D&D 5E Why Are Skeletons Weak To Bludgeoning Weapons?

[GX.Sigma]

I mean, I get it. They don't have internal organs, so you can't stab them or slice them up. All you can do is smash their bones. But why, in terms of game mechanics, is this one type monster weak to this one type of weapon?

It would make sense if other types of monsters were weak to other types of weapons, but (as far as I can tell) they're not. It's just skeletons, and it's just bludgeoning weapons. I can't even imagine a monster that's specifically weak to slashing damage. Can you?

It would make sense if bludgeoning weapons were weaker than other weapons against most enemies but strong against skeletons. But no, bludgeoning weapons have equivalent stats to slashing and piercing weapons (ignoring the greatsword; that's a separate issue).

Why do we even have the bludgeoning/piercing/slashing distinction in the rules at all? Is that distinction even used anywhere other than skeletons being weak to bludgeoning weapons?

This is really bugging me. I'm starting a campaign in a post-apocalyptic setting, and I want to use a lot of skeletons. How can I deal with this imbalance? Why would a player use a longsword when a warhammer is exactly the same except for a free "+100% damage to most enemies" property?

Tactically, everyone ought to be using blunt weapons all the time. But if they do that, now all my monsters have half as many hit points as they're supposed to. CR 1/4 skeletons become more like CR 1/8 skeletons, and so on.

Right now, my solution to this is just to forget the damage types. Skeletons just have X hit points, and weapons just deal "weapon damage." Any other ideas?

 

[ArchfiendBobbie]

It has to do with human biology.

Basically, human bones tend to be easy to crush with blunt weapons. Animated skeletons even easier, since they don't have all of the skin, muscle, and fat to absorb the blow. And human bones don't necessarily age well outside of the body, depending on local weather conditions, so they can be even more brittle than when the person was alive.

But, yeah. Pretty much, it's reflecting how easy it is to turn someone's skeleton to dust using a hammer.

To balance it out... Just use a ton of low-CR skeletons. Or mix in some zombies.

 

[Morrus]

I'm trying to recall how previous editions handled it, but I can't remember. I want to say that it used to be just that they took half damage from piercing weapons, and weren't specially vulnerable to bludgeoning. That makes more sense to me, anyway.

 

[cbwjm]

Not enough calcium in their diet.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I'm trying to recall how previous editions handled it, but I can't remember. I want to say that it used to be just that they took half damage from piercing weapons, and weren't specially vulnerable to bludgeoning. That makes more sense to me, anyway.

I think third edition gave them something like DR 5/bludgeoning, and I think zombies had DR 5/slashing to kind of balance that out. Second edition didn't have a codified language for that sort of thing, but gave an ad hoc half damage to skeletons from edged or piercing weapons.

As for why it shows up in 5E, as it does, my best guess is just design error. Since the monsters were translated over a period of time, and skeletons were probably one of the first to go through the process, the designer involved probably thought that a lot of things were going to end up with resistances and vulnerabilities; and it simply didn't turn out to be the case. Another example of this "early installment weirdness" is probably how lycanthropes are immune to non-silver or non-magical weapons, where almost everything else in the book just has resistance.

If I wanted to be more generous, then I might say that skeletons and lycanthropes are included as they are as an intentional guide for DMs to design their own monsters. By having these traits, it kind of tells the DM that it's okay to include those sorts of things for their own monsters.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

This is really bugging me. I'm starting a campaign in a post-apocalyptic setting, and I want to use a lot of skeletons. How can I deal with this imbalance? Why would a player use a longsword when a warhammer is exactly the same except for a free "+100% damage to most enemies" property?

If you were starting the ice world campaign with enemies vulnerable to fire, you'd probably be thinking about fire bolt being too strong and nobody ever having a good reason to choose poison spray. Just reskin some monsters as skeletons and you're good to go. It saves you the headache of discovering at some point in the future that you'd need different weapon damage types for something else.

 

[Gilthanis]

I thought most all undead were susceptible to bludgeoning damage......

Sent from my Nexus 7 using EN World mobile app

 

[ArchfiendBobbie]

Yeah, 3E made them DR5/Bludgeoning.

2E made skeletons take half damage from non-bludgeoning damage.

Not certain about 1E.

But, in general, skeletons have a long tradition of being weak to bludgeoning in DnD compared to other weapons.

 

[Ashkelon]

As with many of the odd rules in 5e, they are entirely based in tradition as opposed to logic or elegant game design.

 

[Ganymede81]

It has to do with lore.

When the demon lord Orcus called forth the first animated skeletons, he boldly proclaimed that no blade could harm them when they had no flesh to cut. Kord, eager to rise to challenges, responded, "The fist of Kord has no blade!" He then laid a generational curse on all animated skeletons that made them susceptible to the crushing blows of blunt weapons.