Is slashing/bludgeoning/piercing damage even needed?

[IanB]

I know what they do. I just doubt that anyone needs to be told that (unless they genuinely have no idea what a falchion is).

The vast majority of people probably have no idea what a falchion is.

 

[Serendipity]

Damage types aren't really necessary or wanted as a function of core game design. Certainly not where damage is generally defined as non-injury. But I'd be opposed even if that weren't the case. That level of granularity should be optional.

 

[Dragongrief]

Okay, but what is it providing in the base game?

The same thing the energy types are... pseudo-realism. Are they necessary? Only if you want to allow effects based on it (if not, then they are pointless).

For example: Place a basketball on the ground and take a hard downward swing at it with a sharp sword and a two-by-four.

Using no damage type the ball is destroyed if you hit it hard enough with either implement.

Using damage types the ball is ruptured by the sword. The 2x4 however will likely result in you visiting the hospital with a concussion (conclusion based on real life observation).

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

If the modules that utilize them weren't in the core books, you might have a point. But they almost certainly will be.

Plus, we already have at least one monster interacting with them, and this in the first playtest of the core rules.

After due consideration, I consider damage types to be a core mechanic. It's far to handy of a mechanic not to have.

 

[jadrax]

And again, I think it is something that is far easier to remove from the rules if you do not like it than it is to go back an add it in later if you realise you need it.

 

[DEFCON 1]

And on top of that... it's a single word. That gets listed by the other weapon keywords in the weapons table like Light, or Two-Handed, or Range. So its not like that space was going to be used for anything else... so including it does not actually cause any problems, other than just having to ignore it.

And its much easier to include those single words in the weapons table from the beginning that to have to have to include a list in an entire new book that now assigned those terms later on.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

If the modules that utilize them weren't in the core books, you might have a point. But they almost certainly will be.

Plus, we already have at least one monster interacting with them, and this in the first playtest of the core rules.

After due consideration, I consider damage types to be a core mechanic. It's far to handy of a mechanic not to have.

Yep, the desire to take them out now is a classic case of "premature optimization". This is exactly the same kind of wasted effort that a programmer does when they try to make a piece of code run a bit faster before they have determined if said piece of code will be in the final product.

Make it work. Make it usable. Make it fast. In that order. Otherwise, you are wasting effort.

 

[YRUSirius]

And on top of that... it's a single word. That gets listed by the other weapon keywords in the weapons table like Light, or Two-Handed, or Range. So its not like that space was going to be used for anything else... so including it does not actually cause any problems, other than just having to ignore it.

Well, have a look at the monster pdf. The weapon damage makes their attack a little bit "harder" to read for me cause it unnecessarily clutters up their description. Don't think that many of those monsters will fight skeletons.

-YRUSirius