Skeletons and the Need for Bludgeoning Weapons

Giving skeletons DR/bludgeonging or a similar resistance has always bothered me. Granted, I can see why a spear or arrow might have some trouble, but a slashing weapon like an axe or sword? Are you kidding me? Such weapons can not only chop off limbs and heads, they can do so even with the meat still attached. You cant tell me that a diagonal slash through a skeleton's rib cage with a greatsword wouldn't really ruin its day!

IMHO, skeletons should have resistance to piercing damage only, not slashing.

Falling Icicle said:

Giving skeletons DR/bludgeonging or a similar resistance has always bothered me. Granted, I can see why a spear or arrow might have some trouble, but a slashing weapon like an axe or sword? Are you kidding me? Such weapons can not only chop off limbs and heads, they can do so even with the meat still attached. You cant tell me that a diagonal slash through a skeleton's rib cage with a greatsword wouldn't really ruin its day!

IMHO, skeletons should have resistance to piercing damage only, not slashing.

Click to expand...

I agree. In fact I'm not sure it's worth the hassle of giving them even that much. DR is a nuisance and causes a number of problems, so I'd prefer to use it sparingly.

I think that DR was overused in 3.5

If skeletons need to have resistances give them, say:
Resist 5 piercing
Vulnerable 5 bludgeoning

In 3.5 things never had vulnerabilities to weapon types, only resistances, which fed into the caster-superiority issue.

Here's a thought. Instead of giving skeletons damage reduction, why not just make them vulnerable to bludgeonging damage? I've always preferred the carrot to the stick.

Wouldn't it make more sense to give the bludgeoning weapon a bonus to damage rather than reducing the damage of other weapons?

I also think the ax should have a bludgeoning component since the weight and shape of the weapon contributes as much to the damage potential of the weapon as the blade does.

Falling Icicle said:

Here's a thought. Instead of giving skeletons damage reduction, why not just make them vulnerable to bludgeonging damage? I've always preferred the carrot to the stick.

Click to expand...

Generally speaking, when you give something a negative, you balance it out with a positive. So resist 5 pricing, vulnerable 5 bludgeoning I think is a fair balance, ya know, except to rangers with daggers.

This is exactly why I advocate the introduction of the "hacking" damage type. There are certain types of weapon that are decidedly "slashing", and don't put the full weight of a weapon behind the attack. Axes and heavy swords are not these types of weapon. A dagger or whip, for example, should be all but useless against a skeleton. A battleaxe or longsword, on the other hand, still has a huge amount of force behind the blow, enough to crush a bone even if, for some reason, it can't just cleave it in two.

tlantl said:

Wouldn't it make more sense to give the bludgeoning weapon a bonus to damage rather than reducing the damage of other weapons?

I also think the ax should have a bludgeoning component since the weight and shape of the weapon contributes as much to the damage potential of the weapon as the blade does.

Click to expand...

Well, then we get into an issue of sharpness. Is a morning-star bludgeoning and piercing? Is a rapier slashing and piercing? Is a bastard sword slashing and bludgeoning?

I think it'd be really cool to give each kind of weapon two types, that way noone is ever singled-out for using the weapon of their choice.

shidaku said:

Generally speaking, when you give something a negative, you balance it out with a positive. So resist 5 pricing, vulnerable 5 bludgeoning I think is a fair balance, ya know, except to rangers with daggers.

Click to expand...

Or maybe a 20% chance that a hit with a piercing weapon is really a miss. That way the weapon could still do full damage, but the chance to actually hit something that could be damaged is reduced.

Kingreaper said:

In 3.5 things never had vulnerabilities to weapon types, only resistances, which fed into the caster-superiority issue.

Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. I HATED DR in 3.x, and especially 3.5. If you really think about it, there aren't that many creatures that should require some kind of special weapon. Werewolves have historically hated silver. Vampires hate wooden stakes. Skeletons crumble under bludgeoning weapons. Trolls hate acid and fire.

DR in 3.x was way overused. And tying it to material types got ridiculous. Oh it's a lich? Better hope you have a holy, magic AND bludgeonging weapon in your golf bag. You don't? Oh, sorry fighter, just sit there and attack it pointlessly as a diversion while the wizard kills it. *grumble*

I think there are much better ways of making creatures have interesting vulnerabilities and resistances without DR. Maybe werewolves regenerate any damage not inflicted with a silver weapon (unless they are totally killed). That could give someone with a silver weapon an edge in fighting them, but they're not strictly necessary. Same with trolls and fire/acid. Maybe instead of needing "holy" weapons against devils and demons, they're vulernable to "radiant" damage, and holy weapons add radiant damage.

I'd prefer them to handle such things on a creature by creature basis rather than using a blanket rule like DR that will end up being greatly overused. And as I said before, the carrot is better than the stick. Don't punish players for not having the exact right weapon. Reward those that do.