Skeletons and the Need for Bludgeoning Weapons

[steeldragons]

OR...or...just thinkin'/typin' out loud here...

We do away completely with DR and "weapon damage types/slahing/piercing/bludgeoning" entirely in the new game?

You roll. You hit? Roll damage. Done.

<dives under the desk and waits for the world to come crashing down upon his ears and..er...eyes>


--SD

 

[Floyd Hamilton]

But if you read the skeleton in the 3.5 monster manual it states it has DR5 bludgeoning weapons not cutting or piercing and I find that a joke

 

[Celebrim]

3.0 had it half damage from non-bludgeoning weapons. Slashing attacks were still effective, but not as effective. 3.5 had the problem of trying to make DR too unified of a mechanic. 5e would in theory handle this better by just giving advantage or disadvantage against certain kinds of damage.

I personally think DR is great when used appropriately, but the biggest problem with it in 3.X is that it scaled up too much. I'd much rather see DR X/5 than DR X/10 or D X/30.

I tend to scale up 'by 5's' rather than 'by 10's', and I retain the 3.0 DR +1/5, +2/10, +3/15, etc. rather than 3.5's toolbox approach of something like DR 30/magic and good.

 

[Random Bystander]

Personally, I feel that Skeletons should be vulnerable to Otto's Irresistible Dance.

I am less sure about any of the other questions, although I admit to liking the simplicity of a high hit point total, and "Vulnerability 5 (Bludgeoning)".