I'm far from an expert in DnD 5e. But I've noticed that these damage types seem almost pointless. While there may be one or two out there, I feel like there are few enemies that are "resistant to piercing" but not slashing or bludgeoning. Elemental damage seems to have much more variation, Resistance to Fire, Poison, etc. damage types.
So it seems to me one of two things need to happen, either these damage types are incorporated more into enemies or just get rid of the distinction and say "physical damage"
What are other's thoughts on it? Is this something that has always been the case, or is it more of a 5e issue, or am I wrong and those damage types do have value in the game.
The issue is that certain enemies don't make sense to be normally affected by all three, but it's only a limited trait. For example, it doesn't make sense for bludgeoning or piercing damage to have full effect on an awakened tree, while slashing damage should, so you do need to distinguish between them.
On the other hand, the vast majority of creatures don't need this distinction, so unless you're going to add a whole bunch of new monsters purely to give further meaning to the distinction (bloat alert!) or arbitrarily just add it to current ones (yay for pointless complication and further nerfing martials), there's not much you can do.
Personally, I see where you're coming from and to an extent I agree, but I don't think the juice is worth the squeeze with either solution. It's just not that big of a deal. Perhaps a better one is to have an umbrella term for the three, say, weapon damage. A monster might be resistant to some combination of the three, or if it's resistant to all three, the statblock could say that it's resistant to non magical weapon damage instead.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Pretty sure these distinctions are made because some monsters have resistances to certain types of damage, and some spells & magical items can provide resistances to certain types of damage. But for 90% of encounters, you're right. The type of damage doesn't matter for HP reduction.
Besides the resistances to such damage types, IMO the extent to which damage type matters depends on the DM, i.e., some DMs will ignore it, ignore it sometimes, never ignore it.
Frankly, you could group them together, and the encounters in the game probably wouldn't change whatsoever. Although I believe there are still reasons to keep the damage types, like interacting with physical objects, for example, there's nothing wrong with making them the same damage type.
Most encounters wouldn't change, but some will. Awakened tree has already been cited, but there's also the treant and the flameskull. That's just from the Monster Manual - there seem to be plenty in other books. So yes, encounters would change if you removed the distinctions.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
It also allows for some variance of features with things like the Crusher/Piercer/Slasher feats. Plus it’s flavor; the other damage types are only slightly more relevant in 5e
As has been said, the distinction is mostly a holdover from previous editions. 5e cut or reduced a lot of things with the goal of making the game easier to learn, and meaningful distinctions between weapons was one of those things. Was that a good tradeoff? That's yours to decide.
If you wanted to make the damage types more distinct without really shifting the power balance of the game much, you could try applying the effects of the Crusher, Piercer, and Slasher feats--from Tasha's Cauldron of Everything--to all physical attacks. This will make martials noticeably stronger (and slightly more complicated), but I think most players would be fine with that.
It is a combination of certain creatures being resistant/immune to certain types, parity with magic damage types and a relic of old attempts at realism.
Not the most essential feature, unless you play a Plant rich campaign.
As others have said, it is largely a legacy mechanic from old editions. Iirc skeletons, for example, would take lower damage from piercing and smashing, but extra damage from bludgeoning. And there were a lot of monsters that had similar features. Even that is basically a simplified version of 1e, where there were huge charts giving different weapons bonuses and minuses vs different kinds of armor — like piercing weapons were great against chain mail, but slashing not so much.
And while it sounds like the kind of thing that would add extra depth and a tactical choice to combat, imo, really, we’re better off without the distinction being too important. When it was a thing, PCs needed to carry around an armory just in case they ran into certain creatures. It was known as a golf bag — oh, a slime, better pull out my hammer (or maybe I have it backwards, I know slimes were resistant to something). The whole thing got really annoying and wasn’t actually any more fun.
I suppose the Feats are the one thing I didn't think of for this. Its just a lot of unnecessary aspects as a result of this. There are a bunch of weapons 1d6 slashing, 1d6 piercing, etc. but other than those few examples, its only the die that matters. It just seems like its a half implemented mechanic, where there is a framework there but for the most part, it doesn't matter.
Personally, the simplicity of it make more sense rather than trying to add complexity so everyone needs to carry multiple weapons around. I suppose it all just carries over to my annoyance of melee combat mechanics been a bit dry compared to spell mechanics.
Frankly, you could group them together, and the encounters in the game probably wouldn't change whatsoever. Although I believe there are still reasons to keep the damage types, like interacting with physical objects, for example, there's nothing wrong with making them the same damage type.
Have fun with your longsword in a black pudding fight. Oh wait, all weapons are the same so it's now immune to all weapons and splits when you hit it with a mace.
Frankly, you could group them together, and the encounters in the game probably wouldn't change whatsoever. Although I believe there are still reasons to keep the damage types, like interacting with physical objects, for example, there's nothing wrong with making them the same damage type.
Have fun with your longsword in a black pudding fight. Oh wait, all weapons are the same so it's now immune to all weapons and splits when you hit it with a mace.
Okay but like... That's actually an example of the problem. Physical damage types almost never matter, except when they suddenly do. Then your martials are arbitrarily punished for a thing that never mattered before, and probably will not matter again afterwards.
I don't think they should merge all physical damage into a single type either, but if they're going to keep them separate, they should make the different types matter frequently (or even all the time!) instead of only very occasionally. I also think there's probably a better way to do this than a Pokemon-esque type effectiveness chart, but that's a deeper game design discussion.
It is not just the martials, the magical are CONSTANTLY punished the way you claim the martials are suddenly punished. Oh, you are a fire mage? Lets throw a fire elemental at you.
Some of the reason why the martials are punished rarely is to make up for the constant punisment the magicals have.
It is not just thee martials, the magical are CONSTANTLY punished the way you claim the martials are suddenly punished. Oh, you are a fire mage? Lets throw a fire elemental at you.
The important difference between those scenarios comes from the way the game conditions magic users to build their characters, compared to the way it conditions martial characters.
When you play a caster, the game encourages you to pick spells of varying damage types by making sure those spells all do different things. Ray of Frost slows targets down, Shocking Grasp prevents reactions, Fire Bolt has better range and damage than most other spells, etc. The end result is that most casters do not exclusively specialize in one damage type, even if they have subclass features that encourage them to use one type more than others. So a caster with only Fire and Poison damage spells who encounters a Fire elemental is punished, but they're punished for a series of choices they made in spite of the way the game is built.
Martials are not guided by the mechanics of the game in a similar way. Unless they are specifically given a magic weapon or other upgrade by the DM, most martial classes will play the whole campaign with the weapons they picked at character creation. And why shouldn't they? There's no reason to choose a Warhammer (1d8 Bludgeoning) over a Longsword (1d8 Slashing) for 99% of the contents of the Monster Manual. They even confuse the matter further by including the Battleaxe (1d8 Slashing), which is mechanically identical to the Longsword (unless you use encumbrance rules, like a sadist). The implication martials receive is this: your weapons are just for flavor. Choose whichever one you think is coolest, then don't worry about it after that. When a martial with only Slashing weapons encounters a Black Pudding, they're punished for something they have never had to think about before, and will probably never have to think about again. That's why the Black Pudding splitting mechanic is bad game design (in 5e, specifically) and the Fire elemental's damage immunities aren't. Does that make sense?
It’s probably worth noting that while damage types aren’t likely to matter, the 1D&D playtest weapon masteries will mean meaningful differences between specific weapons. Damage type still won’t matter much, but your weapon will. And the designers with their plans to give fighters in particular access to multiple masteries, seem to be encouraging carrying around multiple weapons. How it will work in play remains to be seen. But it is kind of a different way of getting at the issue of weapon sameness.
It is not just thee martials, the magical are CONSTANTLY punished the way you claim the martials are suddenly punished. Oh, you are a fire mage? Lets throw a fire elemental at you.
That's why the Black Pudding splitting mechanic is bad game design (in 5e, specifically) and the Fire elemental's damage immunities aren't. Does that make sense?
AD&D 1e MM p 10
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
The differences in damage types are not a "punishment" they keep the game interesting and exciting. They also get people to think about different strategies when the status quo doesn't work. Look for additional tool do do a job...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
That's why the Black Pudding splitting mechanic is bad game design (in 5e, specifically) and the Fire elemental's damage immunities aren't. Does that make sense?
AD&D 1e MM p 10
I'm just talking about how the splitting effect works within 5e's rule set. (That's why I said "in 5e, specifically".) I don't know enough about AD&D to have an opinion about it, or to extrapolate your point.
The differences in damage types are not a "punishment" they keep the game interesting and exciting. They also get people to think about different strategies when the status quo doesn't work. Look for additional tool do do a job...
You guys have really latched onto the word "punishment" here when the more important word was "arbitrarily". Damage resistances and immunities are punishments in the most neutral sense of the word. If you hit a creature that is immune to Fire with Fire and it doesn't take damage, you are unlikely to hit that creature with Fire again. That's all a punishment is: a response to a behaviour that discourages the repeat of the behaviour. Punishments by themselves aren't a problem; most game systems conditionally punish some behaviours and reinforce others. That's just learning to play. The problem with the way physical damage types are currently implemented is how rarely they're either punished or reinforced. This conditions players not to think about the specifics of the physical damage type they deal, so when they are punished for not doing that, it doesn't feel fair or comprehensible.
Let me present a thought experiment to you; you've just picked up D&D. You're playing a fighter, you're about level 4. You've fought goblins, orcs, maybe a few gricks or perytons, maybe even a lycanthrope or two. You encounter a Black Pudding, you hit it with your Longsword, and it splits. What about your adventure so far would lead you to conclude: "Oh, it split because I hit it with Slashing damage. I should hit it with something else."? Nothing you've encountered before has had a reaction to a specific physical damage type, and that's not surprising because there are only six monsters in the entire Monster Manual that specifically resist one or two physical damage types, but not all three. No, you're going to have the much more reasonable reaction: "Oh, it split because I hit it with a physical attack, I'm going to stop hitting it with physical attacks." That lack of readability is a problem, and it's caused by the fact that most of the rules and 97.22%* of monsters in the Monster Manual tell you that physical damage types don't matter.
*I said 99% before, I apologize for overestimating; actually 11 out of the 396 monsters in the MM have a unique vulnerability, resistance, or immunity to a specific type of physical damage, which is 2.78%
I'm far from an expert in DnD 5e. But I've noticed that these damage types seem almost pointless.
While there may be one or two out there, I feel like there are few enemies that are "resistant to piercing" but not slashing or bludgeoning.
Elemental damage seems to have much more variation, Resistance to Fire, Poison, etc. damage types.
So it seems to me one of two things need to happen, either these damage types are incorporated more into enemies or just get rid of the distinction and say "physical damage"
What are other's thoughts on it? Is this something that has always been the case, or is it more of a 5e issue, or am I wrong and those damage types do have value in the game.
The issue is that certain enemies don't make sense to be normally affected by all three, but it's only a limited trait. For example, it doesn't make sense for bludgeoning or piercing damage to have full effect on an awakened tree, while slashing damage should, so you do need to distinguish between them.
On the other hand, the vast majority of creatures don't need this distinction, so unless you're going to add a whole bunch of new monsters purely to give further meaning to the distinction (bloat alert!) or arbitrarily just add it to current ones (yay for pointless complication and further nerfing martials), there's not much you can do.
Personally, I see where you're coming from and to an extent I agree, but I don't think the juice is worth the squeeze with either solution. It's just not that big of a deal. Perhaps a better one is to have an umbrella term for the three, say, weapon damage. A monster might be resistant to some combination of the three, or if it's resistant to all three, the statblock could say that it's resistant to non magical weapon damage instead.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Pretty sure these distinctions are made because some monsters have resistances to certain types of damage, and some spells & magical items can provide resistances to certain types of damage. But for 90% of encounters, you're right. The type of damage doesn't matter for HP reduction.
Besides the resistances to such damage types, IMO the extent to which damage type matters depends on the DM, i.e., some DMs will ignore it, ignore it sometimes, never ignore it.
Started playing AD&D in the late 70s and stopped in the mid-80s. Started immersing myself into 5e in 2023
Frankly, you could group them together, and the encounters in the game probably wouldn't change whatsoever. Although I believe there are still reasons to keep the damage types, like interacting with physical objects, for example, there's nothing wrong with making them the same damage type.
Most encounters wouldn't change, but some will. Awakened tree has already been cited, but there's also the treant and the flameskull. That's just from the Monster Manual - there seem to be plenty in other books. So yes, encounters would change if you removed the distinctions.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
It was a bigger deal in prior editions-the mechanics now are just a remnant
Guide to the Five Factions (PWYW)
Deck of Decks
It also allows for some variance of features with things like the Crusher/Piercer/Slasher feats. Plus it’s flavor; the other damage types are only slightly more relevant in 5e
As has been said, the distinction is mostly a holdover from previous editions. 5e cut or reduced a lot of things with the goal of making the game easier to learn, and meaningful distinctions between weapons was one of those things. Was that a good tradeoff? That's yours to decide.
If you wanted to make the damage types more distinct without really shifting the power balance of the game much, you could try applying the effects of the Crusher, Piercer, and Slasher feats--from Tasha's Cauldron of Everything--to all physical attacks. This will make martials noticeably stronger (and slightly more complicated), but I think most players would be fine with that.
It is a combination of certain creatures being resistant/immune to certain types, parity with magic damage types and a relic of old attempts at realism.
Not the most essential feature, unless you play a Plant rich campaign.
As others have said, it is largely a legacy mechanic from old editions. Iirc skeletons, for example, would take lower damage from piercing and smashing, but extra damage from bludgeoning. And there were a lot of monsters that had similar features. Even that is basically a simplified version of 1e, where there were huge charts giving different weapons bonuses and minuses vs different kinds of armor — like piercing weapons were great against chain mail, but slashing not so much.
And while it sounds like the kind of thing that would add extra depth and a tactical choice to combat, imo, really, we’re better off without the distinction being too important. When it was a thing, PCs needed to carry around an armory just in case they ran into certain creatures. It was known as a golf bag — oh, a slime, better pull out my hammer (or maybe I have it backwards, I know slimes were resistant to something). The whole thing got really annoying and wasn’t actually any more fun.
I suppose the Feats are the one thing I didn't think of for this.
Its just a lot of unnecessary aspects as a result of this.
There are a bunch of weapons 1d6 slashing, 1d6 piercing, etc. but other than those few examples, its only the die that matters.
It just seems like its a half implemented mechanic, where there is a framework there but for the most part, it doesn't matter.
Personally, the simplicity of it make more sense rather than trying to add complexity so everyone needs to carry multiple weapons around.
I suppose it all just carries over to my annoyance of melee combat mechanics been a bit dry compared to spell mechanics.
Have fun with your longsword in a black pudding fight. Oh wait, all weapons are the same so it's now immune to all weapons and splits when you hit it with a mace.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Certainly more monsters could be affected differently to the 3 damage types like the Skeletton with vulnerability to one..
Okay but like... That's actually an example of the problem. Physical damage types almost never matter, except when they suddenly do. Then your martials are arbitrarily punished for a thing that never mattered before, and probably will not matter again afterwards.
I don't think they should merge all physical damage into a single type either, but if they're going to keep them separate, they should make the different types matter frequently (or even all the time!) instead of only very occasionally. I also think there's probably a better way to do this than a Pokemon-esque type effectiveness chart, but that's a deeper game design discussion.
It is not just the martials, the magical are CONSTANTLY punished the way you claim the martials are suddenly punished. Oh, you are a fire mage? Lets throw a fire elemental at you.
Some of the reason why the martials are punished rarely is to make up for the constant punisment the magicals have.
The important difference between those scenarios comes from the way the game conditions magic users to build their characters, compared to the way it conditions martial characters.
When you play a caster, the game encourages you to pick spells of varying damage types by making sure those spells all do different things. Ray of Frost slows targets down, Shocking Grasp prevents reactions, Fire Bolt has better range and damage than most other spells, etc. The end result is that most casters do not exclusively specialize in one damage type, even if they have subclass features that encourage them to use one type more than others. So a caster with only Fire and Poison damage spells who encounters a Fire elemental is punished, but they're punished for a series of choices they made in spite of the way the game is built.
Martials are not guided by the mechanics of the game in a similar way. Unless they are specifically given a magic weapon or other upgrade by the DM, most martial classes will play the whole campaign with the weapons they picked at character creation. And why shouldn't they? There's no reason to choose a Warhammer (1d8 Bludgeoning) over a Longsword (1d8 Slashing) for 99% of the contents of the Monster Manual. They even confuse the matter further by including the Battleaxe (1d8 Slashing), which is mechanically identical to the Longsword (unless you use encumbrance rules, like a sadist). The implication martials receive is this: your weapons are just for flavor. Choose whichever one you think is coolest, then don't worry about it after that. When a martial with only Slashing weapons encounters a Black Pudding, they're punished for something they have never had to think about before, and will probably never have to think about again. That's why the Black Pudding splitting mechanic is bad game design (in 5e, specifically) and the Fire elemental's damage immunities aren't. Does that make sense?
It’s probably worth noting that while damage types aren’t likely to matter, the 1D&D playtest weapon masteries will mean meaningful differences between specific weapons. Damage type still won’t matter much, but your weapon will.
And the designers with their plans to give fighters in particular access to multiple masteries, seem to be encouraging carrying around multiple weapons. How it will work in play remains to be seen. But it is kind of a different way of getting at the issue of weapon sameness.
AD&D 1e MM p 10
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
The differences in damage types are not a "punishment" they keep the game interesting and exciting. They also get people to think about different strategies when the status quo doesn't work. Look for additional tool do do a job...
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
I'm just talking about how the splitting effect works within 5e's rule set. (That's why I said "in 5e, specifically".) I don't know enough about AD&D to have an opinion about it, or to extrapolate your point.
You guys have really latched onto the word "punishment" here when the more important word was "arbitrarily". Damage resistances and immunities are punishments in the most neutral sense of the word. If you hit a creature that is immune to Fire with Fire and it doesn't take damage, you are unlikely to hit that creature with Fire again. That's all a punishment is: a response to a behaviour that discourages the repeat of the behaviour. Punishments by themselves aren't a problem; most game systems conditionally punish some behaviours and reinforce others. That's just learning to play. The problem with the way physical damage types are currently implemented is how rarely they're either punished or reinforced. This conditions players not to think about the specifics of the physical damage type they deal, so when they are punished for not doing that, it doesn't feel fair or comprehensible.
Let me present a thought experiment to you; you've just picked up D&D. You're playing a fighter, you're about level 4. You've fought goblins, orcs, maybe a few gricks or perytons, maybe even a lycanthrope or two. You encounter a Black Pudding, you hit it with your Longsword, and it splits. What about your adventure so far would lead you to conclude: "Oh, it split because I hit it with Slashing damage. I should hit it with something else."? Nothing you've encountered before has had a reaction to a specific physical damage type, and that's not surprising because there are only six monsters in the entire Monster Manual that specifically resist one or two physical damage types, but not all three. No, you're going to have the much more reasonable reaction: "Oh, it split because I hit it with a physical attack, I'm going to stop hitting it with physical attacks." That lack of readability is a problem, and it's caused by the fact that most of the rules and 97.22%* of monsters in the Monster Manual tell you that physical damage types don't matter.
*I said 99% before, I apologize for overestimating; actually 11 out of the 396 monsters in the MM have a unique vulnerability, resistance, or immunity to a specific type of physical damage, which is 2.78%