# Is slashing/bludgeoning/piercing damage even needed?



## YRUSirius (May 31, 2012)

In this playtest there is only 1 occurence where the slashing/bludgeoning/piercing damage mechanic comes into play and this is the skeleton monster.

If this playtest package would have been a basic playset (covering level 1 to 3) I'd say that noting the type of weapon damage for EVERY weapon in EVERY monster statblock and on EVERY charactersheet is overkill and unnecessary just to accomodate 1 background mechanic for 1 monster.

It seems it would be better to move the slashing/bludgeoning/piercing mechanic into a module outside the core base game, because the core base game - atleast for now - only uses this mechanic with 1 monster out of 32.

I feel noting the weapon damage type is unnecessary for the majority of the core game.

The skeleton monster entry could have an entry like this instead:

Special quality: resistence against missile weapons, blade weapons, spears, etc.

Your thoughts on that?

-YRUSirius


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 31, 2012)

I would hate to see damage types go. It was a pain in the ass, that 4e dropped it. It really does not seem probematic to have one more word. Better than having untyped damage.


----------



## WizarDru (May 31, 2012)

I think you're overthinking it.  This is a playtest of a limited subset of the rules.  It's clear that damage types were not an important consideration for this round of playtesting, hence the reason that only the skeleton in the playtest pack actually has such a restriction.

If the skellie were the only monster who would have this restriciton and there would be no other uses of the system, I might agree with you.  I'm fairly sure, especially based on 3E experience, that it won't be...and thus it is setting a subsystem for larger use (but tht looks like it could be easily ignored by those who don't like it).


----------



## YRUSirius (May 31, 2012)

Yeah, but is this subset of rules even necessary for the base game?

-YRUSirius


----------



## Jeff Carlsen (May 31, 2012)

I don't see how having damage types is getting in the way. It's potentially useful information that's easily ignored when you don't need it.


----------



## YRUSirius (May 31, 2012)

Okay, but what is it providing in the base game? The base game could function without it. 

-YRUSirius


----------



## DEFCON 1 (May 31, 2012)

We don't know yet, because this isn't the _complete_ base game.  Skeletons might be the only monster right now that interacts with the weapon damage types... but let's wait and see what happens when like the golems appear for example.

I mean after all... right now the base game has no use for the spell schools they have listed on the spells either.  Doesn't mean they shouldn't be there.


----------



## imurphy943 (May 31, 2012)

I'd be fine with monster stat blocks using the terms (though I would love to see plain-talk descriptions instead), but I've always felt like maybe it's a bit much to put them on the equipment list. I don't need to be told that a spear pokes, a club hits, and a morningstar does both.


----------



## El Mahdi (May 31, 2012)

Yeah, it seems mostly unecessary for the core game, or just won't come into play very often.

But I can see it being applicable to all kinds of optional rules and modules.  It could be used for Critical Hit Charts, Weapon vs. Armor rules, Damage Reduction, etc.

Having it as part of the core makes it available for all these other applications, and can simply be ignored if one wants to.


----------



## The Red King (May 31, 2012)

YRUSirius said:


> Okay, but what is it providing in the base game? The base game could function without it.
> 
> -YRUSirius




I'm sure there are lots of things included in the play test that not everyone got to use.  Was it imperitive that they include all of it?  No, but if someone wanted to throw in a skeleton, then there you go.  For this play test they diddnt need to give us 30 some odd monsters, did they?  22 or 15 could have covered it just fine, right?  I don't get what has you so riled up.  If you don't like/want to use the weapon types, you can ignore them, right?



imurphy943 said:


> I'd be fine with monster stat blocks using the terms (though I would love to see plain-talk descriptions instead), but I've always felt like maybe it's a bit much to put them on the equipment list. I don't need to be told that a spear pokes, a club hits, and a morningstar does both.




It did seem to clutter the player sheets.  But once the full system is out, I bet that they remove most of it.  My guess is that they added it on because not everyone would have a copy of the rules handy.  My group was 7 players, and with 2 copies of everything, we still had to stop a few times to look stuff up.


----------



## steeldragons (May 31, 2012)

YRUSirius said:


> Yeah, but is this subset of rules even necessary for the base game?
> 
> -YRUSirius




I am inclined to say, "no." It isn't needed and very well should be shipped off to a side/optional rule/module that people can add or not as they please.

I've played with groups that took it seriously/wanted and groups that could give a damn...damage is damage, hit it enough, it's going down.

There's no reason, in my experience, that it needs to be a part of the "core/basic" rules.

An optional add on should suffice for whomever wants it.

--SD


----------



## YRUSirius (May 31, 2012)

I'm not riled up exactly.

This damage mechanic just caught my attention because it seems superfluous for the base experience. The last days Mike Mearls and his team seemed to stress that they tried to eliminate as many superfluous rules as possible to see how bare bones the base game could be. This rule seems like a good candidate for this too to me. You don't need to clutter up monster statblocks with piercing/slashing/bludgeoning - the PC most likely won't have resistances against this in the base game. They could design something for it, but I doubt that we'll see something like this in the 5E Basic Starter Set, so why keep the damage types in the Basic Starter Set then? It doesn't do much yet.

It's a lovely reminder for the 3E crowd that recognize that rule from 3E, yeah.  But would it do a lot in a possible 5E Basic Starter Set?

-YRUSirius


----------



## the Jester (May 31, 2012)

YRUSirius said:


> Okay, but what is it providing in the base game? The base game could function without it.
> 
> -YRUSirius




The base game could function without backgrounds, themes, variable damage for different weapons, etc. too. 

I think damage types are well worth having.


----------



## YRUSirius (May 31, 2012)

Okay, what do they do in the base game? 

-YRUSirius


----------



## Crazy Jerome (May 31, 2012)

It's counter-intuitive to someone not used to modular design, but very normal for a "core" system or framework to include "hooks" that mainly don't apply to anything much when used in the basic fashion. In software, engineering, and other such disciplines, such hooks are often somewhat hidden, to keep from confusing users. With a game, on paper, this isn't always possible. When you see a weapon listing or a monster listing or whatever, it's "guts" are hanging out there for everyone to see.

I fully expect there to be multiple bits in the core that serve no purpose whatsoever to someone playing a core-only game. Their only purpose will be to provide a place to let certain modules hook in more seamlessly to the the core.

Incidently, all prior versions of D&D have done a certain amount of "denormalization" of the design to make it more user-friendly.  That is, they'd do things like assume that X *logically* went over there, but then put it over here because that is the only place it affected the current system much.  When you write to a specific version or playstyle, this is often even the correct thing to do.  Don't confuse people with details or options that you aren't supporting anyway.  In Basic D&D for example, some of the rules language in the spells is ok there, even though you can somewhat glimpse the implied thinking behind it, which could have been made into a more generic rule.  Add a lot more spells and/or start supporting a 2E-style game, it's not so hot.  

OTOH, if you want people to swap modules, you have to think about when and where they swap them, and then make *that* obvious and easy--even when the obvious and easy choice for some groups is, "don't put anything there."


----------



## Stalker0 (May 31, 2012)

the Jester said:


> The base game could function without backgrounds, themes, variable damage for different weapons, etc. too.
> 
> I think damage types are well worth having.



The ops point is that why include a rule mechanic if that mechanic covers only very specific corner cases. A classes theme comes up early and often, if weapon damage types do not come up Often then it's not worth having

Now the catch is we have no idea how come weapon damage comes up since we have only a brief subset of rules


----------



## Leatherhead (Jun 1, 2012)

They tell you that this weapon cuts, that weapon smashes, and the other weapon stabs.

You aren't going to use a club to cut a rope, are you?

It's also allot shorter than listing every weapon type in the monster stat block for those edge cases.


----------



## imurphy943 (Jun 1, 2012)

> They tell you that this weapon cuts, that weapon smashes, and the other weapon stabs.



I know what they do. I just doubt that anyone needs to be told that (unless they genuinely have no idea what a falchion is).


----------



## Leatherhead (Jun 1, 2012)

imurphy943 said:


> I know what they do. I just doubt that anyone needs to be told that (unless they genuinely have no idea what a falchion is).




I am reminded of this.

There are oodles of weapons that people didn't know about before they started playing D&D. Keeping something like s/b/p around is an easy guideline for the new blood.


----------



## The Shadow (Jun 1, 2012)

What Crazy Jerome said, about modular design.

Also, there's no reason why other monsters can't make use of it.  Personally, I think the zombie (and indeed most corporeal undead) should be resistant to piercing too.  (Actually, I wouldn't mind making skeletons outright immune to it.)

Here's a question.  Incorporeal undead are presumably mostly ethereal, and thus take half damage.  (Interesting choice, that.)  Does that stack with resistance or not?  So if you have a ghost that happens to be resistant to piercing damage, does it take 1/4 damage?

EDIT:  Another possibility is that two halvings like that 'stack' into full immunity.  It would certainly be simpler.


----------



## Dalamar (Jun 1, 2012)

imurphy943 said:


> I know what they do. I just doubt that anyone needs to be told that (unless they genuinely have no idea what a falchion is).




I would think that it's equally obvious that Burning Hands deals fire damage, and there are only two creatures that interact with the damage type (troll and gray ooze). The gelatinous cube is immune to cold, but I'm not sure there's any way to deal cold damage in the playtest package.


----------



## arscott (Jun 1, 2012)

The real problem here is that we're discussing weapon damage type as though it was a separate thing from other damage types.  Sure, skeleton is the only place in the playtest where slashing type damage comes up, but other creatures are called out as having immunities or restistances to fire, cold, etc.

There's absolutely no reason why weapon damage needs to be a separate set of categories from energy damage.  Which means to remove them from the playtest is removing half of a system.


----------



## Walking Dad (Jun 1, 2012)

YRUSirius said:


> Okay, what do they do in the base game?
> 
> -YRUSirius



They avoid that possibly each type of ooze, zombie, skeleton etc has a three lines list of weapons they resist. And if they publish new weapons (like from an Asian background or Dark Sun) the have not to include a line with each of them that they count as which of the core weapons in respect of the resistance of ooze, zombie, skeleton etc

I'm very certain the inclusion of the type with the weapons in the book (I'm not sure it should be included on the sheet) will reduce the needed amount of writing over all and will lessen the confusion how a "new" weapon will work.

Edit: Also AD&D 2nd had an optional rule for different protection of armor, dependent on the weapon/damage type. Options like this are far easier to integrate if the base system already lists damage types for weapons.


----------



## YRUSirius (Jun 1, 2012)

It still feels so clumsy for the base game, atleast to me. 

-YRUSirius


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jun 1, 2012)

The Shadow said:


> What Crazy Jerome said, about modular design.
> 
> Also, there's no reason why other monsters can't make use of it.  Personally, I think the zombie (and indeed most corporeal undead) should be resistant to piercing too.  (Actually, I wouldn't mind making skeletons outright immune to it.)
> 
> ...



you don´t do half damage, you get disadvantage this time. Seems reasonable.
If you happen to stab a rib, it will be broken, but most times, you hit in between and do not a lot of damage...


----------



## imurphy943 (Jun 1, 2012)

What I said was that I have no problem putting weapon types on monster stat blocks, since they do help brevity, but I think it's a waste of space to also put the on the weapon lists.


----------



## Frostmarrow (Jun 1, 2012)

They could use this design space for different damage depending on if the last attack hit or not. Each weapon has three damages 1d6/1d6/1d6. The first is damage while recovering if the last attack was a miss. The second die is initial damage for the first (charge) attack, and the third damage is used when sustaining an attack. Example:

Spear 1d4/1d8/1d10
Dagger 1d4/1d4/1d12
Longsword 1d8/1d8/1d8
Battle Axe 1d6/1d10/1d10

Or some such.


----------



## GX.Sigma (Jun 1, 2012)

imurphy943 said:


> I know what they do. I just doubt that anyone needs to be told that (unless they genuinely have no idea what a falchion is).



Apparently the D&D design team have no idea what a falchion is, so there's an argument to be made. (Both 3e and 4e describe it as a large two-handed sword, but in reality it's a heavy, short, one-handed sword/knife.)


----------



## Larrin (Jun 1, 2012)

I think giving weapon damage a type is smart. In 4e, resisting weapon attacks wasn't simple, usually it became resist all, or specifically ranged/melee or calling out weapon attacks...blah.  I like weapons having a type of damage. 

  I'm less thrilled about weapons having three separate damage types.  B/P/S makes sense, and I agree that they are very different if you ever get to  experience them first hand, but unless its a benefit to the player to have three different types, I don't like it.  If the only thing weapon damage types gets used for is "your bow sucks against skeletons" then its not a good core mechanic.  Even if there is the occasional "your bow is good against the pin-cushion-beast" you'll find yourself punished more often than not, and then, BPS is a liability.

With other damage types, there is a viseral reaction to them, A fireball, a lightning bolt, ray of frost.  You can get behind them in your immagination, and even if everything resists fire, you still want to play a pyromancer.  If your cone of cold can freeze a salamander, but my scorching ray does half damage, I can buy that.  But when my sword can't smash a skeleton, but your stupid club can, I don't care about cutting edge  or trained technique or what-not, my three feet of steel has enough momentum to bludgeon with the best club out there.  

So, unless BPS will get some real support/fun/advantage for players, I would rather just have "physical" damage, and be done with it.


----------



## NotAYakk (Jun 1, 2012)

By giving weapon damage a type, you avoid saying "untyped damage" or "weapon damage" later on.  Ie, a spell that creates blades that slice: it now does "slashing damage".

You can see in 4e where they tried untyped damage from weapons, and it resulted in really stilted text sometimes.

It also means that we can have hooks that attach to weapon damage types just like there are hooks that attach to spell damage types.  Burning Hands doesn't need to do fire damage -- a sword doesn't need to do slashing damage.  But by having that hook there, we open up possible interactions.

We can have magical plate armor that gives you resistance to slashing damage, oozes that react to being cut by breaking into smaller oozes, paper monsters that are immune to piercing damage, etc.

Adding that after the fact, without there being rules asto what weapons do crushing/piercing/slashing damage, would be awkward.  And by making sure that all damage has a descriptive type, they do away with the annoyance of ever having rules talking about "untyped damage".


----------



## IanB (Jun 1, 2012)

imurphy943 said:


> I know what they do. I just doubt that anyone needs to be told that (unless they genuinely have no idea what a falchion is).




The vast majority of people probably have no idea what a falchion is.


----------



## Serendipity (Jun 1, 2012)

Damage types aren't really necessary or wanted as a function of core game design.  Certainly not where damage is generally defined as non-injury.   But I'd be opposed even if that weren't the case.  That level of granularity should be optional.


----------



## Dragongrief (Jun 2, 2012)

YRUSirius said:


> Okay, but what is it providing in the base game?




The same thing the energy types are... pseudo-realism.  Are they necessary?  Only if you want to allow effects based on it (if not, then they are pointless).

For example:  Place a basketball on the ground and take a hard downward swing at it with a sharp sword and a two-by-four.

_Using no damage type_ the ball is destroyed if you hit it hard enough with either implement.

_Using damage types_ the ball is ruptured by the sword.  The 2x4 however will likely result in you visiting the hospital with a concussion (conclusion based on real life observation).


----------



## Jeff Carlsen (Jun 2, 2012)

If the modules that utilize them weren't in the core books, you might have a point. But they almost certainly will be.

Plus, we already have at least one monster interacting with them, and this in the first playtest of the core rules. 

After due consideration, I consider damage types to be a core mechanic. It's far to handy of a mechanic not to have.


----------



## jadrax (Jun 2, 2012)

And again, I think it is something that is far easier to remove from the rules if you do not like it than it is to go back an add it in later if you realise you need it.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jun 2, 2012)

And on top of that... it's a single word.  That gets listed by the other weapon keywords in the weapons table like Light, or Two-Handed, or Range.  So its not like that space was going to be used for anything else... so including it does not actually cause any problems, other than just having to ignore it.

And its much easier to include those single words in the weapons table from the beginning that to have to have to include a list in an entire new book that now assigned those terms later on.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Jun 2, 2012)

Jeff Carlsen said:


> If the modules that utilize them weren't in the core books, you might have a point. But they almost certainly will be.
> 
> Plus, we already have at least one monster interacting with them, and this in the first playtest of the core rules.
> 
> After due consideration, I consider damage types to be a core mechanic. It's far to handy of a mechanic not to have.




Yep, the desire to take them out now is a classic case of "premature optimization".  This is exactly the same kind of wasted effort that a programmer does when they try to make a piece of code run a bit faster before they have determined if said piece of code will be in the final product.  

Make it work.  Make it usable.  Make it fast.  In that order.  Otherwise, you are wasting effort.


----------



## YRUSirius (Jun 3, 2012)

DEFCON 1 said:


> And on top of that... it's a single word.  That gets listed by the other weapon keywords in the weapons table like Light, or Two-Handed, or Range.  So its not like that space was going to be used for anything else... so including it does not actually cause any problems, other than just having to ignore it.




Well, have a look at the monster pdf. The weapon damage makes their attack a little bit "harder" to read for me cause it unnecessarily clutters up their description. Don't think that many of those monsters will fight skeletons. 

-YRUSirius


----------

