Fighting Skeletons with swords?(D&D)

[MonkeySage]

I've always thought, before I started running my own games, that the RAW for the damage types listed for each weapon were fixed, and that it wasn't possible to do a different type of damage. When I started doing my own game, I told my players that they could in fact deal a different type of damage with most weapons; for instance, performing a murder-stroke with a sword, as a way to get past a skeleton's damage resistance.

But that got me to thinking- if we assume that players do this automatically when fighting an armored opponent(it really makes no sense trying to slash through full plate, unless you have a lightsaber), why not assume they do this automatically when fighting an enemy with resistance to a specific type of damage, like blunt or slashing?

It may just be a limitation of the medium, but if the character is proficient with the weapon, wouldn't the character already know to do this?

I suppose if the character never fought a skeleton, they'd have to declare that they're going for a murder stroke... But after then, what?

Recently, I was in a fight with a couple of skeletons. I had initiative, and used my move action to remove the blade from my longspear, and use it as a quarterstaff. I was actually surprised the dm went for it.

[BWR]

A lot of it has do do with what you have to work with. You have a round club it's going to be hard to get it to do piercing or slashing damage. With swords and knives, they are designed for cutting and/or thrusting; dealing bludgeoning damage is not what they are good at. A rapier is not going to be terribly useful against skeletons no matter how you use it. Half-swording will not deal as much damage against a target as using the blade properly, so you can say the DR kicks in that way - the net result is less damage, so fluff it however you want.
Some of it is also that this is already taken into account. The game assumes you make your attacks to the best of your ability, using the weapon to your greatest advantage. Some acts take a bit more training to accomplish (e.g. Power Attack) or accomplish well (e.g. grappling).

Also, that's one oddly made spear if you could just remove the head that easily. Why not just switch it around and use the butt in a qs fashion? Or even use the point end in a qs fashion?

[Spiryt]

The problem is really that it kinda causes more trouble with already wacky and not very balanced D&D weapon stats and rules.

But generally, if 'alternative' use of weapon makes some sense, I generally would allow it, with -1 or -2 'improvise' penalty.

[Surpriser]

3.5 has a -4 penalty for improvised weapons built-in, that also applies if you want to use the weapon to deal nonlethal damage. So there is a precedent for "not using your weapon in the most efficient way".

It should be possible to use just about any weapon as an improvised club, with the exception of either very small (dagger) or fragile and thin (rapier) weapons. Apply a -4 penalty attacks, maybe less if the weapon is similar anyway, and reduce the base damage to that of a club.
The reverse is much more difficult. Most bludgeoning weapons simply do not possess any sharp or pointy bits that could be used in an improvised fashion. Although I could see someone sharpening one end of a quarterstaff to make an improvised spear...
EDIT: Any weapon specialization would of course become useless, unless it was for the new form of the weapon (e.g. club)


As for whether characters are assumed to automatically do this:
Characters are assumed to use a weapon in the optimal way, if they are proficient with it. Even against full plate, a sword is still useful (otherwise why would knights use it in the middle ages?) and even if you are not trying to cut through the plates but break the bones beneath, the general motions are the same.
Using the flat side of the blade to crush things resistant to slashes will make your attacks less precise and powerful, hence the attack and damage reduction, but it could still be a better choice than simply hacking away in the normal fashion.
The choice of whether to do that is for the players to make. Assuming they already know of the resistance of skeletons against slashing weapons, you could remind them at the start of the battle or after the first few attacks and ask, which way they are using their swords.

[Ashtagon]

As others have noted, using a lethal weapon to deal non-lethal damage includes a -4 attack penalty. I'd definitely extend that to using it to deal a non-standard damage type.

Further, not every weapon can deal a non-standard damage type.

Unless otherwise noted, a Bludgeoning weapon cannot deal Piercing or Slashing damage.
Unless otherwise noted, a Slashing weapon can instead deal Bludgeoning or Piercing damage.
Unless otherwise noted, a Piercing weapon can instead deal Bludgeoning or Slashing damage.

These notes do not apply to thrown or launched weapons.

Specific weapon notes...

Dagger: By default, you can choose to deal P/S damage. Using it to deal B damage involves a reverse grip and/or pommel strike.

Spiked Gauntlet, spiked armour: I would allow B, but not S (the spikes are positioned for punching, which isn't conducive to slashes)

Morning star: No S attacks.

Spear (all): Bludgeoning attacks generally involve using the foot of the spear rather than the "business end".

Axes (all): Cannot be used to make P attacks unless otherwise noted.

Picks (all): Cannot be used to make S attacks unless otherwise noted.

Warhammer: The historical warhammer (ie not the malet-type weapon sometimes people imagine) could be used to make P attacks.

[Seto]

Oooh. When I came across that thread, I thought the skeletons would be having swords.

[JAL_1138]

Characters are assumed to use a weapon in the optimal way, if they are proficient with it. Even against full plate, a sword is still useful (otherwise why would knights use it in the middle ages?) and even if you are not trying to cut through the plates but break the bones beneath, the general motions are the same.
.

They mostly used them by stabbing between the plates (which, if you look at the (often nearly triangular) blade design, is what most hand-and-a-half and two-handed swords from the Late Medieval and early Renaissance were intended for, although capable of slashing or chopping too) or by the mordhau / murderblow (turning the sword around and using the pommel for a mace against the opponent's head), not by slashing. Once you move into the Renaissance, the most common military sword was the side-sword (spada da lato, espada ropera, etc.), also known as the "cut-and-thrust," the predecessor/military brother of the rapier, which was intended to be useful in exactly the way it says on the tin; useful for stabbing (armored opponents) and cutting (unarmored opponents) alike.

[Maglubiyet]

When I started doing my own game, I told my players that they could in fact deal a different type of damage with most weapons; for instance, performing a murder-stroke with a sword, as a way to get past a skeleton's damage resistance.

Would sword proficiency cover training for using a murderstroke, though? It seems more like an exotic weapon type thing or improvised weapon. Also, you could only use it with certain types of swords, like long swords and broadswords.

I suppose it makes sense that in a fantasy world, where sword fighters expected to fight not only other humanoids, but undead and whatnot, they would teach techniques like the murderstroke. In a land with dragons, you wouldn't be much good as a fighter if all you knew how to fight were other people.

[erikun]

Would sword proficiency cover training for using a murderstroke, though? It seems more like an exotic weapon type thing or improvised weapon. Also, you could only use it with certain types of swords, like long swords and broadswords.

Proper training with a longsword would reasonably include how to correctly use a murderstroke, I would assume. Then again, proper training with a longsword would also include stuff like parrying, pinning an arm, disarming, and using a shield strike to create an opening. Given that D&D3e seems to think that all of this should involve a lifetime of adventuring to accomplish through feat trees, I'm not too confident in the system's ability to model proper sword use.

Besides, with D&D3e the "proficiency" seems to just mean being able to hold a weapon with the correct end and hit a target at the right time. People who are non-proficient seem to be terribly incompetent with the particular weapon, to the point where they're as likely to hurt someone with a longsword as they are with swinging a chair.

[TheCountAlucard]

Would sword proficiency cover training for using a murderstroke, though?

Why wouldn't it? Sword proficiency means you know how to fight with a sword; a murderstroke is an established technique for fighting with a sword.

It seems more like an exotic weapon type thing or improvised weapon.

It's not learning to fight with a sword whose other end is also a sword, or a table leg; this is a versatile weapon being fought with in a way that it was probably designed for; unless the sword was genuinely not built to handle that sort of blow I would be extremely hesitant to give out the improvised penalty.

[MonkeySage]

I usually treat a bastard sword as a martial weapon when used with two hands: Irl, that's generally how they were used. It's only when they're being used with one hand that the exotic weapon comes in. The longsword described in the phb sounds more like an arming sword than an actual longsword, and bastard sword is just another name for longsword. I should think that basic techniques like parrying and half-swording are covered by weapon proficiency. I think parrying is covered by the dex bonus to ac, so I haven't seen a need to rewrite the rules on that.

[Solaris]

I generally treat pommel strikes kind of like clubs, with damage varying by the size of the weapon - so a one-handed sword deals 1d4, a light sword deals 1d3, and a two-handed sword deals 1d6. No penalty to the attack roll, because the weapon's designed for it. The reduced effectiveness is reflected in the reduced damage, not the lowered accuracy.

[darkscizor]

I personally have two related houserules- that p/s weapons (besides axes) can deal damage of opposite types, and that heavy slashing weapons can deal bludgeoning damage if they can't already. The latter helps my PCs a lot with fighting skeletons in particular, because the idea that a greataxe or similar has a lower potential damage than a mace or flail seems weird to me.

[nedz]

But, but, fighters are meant to carry around golf bags full of weapons: Skeletons and Zombies are just the low level versions of this mini-game.

Seriously most versions of D&D have rules for improvised weapons - it's just not explicit by RAW.

Monks against Zombies though — that's like Predator vs. Aliens.