The one thing I see that no one has mentioned is how underwater combat gets effected by removing one of these types. That's one of the instances where "half damage from all attacks except piercing" kind of makes sense; the water's inertia is slowing down any sweeping swings but doesn't resist a straight pierce. In this case, I would argue that slashing vs. piercing damage is still relevant, a spear or rapier is going to work better than an axe when trying to harm something in the water. The worst is giving DR other than piercing to anything aquatic...
The one thing I see that no one has mentioned is how underwater combat gets effected by removing one of these types. That's one of the instances where "half damage from all attacks except piercing" kind of makes sense; the water's inertia is slowing down any sweeping swings but doesn't resist a straight pierce. In this case, I would argue that slashing vs. piercing damage is still relevant, a spear or rapier is going to work better than an axe when trying to harm something in the water. The worst is giving DR other than piercing to anything aquatic...
That totally wasn't covered in the first page, multiple times. :P
Nice....
The Rapier is a stabbing weapon through and through.
...
Actually, the rapier is also a slicing weapon (not a hacking one). You don't pierce your initials into someone's cheek, after all, and it's kind of hard to thrust the rapier thru the candlebra's rope so you can take a merry swing across the battlefield.
==Aelryinth
Nice....
The Rapier is a stabbing weapon through and through.
...
Actually, the rapier is also a slicing weapon (not a hacking one). You don't pierce your initials into someone's cheek, after all, and it's kind of hard to thrust the rapier thru the candlebra's rope so you can take a merry swing across the battlefield.
==Aelryinth
Actually actually, the rapier's blade is 99% only there so that your opponent doesn't just grab your sword with their bare hands and take you out of the fight. If you had a rapier without a blade (a "foil"), it'd be that easy for them... But with a blade on your pointy stick, anyone gets their hands on your blade and you just pull it through their fingers and cut up their palm. Still doesn't do a whole lot of damage to them, but it hurts like hell and the blood helps lubricate the blade to get it out of their grip.
Sure you CAN cut with a rapier (for example, to swing on the chandelier) but realistically you're going to end up sawing at the rope with your blade till it frays off.
And as for piercing your initials into someone's cheek, imagine scratching your initials into their cheek with a nail or something.
If you want a cutting weapon, you're probably looking at something more like a saber. Essentially the same weapon, but with enough weight behind it that it actually can cut deep enough to do damage with a swing.
I got curious by the thread and decided to indulge the bestiary.
I actually did not find any creatures with DR of anything but bludgeoning with quick browsing. Only time I remember mundane damage properties come to play is swarms really.
So I can really see the appeal of just getting rid of the three and making some better mechanic over it.
|
Hi
I think people are missing the point here.
Does a creature who is immune to bludgeoning still take damage from a bludgeoning & piercing weapon?
Recently had a GM rule that since bullets do both piercing and bludgeoning damage they can't hurt a creature immune to bludgeoning.
Silly, I know, but couldn't find any clarity in the CRB either.
Thanks
Paul H
It's pretty much just a holdover from older editions of D&D when the devs didn't fully understand how medieval weapons work, and something that has been held onto for the secondary reason that it's simply an easy way to add a little bit of realism without going overboard and making things too complex.
the longsword for example. sure, you can stab and cut with it very well, but it was standard practice also to grip it by the blade and strike with the cross guard against enemies wearing particular types of armor against which it would be difficult to stab or cut, such as chain mail.
by this reasoning, most weapons should at least have 2 potential damage types, but reworking everything to have realistic damage types would also require reworking damage when dealing those types of damage, and then you have an almost annoying level of redundant complexity. conversely if you remove all damage types, suddenly you have the question of "why doesnt my hammer do more damage to brittle, easily smashed skeletons than the guy plinking away at them with arrows?" reasonably, the hammer would be more easily able to smash them, and the arrows would slip between ribs, break individual bones if that, and in short simply be less effective. so let the hammers do more damage.
it's easy, it's simple, and it jumps the gun on questions of realism.
A historical rapier does have a cutting edge, but late era "rapiers" were more like estocs. However, it was rarely used for slashing (which, as Miyamoto Musashi points out, is not a killing move; he says to use cutting blows). The edge was mainly there to help with the piercing, to discourage grabbing of the blade, for fleche moves (basically, a quick slash to draw blood), and, in a pinch, for cutting something vulnerable, like a throat, if you had the opportunity. Sir Richard Burton wrote extensively about his preference for the stab, which is a shorter distance with more focused force.
slashing vs piercing has been going on in sword arguments for literally thousands of years. :) Now, SLICING, which is what a rapier is, doesn't have backers.
As for chain mail, that's why your longsword has a point, to get in through the links and leverage them apart. You need some good force to do it. Slashing, does more of a battering effect, but won't draw blood...might bruise and break, however, depending on the weight of the sword.
==Aelryinth