Skeletons and the Need for Bludgeoning Weapons

[Crazy Jerome]

I don't really expect D&D to adopt that idea wholesale, but it'd be nice if D&D were more aligned with popular fiction than something like Diablo, where Skeletons are just cannon fodder.

Where do you think Diablo got the idea?

 

[Dausuul]

[stuff], of course.

Oi! Spoiler alert there! I've read it, but other people may not have.

 

[FireLance]

Oi! Spoiler alert there! I've read it, but other people may not have.

I went back and edited the post, but really, it seemed to me to be as much of a spoiler as "The good guys win in the end".

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I took some time away from this thread so I could think on it and avoid the backfire effect.

For most creatures, hit points don't directly represent real damage, but a combination of real damage and the ability to mitigate damage taken, either through skill or constitution. When you run out, you can no longer mitigate damage, and the collected minor wounds take you down, or something serious gets through. How you describe it is up to the DM.

This could be an argument for simply giving the skeleton more hit points with a weakness to bludgeoning damage.

I can't even say that hit points are mostly linked to skill, since many monsters are simply given extra hit dice for being bigger and meaner, though in that case it's mostly meant to illustrate that the monster can take many wounds and keep fighting. It's a representation of the real damage part of hit points.

So, in essence the difference between the big monster and the skeleton is that the skeleton doesn't take any noticeable real damage from most attacks. Its invulnerability is a mitigating factor that doesn't decrease, even as the skeleton takes damage.

Damage Reduction does model that aspect more accurately.

But this does leave us with one last problem to look at. What do the hit points of a skeleton mean? Presumably, the skeleton doesn't feel pain, it doesn't grow fatigued. The only way it loses the ability to mitigate damage with skill is if parts of it actually break. So, for the skeleton, hit points really do represent real damage and nothing but. At the same time, the skeleton can take significant amounts of real damage and still be a threat, so they may still have a high number of hit points.

So, my final verdict is that Damage Reduction is the proper rule for the skeleton if you want model intent with a degree of accuracy. I'd rather not lose that. Still, it wouldn't be largely inappropriate to use the high hit point with a weakness method. It's just less precise.

 

[Recidivism]

I would really love to see something like the Cauldron-Born in D&D. However, I would not consider this treatment appropriate for skeletons, which are well established in D&D's history as the fragile, disposable fodder of undead armies. Better to create a new, more formidable class of undead, and then just say skeletons don't exist in that setting.

I understand that attitude, and I feel like Skeletons as trivial foes has a long history in D&D. I even understand from the perspective of a DM that I'd much rather describe a skeleton or zombie getting its skull bashed in than a living humanoid foe -- Undead opponents seem to work a lot better at the level of abstraction that hitpoints give us, and there's less of a moral quandary about killing clearly unnatural and non-living foes.

But at the same time I don't think the typical D&D experience correlates all that well with typical fantasy genre depictions of undead foes, nor does it pass the fridge logic test for me. Since I'd like my home campaigns to both resemble (to a certain extent) fiction that I've enjoyed, and to have a good degree of internal consistency, legions of trivial undead foes isn't something for me to use.

I don't really expect D&D to cater to my exact needs, but I do feel that 4E went a little overboard in homogenizing monsters and removing aspects that were flavorful and required approaches different from "I attack until it dies." Ghosts and other ethereal foes come to mind as bad offenders (not only does the insubstantial property not reflect their flavor well, but it turns combat into an HP slog too.)

 

[Dausuul]

I don't really expect D&D to cater to my exact needs, but I do feel that 4E went a little overboard in homogenizing monsters and removing aspects that were flavorful and required approaches different from "I attack until it dies." Ghosts and other ethereal foes come to mind as bad offenders (not only does the insubstantial property not reflect their flavor well, but it turns combat into an HP slog too.)

I agree with all this, especially on incorporeal undead. (I'm sorry, it's a freaking ghost. Nonmagical weapons don't hurt it. Deal. If the designers feel this unduly punishes fighter-types as opposed to casters, the proper solution is to say that most spells don't hurt it either. Why should a ghost be any more vulnerable to a fireball than a sword?)

I just think that for better or for worse, the meaning of "skeleton" as a monster is well established in D&D, and 4E gave us an object lesson in the dangers of messing with established elements of the game. It's an easy matter for a DM to eliminate skeletons from a campaign world, and for the designers to provide a new type of invincible undead horror.

 

[trancejeremy]

Considering that skeletons are literally just skeletons that have been magically animated, it's hard to understand how they can be really tough.

They're just skeletons - old bones are fairly brittle.

And really, do we really need all these elaborate rules to deal with them? Is saying "Skeletons suffer only one-half damage from sharp and/or edged weapons" really that difficult?

Gaming isn't a bureaucracy, just use simple rules and some common sense.

 

[Dausuul]

And really, do we really need all these elaborate rules to deal with them? Is saying "Skeletons suffer only one-half damage from sharp and/or edged weapons" really that difficult?

Gaming isn't a bureaucracy, just use simple rules and some common sense.

What "elaborate rules?" All of the proposals I've seen so far are very simple. To date, they seem to be:

• Skeletons take 5 less damage from non-bludgeoning weapons.
• Skeletons take 5 less damage from piercing weapons.
• Skeletons take 5 more damage from bludgeoning weapons.
• Skeletons take half damage from non-bludgeoning weapons (your suggestion).
• Skeletons just take damage like everything else.

The debate is over which of these represents the best combination of "simple rules and some common sense," with some verisimilitude and thematic concerns thrown in.

Myself, I favor the final option, since I feel that all the other proposals--simple as they are--are still more complicated than the situation warrants. 3E went hog-wild with damage reduction and resistances for every-damn-thing. Admittedly, 4E went too far the other way, but in general I think damage reduction and/or resistance should be quite rare.

 

[JohnSnow]

I quite like this approach, as it happens. My all-time favorite undead are the Cauldron-Born from Lloyd Alexander's "Chronicles of Prydain," whose signature trait was that you could not kill them. Ever. By any means. There was no victory against the Cauldron-Born. The best you could do was delay them until they were forced to return to their places of power, since they weakened the longer they were away.

I would really love to see something like the Cauldron-Born in D&D. However, I would not consider this treatment appropriate for skeletons, which are well established in D&D's history as the fragile, disposable fodder of undead armies. Better to create a new, more formidable class of undead, and then just say skeletons don't exist in that setting.

The closest I ever saw to something almost as evocative as the Cauldron-Born were the Fell from Fantasy Flight's Midnight campaign setting. In that world, the land itself is so corrupt that there is a good chance that the recently dead will rise - with a burning hunger for the flesh of the living.

A newly risen Fell is very similar to what it was in life, but must feed on the flesh of sentients periodically in order to keep from decaying. Fell of this sort are quite cunning, and even capable of passing for living - if they're careful to hide their injuries. However, if one of these creatures goes long enough between feedings, it degrades. The lesser Fell are basically slightly tougher versions of ghouls, zombies, and skeletons. Once they degrade, feeding keeps them at that level, but they can't ever return to the higher state. And even though they can no longer feed, the skeleton-type Fell have nothing left but the need to kill. And none of the heroes in the world of Midnight have the ability to turn undead, which makes the hordes of risen dead even scarier.

Unlike most undead in D&D, the Fell are downright f'ing creepy. They're an important element of the setting which helps to set the tone in Midnight. But that's really the only time I've seen the undead used in D&D as anything other than a mostly boring low-level threat. Which by all rights the undead shouldn't be, but are.

In standard D&D, you basically need wraiths to scare people.

 

[Hassassin]

What "elaborate rules?" All of the proposals I've seen so far are very simple. To date, they seem to be:

Let me add my proposal: half damage from piercing, double damage from bludgeoning.