D&D 5E Damage Types Are Lame

[Coroc]

Just houserule this. No way golems are without any weapon resistances at my table.

Same goes for ghosts, you need a magic weapon.

Ahm and in the list of resistances I think I missed the totem barbarian who is resistant against all but psychic (is it while raging?)

 

[Azzy]

It's not to do with mechanics. It's to do with the narrative. You describe attacks differently depending on the type of weapon you are wielding.

Throg the barbarian whirled his mighty warhammer around his head and uttered the battle cry of his tribal forefathers but the hideous orc merely curled its upper lip in a sneer as it raised its iron shield high to counter the blow. The shield bore the signs of many such hammer-blows. It has stopped them all.

"I stab it with my hammer," announced Throg, "Upwards under its shield, straight into its ribcage."

"Wut?" said the DM.

"Well, you house-ruled away damage types, so if I can do stabbing with a dagger, I can do stabbing with a warhammer, can't it?

"Er ..."

On the other hand...

"Why can't I slash the monster with my short sword?"

"Why can't I pierce the monster with my longsword?"

 

[Coroc]

On the other hand...

"Why can't I slash the monster with my short sword?"

"Why can't I pierce the monster with my longsword?"

I do (houserule) allow secondary damage types if it makes sense

So slashing with a shortsword ok but not with a rapier.

The best I got is poleaxe, it is melee twohanded 1d10 and it got p/s/b damage.

If a player wants a battle axe with a spike at the back or top he gets it, if anyhow reasonable (smithy available)
and his axe will qualify for piercing.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I dunno, we did okay in bD&D and AD&D 1e without damage types.

Having recently gone back to read an AD&D Monster Manual, it took significant space to note each unique interaction, and even those were sometimes unclear because there was no standard format or phrasing. Here's a quote from the book I was using:

"Because they are assembled from bones, cold-based attacks also do skeletons no harm. The fact that they are mostly empty means that edged or piercing weapons (like swords, daggers, and spears) inflict only half damage when employed against skeletons. Blunt weapons, with larger heads designed to break and crush bones, cause normal damage against skeletons. Fire also does normal damage against skeletons."

Going by that, it sounds like they did have damage types, but they just never explicitly acknowledged them. Skeletons still take half damage from swords and arrow, and it explains why, but it doesn't explain what happens if you try to use the flat of your blade or a pommel strike - or even if you're just a wizard, swinging a staff. Slings also fall through the gap, since they lack a large head.

It worked well enough, for the time, because the DM was expected to figure it all out whenever it might come up. I'm not sure that it would still fly in a modern game. Even though DMs in 5E are explicitly expected to make judgment calls, there's no reason to not give them solid ground upon which to base their rulings.

 

[Staffan]

I dunno, we did okay in bD&D and AD&D 1e without damage types.

AD&D 1e certainly had different kinds of damage, they just weren't formalized. But even as far back as the Monster Manual, which technically predates AD&D (at least if you ask TSR's lawyers), you had the demon preamble include a table about how much damage demons took by attacks by acid, fire, cold, etc. The whole thing just required more adjudication as to what was what.

 

[Lackhand]

I think 5e could have merged bludgeoning, piercing and slashing damages into one type -- "weapon".

There's at least three more modifiers that apply to lots of weapon damage, much more frequently than the distinction between piercing and bludgeoning: magical, silver, and adamantine. Those don't even get damage types, and that seems particularly silly to me given how many monsters give a four clause predicate for the resistance line.

I think bludgeoning, piercing and slashing could instead have been weapon properties without having to be bolted into the damage system, given that. Actually, I'd've gone even further; sure, skeletons could be "vulnerable bludgeoning" -- but they could be "vulnerable weapons with the heavy property" instead, just as reasonably.

But without listing "this weapon cuts things", I don't think you could ever get trolls' loathsome limbs or oozes to work right -- I can't think of any other useful damage types that would have that same sort of trick/split behavior. I'm not sure I need it, frankly -- as puzzles go, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me, since like a maul feels like it should split an ooze, but it doesn't.

For me, Trolls and Oozes would be about finesse -- missile and finesse-based attacks don't trigger these effects, strength-based melee attacks do. It means that a pick or spear could "knock off" a trolls arm (bad!), but an arrow or javelin wouldn't, at least.

 

[Azzy]

AD&D 1e certainly had different kinds of damage, they just weren't formalized.

Sure, but that's was kinda the point—these editions had no codified "damage types". Instead, they merely gave monsters specific vulnerabilities and immunities. (sometime very specific ones, like rakshasa and blessed crossbow bolts), and these ultimately served as the inspiration for, and gave rise to, the (slightly) more modern concept of damage types, but it's rather anachronistic.

 

[mflayermonk]

It's a bit of an exaggeration, but in general, it seems monsters are immune to a whole bunch of damage types or none at all.
Most notable are the non-magical types: how many creatures are specifically resistant to one of piercing, slashing, or bludgeoning rather than all three? Very, very few. Weapon choice is much less interesting when any weapon is just as good as another.A

voiding resistances is trivial when there aren't any or they are all clumped, or only fire matters. On top of that, vulnerabilities are also extremely infrequent.

Kinda makes damage types pointless for most encounters.

Why did the developers make damage types so lame?

One thing you could do is have the environment damage all combatants equally-such as molten hot brass floors that do damage to everyone in range. Or a necrotic damage pulse that issues from an ancient sarcophagus until its covered (and the PCs are fighting ghouls). Or traps that randomly go off, spears from walls, spinning blades etc. A local treacherous baron's archers that think they can kill both the PCs and the monster (don't have to pay the gold reward to the PCs). These are essentially "neutral" obstacles of the combat because they target PCs and monsters, but it does give resistance value.

 

[schnee]

Sure, but that's was kinda the point—these editions had no codified "damage types". Instead, they merely gave monsters specific vulnerabilities and immunities. (sometime very specific ones, like rakshasa and blessed crossbow bolts), and these ultimately served as the inspiration for, and gave rise to, the (slightly) more modern concept of damage types, but it's rather anachronistic.

You're splitting hairs.



That's 90% of what we have now, but it's just put in a predictable place and written in a predictable way.

Most notable are the non-magical types: how many creatures are specifically resistant to one of piercing, slashing, or bludgeoning rather than all three? Very, very few. Weapon choice is much less interesting when any weapon is just as good as another.

I'm old, so I have fond AD&D memories, (if tainted by nostalgia), and I do like the idea of variety, but like others said, only in small doses - if it happens too often, then the 'golf bag o' weapons' happens and then there's not much going on except for characters wasting a combat round to switch weapons and having more encumbrance.

 

[Azzy]

You're splitting hairs.

Given that my initial post was in response to a post that stated "If the system lacked the language to differentiate between slashing and piercing damage, it would be much more difficult for a DM to bring in straw golems (as an example).", no I don't think I'm splitting hairs. Both 1e and bD&D lacked said language, yet still had monsters with vulnerabilities and immunities to attacks from "slashing weapons" (something that was left to common sense to define) as well as vulnerabilities and immunities to very specific attacks (that wouldn't now fall under any codified "damage types". If we say, then, that they retroactively count as having a language to differentiate specific damage we can then also say that any game that has attacks inherently includes the language to differentiate what type of damage just by the nature of being able to define those attacks. If that's the case, then the initial post I was responding becomes unnecessary and moot.