I'm currently working on a revamp on the weapons in the book, due to me having different design philosophy than D&D/pathfinder. One of my goals is removing unnecessary decisions that fill no noticable mechanical niche, since it broadens the availability for characters and reduces the complexity hugely without losing much depth. Instead of having 50 weapons with nearly identical stats, I find it better to have 10 different weapons (that can each represent different things) but that have noticable and distinct mechanical traits.
So, as the topic says, do we really need different damage types for piercing and slashing? Conceptually they are quite close, and many weapons that do one of the types could very well do the other (swords, I'm looking at you). The number of monsters that have DR/slashing or DR/piercing where the other bypassing really don't make sense is pretty small (only I can think of is oozes) and the game doesn't care much about damage types otherwise.
Bludgeoning damage is a whole other deal conceptually though, and skeletal creatures (which are fairly common) having DR/bludgeoning makes a lot of sense and can't really work with other damage types.
If I were just to lump together piercing and slashing into "cutting", would there be any noticable differences in how the game plays?
Why? Because bows are overpowered and giving them piercing damage (which is nearly useless) helps hold them back.
Warning: this post may be intended as parody. Or maybe not. You decide.
Because it's hard to kill skeletons with a rapier? -shrug-
Rakshasa. Got some old school DR. Get you a holy crossbow.
Legacy lore from previous editions is responsible for a lot of monster's weird stuff.
Also, since you intend to change the mechanics, I suggest you consider PC skills that depend on piercing/slashing weapons, like the Duelists' abilities, and how that will be handled.
I think the mechanical distinction is just the to try to account for 'reality', in the sense that there are a bewildering array of actual weapons that a player could point to in real life and say "my character has this". Those weapons then have to interact mechanically with an essentially infinite number of possible conceptual creatures.
It makes sense that a critter with scales or really tough hide/bark should be better protected against a slash than a stab. Incredibly sticky, flexible, or slippery skin would make it harder to slash something as well, while piercing it would be easier. It's harder for me to conceptualize a meat-based creature that would inherently be easy to cut, but difficult to stab, but perhaps "because fantasy" is sufficient there. :shrug:
Whether or not removing it would change the overall game meaningfully, I can't really form an opinion on at this point since I'm not familiar enough with the bestiaries.
It might make designing new critters a little less interesting and meaningful though. The piercing/slashing differentiation serves a purpose when a designer wants to mechanically account for the imaginary physical properties of their creation.
Just 2cp
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Slashing and Piercing are VERY different...
The Core book looks primary at the most optimal form of wielding the weapon (otherwise, you can technically use jsut about anything as a bludgeoning object). For instance:
1)A Rapier, while technically capable of slashing, is a VERY poor cutting weapon and the act of cutting is primary used to create distractions/openings in your opponents defense. The Rapier is a stabbing weapon through and through.
2) Scimitar is cutting weapon. Period. Any blade that has a curve to it are predominately meant for slashing. The curve actually makes stabbing more awkward and they are generally not well designed to stab.
First of all, thanks for all answers!
Also, since you intend to change the mechanics, I suggest you consider PC skills that depend on piercing/slashing weapons, like the Duelists' abilities, and how that will be handled.
Agreed - part of why I'm asking. When it comes to the duelist, I don't see any issues with it really - sure, now you can duel with a battleaxe, but that's no weirder than with a trident in my book. And now they can be a duelist with a longsword, which very much makes sense to me.
Do you know any ability you suspect might be problematic?
I think the mechanical distinction is just the to try to account for 'reality', in the sense that there are a bewildering array of actual weapons that a player could point to in real life and say "my character has this". Those weapons then have to interact mechanically with an essentially infinite number of possible conceptual creatures.
Sure, but just having more weapons listed mostly makes those interactions more complicated rather than less.
Instead of having:
Bardiche, 1d10 Slash, brace, reach, +2vs sunder
Bec de Corbin, 1d10 Bash or Pierce, brace, reach, +2 to sunder armor
Bill, 1d8 Slash, brace, disarm, reach, +1 ac on fighting defensively
Glaive, 1d10 Slash, reach
Glaive-Guisarme, 1d10 Slash, brace, reach, -2 ride on hit
Guisarme, 2d4 Slash, reach, trip
Lucerne Hammer, 1d12 Bash, reach, brace, +2 to sunder armor
Horsechopper, 1d10 Pierce or Slash, reach, trip
Naginata, 1d8 Slash, reach
You could have:
Glaive, 1d10 Cutting, reach, +2 to one of the following maneuvers: trip, disarm, sunder; this weapon can also be used to represent guisarmes, bardiches, bills, naginata and similar weapons. Can be forged with a pole-tip.
Bec de Corbin, 1d10 Bash, reach; this weapon can also be used to represent lucerne hammers and similar weapons. Can be forged with a pole-tip.
Pole-tip: A polearm forged with a speartip on the end may make cutting damage instead of it's normal type. It also gains the brace special ability.
This ignores crits, but most of the weapons are either 19-20x2 or 20x3, which ends up pretty similar.
Note that the weapons listed in the first section is _just_ the weapons that 1. have reach, and 2. deal either slashing or piercing damage, and 3. are martial. Note that some of the weapons in the first list are purely inferior to others (eg glaive and guisarme to glaive-guisarme and horsechopper), while others have abilities so marginal they are likely to not come into play even once during a campaign (a hit mounted enemy gets a -1 to the ride check not to fall off? yay!).
While it may make sense from a realism perspective, the system doesn't do much for realism in most other circumstances - such as mentioned above, you can't stab someone with a longsword except as an improvised weapon. From a realism perspective, the threat ranges of curved vs straight swords seem inverted too. I much rather play a system which is heavily abstracted, than one that is at times heavily abstracted but sometimes goes into full superdetail of everything (and even then gets it wrong half of the time).
And not only does the huge list of weapons not add much - it actively serves to disempower martial classes in a way that doesn't make sense. You have Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization (Glaive), but lost your glaive and find a glaive-guisarme? Sorry, no cake for you. You want to wield a guisarme because they look cool? Sure, but you'll always know that you are strictly worse than if you had picked a horsechopper.
The second list allows nearly all options listed in the first section, but removes a lot of clutter and irrelevant decisions and makes more options valid for a player that wants flavor without sacrificing ability.
This would make interactions simpler, rather than more complex, and makes the actual relevant choices more apparent without being drenches in a bunch of "noise".
It makes sense that a critter with scales or really tough hide/bark should be better protected against a slash than a stab. Incredibly sticky, flexible, or slippery skin would make it harder to slash something as well, while piercing it would be easier. It's harder for me to conceptualize a meat-based creature that would inherently be easy to cut, but difficult to stab, but perhaps "because fantasy" is sufficient there. :shrug:
I agree, and if the system had actually incorporated "typed" armor more fully I wouldn't have asked this; if, say, most reptilian creatures had either DR/slashing or an armor bonus vs slashing. But they don't. DR/slashing and DR/piercing seems restricted to a select few creatures, making the distinction not something you actually experience as how the world works in the game but rather as some strange ability of a few supernatural creatures.
It might make designing new critters a little less interesting and meaningful though. The piercing/slashing differentiation serves a purpose when a designer wants to mechanically account for the imaginary physical properties of their creation.
Just 2cp
Yeah, but it's quite rare that it is due to obvious physical properties (such as how skellies are resistant to piercing and slashing) but more often due to some supernatural, non-obvious trait (like rakshasa being vulnerable to piercing damage).
I've toyed with typed DR/AC systems before, and while they add a level of depth they are far too complex, and I feel it's better to go in the other direction, trying to cut away rules that don't currently fill much purpose.
Because it's hard to kill skeletons with a rapier? -shrug-
Slashing and piercing damage does equally much damage to a skeleton. Again, I see the point of a distinction between B and S/P, much less so in between S and P - especially since they often overlap.
Slashing and Piercing are VERY different...
Would you care to explain how they are, in the game rules? That is kind of the central question for me. As far as I can see, it's mostly that a few enemies (oozes, rakshasa, mi-go, zombies and a bunch more) have DR to one but not the other, but barring the oozes it makes equally sense for a zombie for example to only be able to hurt with piercing weapons (skewering it's brain a'la the walking dead) as slashing (decapitation I assume). If someone asked me outside of D&D "in a zombie apocalypse, would you rather have a morningstar or a sickle?" my spontaneous answer would not be sickle. So it's not like it's central to the thematics.
There's also a bunch of feats, but I don't see how it would be unbalancing to allow these for the other weapon type either.
The Core book looks primary at the most optimal form of wielding the weapon (otherwise, you can technically use jsut about anything as a bludgeoning object).
Yes, I know this. However, stabbing enemies with a longsword is part of the optimal way of wielding it, as is slashing with a shortsword. Not that I want to get into a discussion about weapon techniques, but really, since the system is already so hand-wavey and uses so many approximations, what would it lose if we collapsed slashing and piercing to one type?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If simplifying weapons as a whole is in your interest, why not adopt an a la carte approach as the Legend RPG does?
You can have basic damage die depending on the category of the weapon (light, one handed, two handed), then pick X qualities (reach, trip, better crit range/multiplier), with perhaps more such qualities depending if the weapon is simple/martial/exotic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand why you want to bother to change this part of the rules. it's likely to have some weird unintended consequences, and i don't see that it gets you anything at all. Whats the point?
If you want to limit the number of mechanically different options available for weapons, go from 3 to 2 damage types consolidates several choices.
Actually, if used the weapons on the srd and take out the slashing ones that are direct copy of piercing or bash weapons. not a lot are removed.
Personally I don't think it is needed and I feel having both slashing and piercing weapons are appropriate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's important for my houserules. That's why.
I think I have 7 Polearms:
Poleaxe
Polehammer
Polespike
and
Pole axe-hammer
Pole axe-spike
Pole hammer-spike
and
Pole axe-hammer-spike
They all do the same damage 1d10, crits are either 19-20 x2 or 20 x3.
For the damage type it's one type per attack for the combo weapons.
They all have Reach and the Spikes have Brace.
I don't know how realistic this is, but it is simple and works.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are cases where it makes sense that you can use a slashing weapon to cut off its tentacles / branches / heads, which you couldn't do with a rapier.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are cases where it makes sense that you can use a slashing weapon to cut off its tentacles / branches / heads, which you couldn't do with a rapier.
You don't like my Vorpal rapier?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Depends: can you make it go 'snicker-snack'? Leave it dead, and with its head, go gallumphing back?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nope. Snicker-snack is a full attack action. Gallumph is a move action unless you have the Gyre and Gimble feats.
BEcause DR/Slashing and DR/Piercing exists.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ BillyGoat; I think the Op's point is that the game doesn't consistently represent this, so why worry about it?
Myself, I have enough to do without overhauling significant parts of the rulebooks, but too each their own...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nope. Snicker-snack is a full attack action. Gallumph is a move action unless you have the Gyre and Gimble feats.
Or if you have the Beamish trait, which allows you to do both in a round, as long the Frabjous condition is active.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the main issue isn't DR, but that DR/Piercing is placed so rarely. Other types of DR are relatively common by comparison. For many weapons, dealing multiple types of damage is a means by which they become more balanced despite having slightly lower stat values, but for something that deals Slashing/Piercing damage, you get very little value out of the Piercing.
I like the system as a whole. Rather than remove the language, I would find one or two categories of relatively common foes and give them a bit of DR/Piercing, just like Skeletons and Zombies (and related minions) have their own respective DR. I can imagine an undead creature of masses of writhing, supple flesh that just laughs off bludgeons and blades, but a piercing thrust to the right spot cripples it. Stuff like that, idk.
Are you going to treat them the same underwater? Piercing weapons are unaffected, while slashing take a penalty to attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why? Because bows are overpowered and giving them piercing damage (which is nearly useless) helps hold them back.
Warning: this post may be intended as parody. Or maybe not. You decide.
That is actually a reason why I think it exists. At least, in the original D&D system where they started (I would love some input from more experienced gamers who can tell me if the distinction and selective DR was more common in that system)
You can also look at simple weapons for examples. The idea of simple weapons is that, while they can serve you, they are supposed to generally be less useful than martial weapons, right? So how to do that? Well, you could give them less useful damage types.
You obviously can't take out bludgeoning (too many undead and such to do that without just saying "don't even bother if you aren't a full martial"). So we come down to the other types. Have you noticed that, out of all the one handed and two handed simple weapons (i.e. the ones to use on a high strength build) there are no slashing weapons. Heck, in the two handed category, the quarterstaff is the only one that isn't piercing. And the best of the lot, the longspear, is decidingly piercing.
In essence, slashing is the 'good' damage, but not 'great' enough like bludgeoning that you couldn't live without it. Piercing, on the other hand, is the 'bad' damage type, and making most of your better options (such as the rogue's only 18-20/x2 weapon) into this is a kind of nerf. Whether this design philosophy satifies you, Ilja, is your business, but I am happy enough with it. I mean, I'd also be just as happy saying "axes and spears do different types of damage", since it is obvious enough to just accept at face value.
Interesting points brought up by everyone. I will have to ponder on this some more, though I'm still leaning in favor of removing it. I still feel like it's such a minor rule that adds so little in terms of tactics while adding a lot in terms of complexity. But there doesn't seem to be any huge consequences from what you've all posted.
The underwater combat rules seem kind of weird though, because they seem to equate slashing with swinging and piercing with stabbing. This means a glaive cannot be used without penalty underwater, but a heavy pick can. Having realism-based mechanics that are so bad at representing reality seems quite unnecessary.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting points brought up by everyone. I will have to ponder on this some more, though I'm still leaning in favor of removing it. I still feel like it's such a minor rule that adds so little in terms of tactics while adding a lot in terms of complexity. But there doesn't seem to be any huge consequences from what you've all posted.
The underwater combat rules seem kind of weird though, because they seem to equate slashing with swinging and piercing with stabbing. This means a glaive cannot be used without penalty underwater, but a heavy pick can. Having realism-based mechanics that are so bad at representing reality seems quite unnecessary.
Isn't going on about the picks just choosing the worst examples as your sole evidence? I mean, looking at the rest of the simple and martial weapons, I can only see the morning star as another bad example, and that at least has the excuse that it could have a stabby spike at the very tip of the head to do a proper piercing with.
And, if you were restricted to this three type system (just take a short step out of your shoes for a moment, and think as a writer that got it handed to you from on high or as a grandfathered system that your bosses did not want to change), how would you have typed the picks? Slashing? Bludgeoning? Neither seem really representative. So can you blame them for not making the picks with realism in underwater combat in mind? Can you blame the writers of the underwater combat rules for not having picks in mind?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't going on about the picks just choosing the worst examples as your sole evidence? I mean, looking at the rest of the simple and martial weapons, I can only see the morning star as another bad example, and that at least has the excuse that it could have a stabby spike at the very tip of the head to do a proper piercing with.
I'd also add:
- Cestus, starknife, schizore and punching dagger should work equally good as gauntlet; whether they should all have penalty or none doesn't matter but there shouldn't really be a noticable difference- A wooden stake or mere club shouldn't be more effective than a longsword
- Boarding axes, blade boots, spiked tails, spiked shields, ogre hooks, pickaxes, tri-pointed swords and scythes all are used in swinging motions just like picks.
Had it been one weapon it wouldn't have mattered, but when it's like 1/3 or 1/4 of the affected weapons I feel like they could just have skipped it.
And, if you were restricted to this three type system (just take a short step out of your shoes for a moment, and think as a writer that got it handed to you from on high or as a grandfathered system that your bosses did not want to change), how would you have typed the picks? Slashing? Bludgeoning? Neither seem really representative. So can you blame them for not making the picks with realism in underwater combat in mind? Can you blame the writers of the underwater combat rules for not having picks in mind?
I don't blame them at all and it's not the classification of picks that's the issue with the underwater penalties. I think they could just have dropped the underwater combat modifiers completely (for simplicity's sake, since they don't represent reality anyway) or made them closer to reality (for realisms sake, to make weapon choice more relevant) by stating that penalty is gained dependant on use motion rather than damage type. Now I feel it's neither simple nor realistic and it just feels like the worst of two worlds.
I know that they where bound by legacy issues, though I think that's a holy cow 3e should have slaughtered I realize pathfinder really couldn't do much about it. But I can in my home system, which is why I'm considering if it's a good idea or not. I'm not saying the pathfinder devs are bad devs or such, it's just that they have design philosophies I don't share (backwards compability, needing to push out more and more splatbooks with new nearly-identical weapons in each etc)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's fine if you say longswords do piercing as well as slashing, because real ones do. Greatswords, too for that matter, or any weapons that work like that.
It's not a big change.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's harder for me to conceptualize a meat-based creature that would inherently be easy to cut, but difficult to stab, but perhaps "because fantasy" is sufficient there. :shrug:I'd imagine a creature with long, slender proportions. Extreme end of the elf-type, if you will.
You can easily hit it with a slashing action, and even trim off limbs this way. But, successfully connecting with a jab, or hitting vital organs (the purpose of a piercing weapon), is significantly more difficult.
Hmm. I could buy that, from a narrative perspective.
Alternately, any creature where biological functions aren't really tied to a tightly-clustered group of essential organs. Think plants, fleshy or otherwise. Any robust plant, you will harm a lot faster cutting (slashing) it than you would poking it.
Yes, indeed. These sort of targets are what I meant, by "because fantasy". A Planarian worm the size of a cow could shrug off a punch dagger, go splat when hammered, and duplicate itself on a slashing critical hit.
The Rakshasa brought up earlier (a shape-changing spirit) is a case in point...I've heard the DR/piercing variously described as the creatures body appearing to flow out of the way of a piercing attack, or "you run it through, but it just laughs at you and keeps coming", or "you hit it, your weapon doesn't seem to do anything", or "You hit it, roll for damage; next initiative." (and then the DM obviously doesn't make any notes).
My DM style leans heavily towards the more descriptive approach, so DR types are quite helpful in that sense. I fear I may be rambling rather far afield from the OP's original question though.
Personally I'd rather see Paizo go through the bestiaries and apply DR types more often (where thematically appropriate to the description of a critter) than see them reduce the available types of DR to fit the bestiaries.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm reminded of the good (?) old a days of 1st Edition AD&D.
Back then (grognards unite!) the only type of "damage reduction" was "bring this level of magic weapon to the party or stay at home", represented by the despised "+2 or better weapon to hit" defence.
Now, that defence existed prior to 1E, but one thing 1E did have was an attack modifier against armour type. So if you had a flail (footman's, for anyone checking), and the guy you were facing was wearing chain mail, you enjoyed a rapturous +2 to hit. Try the same thing with a scimitar, and you're at -1.
Some form of this option may suit for people interested in how different weapons interact with different types of protection.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't going on about the picks just choosing the worst examples as your sole evidence? I mean, looking at the rest of the simple and martial weapons, I can only see the morning star as another bad example, and that at least has the excuse that it could have a stabby spike at the very tip of the head to do a proper piercing with.I'd also add:
- Cestus, starknife, schizore and punching dagger should work equally good as gauntlet; whether they should all have penalty or none doesn't matter but there shouldn't really be a noticable difference
- A wooden stake or mere club shouldn't be more effective than a longsword
- Boarding axes, blade boots, spiked tails, spiked shields, ogre hooks, pickaxes, tri-pointed swords and scythes all are used in swinging motions just like picks.
Had it been one weapon it wouldn't have mattered, but when it's like 1/3 or 1/4 of the affected weapons I feel like they could just have skipped it.
....
I don't blame them at all and it's not the classification of picks that's the issue with the underwater penalties. I think they could just have dropped the underwater combat modifiers completely (for simplicity's sake, since they don't represent reality anyway) or made them closer to reality (for realisms sake, to make weapon choice more relevant) by stating that penalty is gained dependant on use motion rather than damage type. Now I feel it's neither simple nor realistic and it just feels like the worst of two worlds.
I'll give you boarding axes and those racial weapons (I kind of discounted those from the get go anyway, since people rarely, if ever, use them), as well as the general fact that longswords should be able to do piercing (I was under the mistaken impression that they could for a long time, and I still generally think the basic blade progression is weird), but the rest of those could be said to deal piercing damage due to simply applying pressure and short shanking motions, which a regular gauntlet cannot do effectively for real damage.
I also won't argue much about the underwater rules. Just having it apply due to the nature of three simple types seems straight forward and easier to grasp than the possibly much more complex system of swing motions you are suggesting. While I'll acknowledge that the underwater rules might be a bit much given all the things that affect it (ground, swim checks, swim speeds, cover, etc), I think that the damage type decision was one of the better choices and it presented a serious tactical problem to melee characters that normally would only grab a greatsword and earthbreaker back up. It helped to present a new dimension of challenges and making the creatures lurking in the depths a much more serious problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
]
- Cestus, starknife, schizore and punching dagger should work equally good as gauntlet; whether they should all have penalty or none doesn't matter but there shouldn't really be a noticable difference
- A wooden stake or mere club shouldn't be more effective than a longsword
Generally speaking, when something is referred to as a gauntlet its presumably more or less an armoured glove. so your statement is possibly true for the Cestus (although its really more like a large metal boxing glove)
In regards to the other two weapons, the scissore isnt remotely anything like a glove. You can litterally dissect a man with one of them and it is basically the opposite of a glove in that you loose the use of its hand.
The Starknife really could fall under disk like throwing weapons, but again it isnt glovelike.
In regards to the other two weapons, the scissore isnt remotely anything like a glove. You can litterally dissect a man with one of them and it is basically the opposite of a glove in that you loose the use of its hand.The Starknife really could fall under disk like throwing weapons, but again it isnt glovelike.
From what I've understood, the penalty in water is mostly due to the increased difficulty of swinging. The same type of motion is used with a schizore or punching dagger as with either a punch or a swing. It doesn't have the same kind of streamlining as a spear, which is what I assumed they where going for with the "piercing is better than slashing underwater".
So it's not so much that the weapons are similar - a gauntlet is clearly different from all of those weapons except the cestus - but that they use the same kind of motions (when the weapons don't use motions more similar to swings or sword or axe motions)
but the rest of those could be said to deal piercing damage due to simply applying pressure and short shanking motions, which a regular gauntlet cannot do effectively for real damage.
but which about any slashing weapon could do, and it's using a weapon not in the major way intended (compare to C177Y C47's comment). If you're reduced to do short shanking motions with a schizore rather than making punches and slashes, that sounds about equally obnoxious as using a scimitar close to the body, making short pushes and slices and drawing motions rather than wild swings. In other words - an attack and/or damage penalty.
The thing is, I think a system should either aim for a certain amount of realism and depth, and take the complexity that comes with it, or be a bit looser and more abstract to make the system less complex. Generally, D&D/Pathfinder is great on the abstractness and rarely goes deep into realism camp, and when it does it usually fails - like in the case of the underwater rules.
Previously I've tried to houserule the game into a more realistic version, keeping the complexity but improving the realism. I've grown tired of it though, and it's hard to find players willing to take the steep learning curve of pathfinder as is; due to this, I'd much rather work on streamlining the system and drop some potential for realism in favor of ease of play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is, I think a system should either aim for a certain amount of realism and depth, and take the complexity that comes with it, or be a bit looser and more abstract to make the system less complex. Generally, D&D/Pathfinder is great on the abstractness and rarely goes deep into realism camp, and when it does it usually fails - like in the case of the underwater rules.
Previously I've tried to houserule the game into a more realistic version, keeping the complexity but improving the realism. I've grown tired of it though, and it's hard to find players willing to take the steep learning curve of pathfinder as is; due to this, I'd much rather work on streamlining the system and drop some potential for realism in favor of ease of play.
Still, I am unsure that completely changing weapon groups and basin them off of what you view as their intended arcs and motions seems like it might be going down the wrong path. And usually, I do not see such things mattering outside of very specific situations (as a GM, you never actually HAVE to bring up aquatic combat).
Wouldn't you benefit just as much just limiting the exisitng options instead, and keeping the existing rules? Instead of having starknives, butterflyknives, kukris, etc, just say that only regular daggers are available, for example. Getting a good selection together should generally suffice for most situations, it should generally not affect most builds, and it would simplify selection for new players.
I don't blame them at all and it's not the classification of picks that's the issue with the underwater penalties. I think they could just have dropped the underwater combat modifiers completely (for simplicity's sake, since they don't represent reality anyway) or made them closer to reality (for realisms sake, to make weapon choice more relevant) by stating that penalty is gained dependant on use motion rather than damage type. Now I feel it's neither simple nor realistic and it just feels like the worst of two worlds.
Fascinating. I cannot relate... at all.
Still, I am unsure that completely changing weapon groups and basin them off of what you view as their intended arcs and motions seems like it might be going down the wrong path.
Yes, me too. Hence I am not aiming at doing that - I am aiming at consolidating weapon groups, but keeping them defined based on damage type. Just that slashing and piercing damage, in the context of the game, are very similar and has much the same strengths and weaknesses, so consolidating them into cutting doesn't seem like I would lose a lot in terms of verisimillitude/realism.
And usually, I do not see such things mattering outside of very specific situations (as a GM, you never actually HAVE to bring up aquatic combat).
We've had aquatic combats quite a few times but never bothered with the penalty rules. Usually the PC's are underwater due to quite advanced magic, and so I feel comfortable handwaving that.
Wouldn't you benefit just as much just limiting the exisitng options instead, and keeping the existing rules? Instead of having starknives, butterflyknives, kukris, etc, just say that only regular daggers are available, for example.
I'm not aiming at reducing thematic variance, only mechanical choices with little noticable impact. To a certain degree I'm going to do what you mention; kukris, butterfly knives and daggers will surely be consolidated into daggers, mechanically (well, for kukris I might consider throwing them in with short swords instead). But rather than say "you can only have classic daggers", I say "sure you can have a kukri. use the dagger statistics.". Reducing damage types makes this kind of thing easier too.
Getting a good selection together should generally suffice for most situations, it should generally not affect most builds, and it would simplify selection for new players.
Yep! :) That's the point, kinda.
If a decision doesn't matter for hardly any builds (either by being a no-brainer or by having neglible impact) it's an unnecessary mechanical decision, and adds complexity without depth.
If bludgeoning is different conceptually, because of skeletons, as you stated in the OP, then slashing and piercing are different because zombies.
Ignore realism concerns. What makes having 2 weapon damage types better than having 3? In all the rules I've seen so far, aside from underwater and doing nonlethal damage, damage types only interact with the rules when a specific feature (skeleton, zombie, Vorpal) calls them out by name. With that in mind, you could make a legit argument that damage types all add complexity without depth.
If you use the Paizo crit cards, damage type becomes very relevant.
If bludgeoning is different conceptually, because of skeletons, as you stated in the OP, then slashing and piercing are different because zombies.
Ignore realism concerns. What makes having 2 weapon damage types better than having 3? In all the rules I've seen so far, aside from underwater and doing nonlethal damage, damage types only interact with the rules when a specific feature (skeleton, zombie, Vorpal) calls them out by name. With that in mind, you could make a legit argument that damage types all add complexity without depth.
You are right of course. It is true to some extent that the differentiation between bludgeoning and other damage has limited value in the rules as-is. But there are a few differences that to me makes it feel more relevant:
1. With zombies, having DR/slashing is not as supported by the trope as DR/piercing is for skellies. Zombies in fiction are killed with loads of piercing (and bludgeoning) weapons, without that seeming an issue. If they had had DR/piercing or DR/bludgeoning instead I wouldn't have been surprised. If you didn't know the rules, if someone asked "what's best for killing zombies, a sickle, a shortbow or a mace?" I'd say a large part of the people you ask would answer club or shortbow.2. With skeletons this isn't really so. Skeletons being resistant skewering and slicing is much more well-supported by fiction, and conceptually extremely easy to grasp. If you asked the same question about skeletons, everyone would answer mace.
Of course there are other creatures with DR/damage-type here, but skeletons and zombies are the most common and are a great example.
3. Quite a few special effects, for example Keen, only works on piercing or slashing weapons due to being reliant on an edge.
4. I had planned on making the difference between B and S/P larger in terms of nonlethal damage and a few other things.
So in large, I feel that bludgeoning vs slashing/piercing adds less complexity and more depth than slashing vs piercing, though of course the complexity is still considerable and the depth still isn't huge. But the choice has more obvious consequences, without being a no-brainer.
I do not want to drop all damage types alltogether - I feel things like "fire damage does not work upon fire elementals" to be very relevant. But I feel the S/P differentation is more like if acid (corrosive) damage would be split into two types, acid damage and base damage due to the difference in how corrosive acids and corrosive bases work. Sure, there are quite large differences chemically, but for the most part the difference doesn't easily translate into an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of each.
The strengths and weaknesses of a mace compared to a longsword are very easy to grasp, and where it isn't represented already in the game I planned on adding a bit of it. The strengths and weaknesses of a shortsword compared to a kukri are much less obvious.
Any knowledge of real world weapons and their mechanics simply muddles this mess worse. try to forget reality and physics and just go with the rules for simplicity.
Exactly. And if the rule doesn't add versimillitude nor relevant gameplay decisions, I wonder why I should keep it.
If you use the Paizo crit cards, damage type becomes very relevant.
I don't :/
EDIT: Heh. Just FYI, other things I plan to drop include ability scores (having just modifiers), minimum ability scores for spellcasting (they are relevant for so few builds), one-round casting times (obnoxious to keep track of and interact weirdly with changes in initiative) and full attack actions (keep martials grounded with no real reason).
I don't get much playing done right now, but my work gives me lots of time to let my mind wander, and then it's the perfect moment to make my own homebrew system :)
Just to make things worse, an ax and a razor are not the same kind of "slashing". axes and large sword crush through as much as cut where light blades slice soft tissue.
Likewise, a pick is more similar to a warhammer than a spear in function, and a warhammer is more similar to a pick than a club. Both warhammers and picks work by ffocusing the force of swinging a heavy object into a small point for a lot of penetrating pressure.
Technically, there's 4 kinds of weapon damage, not 3....slicing, hacking, bludgeoning, and piercing. Slicing and hacking get agglomerated into slashing damage.
How dare you think that the arguments that have been raging for millenia over what type of damage is best in combat can be solved so easily!!! The simple question of cutting vs piercing has caused innumerable arguments just among sword users!
The correct answer is: Whatever makes the game more fun. There are definite differences in the effectiveness of slashing vs piercing - but do we really care? Finding out rapiers are +3 to hit vs chain mail is nice...but do I really want to look that up? How does that compare to ogre hide vs dragon hide? Really, it only matters if the enemy is wearing armor where there might actually BE a difference in how effective applied force is...but then we fight soooooo many monsters...
that it's just nto worth the hassle of using the system.
Now, if you're going to use narrative and write a book, yeah, it's the kind of thing you bring into effect. Otherwise...just handwave it and keep moving.
==Aelryinth
I would argue that the division opens up design space, allowing for thematic feats and generating diversity among weapons by adding different kinds of value to different weapon damage types. But I don't think we get as much payout as I'd like for that open design space in the core rules.