GX.Sigma
Adventurer
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?
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?