Damage Types [Archive] - Wizards Community

Damage Types [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Prescient
12-30-04, 05:38 PM Can a slashing weapon pierce? Or a piercing weapon slash?
This kind of diffrentiation makes sense to me as some enemies are resilient to some types of damage, like skeletons and piercing attacks. However, I have a vast history in the martial arts and in most cases a sword can do all types of damage. A long sword, for instance, can slash, pierce and bludgeon, if you use the flat end. A katana can bludgeon much more easily by using the flat edge and a wakizashi is primarily used in the offhand, for those using Musashi's style, and pierces as often as stabbing.
Mostly my argument is to rectify some weapon decisions for myself. I want to use either the short sword or the rapier for my character. Both are piercing weapons, according to the core book, but short swords are, realistically, very versatile and rapiers began with a cutting edge. It wasn't until much later that rapiers lost thier edge in favor of a round shaft, even then it was used primarily for dueling, not for war. In war most rapiers still had a cutting edge.
I have no problem with following the rules that use different types of damage for weapons, it is true that Katanas are better at slashing than piercing and bludgeoning, but my problem comes with the lack of options. If my character uses a rapier, assuming the rules, then I can't even cut rope. What happened to the days of Zorro when he would cut the rope of a chandelier and use one end to swing into his enemy while dropping the chandelier on the minions behind him as he proceeded to slash a Z into the flesh of his most hated enemies?
Take a more recent example, the movie Hero, starring Jet Li. The sword that he used would be considered a longsword, in chinese terms, but those swords, as with their European counterparts, were used to pierce as often, if not more often, than they were used to slash.

Sorry for being long winded, I know I could alter the rules but I was hoping on finding something in the rules that I missed. Thanks :)
shakedown47
12-30-04, 05:48 PM Well, to me the damage types reflect what the weapon's principle use is, i.e. what kind of hit the averge attack would be. For purposes of overcoming damage reduction, it's a stretch to think that a longsword wouldn't pierce as well as a rapier but not really. If for nothing else, it's just a mechanic. The same way that gaining HP is just a measure of a character getting better at fighting and avoiding blows and shrugging off minor damage, not actually getting healthier and healthier. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense in literal terms, but the designers put it in there for a reason. No you didn't miss any rules or misinterpret anything, that's just how it is. If you want to change it you're gonna have to house-rule it.
Prescient
12-30-04, 06:03 PM Kind of dissapointing that such a detailed orriented game would over look something like this. Thanks for your help though :)
shakedown47
12-30-04, 06:31 PM I hope it's not that disappointing to you. It is a very detailed game, with stats for obscure knowledge like how far a horse could gallop in a day, relative prices for goods and services, how much cargo a boat can reasonably hold, social and economic trends by population and location. Basically, the boring stuff that would take a long time to find out.

As for damage types, they are simplified to streamline one of the most common occurences in the game: combat and defense. It's only a mechanic, as I said before, it's up to you and your players to use your own imaginations and brains to use it. I don't think the writers just skipped or glossed over the damage types, I think they intentionally made them so cut and dry to make everything easier for the players. You seem to know a fair amount about weapons, so you may assign your own values to them without terribly upsetting the game.

To really do it how I think you would rather have it, you would have to assign every weapon a numeric value for each of the three damage types (bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing) to be compared against similar values for the defense against each weapon type. In 2nd edition, each type of armor protected better or worse against the different damage types: it was hell. I don't know of anyone who used it, and it drastically slowed down an already clumsy combat system (Thac0 anyone?) to the point of boredom.

Enter 3rd edition, with it's not only streamlined ruleset but also hot-rodded combat system and you've finally got exciting, easy-to-play, easy-to-resolve combat system. Trust me, it's better this way, and in my opinion a hell of an improvement over the more "detail-oriented" damage system it seems like you would prefer. Hope that helps you.
philopharynx
12-30-04, 07:52 PM I have an option that's not too complicated.

When you're using a weapon to do a type of damage not on the list, you are using it sub-optimally and treat it as an improvised weapon. You take a -4 penalty, the weapon does damage as if it were one step smaller, the crit entry becomes (20, x2), you do not get to apply feats specific to the standard weapon, and you cannot use precision damage.

I allow people to take using a weapon differently as an exotic weapon proficiency. This negates everything but the reduced damage die and the crit of 20, x2. To some people it seems like a waste of a feat, but it matches for other people.

In most cases the enchantments would still work, but some would not. For example: When you're striking with the flat of the sword, you don't get keen or vorpal, but you do get flame damage.
Prescient
12-31-04, 04:06 PM I think I'll just leave it the way it is. I understand it, I just wish it was a little more comprehensive, or done away with altogether.

When my character runs across a creature that I cannot hurt because of my damage type I'll just ask the DM if I can use another damage type with the weapon and just take a penalty like that for an improvised weapon.

Thanks very much for all of you help =)

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Prescient 12-30-04, 05:38 PM	Can a slashing weapon pierce? Or a piercing weapon slash? This kind of diffrentiation makes sense to me as some enemies are resilient to some types of damage, like skeletons and piercing attacks. However, I have a vast history in the martial arts and in most cases a sword can do all types of damage. A long sword, for instance, can slash, pierce and bludgeon, if you use the flat end. A katana can bludgeon much more easily by using the flat edge and a wakizashi is primarily used in the offhand, for those using Musashi's style, and pierces as often as stabbing. Mostly my argument is to rectify some weapon decisions for myself. I want to use either the short sword or the rapier for my character. Both are piercing weapons, according to the core book, but short swords are, realistically, very versatile and rapiers began with a cutting edge. It wasn't until much later that rapiers lost thier edge in favor of a round shaft, even then it was used primarily for dueling, not for war. In war most rapiers still had a cutting edge. I have no problem with following the rules that use different types of damage for weapons, it is true that Katanas are better at slashing than piercing and bludgeoning, but my problem comes with the lack of options. If my character uses a rapier, assuming the rules, then I can't even cut rope. What happened to the days of Zorro when he would cut the rope of a chandelier and use one end to swing into his enemy while dropping the chandelier on the minions behind him as he proceeded to slash a Z into the flesh of his most hated enemies? Take a more recent example, the movie Hero, starring Jet Li. The sword that he used would be considered a longsword, in chinese terms, but those swords, as with their European counterparts, were used to pierce as often, if not more often, than they were used to slash. Sorry for being long winded, I know I could alter the rules but I was hoping on finding something in the rules that I missed. Thanks :)
shakedown47 12-30-04, 05:48 PM	Well, to me the damage types reflect what the weapon's principle use is, i.e. what kind of hit the averge attack would be. For purposes of overcoming damage reduction, it's a stretch to think that a longsword wouldn't pierce as well as a rapier but not really. If for nothing else, it's just a mechanic. The same way that gaining HP is just a measure of a character getting better at fighting and avoiding blows and shrugging off minor damage, not actually getting healthier and healthier. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense in literal terms, but the designers put it in there for a reason. No you didn't miss any rules or misinterpret anything, that's just how it is. If you want to change it you're gonna have to house-rule it.
Prescient 12-30-04, 06:03 PM	Kind of dissapointing that such a detailed orriented game would over look something like this. Thanks for your help though :)
shakedown47 12-30-04, 06:31 PM	I hope it's not that disappointing to you. It is a very detailed game, with stats for obscure knowledge like how far a horse could gallop in a day, relative prices for goods and services, how much cargo a boat can reasonably hold, social and economic trends by population and location. Basically, the boring stuff that would take a long time to find out. As for damage types, they are simplified to streamline one of the most common occurences in the game: combat and defense. It's only a mechanic, as I said before, it's up to you and your players to use your own imaginations and brains to use it. I don't think the writers just skipped or glossed over the damage types, I think they intentionally made them so cut and dry to make everything easier for the players. You seem to know a fair amount about weapons, so you may assign your own values to them without terribly upsetting the game. To really do it how I think you would rather have it, you would have to assign every weapon a numeric value for each of the three damage types (bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing) to be compared against similar values for the defense against each weapon type. In 2nd edition, each type of armor protected better or worse against the different damage types: it was hell. I don't know of anyone who used it, and it drastically slowed down an already clumsy combat system (Thac0 anyone?) to the point of boredom. Enter 3rd edition, with it's not only streamlined ruleset but also hot-rodded combat system and you've finally got exciting, easy-to-play, easy-to-resolve combat system. Trust me, it's better this way, and in my opinion a hell of an improvement over the more "detail-oriented" damage system it seems like you would prefer. Hope that helps you.
philopharynx 12-30-04, 07:52 PM	I have an option that's not too complicated. When you're using a weapon to do a type of damage not on the list, you are using it sub-optimally and treat it as an improvised weapon. You take a -4 penalty, the weapon does damage as if it were one step smaller, the crit entry becomes (20, x2), you do not get to apply feats specific to the standard weapon, and you cannot use precision damage. I allow people to take using a weapon differently as an exotic weapon proficiency. This negates everything but the reduced damage die and the crit of 20, x2. To some people it seems like a waste of a feat, but it matches for other people. In most cases the enchantments would still work, but some would not. For example: When you're striking with the flat of the sword, you don't get keen or vorpal, but you do get flame damage.
Prescient 12-31-04, 04:06 PM	I think I'll just leave it the way it is. I understand it, I just wish it was a little more comprehensive, or done away with altogether. When my character runs across a creature that I cannot hurt because of my damage type I'll just ask the DM if I can use another damage type with the weapon and just take a penalty like that for an improvised weapon. Thanks very much for all of you help =)