13
\$\begingroup\$

As someone who typically GMs, I'm accustomed to seeing resistances specified in monster stat blocks as "resistant to bludgeoning, piercing and slashing damage from non-magical weapons".

However the barbarian class feature Rage states that a benefit of raging is "You have resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage," neglecting any mention of magical weapons.

Though PCs encountering magical weapons may be rare, are there any other rules which stipulate that the basic rage resistances don't apply towards magical weapons?

\$\endgroup\$
32
\$\begingroup\$

The exclusion of any mention of magical weapons isn't accidental, Barbarians are resistant to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage whether it's magical or otherwise as it's key to their ability to have staying power on the front line. By comparison, the Heavy Armor Mastery feat makes the clear distinction for magic weapons, therefore, it's not unreasonable that the design intent is on purpose.

This is important because otherwise the Barbarian would experience a huge drop off in survivability as the game progressed passed a certain tier when a lot of enemies' weapons are being described as inherently magical.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ is there an official source for that? \$\endgroup\$ – Clarus_Nox Apr 21 '18 at 3:52
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Off the cuff, I don't have something official besides the language used (and not used) within the PHB and MM; but 5e doesn't make use of 'gotcha' wording by design. The fact that the feature doesn't mention an exception for magical weapons, but does for so many other things leaves it reasonable to infer that the intention was for it to apply to all slashing, piercing, and bludgeoning attacks. \$\endgroup\$ – Pyrotechnical Apr 22 '18 at 3:04

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.