Weapon Damage Types - DDN Blog

I really like the idea of weapon damage types, partly because I've seen them put to very good use in several videogames that treated them the same way as elemental damage types like lightning, ice, and fire. They make weapon attacks more interesting, and give distinct advantages and disadvantages to different weapons. The important part, though, is making sure that enemies have either vulnerabilities or resistances to the different types on a regular basis.

Still, I've never really been fond of the system of piercing, slashing, and bludgeoning damage. It feels incomplete and inaccurate. There is a big difference between the way an axe deals damage and the way a sword deals damage. There is a big difference between the way a rapier pierces and a heavy war-hammer (pick, whatever you want to call it) pierces. The difference between piercing and slashing gets a little vague for the tip of a broadsword or an arrow. It's something of an open question if guns even fall into one of those categories.

I almost wonder if it would be reasonable to either create more types (giving the big heavy weapons like axes and maces a separate type from lighter weapons like swords and quarterstaves), to consolidate types, or to even stack types so that a single weapon might use multiple qualities (so that an axe is both slashing and whatever a "heavy" type would be).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I'm all for DR X/Y, but only if they flesh out the damage types properly. Hacking should be a damage type, in addition to slashing, piercing and bludgeoning (which I maintain should be "bashing" or "crushing", just to get them all to "ing"). Axes, for example, should definitely be hacking, not slashing. Skeletons would have DR 5/Hacking or Bludgeoning.

Logically, a longsword or axe (for example) wouldn't really lose any effectiveness against, say, a skeleton; the main style using a weapon like that makes a hacking motion, bringing the full weight of the blade behind it, instead of being a light slash, like a scimitar or the like. There's just as much brute force behind a hack with a heavy bladed weapon as there is to a club or hammer.

Also, make damage types on weapons make sense. Longswords can deal hacking, slashing or piercing, depending on the way you swing them. There's a reason they're the weapon of choice for most warriors; versatility. Rapiers have just as sharp an edge as any other blade, though they lack in weight; give them piercing or slashing. And so on.
 

The real question is what is the point?
What effects/properties do we want?
I see 3 aspects of this: The wielder, The weapon, and the target.


If we add damage types to make the wielder interesting then we need to have as many damage types as we expect the wielder to care about. If the wield doesn't care about what weapon he wields, then we need no damage types. If the fact the the wield needs to deal weapons damage then we just need physical or weapon damage. If the wielder is expected to have back up weapons,then we can go back to slashing, piercing, bludgeoning.

If we add damage types to make the weapon interesting then we need to see what other attributes weapons have. If we have 4e style feats and weapon group focus, then we don't need damage types to keep weapons fun. If we go back to 3e or earlier style weapon, we will need them to keep weapon from being bland.

If we add damage types to make the target interesting then physical damage types are necessary equal to the amount of its usage. If only a few targets have resistances and weakness to weapons and certain types of weapons; the we should use option 3.

I don't want weapon only damage resistance (target) all over the place nor do I want golf bags of weapons (wielder focus). I want the focus on the weapon. I want weapons to have significant attributes.

If they bring back weapon groups and weapon properties, no weapon damage types. Let monster traits handle it

If they do not bring back weapon groups and weapon properties, yes to weapon damage types.
 

Sorry, didnt quite understand that. You were ok with skeletons being 5/bludgeoning but considered 5/slashing on zombies counterproductive. Why is that? It it just due to cleric weapon restrictions?

Anyway, I voted for multiple types. Totally agree with it and always have, even to the point of 2e having adjusted AC ratings (DR, AC...however you want to play it).
Yes.

It is important to play into the iconic D&D things. You should not be forced to have a variety of weapons as a cleric to fight your favourite enemies. You just should have the advantage there.
If you are fighting undead of all kinds, you should be glad if you have a cleric nearby, or a fighter that uses hammer.

Keep those advantages low (vulnerable 5 bludgeoning seems reasonable, as well as resist piercing 5 for skeletons maybe) so that it is possible to fight them, but
unbalance the game a little bit to make it more diverse and less bland.

4e is not bad here, as different powers of monsters make the fight more diverse, but such an approach with simple resists and vulnerabilities can be a very simple method to tell us:

don´t shoot at skeletons with arrows, at least use swords, but even better: use a hammer!
 

I still prefer "takes double damage from bludgeoning" instead of "resists slashing and piercing". Makes you feel super awesome for having a different weapon ready, instead of useless for having the wrong weapon.

Cheers,
 

I'd like it to be a module....as it is overly complicated for entry into the game....and I'm all about the basic rules being about getting more people into this hobby.
 

I still prefer "takes double damage from bludgeoning" instead of "resists slashing and piercing". Makes you feel super awesome for having a different weapon ready, instead of useless for having the wrong weapon.

Cheers,

Considering how many complaints about combat length there have been... anything that reduces a monster's damage is not solving the problem. So I'd rather it work as Gil says, double damage (or max damage, or Vulnerable) than any sort of Resistance.
 

Does it really make sense to make them vulnerable though? Clubbing a living person in the head should always be at least as damaging as clubbing an animated skeleton in the head. Chopping a living person with an axe should always be at least as damaging as chopping a treant with an axe.
 

Does it really make sense to make them vulnerable though? Clubbing a living person in the head should always be at least as damaging as clubbing an animated skeleton in the head.
Without any muscles to keep their head from falling off?
That's going to make a difference.

Chopping a living person with an axe should always be at least as damaging as chopping a treant with an axe.
And if HP=Damage, a treant is going to have a much, much larger number of HP, so the vulnerability works.


(setting aside the fact that HP != damage in D&D for a second)
 

Considering how many complaints about combat length there have been... anything that reduces a monster's damage is not solving the problem. So I'd rather it work as Gil says, double damage (or max damage, or Vulnerable) than any sort of Resistance.

Seconded. Though I can also see some possible design space with other properties that might make weapons interesting (similar to the heavy/light divide). But please do not have bludgeon/slashing/piercing merely so that we can have DR that varies over physical weapons. That's complication looking for a reason to justify itself, and falling short.

For increased damage, however, I'd prefer that it not be double or max or any other thing that made it well nigh impossible to ignore in a big fight. I'd rather it be something like increased crit damage. That sword may smash that skeleton just fine, but if the mace hits it just right, the skeleton is down. That also gives the fighter with the longsword and the backup mace an interesting decision if his longsword is a bit better normally--be more consistent with the longsword against those skeletons or use the mace for the potential spikes in damage. As it is with DR, it is either a no-brainer, or one of those deals where you feel ill because you don't have the right weapon.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top