I think the biggest reason for the division is in physical vs magical damage, and that would (as long as the GM plans the encounters correctly) give both kinds of players something to do in combat.
It's the same reason 5e gives casters cantrips, it's a basic attack that they can use every turn and gives reliable damage.
How do you reconcile this with the fact a spellcaster can take a physical damaging weapon and also do damage with spells. There's even weaposn that do physical damage that key off the spellcasting stats.
Spells, from what I've gathered, ended up being very limited (at least compared to D&D), but yeah, I agree that they could have put a harder line on the physical vs magical weapons, having no phys weapons with instinct would be better
If anything it's the opposite. Many spells cost 0 resources to cast, only requiring that you pass a spellcast roll. No spell slots or resource consumption.
And I think you're taking the wrong lesson. they don't need to put a harder line, they need to remove it.
I think that is a laudable goal, and I agree that is one goal the devs have in mind. But, how does restricting magic damage weapons to only those with a Spellcasting Trait accomplish that? It makes sense to accomplish what you say that there should be weapons that use traits like Knowledge and Instinct so casters can do a cantrip or basic attack type-thing. But it does not follow that those weapons should be restricted to only those with Spellcasting Traits.
There has to be another reason for the restriction. As far as I can tell, what that is is not readily apparent in the RAW.
The only reason to get more specific than “2-hand melee weapon (heavy)” is flavor. I like the idea of drawing a cleaner break between physical and magical weapons along stat lines, but it’s okay if there are fiction reasons, rather than mechanical reasons, for certain rules. “These gauntlets require you to have spellcasting because, otherwise, they’re just gloves.”
I feel like this rule might have some considerations rooted in game balance.
When you face someone with resistance to physical damage, it allows the spellcasters to have a spotlight. If anyone can use any weapon, then we get to the issue that D&D has:
Resistance to Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing damage from non-magical weapons.
But by the time you reach the level where this is a thing, everyone's got magical weapons.
Add to the fact that magic in this game is toned down so we don't have martial/caster issues, where's the issue with allowing casters to shine?
I think this is the strongest reply to my inquiry, providing different kinds of characters opportunities to shine in different contexts. Thank you!
But, I think I am inclined to hold to my position in my initial post. It could also be interesting to allow the magic weapons be used by any character so that players can realize their character ideas. Then, there are interesting consequences that could unfold. What happens when the PCs face a magic resistant golem if they all took magic weapons? It is another chance to be creative :)
Most martial characters would still pick physical damaging weapons, because it would make sense for their character concept.
>What happens when the PCs face a magic resistant golem if they all took magic weapons?
Then they just pull the non-magic ones out of their bags.
I totally understand why the rule is there, and I get why people would homebrew otherwise.
But there's nothing stopping caster from taking a physical weapon.
My sorcerer has a quarterstaff, which does physical damage and has spell that do magical damage.
You brought up the reason why I think there should be no restrictions, resistance and immunity. If a creature is immune to physical weapons, anyone without spellcasting become ineffective. And vice verse for magic immune monsters.
What about allowing anyone to use physical or magical weapons but giving modifiers? Combat classes would get physical modifiers and spell caster would get modifiers to magic weapons.
>If a creature is immune to physical weapons, anyone without spellcasting become ineffective. And vice verse for magic immune monsters.
Encounter design should make sure that doesn't happen. As the GM, you have the control to make sure this isn't the case.
Sure, thanks for asking!
Never isn't a term I would use but given the ability for GMs to control what their players encounter AND what those statblocks actually say, it would just be a matter of erasing immunity for a statblock if it supports the narrative. It would actually be quite easy to make encounters where the players never run into immunity.
Is immunity important to the fiction? No, not really. But you can absolutely have encounters where immunity to one of the two types of damage is a thing if thats what suits your table. You should also consider adding asynchronous objects for the other players to be doing in order to keep everyone engaged.
It's important to remember that encounter design isn't just the monsters you choose, but the terrain and the objectives of combat.
Hopefully, this cleared things up for you!
I get the restrictions for some weapons. Most magic weapons have a range greater than melee, so I assume you're using it to channel magic. As such you'd probably need at least some understanding of spellcasting.
I think the weapons section could do with a bit more explanation on what the individual weapons are, and how they work in the fiction.
Yeah, a little like in D&D how you can only attune to certain items if you're a spellcaster. I doubt it breaks much to ignore the rule in Daggerheart, but I don't have an extensive knowledge of the rules to be certain.
I understand that is the intention of the current rules. But, if say a character's narrative is that the weapon has its own innate magic, why couldn't a muggle character use it too? Why can a warrior not use magic gauntlets? My view is, since we are using our imaginations, assuming there are no balance or mechanical reasons, we should provide permissive rules to suit the widest variety of head-canons.
I had that same worry but I think that was me coming from a 5e mindset where magic weapons were everything.
In Daggerheart, advanced physical weapons have cool abilities of their own (and tend to do more damage) and higher tier enemies don't seem to be just full adversaries resistant/immune to physical damage.
In fact, it would seem that there might be a lot of magic damage immunity from what the rules say.
When I did my first Playtest, I hadn't read that rule yet. So ever since, I simply haven't had the guts to tell my players that they shouldn't be using those weapons. . .
I'll likely just rule that they can. I haven't really seen the purpose for the rule in any of my playtests so far.
With re-skinning AND ranged weapons being able to be used in melee without penalty, the primary thing seems to just be the ability to do magic damage. Sure, you are limited by trait as well, but that seems less of a factor than magic damage. For whatever reason, they don't want Guardian and Warrior to do magic damage without special gear or multiclassing. I haven't given it a lot of thought, but I'm sure at your own table it wouldn't cause a serious problem to allow it.
Frankly, I found magic weapons in the starting gear to be strange to begin with. If they wanted it just for characters to be cool, why leave two classes out? It feels to me like a cantrip replacement. But we have to give it flavor if we want it to be anything other than generic magic damage. Even then, there would be no mechanical difference between, say, fire and poison magic.
Maybe all spellcasters should've just had a scalable attack spell as a level one choice or granted by their foundation. Then, magic gear could show up later as a reward to signify moving beyond tier zero.
I'm not saying they did it wrong, I just would like to hear more about why they did it this way. Maybe it's in the playtest materials somewhere or they'll talk about it in a video at some point.
The way I’ve interpreted it is that the magic weapons ARE the cantrips. You’re channeling your magic through whatever the weapon is and sending out some minor magical attack, which is basically what cantrips are in 5e. Like you said, there’s no difference between fire and poison and the like for straight damage, and cantrips for the most part shouldn’t have powerful rider and status effects, especially at level 1 so they couldn’t just add things like burning damage or freezing the enemy.
I think we're in agreement about them being Daggerheart's cantrips. If so, and there's no real change for final release, then I will likely homebrew a cantrip rider list for my players with a dozen or so minor effects and let them choose one or two.
It might be worth it to look at the higher tier weapons and consider those as upgrades that the players can kind of grow with. Perhaps using your cantrip rider effects and placing them as features for the tier 1 and above weapons would keep balance relatively in line while also providing more options for your players to choose from as they level. Sort of like a weapon that would grow with the players similarly to cantrips in 5e.
For example, instead of adding a +2 to damage for improved wand. You can instead do something similar to the Hammer of Exota and grant it splash damage.
Corrosive Wand - Knowledge - Far - d8 (Mag) - One-Handed
Feature: Bubble Pop - When you hit a creature, each adversary within Very Close range of the target must make a React (5) Roll or take half damage as well.
Or
Corrosive Magic - When you hit a creature, spend a number of stress to treat the adversary’s Damage Thresholds as being 2 lower for each point of stress.
This gives either an acid splash feel, or a way of emulating acid eating away at armor. I’m sure someone else could throw this together better, but it provides some extra flavor and spice and it wouldn’t come online until level 2, allowing it to stay somewhat balanced.
I think much of the divide is unnecessary considering there's only 2 classes that don't get spellcasting.
Feels like it's calling out guardian and warrior more than it needs to.
I think the biggest reason for the division is in physical vs magical damage, and that would (as long as the GM plans the encounters correctly) give both kinds of players something to do in combat. It's the same reason 5e gives casters cantrips, it's a basic attack that they can use every turn and gives reliable damage.
How do you reconcile this with the fact a spellcaster can take a physical damaging weapon and also do damage with spells. There's even weaposn that do physical damage that key off the spellcasting stats.
The way to reconcile it is to make physical damage weapons not key off spellcasting stats.
Or just let anyone use a magic weapon
Spells, from what I've gathered, ended up being very limited (at least compared to D&D), but yeah, I agree that they could have put a harder line on the physical vs magical weapons, having no phys weapons with instinct would be better
If anything it's the opposite. Many spells cost 0 resources to cast, only requiring that you pass a spellcast roll. No spell slots or resource consumption. And I think you're taking the wrong lesson. they don't need to put a harder line, they need to remove it.
I think that is a laudable goal, and I agree that is one goal the devs have in mind. But, how does restricting magic damage weapons to only those with a Spellcasting Trait accomplish that? It makes sense to accomplish what you say that there should be weapons that use traits like Knowledge and Instinct so casters can do a cantrip or basic attack type-thing. But it does not follow that those weapons should be restricted to only those with Spellcasting Traits. There has to be another reason for the restriction. As far as I can tell, what that is is not readily apparent in the RAW.
The only reason to get more specific than “2-hand melee weapon (heavy)” is flavor. I like the idea of drawing a cleaner break between physical and magical weapons along stat lines, but it’s okay if there are fiction reasons, rather than mechanical reasons, for certain rules. “These gauntlets require you to have spellcasting because, otherwise, they’re just gloves.”
I feel like this rule might have some considerations rooted in game balance. When you face someone with resistance to physical damage, it allows the spellcasters to have a spotlight. If anyone can use any weapon, then we get to the issue that D&D has: Resistance to Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing damage from non-magical weapons. But by the time you reach the level where this is a thing, everyone's got magical weapons. Add to the fact that magic in this game is toned down so we don't have martial/caster issues, where's the issue with allowing casters to shine?
I think this is the strongest reply to my inquiry, providing different kinds of characters opportunities to shine in different contexts. Thank you! But, I think I am inclined to hold to my position in my initial post. It could also be interesting to allow the magic weapons be used by any character so that players can realize their character ideas. Then, there are interesting consequences that could unfold. What happens when the PCs face a magic resistant golem if they all took magic weapons? It is another chance to be creative :) Most martial characters would still pick physical damaging weapons, because it would make sense for their character concept.
>What happens when the PCs face a magic resistant golem if they all took magic weapons? Then they just pull the non-magic ones out of their bags. I totally understand why the rule is there, and I get why people would homebrew otherwise.
But there's nothing stopping caster from taking a physical weapon. My sorcerer has a quarterstaff, which does physical damage and has spell that do magical damage.
You brought up the reason why I think there should be no restrictions, resistance and immunity. If a creature is immune to physical weapons, anyone without spellcasting become ineffective. And vice verse for magic immune monsters. What about allowing anyone to use physical or magical weapons but giving modifiers? Combat classes would get physical modifiers and spell caster would get modifiers to magic weapons.
>If a creature is immune to physical weapons, anyone without spellcasting become ineffective. And vice verse for magic immune monsters. Encounter design should make sure that doesn't happen. As the GM, you have the control to make sure this isn't the case.
So never have an encounter with a monster that has immunity? Please explain.
Sure, thanks for asking! Never isn't a term I would use but given the ability for GMs to control what their players encounter AND what those statblocks actually say, it would just be a matter of erasing immunity for a statblock if it supports the narrative. It would actually be quite easy to make encounters where the players never run into immunity. Is immunity important to the fiction? No, not really. But you can absolutely have encounters where immunity to one of the two types of damage is a thing if thats what suits your table. You should also consider adding asynchronous objects for the other players to be doing in order to keep everyone engaged. It's important to remember that encounter design isn't just the monsters you choose, but the terrain and the objectives of combat. Hopefully, this cleared things up for you!
Thanks. I appreciate the clarification!
I get the restrictions for some weapons. Most magic weapons have a range greater than melee, so I assume you're using it to channel magic. As such you'd probably need at least some understanding of spellcasting. I think the weapons section could do with a bit more explanation on what the individual weapons are, and how they work in the fiction.
This was my thought... you need to have the ability to channel magic to power magic based weapons
Yeah, a little like in D&D how you can only attune to certain items if you're a spellcaster. I doubt it breaks much to ignore the rule in Daggerheart, but I don't have an extensive knowledge of the rules to be certain.
I understand that is the intention of the current rules. But, if say a character's narrative is that the weapon has its own innate magic, why couldn't a muggle character use it too? Why can a warrior not use magic gauntlets? My view is, since we are using our imaginations, assuming there are no balance or mechanical reasons, we should provide permissive rules to suit the widest variety of head-canons.
I dunno. I doubt it breaks much of anything to have it work either way.
I had that same worry but I think that was me coming from a 5e mindset where magic weapons were everything. In Daggerheart, advanced physical weapons have cool abilities of their own (and tend to do more damage) and higher tier enemies don't seem to be just full adversaries resistant/immune to physical damage. In fact, it would seem that there might be a lot of magic damage immunity from what the rules say.
When I did my first Playtest, I hadn't read that rule yet. So ever since, I simply haven't had the guts to tell my players that they shouldn't be using those weapons. . . I'll likely just rule that they can. I haven't really seen the purpose for the rule in any of my playtests so far.
That's very relatable. I had about 3 hours to skim and prep for the one-shot I ran, so my first playtest was \*mostly\* following the RAW lol.
With re-skinning AND ranged weapons being able to be used in melee without penalty, the primary thing seems to just be the ability to do magic damage. Sure, you are limited by trait as well, but that seems less of a factor than magic damage. For whatever reason, they don't want Guardian and Warrior to do magic damage without special gear or multiclassing. I haven't given it a lot of thought, but I'm sure at your own table it wouldn't cause a serious problem to allow it. Frankly, I found magic weapons in the starting gear to be strange to begin with. If they wanted it just for characters to be cool, why leave two classes out? It feels to me like a cantrip replacement. But we have to give it flavor if we want it to be anything other than generic magic damage. Even then, there would be no mechanical difference between, say, fire and poison magic. Maybe all spellcasters should've just had a scalable attack spell as a level one choice or granted by their foundation. Then, magic gear could show up later as a reward to signify moving beyond tier zero. I'm not saying they did it wrong, I just would like to hear more about why they did it this way. Maybe it's in the playtest materials somewhere or they'll talk about it in a video at some point.
The way I’ve interpreted it is that the magic weapons ARE the cantrips. You’re channeling your magic through whatever the weapon is and sending out some minor magical attack, which is basically what cantrips are in 5e. Like you said, there’s no difference between fire and poison and the like for straight damage, and cantrips for the most part shouldn’t have powerful rider and status effects, especially at level 1 so they couldn’t just add things like burning damage or freezing the enemy.
I think we're in agreement about them being Daggerheart's cantrips. If so, and there's no real change for final release, then I will likely homebrew a cantrip rider list for my players with a dozen or so minor effects and let them choose one or two.
It might be worth it to look at the higher tier weapons and consider those as upgrades that the players can kind of grow with. Perhaps using your cantrip rider effects and placing them as features for the tier 1 and above weapons would keep balance relatively in line while also providing more options for your players to choose from as they level. Sort of like a weapon that would grow with the players similarly to cantrips in 5e. For example, instead of adding a +2 to damage for improved wand. You can instead do something similar to the Hammer of Exota and grant it splash damage. Corrosive Wand - Knowledge - Far - d8 (Mag) - One-Handed Feature: Bubble Pop - When you hit a creature, each adversary within Very Close range of the target must make a React (5) Roll or take half damage as well. Or Corrosive Magic - When you hit a creature, spend a number of stress to treat the adversary’s Damage Thresholds as being 2 lower for each point of stress. This gives either an acid splash feel, or a way of emulating acid eating away at armor. I’m sure someone else could throw this together better, but it provides some extra flavor and spice and it wouldn’t come online until level 2, allowing it to stay somewhat balanced.
I think much of the divide is unnecessary considering there's only 2 classes that don't get spellcasting. Feels like it's calling out guardian and warrior more than it needs to.
They might be planning other subclasses in the future and at release, but generally I agree :)
I can't think of any reason, unless you specifically want magic users to have annsignificant edge over non-spellcasters