Weapon Damage Types - DDN Blog

[avin]

Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

Another blog entry, another poll.

 

[kitsune9]

Avin, what's your take? I'm thinking along the lines of 5/x, but I'm flexible if they want to go back to piercing weapons do half damage or something like that.

 

[avin]

I'm used to GURPS and different weapon types, so I like it.

Wouldn't mind a 5/X, for sure. Any decision here should be modular, of course. DMs who want to just ignore weapon types or reductions must have the option.

 

[Hassassin]

There are about a million types of magical damage and only 3-4 weapon. Cull the former first.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I really liked 3.0 type resistances.
Really.

I had no problems with investing in a secondary weapon. But I did not like the fighter beeing proficient equally with all kinds of weapons.

5/bludgeoning allowed the cleric to shine in those kinf of combats. It also allowed the fighter to shine if he did not invest solely in a single weapon.

Zombies having 5/slashing in 3.5 however was contraproductive.

On the other Hand I could imagine, that instead of 5/bludgeoning it would even work better with vulnerable 5 (bludgeoning, radiant) if undead have as many hp as normal monsters.

In 3.0 it worked well with DR, because undead had no con and generally low hp.

 

[Cadfan]

I voted for physical only, but I'd be ok with the piercing/slashing/bludgeoning system IF AND ONLY IF it came up often enough to matter.

Its stupid to have a weapon type subsystem and barely use it. Its a waste of brain space.

 

[Hassassin]

I voted for physical only, but I'd be ok with the piercing/slashing/bludgeoning system IF AND ONLY IF it came up often enough to matter.

Its stupid to have a weapon type subsystem and barely use it. Its a waste of brain space.

Crit tables?

 

[BobTheNob]

5/bludgeoning allowed the cleric to shine in those kinf of combats. It also allowed the fighter to shine if he did not invest solely in a single weapon.

Zombies having 5/slashing in 3.5 however was contraproductive.

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).

 

[Kingreaper]

I think that using DR/x for everything is a bit limiting, and tends to weaken weapon-using classes.

If you're going to use damage types, don't just have resistances, have vulnerabilities too.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I find weapon damage type to be a pain with little gain, and the multiplication of magic types to be a pain as well. "Physical" for weapons is sufficient, and we can probably reduce all the magic types to a maximum of 5-6.