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

[mellored]

In previous editions, there was a lot more vulnerabilities, resistances, and just outright immunities to certain weapons. It was part of the game, knowing what monster was vulnerable to what. One side effect was that everyone just carried a bunch of weapons, and it could be overly punishing for new players who didn't know which one to use, as well as just making it more complex.

They removed the majority of it for 5e. But some iconic ones were kept, including skeletons. So at this point, it's mostly there for nostalgia.


Feel free to ignore it, or to embrace it and add more to other monsters.

 

[Jester David]

I believe originally skeletons resisted piercing and slashing, encouraging bludgeoning to be used.
With 4e, resistance to everything was phased out to in favour of vulnerability. So you were still encouraged to use heavy smashing weapons against the dry bone monsters, but the fighter with a rapier and bow isn't penalized.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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

It's based on the logic which underlies the tradition. Tradition, itself, is a lousy reason for anything. In this case, the reason that tradition was formed in the first place is still valid: skeletons are still mostly empty, without internal organs or anything, so bludgeoning weapons should still be more effective than slashing or piercing weapons. The rule has a good reason for being there.

It just wasn't executed as well as it could be. They should have given it resistance to slashing and piercing weapons.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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?

If you want to address the underlying reality, then the main benefit of many types of armor is that it spreads the impact out over a larger area, so you just get blunt trauma instead of being cut. If a skeleton was wearing padded leather or anything like that, then an impact from a sword would be just as effective as an impact from a hammer, and you'd be justified in removing their vulnerability.

For the record, Treants are resistant to bludgeoning and piercing damage. You're supposed to use an axe against them.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

If you have an all skeleton campaign, your players need to adjust. Maybe strength fighters with hammers are prevalent then.
You could also use non vulnerable skeletons. Some necromancer may have found a way to reinforce the bones.

 

[Prakriti]

You could also use non vulnerable skeletons. Some necromancer may have found a way to reinforce the bones.

Absolutely. After centuries of research and toil, necromancers have finally hit upon a more resilient version of the skeleton. They call it a zombie.

 

[Staffan]

Yeah, 3E made them DR5/Bludgeoning.

And then you had the glass zombies that showed up in one Eberron adventure who had DR 5/bludgeoning until they hit half hp, at which point the glassy outer shell had been smashed revealing the softer zombie body within, and they instead gained DR 5/slashing.

 

[schnee]

It was part of the game, knowing what monster was vulnerable to what. One side effect was that everyone just carried a bunch of weapons, and it could be overly punishing for new players who didn't know which one to use, as well as just making it more complex.

It's also what made the game interesting - you have to adopt different tactics for different fights sometimes, instead of having one hammer and everything being a nail. And it forces you to be adaptable, which, when mastered, feels cool.

It's just another way to add more permutations to the game to keep it fresh.

 

[Derren]

In previous editions, there was a lot more vulnerabilities, resistances, and just outright immunities to certain weapons. It was part of the game, knowing what monster was vulnerable to what. One side effect was that everyone just carried a bunch of weapons, and it could be overly punishing for new players who didn't know which one to use, as well as just making it more complex.

They removed the majority of it for 5e. But some iconic ones were kept, including skeletons. So at this point, it's mostly there for nostalgia.


Feel free to ignore it, or to embrace it and add more to other monsters.

Those were good times. And really, using the appropriate weapon depending on the enemy is the smart thing to do and also happened in real life a lot. A sword against someone in plate armor? Only as last resort. A hammer against a wild boar? No chance.
Sadly it became apparent that many players were glued to their uber sword of doom the DMs supplied them with and cried foul when they were better off using a different one. The extreme specialization you could do in 3E didn't help either.

 

[Eubani]

Tradition which has been a knife held at the designers throat.