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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SKyOdin" data-source="post: 5792191" data-attributes="member: 57939">Am I the only person who has never liked the breakdown of physical damage types as it has always been done? The Slashing/Piercing/Bludgeoning set appears everywhere (in large parts due to being used in D&D), but I have never really liked it. It has too many problematic elements:1) Swords can reasonably be used to either slash or stab a target, but are usually forced to do one kind of damage or the other.2) Axes and razor blades both do slashing damage, even though their general properties and way they do damage are completely different.3) The question of what kind of damage a weapon does occasionally leads to weirdness such as slashing/bludgeoning damage, which is confusing in how it interacts with damage resistance.4) Unusual weapons such as whips don't quite fit into the three categories that well.I do recognize the general desirability of having different weapon damage types though. I just wonder if there is a better way to break it down. One though I have tossed around is to generally break weapon damage down into two types:Impact Damage: Weapons such as axes, maces, or hammers that do damage through massive force that can break bones and shatter steel. Good against hardened targets.Blade Damage: Weapons such as swords, spears, and arrows that do damage by penetrating weak points. Good against soft targets.Of course, even this division doesn't solve all of those problems.</blockquote>

Verification