Skeletons and the Need for Bludgeoning Weapons

[Jeff Carlsen]

Not actually true.

You see, the fleshy humanoid has SKIN, and MUSCLE, which spread out the damage from the bludgeoning weapon, making it less likely to shatter bones.

Without those things getting in the way, and spreading out the energy, bones are actually a lot easier to shatter (hard to cut, but easy to shatter).

I thought about that, but concluded that it was in error.

When a human takes a hit with a mace, his muscle and skin do absorb damage, meaning his bones are less likely to shatter. But damage doesn't just mean bone fractures. That skin and flesh is essential to the health of a human, so absorbing the damage doesn't do the human a lick of good. In the meantime, a skeleton functions even when his bones aren't connected to one another, so a few bones cracking and breaking aren't the threat to the skeleton that they would be to a human. Stopping a skeleton requires demolishing its bones until even magic can't hold them together.

So, what extra bone-smashing a mace might do is rendered inconsequential due to the practical effectiveness of that bone smashing, while skin and flesh absorbing a blow isn't an advantage at all.

 

[Kingreaper]

In the meantime, a skeleton functions even when his bones aren't connected to one another, so a few bones cracking and breaking aren't the threat to the skeleton that they would be to a human.

I'm sorry, but you know this HOW?

Are you a visitor from an alternate reality where walking skeletons are a real problem, encountered commonly?

When walking skeletons are depicted in D&D artwork, all the bones are whole.
Cracking even a single bone may very well be all it takes to break the magic.

Unless you're actually a necromancer from Faerun, you have no way of proving otherwise.

What you're saying isn't based on realism, it's based on your personal preferences. You need to be aware of this.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I'm sorry, but you know this HOW?

Are you a visitor from an alternate reality where walking skeletons are a real problem, encountered commonly?

When walking skeletons are depicted in D&D artwork, all the bones are whole.
Cracking even a single bone may very well be all it takes to break the magic.

Unless you're actually a necromancer from Faerun, you have no way of proving otherwise.

What you're saying isn't based on realism, it's based on your personal preferences. You need to be aware of this.

Fair enough, though you could have made this point more respectfully.

In this case, I'm making a rational assumption. You see all sorts of skeletons in art. Sometimes they're missing limbs, are crawling across the ground with just the top half of their body, or have holes in their skulls. It's a common trope that the undead just keep coming despite incredible disfigurement. So it seems appropriate that you defeat a skeleton by breaking it into so many pieces that it can no longer reassemble itself.

The fantasy doesn't have to work that way. In that you are correct. But in D&D, monsters tend to be borrowed and follow familiar tropes.

 

[Kingreaper]

Okay, let's assume you're right, and Skeletons have to be broken down to tiny pieces to kill them.
So, they can take more damage than a normal human.

Leaving aside the fact that reassembling would come under "regeneration" in D&D.

Why is it superior to say "Skeletons have low hitpoints, and DR/bludgeoning" than "Skeletons, being hard to kill, have high hitpoints, but are vulnerable to bludgeoning weapons"?

The fiction in both cases is the same; skeletons are harder to kill than a normal human, unless you're using bludgeoning weapons. Why do you feel that the former is better than the latter?
Especially given as you're maintaining that skeletons can, in fact, take more damage than a human (suggesting higher HP)

 

[dnlas]

When a human takes a hit with a mace, his muscle and skin do absorb damage, meaning his bones are less likely to shatter. But damage doesn't just mean bone fractures. That skin and flesh is essential to the health of a human, so absorbing the damage doesn't do the human a lick of good. In the meantime, a skeleton functions even when his bones aren't connected to one another, so a few bones cracking and breaking aren't the threat to the skeleton that they would be to a human. Stopping a skeleton requires demolishing its bones until even magic can't hold them together.

So some monster with no muscle such as goem ,element would also take more dmg like skeleton?

 

[mkill]

Looking at all the arguments in the thread, there really seems to be no perfect solution. Personally, I prefer no DR, no resistances as the default. If you can have core PC rules with reduced complexity, then there should be "core monsters" with simple rules as well.

Then, step away from the rules, start from the description. What kind of effects and behavior do you expect?

* arrows and pointy weapons hit between the bones of the monster
* a fire elemental hit by a fireball grows even stronger
* a werewolf's wounds close, but silver leaves painful burns
* a balor can be fought with weapons, but holy weapons weaken him

Based on these, create an individual rule for each of these monsters. The goal is that if the DM describes the game rule effect, it matches the expected flavor. That's why I like the suggestion of a 20% miss chance for piercing weapons for skeletons that was suggested here. The PC thinks he has scored a good hit, but then the DM announces "sorry, right between the ribs"

Of course, the downside of having individual rules for each monster is that things might get fiddly. That is why you need some framework that you can build on, like weapon damage type, elemental damage type, creature type, and a definition of "resistance", "immunity" etc.

 

[Tovec]

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.

Sorry, bit late to the thread.

I think DR was overused, but I think regeneration was underused for monsters that should have had it.
I understand things like dragons having DR vs adamantine, that makes sense because they have hard scales.

It all depends on how the resistance should be applied, and to which creatures. I also think that magic (a lot of the time) should have been equally resisted by these creatures but the best we had was spell resistance and that was too often easily countered.

I think that creatures like werewolves and vampires should have had regeneration. But I also think regeneration should have acted differently than it did, based on how creatures like trolls worked. It should have been nearly immediate resistance to anything that they were immune to (everything but fire/silver/whatever) and then lengthy or magical healing to recover from the rest, none of this "it heals X per round" business.

OH, as as far as my quote - How would Vulnerability 5 work? I get resist (DR) 5. I don't agree with resist (DR) 5 but I get it.

Also, dragons and vampires were kind of the prime examples of creatures with weaknesses to things and they turned into a caster's autokilled creatures. Dragon is resistant (or immune) to fire? Okay douse it with cold. The vampire does from sunlight? Good thing I have that daylight spell.
If they did introduce bigger (or any) weaknesses then we would have an even greater deficit between the casters and the fighters - unless those weaknesses were PURELY weapon related.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Fair enough, though you could have made this point more respectfully.

In this case, I'm making a rational assumption. You see all sorts of skeletons in art. Sometimes they're missing limbs, are crawling across the ground with just the top half of their body, or have holes in their skulls. It's a common trope that the undead just keep coming despite incredible disfigurement. So it seems appropriate that you defeat a skeleton by breaking it into so many pieces that it can no longer reassemble itself.

The fantasy doesn't have to work that way. In that you are correct. But in D&D, monsters tend to be borrowed and follow familiar tropes.

I´d like bludgeoning weapons slowing them or weakening them on a successful hit. Would not be the worst idea...

 

[jcrowland]

I'll just echo the idea that this kind of debate is exactly why there should be hacking damage alongside slashing, piercing, and blunt...

I agree. "Cleaving" as in using a meat cleaver, is what you are thinking of, and while more accurate than "hacking", it does run into what we in D&D think of when we think of a cleave.

Personally, I am a big fan of the K.I.S.S. principle. Make weapon damage types differentiated by their criticals: Bludgeons add a slow on crit, slash add a bleed DoT, and so on. In addition, skeletons in the Monster Manual can have a line that says "immune to DoT effects" and/or "Slow from a damaging effec are permanent" for example, effectively negating a slashing weapons crit and/or highlighting a bludgeons effectiveness versus the skeleton. The DR/5 stuff is too much small change accounting IMO.

 

[Dausuul]

Seems like the distinction people are making is not between slashing, bludgeoning, and piercing, but between light and heavy weapons. Perhaps skeletons should have vulnerable: heavy 5?

One thing to keep in mind, though, is that skeletons are not supposed to be unstoppable, invincible death machines. They're the cannon fodder of the undead hordes; the terror of skeletons comes from numbers rather than individual strength. One single skeleton should not be a threat to an adventurer.