Lizardfolk's Bite now deals slashing instead of piercing damage? This change is so bizarre it makes me think someone at WotC has a personal vendetta against piercing damage.
Given that the Piercer, Slasher, and Crusher feats are really the only things that care about melee damage types (yes, there's a few monsters with vulnerability or resistance to specific damage types, but it's seriously rare) I feel that the change is largely irrelevant.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Not that I know the actual rationale of the designer who made the change, but slashing damage makes more sense for a Bite that is meant to coordinate with the Hungry Jaws trait - tearing off pieces of flesh and/or causing massive blood loss to swallow for "health", while piercing damage makes more sense for a creature whose Bite is meant for grasping prey in order to swallow it whole.
Sure, there are creatures like the hunter shark that deal piercing damage with similar sorts of bites, but WotC might intend to change that to slashing damage in the later update. Now I feel like checking the MMM for any other similar changes in statblocks...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
Piercing damage implies that when you bite you immediately release so that the teeth only pierce the flesh of the target.
Slashing implies that when you bite you do not release the bite. You instead ether pull away or force the target to pull away which would cause the flesh to rend and tear.
Piercing damage implies that when you bite you immediately release so that the teeth only pierce the flesh of the target.
Slashing implies that when you bite you do not release the bite. You instead ether pull away or force the target to pull away which would cause the flesh to rend and tear.
By this logic, slashing would imply that you don't actually bite and instead are running the sides of your teeth along the thing you are attacking.
Damage types seem to mainly describe how the majority of the damage is done or what is the damage for a standard attack. A long sword can be used to stab, but it is normally used to cut.
I am simple saying the majority of a standard bite is slashing damage not piercing with the teeth and jaw working like a saw blade. This is of course unless as I said you bite then let go (which you must be doing as it does not cause a grapple condition).
Meh, "rending" damage doesn't exist in present rules, slashing is more proximate to that than piercing, or so the editorial team though this time around.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Lizardfolk's Bite now deals slashing instead of piercing damage? This change is so bizarre it makes me think someone at WotC has a personal vendetta against piercing damage.
"The Epic Level Handbook wasn't that bad, guys.
Guys, pls."
Given that the Piercer, Slasher, and Crusher feats are really the only things that care about melee damage types (yes, there's a few monsters with vulnerability or resistance to specific damage types, but it's seriously rare) I feel that the change is largely irrelevant.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Maybe they're more T-Rex than Raptor now?
That is very strange.
Not that I know the actual rationale of the designer who made the change, but slashing damage makes more sense for a Bite that is meant to coordinate with the Hungry Jaws trait - tearing off pieces of flesh and/or causing massive blood loss to swallow for "health", while piercing damage makes more sense for a creature whose Bite is meant for grasping prey in order to swallow it whole.
Sure, there are creatures like the hunter shark that deal piercing damage with similar sorts of bites, but WotC might intend to change that to slashing damage in the later update. Now I feel like checking the MMM for any other similar changes in statblocks...
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
Piercing damage implies that when you bite you immediately release so that the teeth only pierce the flesh of the target.
Slashing implies that when you bite you do not release the bite. You instead ether pull away or force the target to pull away which would cause the flesh to rend and tear.
By this logic, slashing would imply that you don't actually bite and instead are running the sides of your teeth along the thing you are attacking.
Damage types seem to mainly describe how the majority of the damage is done or what is the damage for a standard attack. A long sword can be used to stab, but it is normally used to cut.
I am simple saying the majority of a standard bite is slashing damage not piercing with the teeth and jaw working like a saw blade. This is of course unless as I said you bite then let go (which you must be doing as it does not cause a grapple condition).
Meh, "rending" damage doesn't exist in present rules, slashing is more proximate to that than piercing, or so the editorial team though this time around.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I like it. It gives the slasher feat a bit more to chew on (lolz).
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
This is all because they didn't want to combine physical damage types in 5E. They could have just made bites deal piercing and slashing damage.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
You mean like how explosions should do force AND fire damage? Or the team should at least add more thunder damage… it’s the most underrated.
“Magic is distilled laziness. Put that on my gravestone.”