D&D 5E Damage Types Are Lame

[The Crimson Binome]

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.

I think what we're getting at is that older editions didn't lack sufficient language to differentiate between slashing and piercing damage. Slashing damage was still a thing back then, which allowed straw golems to exist (and behave as they should). It was just less organized than it is now.

 

[Azzy]

I think what we're getting at is that older editions didn't lack sufficient language to differentiate between slashing and piercing damage.

Then that can really be said of any role-playing game that has weapons—swords inherently slash (and/or pierce), clubs inherently do blunt-force trauma, etc.

 

[schnee]

Then that can really be said of any role-playing game that has weapons—swords inherently slash (and/or pierce), clubs inherently do blunt-force trauma, etc.

You have no idea how many arguments came out of that lack of clarity or definition.

"But my arrows are broad-head, so they do slashing!"
"A Katana does a draw-cut, that's not really slashing, it's more elegant, so that resistance doesn't apply!"

I wish I were kidding.

 

[Azzy]

You have no idea how many arguments came out of that lack of clarity or definition.

"But my arrows are broad-head, so they do slashing!"
"A Katana does a draw-cut, that's not really slashing, it's more elegant, so that resistance doesn't apply!"

I wish I were kidding.

Huh. Never happened with the people I played with or DMed for. Sorry you had those experiences.

 

[schnee]

Thanks. Yeah, there is a time in many (if not most) kid's lives where they're pushing boundaries, and the world is a game to see what they can get away with, and logic is merely a tool to twist and distort to 'win'. It's somewhere between 13-18, and I played an awful lot during that time.

If people get into the game when older, or the game is run by more mature friends, it can be fine. But D&D is a really, really broadly-appealing game.

 

[JonnyP71]

Huh. Never happened with the people I played with or DMed for. Sorry you had those experiences.

Ditto.

In fact I've just converted a 'modern' group to playing 1E and we don't have these problems now.

It's up to the DM, always was, and still can be.

 

[Staccat0]

In my game we only slightly simplified the underwater combat rules to say that only piercing weapons don't have disadvantage underwater (the official rules are basically saying the same thing) and it made a few combat scenarios in our first level bullywug Adventure a little more interesting.

I'm not sure why the official rules give a short list of melee piercing weapons instead. Either way, I think it's always interesting to drag a PC underwater.

Anyway, there are a few fringe scenarios outside of resistance and whatnot where damage types matter.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

I like the idea that finesse and blunt do not go together.