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

[thethain]

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.

I think it is more of a fact skeletons have traditionally been weaker to bludgeoning, and making them resistant to the other types of damage raised their CR beyond the desired level.

As for werewolves, I think since they removed damage reduction as a standard concept, a DR 10/silver translates to immunity to non-silver weapons much more than resistance. I mean comparatively a level 5 fighter might be hitting for 2d6+4 damage.. or 1 damage on average, vs if they made it resistance, they would be hitting for 5 damage on average, immunity is far closer than resistance, And fits the mythology of werewolves being nigh unstoppable without silver weapons.

 

[Horwath]

Because it was easier and shorter to write that they have resistance to all other type of damage.

 

[Mercule]

I think it is more of a fact skeletons have traditionally been weaker to bludgeoning, and making them resistant to the other types of damage raised their CR beyond the desired level.

As for werewolves, I think since they removed damage reduction as a standard concept, a DR 10/silver translates to immunity to non-silver weapons much more than resistance. I mean comparatively a level 5 fighter might be hitting for 2d6+4 damage.. or 1 damage on average, vs if they made it resistance, they would be hitting for 5 damage on average, immunity is far closer than resistance, And fits the mythology of werewolves being nigh unstoppable without silver weapons.

Agreed. I still prefer the idea of of skeletons being tough against non-blunt weapons vs. weak against blunt. Unless, of course, the intent was to also have them strong against fire, cold, lightning, radiant, etc. In that case, yeah, they're just tough (i.e. high hit points) with a specific thing against which they aren't so tough. If they intent wasn't to make them resistant to, say, radiant damage, then they should have made them 1d8 HD and given a list of resistances. Ultimately, it works out pretty much the same way and is really just a question of aesthetics.

For werewolves, I kinda like the idea of also giving them resistance against B/S/P attacks that aren't silvered. Note that I didn't specify non-magic. I've never really cared for a +1 sword being a universal tool to dispatch anything with materials requirements. In previous editions, it was kludgy to have the +1 sword be worth using, but not as great as a dedicated werewolf hunter might use, even w/o magic. It's a hair that only needs split for certain styles of games, but I like it.

Because it was easier and shorter to write that they have resistance to all other type of damage.

That didn't stop them for other monster entries.

 

[Kalshane]

There are definitely more than just werewolves that flat-out have immunity to non-magical weapons, though resistance is definitely more common. As others have said, it's likely the fact that "You can't hurt a werewolf at all unless you use silver" is so iconic that they made it immunity.

I agree with [MENTION=6874561]thethain[/MENTION], the decision to go with Vulnerability to bludgeoning over resistance to slashing and piercing likely comes down to CR calculations.


If you want to use a lot of skeletons in your game, look at converting some of the variants from 4E and Pathfinder (Burning Skeletons, Bloody Skeletons, etc) so it's not just "grab your hammer and get to crushing" all the time.

 

[Li Shenron]

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

As logic or elegant as boring can be, if you ask me.

At least this feature makes skeleton slightly different than the standard bag of hp.

 

[MechaPilot]

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.

Bolded for emphasis.

I don't think emptiness of the skeleton is what matters. I think the idea is that there's a lack of flesh and muscle between the blunt impact and the bone.

 

[Caliban]

I guess they wanted Skeletons to be easier to kill if you have a bludgeoning weapon (vulnerability) rather than harder to kill if you don't (Resistance to everything except bludgeoning).

It does leave room for "upgraded" skeletons that have the resistance to non-bludgeoning while remaining vulnerable to bludgeoning, then a further with just the resistance to non-bludgeoning.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I don't think emptiness of the skeleton is what matters. I think the idea is that there's a lack of flesh and muscle between the blunt impact and the bone.

I was actually para-phrasing the Monster Manual on that point. The declared reason for why swords didn't do as much damage to skeletons in AD&D was because they were mostly empty.

I guess it could be because edged weapons have a much smaller surface area, so you're not likely to get as solid of a hit as if you're swinging something with a broad striking surface? It's easy enough to imagine thrusting a spear into a skeleton and not really hitting anything, but that seems like it would point to an AC modifier against edged weapons. It could also be because edged weapons inflict damage by bleeding and puncturing internal organs (which has always been the reason for why giants and dragons have so many HP, regardless of how you treat HP for PCs), and skeletons aren't susceptible to bleeding or having their organs punctured.

 

[schnee]

IMO a big axe or a claymore would be OK, it's the smaller slashing weapons and thin stabby things like knives and rapiers that wouldn't do much.

In AD&D didn't skeletons make bladed weapons only do 1hp of damage? I don't have my books any more.

 

[Kalshane]

IMO a big axe or a claymore would be OK, it's the smaller slashing weapons and thin stabby things like knives and rapiers that wouldn't do much.

In AD&D didn't skeletons make bladed weapons only do 1hp of damage? I don't have my books any more.

I know the 2E Dragonlance boxset listed skeletons as only taking 1pt of damage from slashing and piercing weapons (while the 2E Monstrous Compendium listed it as half damage.) I don't recall what 1E was, as I only played in one 1E campaign and never DMed.