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.
The question comes down to what is more important... the so-called "logic" behind comparing the damage the skeleton takes versus a human, or the speed at which all combat gets taken care of?
A skeleton with DR5 / bludgeoning does imply that they are less susceptible to slashing and piercing weapons than a human, and are just as susceptible to bludgeoning. A skeleton with Vulnerable 5 Bludgeoning is just as susceptible to slashing and piercing as a human, and more susceptible to bludgeoning. This shift definitely leans the skeleton to being "weaker" than the human conceptually. For those players for whom "verisimilitude" is very, very important... that logical gap might be a big deal. But is that SO big a deal that it's worth removing 5 points of damage each and every attack (that isn't with a bludgeoning weapon) and slowing down combat... just to achieve that verisimilitude?
Personally... I'd say 'no'. I'd rather they just up the AC of the skeleton a couple points compared to the human in order to imply their resistance to weapons, than remove huge chunks of damage that gets done to it. It'd keep combat running faster in the long run methinks.
Last edited: