Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lackhand" data-source="post: 7225942" data-attributes="member: 36160">I think 5e could have merged bludgeoning, piercing and slashing damages into one type -- "weapon".There's at least three more modifiers that apply to lots of weapon damage, much more frequently than the distinction between piercing and bludgeoning: magical, silver, and adamantine. Those don't even get damage types, and that seems particularly silly to me given how many monsters give a four clause predicate for the resistance line.I think bludgeoning, piercing and slashing could instead have been weapon properties without having to be bolted into the damage system, given that. Actually, I'd've gone even further; sure, skeletons could be "vulnerable bludgeoning" -- but they could be "vulnerable weapons with the heavy property" instead, just as reasonably.But without listing "this weapon cuts things", I don't think you could ever get trolls' loathsome limbs or oozes to work right -- I can't think of any other useful damage types that would have that same sort of trick/split behavior. I'm not sure I need it, frankly -- as puzzles go, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me, since like a maul feels like it should split an ooze, but it doesn't.For me, Trolls and Oozes would be about finesse -- missile and finesse-based attacks don't trigger these effects, strength-based melee attacks do. It means that a pick or spear could "knock off" a trolls arm (bad!), but an arrow or javelin wouldn't, at least.</blockquote>

Verification