The Werewolf's statistics are that of a CR1 monster, even though it is listed as CR3 in the Monster Manual, presumably as a result of playtesting.

By my personal experience with pop culture, Werewolves in fiction tend to be susceptible (not vulnerable, mind you) to non-silvered damage, but especially vulnerable to silver. Given that, it seems kind of absurd that a 20th level Barbarian with a standard greataxe can't even put a scratch on a lowly monster with theoretically CR1 stats. Recently PCs recruited the town militia to fight off a werewolf, only to find that their weapons literally do nothing. And that doesn't make sense.

In regard to my first point, believe that hypothetically, if the werewolf weren't totally invulnerable to most non-silvered damage, even playtesting wouldn't have brought its CR as high as 3. Not only that, but removing the immunities would make it considerably more accessible to parties of a greater variety of levels.

I feel like the designers had every opportunity to give the Werewolf resistance instead, because not only would it solve the above discrepancies, but let's face it: Werewolves just aren't cool enough to be that invulnerable. But the designers didn't make that choice.

What reasons have the designers given for this design choice?


2 Answers 2



The lycanthrope has been a standard monster since the game was invented.

From OD&D Monster Manual(1974, Monsters and Treasure) (Lycanthrope):

Only silver weapons or magical weapons/attacks affect Lycanthropes.

From 1e Monster Manual (1977) (Lycanthrope)

All are hit only by silver or +1 or better magic weapons

From 2e monstrous manual (1989)

Hit only by silver or +1 or better magical weapons

3.5e SRD (ref is 3.5e. ~ 2003ish)

"possesses damage reduction that is overcome only by silvered weapons
(skp to) Damage Reduction: A creature with this special quality ignores damage from most weapons and natural attacks.

In the case of a werewolf, the damage reduction is listed as "10/silver" meaning that some damage could be done with un-silvered weapons, but the blow is ineffective if it does not cross the threshold. This is similar to but different from "resistance" as played in 5e. At low levels this can render a lot of blows ineffective (failing to do at least 10 damage) unless using silver or magic.

(I do not have any 4e references available, 2008).

D&D 5e(2014)

Damage Immunities: bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing from nonmagical attacks not made with silvered weapons.(DM Basic Rules, p. 49)

Some design features of D&D 5e

This edition tried to fold in some of each previous editions' features, which is related to some of the design goals for D&D 5e. Uniting the editions was one of the design goals.

  • One of the things that returned in 5e, in our experience, is an increase in lethality, particularly at low levels. (Anecdote: Our initial encounter with wererats in 5e at 3rd level forced us to use our melee fighters to hold them off while the casters tried to take them down. Plenty of our hits did no damage).

An important design goal was simplicity of play. The constant reference to "plusses and minuses" (like DR) does not aid and abet simplicity. Immunity and resistance is simpler than an extended list for damage resistance. So too is the use of advantage or disadvantage for combat. While the advantage piece isn't part of this particular detail, it fits with the "simplify play, speed up combat" design mode. Applying this line of thinking, a return to the traditional lycanthrope is less complicated and achieves a bit of that "some stuff from each edition" theme.

Could they have used resistance rather than immunity? Yes, though doing that might not go as far toward the "unify the editions" theme. The immunity makes the lycanthrope a much scarier monster for low level parties.

Is the monster manageable by a typical 5e party?

As @LegendaryDude pointed out, silvered weapons and magic damage are easy to come by and affordable for a party of average level 3, which happens to coincide with the CR for a werewolf. Not only that, but plenty of classes in a party (the game was designed with parties in mind) will have access to some kind of magic damage, via a cantrip or a low level spell. Silvered weapons cost a bit more than regular weapons, but are not overly expensive.

Or, they could try to push it off of a cliff. (But there's never a cliff nearby when you need one, right?)

A monster is immune to damage from nonmagical bludgeoning weapons. Does it still take damage from falling? Yes, that monster is still going to feel the hurt of a fall, because a fall is not a weapon.

Is the 20th level barbarian at risk?

Your 20th level barbarian, in the "experience" he gains by going up all of those levels, will learn that he needs a silver (or magical) weapon to damage a werewolf. A dagger is all he needs, at that level. If the barbarian can't afford a silver dagger -- maybe in a boot sheath -- by the time he's 20th level, he needs to look at his gambling and drinking habits, to say the least. Maybe he needs to invest in a silvered axe.
Basic Rules, 5e, p. 47

Silvered Weapons
Some monsters that have immunity or resistance to nonmagical weapons are susceptible to silver weapons, so cautious adventurers invest extra coin to plate their weapons with silver. You can silver a single weapon or ten pieces of ammunition for 100 gp. This cost represents not only the price of the silver, but the time and expertise needed to add silver to the weapon without making it less effective.

Bounded Accuracy

The other point in 5e design is bounded accuracy, which means (among other things) that high level characters are still in some danger. While this is a poor example -- 20th level barbarian versus a werewolf -- a whole pack of werewolves is another matter. They might still take him down.

Werewolves are scary creatures. That's a good thing. (Warren Zevon would approve).

As an aside: in 1e's Unearthed Arcana (1985; p. 20), at 4th level

[Barbarians] May strike creatures hit only by +1 weapons

There are some precedents set to add such details and features to overcome lycanthropes' invulnerability to mundane damage. That said, another design goal for 5e was simplification, not extra fiddly bits.

If it's any consolation, that feature for the Barbarian is one that I wish they had resurrected from the TSR graveyard.

  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. \$\endgroup\$
    – mxyzplk
    Jan 6, 2018 at 4:22
  • \$\begingroup\$ Old alchemy also indicates that Silver is from the moon or associated with it (much like lycanthropy). Also, comes from the legend of the Beast of Gévaudan and the supposed use of silver bullets to slay the beast. \$\endgroup\$
    – Slagmoth
    Apr 2, 2018 at 12:45
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ In the section about 1e barbarians, you might want to mention that this feature existed because 1e barbarians could not use magic items, because that changes the context significantly. \$\endgroup\$
    – Yakk
    Apr 2, 2018 at 14:24
  • \$\begingroup\$ 1e and/or 2e also had a rule for monsters being able to damage other monsters that required magic weapons to hit. For example, I think that starting at around 4 HD a monster could hit creatures requiring +1 weapons to hit. \$\endgroup\$
    – sirjonsnow
    Apr 2, 2018 at 17:48
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @sirjonsnow: Pretty sure 3/3.5E had a similar rule, but it was more about reciprocal behavior; if you had resistance to non-magical attacks, then your natural weapons (but not equipment) counted as magical for damaging other creatures. Made it so fights between creatures of high DR weren't completely pointless if the creatures couldn't use weapons; they could still injure each other with claws and teeth without having to overcome damage reduction. \$\endgroup\$ Oct 25, 2019 at 18:58

I am happy others are covering the mechanics aspect of this, so I recommend checking out the response by @KorvinStarmast if you want the answer mechanically. If you want a lore reason, as implied by your original post, I think the answer boils down to popular depictions of werewolves. While non-silvered weapons can usually "damage" a werewolf, it's never lasting damage. Think of it like this, a papercut stings, but you wouldn't say you lost any HP from one. To a werewolf, an attack from a non-silvered weapon is like a papercut. It hurts, but it would take far too many for you to even care beyond the discomfort.

It sort of ties into how traditionally monsters could only be killed by a set arsenal. For vampires, it was a wooden stake to the heart, sunlight, decapitation, fire, and so forth. For werewolves, it was silvered bullets and magic.

If you're concerned about killing a werewolf without silvered weapons or magic, use a torch or push it off a cliff and hope your DM is kind enough to ignore the fact that fall damage is technically non-magical bludgeoning damage. An SA ruling takes that position.

A monster is immune to damage from nonmagical bludgeoning weapons. Does it still take damage from falling? Yes, that monster is still going to feel the hurt of a fall, because a fall is not a weapon.

If you're considering running a campaign and want to use a werewolf, but think the standard version may be too much for your adventurers:

  1. make silvered weapons easily available before that point

  2. make a weaker variant where it is resistant instead of immune and call it a "Lesser Werewolf" or "Werepup".

For clarification, this is extrapolated from things said by Mike Mearls in regards to the stated focus of development. Mearls would regularly comment on the choices made being for both relatable and practical reasons. While it is technically "reverse-engineered" for this specific example, it is pulled from this interview in which Mearls discusses design choices and reasoning. My answer is not a direct quote, merely an understanding based on what was said and specified here.

  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ Hi Sora, generally we expect questions about designer reasons to be backed up by actual demonstration of designer intent, typically via quotations from the designers themselves found in the rulebooks or which they've given out-of-band such as on twitter Q&A. "This is my reverse-engineered guess" doesn't equal a well-evidenced demonstration of the reasons it wound up that way, and tend to be an unaccepted mode of answering a question about designer reasons. \$\endgroup\$ Jan 5, 2018 at 12:35
  • \$\begingroup\$ doppelgreener, Forgive my original answer. I deduced it by the stated focus of development according to Mike Mearls. He would regularly comment on the choices made being for both relatable and practical reasons. While it is technically "reverse-engineered" for this specific example, it is pulled from this interview in which Mearls discusses design choices and reasoning. I was simply unsure of how to state this in a way that makes sense and is clear that it is not a direct statement. bit.ly/2AtDAO2 \$\endgroup\$ Jan 5, 2018 at 12:47
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ You can always edit your posts with the little link at the end that says "edit". To notify another user you would normally need to put an "@" in front of their username (it even autocompletes). As @doppelgreener was the only one who commented on your post so far he should be notified nevertheless, but in discussions with multiple people it's important to specifically notify them. The OP is always notified and you can notify one additional user per comment. \$\endgroup\$
    – Secespitus
    Jan 5, 2018 at 12:52
  • \$\begingroup\$ FWIW, a Sage Advice ruling came out a while back regarding falling damage doing damage to were creatures. Not sure if you had seen that. \$\endgroup\$ Mar 1, 2019 at 14:55
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Here it is ... I dropped it in, but by all means edit as needed to better fit your answer. \$\endgroup\$ Mar 2, 2019 at 15:55

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .