Making B/P/S Matter

[Catullus64]

It seems a common observation that between the damage types of Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing, there are very few mechanical implications. I can think of a very small number of mechanics (Armor of Vulnerability curse, Awakened Trees, Skeletons, Flameskulls) where a distinction between these three types matters all that much. Lately, I've been experimenting with a formula for monsters to try to make these types feel relevant:

Step 1: Order B/P/S from weakest to strongest, in terms of how effective it ought to be against that monster.

Step 2: Ignore any current vulnerabilities, immunities, and resistances to those types that the monster has in the book.

Step 3: Give monster the following set:

Weakest Type: Resistance, Immunity to Nonmagical Attacks with that damage type.
Middle Type: Resistance to Nonmagical Attacks with that damage type.
Strongest Type: Vulnerability to Magical Attacks with that damage type.

Step 4: Give the monster some extra HP to adjust for the wider proliferation of Vulnerability.

I don't typically do this for enemies that are mostly humanoid (goblins and lizardmen and the like), but I do still do it for many mook-level enemies, like skeletons and sahuagin. So far this approach has had good results in terms of making different weapons and characters shine in different fights, as well as making damage resistances relevant even when every weapon-using character has a magical weapon. It also gives Strength-based melee a leg up relative to Dex-based melee, since there are no finesse melee weapons that deal bludgeoning. And frankly, Strength needs all the help he can get to compete with his cooler cousin, Dexterity. I encourage others to try it out.

It has, on the unfortunate side, revealed that Rogues are perhaps the only class that is largely pigeon-holed into a specific physical damage type. Monks can switch things up with some piercing and slashing weapons, but single-class Rogues are largely stuck with piercing. The only weapons eligible for Sneak Attacks that don't deal piercing damage are slings, which are less-than optimal in both range and damage, and scimitars, with which Rogues aren't proficient by default. If you're a Rogue lover, as I am, be warned that this fact, usually irrelevant, will suddenly become a deficiency in the Rogue's arsenal.

Side note: Does it seem to anyone else like WoTC is weird about Scimitar proficiency? Three classes (Monks, Bards, Rogues) who get a range of mostly-equivalent weapons, and who are likely to benefit from Finesse, do not get scimitars, while only one of the classes that doesn't get all-martial-weapons gets scimitars, and it's the Druid of all things; the College of Swords singles out scimitars as if they are a significant gain relative to the mostly-identical shortswords. Did they think it was so much better than a shortsword? Is this a holdover from the days of the "exotic" weapon class? What gives? It reminds me of those dopey guards from Skyrim, who think that curved swords are a really exotic novelty. I am really hung up on this very minor point.

[Lunali]

Since you mentioned them, if you're using these rules, you should also give rogues scimitar proficiency and extend the range of the sling to be at leaston par with a shortbow. The scimitar bit is purely for balance, the sling is because realistically they have a range comparable to longbow.

[Hellpyre]

the sling is because realistically they have a range comparable to longbow.

Yeah, but realisitcally they both take significantly more training and tend to do more significant damage than a longbow. I think the idea is less trained-military-slinger and more kid-who-threw-rocks-growing-up levels of proficency and aim.

[heavyfuel]

This hurts martials too much and the added HP hurts blasty casters as well, ie; the types of characters who don't really need the extra challenge.

Your houserule does nothing against control casters (except against Sleep in Tier 1), which already dominate the game.

Also, since you're still allowing Magical BPS to pierce resistance, then the very first priority of any weapon-wielder would be to get their hands on some magical weapon to completely ignore your houserule. This either means picking a (sub)class that offers one as a feature or it's going to mean derailing any and all plot you have in mind to go on a hunt for a magical weapon because no-one should allow for 1/3 of monsters to make their character unviable

[Catullus64]

This hurts martials too much and the added HP hurts blasty casters as well, ie; the types of characters who don't really need the extra challenge.

Your houserule does nothing against control casters (except against Sleep in Tier 1), which already dominate the game.

Also, since you're still allowing Magical BPS to pierce resistance, then the very first priority of any weapon-wielder would be to get their hands on some magical weapon to completely ignore your houserule. This either means picking a (sub)class that offers one as a feature or it's going to mean derailing any and all plot you have in mind to go on a hunt for a magical weapon because no-one should allow for 1/3 of monsters to make their character unviable

Point the First: Fair enough. Blast casters don't abound in my game, and I hadn't thought of that. Consider that added as a caveat to my modification.

Point the Second: They're separate issues. Even if control casters are game-breaking (which, in my experience, they're not), that's unrelated to the issue of bludgeoning/piercing/slashing weapons feeling samey. A rule that addresses the latter isn't invalid just because it doesn't address the former.

Point the Third: Isn't it already kind of true that weapon-wielders really want magic weapons, given how ubiquitous nonmagical BPS resistance becomes in higher level monsters in the base game? I think my system actually mitigates the mandatory nature of magic weapons, given how there will always be at least one nonmagical weapon damage type that a creature lacks resistance to. And even if this did amplify the need for magic weapons, I don't think that you ever need to derail a plot to hand them out. It's D&D, nobody ever questions finding magic treasure no matter what you're doing.

[heavyfuel]

Point the Third: Isn't it already kind of true that weapon-wielders really want magic weapons, given how ubiquitous nonmagical BPS resistance becomes in higher level monsters in the base game? I think my system actually mitigates the mandatory nature of magic weapons, given how there will always be at least one nonmagical weapon damage type that a creature lacks resistance to. And even if this did amplify the need for magic weapons, I don't think that you ever need to derail a plot to hand them out. It's D&D, nobody ever questions finding magic treasure no matter what you're doing.

While most weapon-wielders really want a magic weapon, they now really need a magic weapon. Sure, they needed it before, but their need only arised around Tier 3. Now if they don't have a magic weapon at level 1 they're also screwed.

[Toadkiller]

This seems to head in the direction of Pathfinder with the resultant golf bag of weapons being carried around so you have the right one for any situation. If that sort of minigame is something you and your players would like then go for it. I would find it a bit tedious I think.

[Catullus64]

While most weapon-wielders really want a magic weapon, they now really need a magic weapon. Sure, they needed it before, but their need only arised around Tier 3. Now if they don't have a magic weapon at level 1 they're also screwed.

I think screwed is a bit of an exaggeration. In order to be unable to deal damage, you would need to, A) Have no magic weapons B) Have only one weapon damage type in your arsenal C) Be in the scenario where the enemy is immune to the nonmagical damage of your one damage type.

Even when that particular constellation of events does happen, it's really not that big of a deal. In fact, in some of the sessions I've run, it's resulted in some great moments. In one session, the Barbarian found that his Greatsword and Handaxes couldn't damage the monster. He didn't give up and accept that he wouldn't be useful this fight, he threw down his sword and started grappling, shoving, and pummeling the monster with his bare hands. The Rogue and the Warlock did more damage that fight, but what everyone remembered was what the Barbarian did. And when they did come to a scenario where Slashing was called for, the Barbarian got back that missed damage many times over.

Having certain scenarios that don't play to your character's strengths, or which neutralize your character's strengths entirely, doesn't make your character unfun or no longer useful. If anything, it's what makes those strengths shine in the scenarios when they are useful. (If you encounter almost nothing but scenarios that neutralize your character's strengths, that's where you have a problem.)

[KorvinStarmast]

I would find it a bit tedious I think. I like to golf, but not when I play D&D. I agree with your post. :smallsmile:

[Sorinth]

I think 5e very much wanted to do away with all the complexity and very much wanted the weapons to have little to not have big differences so that the weapon you used was more flavour then mechanics.

If you really want differences then back in the day there were optional rules about damage type vs armour. So armour would grant bonus/penalties depending on the damage type. Having armour grant anywhere from a -2 to +2 AC based on the damage type might serve your intentions since it's much less impactful then resistance/vunerability but still have meaning.

[Segev]

The differences do crop up, but I agree they could do more with it. There are things in specific modules that are vulnerable only to one type of damage (like one door on a trap that can’t be hurt by even magical piercing or slashing), and there are monsters like skeletons that are specifically Vulnerable to bludgeoning.

There’s a recent UA that gave feats that give bonuses to the particular damage type, too.

[Catullus64]

I think 5e very much wanted to do away with all the complexity and very much wanted the weapons to have little to not have big differences so that the weapon you used was more flavour then mechanics.

If you really want differences then back in the day there were optional rules about damage type vs armour. So armour would grant bonus/penalties depending on the damage type. Having armour grant anywhere from a -2 to +2 AC based on the damage type might serve your intentions since it's much less impactful then resistance/vunerability but still have meaning.

AD&D was some wild times, wasn't it? I thought about doing the different AC modifiers thing, but found it too complicated to implement, especially on the player end. I think that Resistances and Immunities are the 5e-Bounded-Accuracy-appropriate tool.

[Segev]

AD&D was some wild times, wasn't it? I thought about doing the different AC modifiers thing, but found it too complicated to implement, especially on the player end. I think that Resistances and Immunities are the 5e-Bounded-Accuracy-appropriate tool.
They are.

Also, feats and special abilities.

You could give armor bonuses that grant resistance to one of the types, too. Thus making the players also care what the enemies are dealing.

[elyktsorb]

The only thing I see this being an issue for is ranged attackers that have no option to deal slashing damage with ranged weapons.

But otherwise this just seems overly complicated since all you'd have to do is hit the enemy with each damage type until you know what it's weak to, and it's not like weapons are super expensive. Unless your a Monk (who's also getting screwed by anything that is immune or resists bludgeoning damage until lvl 6)

[Composer99]

The only thing I see this being an issue for is ranged attackers that have no option to deal slashing damage with ranged weapons.

But otherwise this just seems overly complicated since all you'd have to do is hit the enemy with each damage type until you know what it's weak to, and it's not like weapons are super expensive. Unless your a Monk (who's also getting screwed by anything that is immune or resists bludgeoning damage until lvl 6)

Monks can wield monk weapons that don't deal bludgeoning damage. If they choose not to at a table where that matters, that's on them.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Monks can wield monk weapons that don't deal bludgeoning damage. If they choose not to at a table where that matters, that's on them.

But not for their bonus action attacks (Martial Arts or Flurry of Blows). Immune to bludgeoning? Have fun dealing 1d6+Dex per round, max!

[elyktsorb]

Monks can wield monk weapons that don't deal bludgeoning damage. If they choose not to at a table where that matters, that's on them.

Mm yes, except your additional bonus attacks that can only be bludgeoning, that thing that's basically like the entire point of picking monk over rogue, fighter, or barbarian. Sure would suck if that just got arbitrarily shut down for no reason.

[ahyangyi]

Weakness/resistance just cause everyone with decent strength to carry more weapons.

However, perhaps you can tie some feats to B/P/S status. For example, Cleave makes much more sense with weapons dealing Slashing damage, while an imaginary "Impale" feat (if you down an opponent or crit you can attack the guy behind it) would require both Reach(or ranged) and Piercing.

Well, actually we don't have Cleave in 5e and all we have is the optional cleave rule and GWM, but you get what I mean.

[Dr. Cliché]

Doing this with most/all monsters seems excessive, tbh.

At the very least, if I wanted to go this route, I'd want an overhaul of both weapons and also the whole armour system. After all, it's not just monsters that should be resistant and vulnerable to different sorts of weapons - regular, human armour also has strengths and weaknesses. A sword will cut through some armour and do significant damage to unprotected flesh, but even a Greatsword will glance harmlessly off full-plate armour.

However, if you want to stick to 5e's design philosophies, I'd simply consider tweaking the current resistances of monsters. Especially with monsters that have resistance to non-magical damage (which, after a certain level, tends to be wasted ink). Tweaking the resistances and/or immunities of those monsters to focus more on resisting specific damage types would create a similar effect without requiring that PCs carry around buckets of weapons to fight even the most basic of enemies.

[Teaguethebean]

Honestly if this is your plan I would recommend making every enemy have a slew of weaknesses and resistances, I'm on mobile as of now so I can't link it but ZeeBashew made a good video on the idea of expanding resistances and weaknesses.

For instance if their is a Corpse Flower terrorizing the country side then the players better prepare. They speak with the locals to learn that it seems most active when storms roll in from the south, it doesn't seem to be worried of the loud booms from the thunder, but when the nights grow cold the creature seems to be gone for even weeks at a time. The Tempest Cleric takes notes, the next day when they confront the monstrosity he opens the fight with an ice storm instead of his usual booming blades.

[Sorinth]

AD&D was some wild times, wasn't it? I thought about doing the different AC modifiers thing, but found it too complicated to implement, especially on the player end. I think that Resistances and Immunities are the 5e-Bounded-Accuracy-appropriate tool.

It's not too bad if you make custom character sheets so that each AC is listed in an easy to find place and the DM always calls out the type of attack. You could even expand it to include elements, such as Platemail being worse against Fire attacks but better against Acid, except then you'd probably also want to add those differences to saves and it can start getting a lot. So yeah overall I prefer the simplicity of 5e even if it means for the most part the type of weapon you wield is cosmetic and doesn't have mechanical benefits.

That said advantage/disadvantage is probably the better option compared to resistance/vuneralbility. Though I'd be tempted to forgo disadvantage and just hand out advantage for weapons in certain circumstances. Maybe give monsters a general +1/+2 AC and/or extra hit points to help balance things.

For example, a Pike gives you advantage on attacks against mounted enemies. Halberds grant advantage against opponents in Heavy Armor. Flail grants advantage against opponents with a Shield. Piercing weapons have advantage against Light and Chain based armours. That sort of thing.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Honestly if this is your plan I would recommend making every enemy have a slew of weaknesses and resistances, I'm on mobile as of now so I can't link it but ZeeBashew made a good video on the idea of expanding resistances and weaknesses.

For instance if their is a Corpse Flower terrorizing the country side then the players better prepare. They speak with the locals to learn that it seems most active when storms roll in from the south, it doesn't seem to be worried of the loud booms from the thunder, but when the nights grow cold the creature seems to be gone for even weeks at a time. The Tempest Cleric takes notes, the next day when they confront the monstrosity he opens the fight with an ice storm instead of his usual booming blades.

Puzzle bosses (who are trivial when you know their weakness) are great...in extreme moderation. Because otherwise, you have to shoehorn in the information somewhere, which slows everything down and frequently makes little sense in universe (someone had to observe those things, after all). Not only that, you end up with lots of people who can't hit certain weaknesses. And others who can effortlessly hit most weaknesses. And when you have mixed groups, this one resistant to X and vulnerable to Y and that one resistant to Y and vulnerable to X, you spend all your time dealing with damage types and not actually playing.

I've found that this is especially bad when attacks deal multiple types of damage (like a smite). You end up doubling or tripling the time it takes to resolve a single attack because you have to do partial calculations instead of just one subtraction.

[KorvinStarmast]

This hurts martials too much and the added HP hurts blasty casters as well, ie; the types of characters who don't really need the extra challenge. Check.

For OP: I realize that you've put quite a bit of thought into this, but it looks to me like a solution in search of a problem.

My overall reaction to it is "too many added fiddly bits, for no value added"

[Edea]

It seems a common observation that between the damage types of Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing, there are very few mechanical implications.

And that's fine, IMO. I'm half-surprised they kept physical damage types at all. A player that's interested in messing with damage types is probably going to gravitate towards playing a spellcaster.

If I'm a barbarian or fighter, I want to beat the crap out of things, and I'm probably going to 'bond' to one very specific melee weapon (sort-of like Negan and Lucille, or Roy and his 'very special lady' (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0296.html)) for that express purpose. Hell, I'd ask to be able to enchant 'my weapon' by researching/locating a recipe to do so on my own, over finding a new, random magical weapon in a chest somewhere. This goes double for a monk; yeah, there are 'monk weapons', but I'm not playing a monk to wield 'monk weapons'! I'm playing one to punch the crap out of things; I want to use my fists (and feet, and elbows, and knees...).

All this rule does for me is screw me over for wanting to wield my preferred arms as a martial character; I don't wanna keep track of damage resistances every time I get into melee combat.

I'm not saying this is a wasted effort, you'll find players who would be down for this. But as far as being a general implementation to how physical damage works, I'm glad WotC didn't go down this route.