D&D 5E Damage Types Are Lame

[ro]

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?

 

[cmad1977]

Yawn.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Illithidbix]

I actually made a list of every reference I could find to bludgeoning, slashing or piercing damage on this thread:

Mostly I think they exist due to heritage and mostly skeletons mostly wanting to be bashed rather than stabbed... because it's their big monster thing.

PLAYERS HANDBOOK:
Can't find any relevant class abilities or spells aside the Fiend Pact Warlock's Fiendish Resilience gives Resistance to one damage type. Bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage are all valid choices.

Even fighting underwater specifies disadvantage unless using:
Melee: Dagger, javelin, shortsword, spear, or trident
Ranged: Crossbow, a net, or a weapon that is thrown like a javelin (including a spear, trident, or dart)
Which is almost entirely a list of piercing weapons but still is *not all piercing weapons*

DUNGEON MASTER'S GUIDE
Again*very little but I haven't looked that closely at the magic items.

Armour of Vulnerability.

Objects (Page. 247): Damage type mentioned as possible relevant when damaging objects.
It gives the*example of bludgeoning weapons being good for smashing things but not for cutting rope.
But no real rules beside "DM discretion".


MONSTER MANUAL

I can find a grand total of eight monsters that care about slashing, piercing or bludgeoning*damage.

Ice Mephit
Vulnerable to bludgeoning.

Oozes:
Black Pudding: Immune to slashing
Ochre Jelly: Immune to Slashing

Rakasha
Vulnerable to piercing from magic weapons wielded by good creatures!
(Oh intersectionism! I believe due to the older edition rules about them being killed by bolts with Bless cast on them)

Treant
Resistant to bludgeoning and piercing.
(So full damage from slashing)

Trolls
Loathsome Limbs variant rules when taking slashing damage.

Skeleton
Vulnerable to bludgeoning
(Note, unlike earlier editions it is not resistant to slashing or piercing)

Xorn
Resistant to piercing and slashing from nonmagical weapons that aren't adamantine.

So brief summary.

Bludgeoning
Good vs: Xorn, Skeletons, Ice Mephits
Bad vs: Treants.

Piercing
Good vs: Rakasha if also magic and you're good-aligned.
Bad vs: Treant, Xorn (unless magical)

Slashing
Good vs: Treant, Loathsome Limb Trolls (depending on what happens!)
Bad vs: Black pudding, Orhre Jelly, Xorn (unless magical)

 

[Morrus]

Yawn.

If you're not interested in a thread, don't post in it. That was just rude.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The examples in the Monster Manual form the foundation for what DMs can include at their own table. By including the different damage types, and examples of how a monster can be resistant or vulnerable to some but not others, it sets a precedent for how those types of monsters will work when they are designed. 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).

 

[Warmaster Horus]

I remember when there was just hp in damage. Yeah, we could have a lot more proliferation of resistances and damage types but that complexity would come at a price. I'm just glad there are damage descriptors now.

 

[WarpedAcorn]

I get what you are saying. I would really like to see more creatures with Resistances and Immunities, but have those creatures countered with Vulnerabilities. As a player, I think its super fun to find the right tool for the job and have a reason to carry more than just a Longsword and a Dagger.

 

[ro]

I get what you are saying. I would really like to see more creatures with Resistances and Immunities, but have those creatures countered with Vulnerabilities. As a player, I think its super fun to find the right tool for the job and have a reason to carry more than just a Longsword and a Dagger.

Yeah. I feel like the developers just decided to slack off in monster creation when it came to damage types. I wonder why?

Is there an uncomplicated homebrew way to add these to monster stats, or does every single monster need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis?

 

[Oofta]

I kind of miss the days of arrows having little or no effect on skeletons, but 3.5 got really carried away. It was to the point where you started looking like this guy:




I think there's a happy medium in there somewhere.

 

[schnee]

I get what you are saying. I would really like to see more creatures with Resistances and Immunities, but have those creatures countered with Vulnerabilities. As a player, I think its super fun to find the right tool for the job and have a reason to carry more than just a Longsword and a Dagger.

Well, in a way, it is - if you use the wrong weapon, the hit points are doubled.

It just doesn't reward you with the feeling of 'I did MORE damage!' like a vulnerability does.