Damage Threshold existed for large objects in 5E.

I hope they implement something like this in 2024. We use it in our game and it makes so much sense.

I am very intrigued - the "creature or object" verbiage.

It's also possible this mechanic is unique to certain creature types - constructs, perhaps elementals or undead?

 

[mellored]

I have no issues with 100+ peasant killing a dragon. Armies should be scary, and dragons should have to have their own minions.

Viva La Revolution

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I have no issues with 100+ peasant killing a dragon. Armies should be scary, and dragons should have to have their own minions.

Viva La Revolution

For any reasonable threshold, armies of peasants would still be dangerous, you just need more of them, to generate the necessary outlier rolls and criticals.

 

[Lanefan]

Agree with @mellored - all this does is steepen the power curve and make major foes essentially immune to anything a commoner - or an army of commoners - can do. It also makes small weapons e.g. daggers much less attractive for PCs.

Backward step, IMO.

A compromise might be that the 10-point threshold is cumulative per round, such that if the target only takes 7 points total in a round it shrugs it off but if it takes 3 then 4 then 1 then 1 then 2 in the same round (thus a total of 12), it all applies.

 

[mellored]

For any reasonable threshold, armies of peasants would still be dangerous, you just need more of them, to generate the necessary outlier rolls and criticals.

I don't want pesants to fish for crits. If it was 10 and they delt 1d6, 2d6 on a crit that would take thousands of peasants. Not to mention leave the monk sad.

But if it was like 4 or 5 vs 1d6, then sure. A few hundred peasants.

 

[ezo]

I think it is fine if you keep it reasonable. In a damage reduction system, 1 point per 5 CR would work IMO.

Hill giant? 1 DR
Ancient red dragon? 4 DR

Now, as a damage threshold, were it becomes all or none, I would expect numbers to be a bit higher.

I, for one, am happier with major foes being immune to common threats. That is why we have heroes to play as PCs and not playing hordes of commoners.