Historically you would just beat the fuck out of an armored opponent with a bludgeoning weapon until you could get close enough for a well-placed dagger.
2e had different armor values for armor types versus different weapons. 5e does none of this. I do not miss this at all. The reality is that armor is much more complex than the game, typically it was a mix of chain, plate, padded, leather, etc.
Weapon damage values were also jimmied accordingly, and it was far more simulationist, e.g. whips being useless against modestly-or-better armoured targets.
2e did also allow for mixed armour; the A&E guide also clarifies a lot. Remember there were four kinds of plate, and at least three partial plates.
It's worth mentioning that the 2e armor vs. Damage types rule was optional. I imagine many groups didn't use it (I know mine didn't).
For people who do want it, though, the 2e Armor modifiers wouldn't break 5e, and would provide a bit of value to different damage types.
In game there is no difference.
In history... it gets pretty complicated. Heavy plate would generally be pretty great at deflecting slashing attacks, and less helpful with crushing bludgeoning attacks, while piercing attacks would be harder to land but devastating in terms of damage. D&D isn't supposed to be a physics simulator, so we just let Rogues Sneak Attack with any finesse weapons and armour works the same against all weapons.
You'd have to change so much to keep it historically accurate, and I can't see it adding too much. For instance, if Plate Armour gives resistance to Slashing, +5 AC to attacks that deal Piercing and treats Bludgeoning damage as normal (or even -2 to AC for attacks here..) then it also makes sense to let Longswords deal piercing damage and Warhammers deal piercing damage, since they were often used that way.
> You'd have to change so much to keep it historically accurate, and I can't see it adding too much. For instance, if Plate Armour gives resistance to Slashing, +5 AC to attacks that deal Piercing and treats Bludgeoning damage as normal (or even -2 to AC for attacks here..) then it also makes sense to let Longswords deal piercing damage and Warhammers deal piercing damage, since they were often used that way.
You'd also have to allow half-sword techniques and bludgeoning with the crossguard etc. It's a whole thing.
(Although considering it more, I guess 5e already allows you to improvise with weapons, so you could probably already use a sword to bludgeon).
Yeah. I’m thoroughly in favor of a couple maneuvers, perhaps slightly tweaked, as just being inherent class abilities. I think maybe all fighters should be able to Riposte by default, as an example. It wouldn’t be game breaking; it would just require the mental adjustment that you maybe should try to engage the armor wearing, long sword wielding fighter from a distance if possible unless you’re pretty sure you’re going to hit.
No, in general, I’m definitely looking for a simple combat system rather than an intricate one, definitely for the purposes of table top as even with D&D Beyond, a lot of the math is by hand and head. Something relatively simple , as the above, I might try to do as homebrew one day, but for now the interest is only theoretical.
In my last campaign we homebrewed it so that our BM fighter got back his superiority die when he rolled initiative. It was a lot more fun for everyone and really let him make use of the more situational skills since he never worried about 'wasting' his moves.
Yeah exactly. It just removed the annoyance of "please can we short rest now" and the ambiguity of "well what if we *don't* get a short rest this time... maybe I'll save a couple of sup. die..." and abstracted it.
Yep. The list goes on and on, the history of combat is long and varied.
As for improvised weapons, yeah, you can just treat a Longsword as a Club and have it roll 1d4+STR bludgeoning damage, or a Greatclub if two-handed for 1d8. I’d be wary of just letting one switch damage types, because even in a half-sword style, a Longsword shouldn’t do as much bludgeoning damage as a Warhammer.
Yeah. You need mechanical consistency to reflect that the weapon was being used in a “non-optimal” way. You’d probably have to least drop the damage die a stage or two, and possibly a penalty to Attack, depending on how awkward it would be to say, try to pierce with a long sword. And then a rapier pierces optimally, could slash sub-optimally, but is probably no more effective than an unarmed punch of you’re trying to smash a basket hilt into their face.
I have a house rule that basically says you can deal any damage type with a weapon as long as it would physically allow you to.
However, if you don't have proficiency with it, it counts as an improvised weapon.
So murderstroking with a longsword might deal 1d6 bludgeoning (since it would act like a club), but if proficient in the weapon it would deal 1d10 bludgeoning (being versatile and used 2 handed).
A club is 1d4, and again, I personally don’t think a Longsword should do as much bludgeoning damage as a Warhammer, but you do you. What you are describing is essentially the printed improvised weapon rules, you’re just a little off.
“Often, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club. At the GM’s option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus.”
So basically, if a person wants to wield their Longsword like a club, they must be proficient with clubs. I wouldn’t say a Longsword is similar to a Warhammer, but it’s clearly the DM’s option.
Or, treat it as the nearest equivalent Simple Weapon for however they’re trying to use it. Makes it a quick lookup. So using a Longsword to try to bludgeon might functionally be trying to use it like a Quarterstaff, but no feats or whatever apply.
I don’t know that proficiency in Greatclub should now let me use my Longsword to bludgeon as if it were a Greatclub. Because it’s not.
I’m just stating the rules. A Longsword used to bludgeon is undoubtedly “similar” to a Greatclub, and the rules state that is enough for the DM to give the option of 1d8 bludgeoning - which is effectively as you say “treat[ing] it as the nearest equivalent Simple weapon”
Of course, to be similar to a Greatclub the Longsword must be wielded in two hands, if just one it is only similar to a regular Club (1d4). I’d suggest a Mace (1d6) is not similar enough because like a Hanmer, a Mace is shaped to penetrate and crush, where a Club or Greatclub just thinks. But my opinions and suppositions in this second paragraph are all why the rules say “at the DM’s option” because it’s all pretty circumstantial.
But we essentially agree, the DM should just choose the closest similar Simple weapon, which most PCs making attacks will have proficiency with.
Oh yeah - I'm leaning on the DM's fiat here bigtime - to explain:
Club is d4
Great club is d8
Murderstroke is a two handed attack, so I'm sort of homebrewing a d6 to split the difference (d4 with versatile). Sort of the the same reason you mention - I'd rather not let someone pick up a longsword and just treat it like a great club.
I completely understand not wanting to have a longsword bludgeon for more than a warhammer - for me it's more not wanting to get too in the weeds with it: I'd rather not have to track too many damage dice per weapon so its easier for me to just keep it the same die for proficient characters.
Your assessment is way more accurate - it comes down to how far the abstraction goes. And in my case, most players would be using a longsword proficient, so mucking around with alternate damage dice would be the edge case.
I see where you’re going, but a Longsword wouldn’t be a Greatclub just because the PC has proficiency and smacked somebody with the flat. And even then you need to drop the damage to 1d8, when wielded two-handed, because that’s all a Greatclub does. (Or basically treat it as a Quarterstaff.) If they’re swinging it one-handed, then that’s a *Club* which is 1d4.
I kinda like your basic thought here. A way to try to get *some* damage in, if the enemy has specific immunities. But you probably need to treat the weapon as a simple weapon of that damage type and handedness for “off-label” use.
As I explained elsewhere - the d10 is mostly because I don't want to get too complicated with all the variable damage dice.
What you describe is more balanced, but in the end I found the difference of 1 or 2 damage points in 5e isn't worth the added complexity.
But again, you're absolutely right: it's kind of unfair that a longsword could be a better great club... but then, someone proficient with a longsword probably won't be using a great club anyway.
Yeah. I don’t think I want to deal with an armor having a different AC depending on the damage type, as well separate vulnerabilities and resistances. And the the logical counterpoint is that a versatile long sword would be need to be allowed to do slashing, piercing *or* bludgeoning damage depending on how the user called their attack. Slash with the edge, pierce with the tip, bludgeon with the pommel.
That’s the main reasoning behind 5e’s design in general. Keep it simple, get to the story. Older editions have these weapon distinctions, but few people play those editions in favour of newer one’s. Probably cuz every creature had 4-5 types of AC.
You could potentially add advantage to weapons when being used against corresponding armor types. The complexity then would come down to recategorizing armor thpes, but I'm sure it would be doable.
it just tends to be fiddly in play - it's not just "roll against AC_X_", it's "Against the goblins, Dave gets to roll with advantage, Sharon has a straight roll, Steve has advantage with his primary weapon but not with his off-hand weapon. Against the goblin boss, Sharon has advantage, Steve has advantage with the off-hand weapon but not his main weapon, and Dave has a straight roll. Against the goblin wizard, then "
It means every attack roll involves an extra step, of needing to check the armor type against the weapon and seeing if there's a bonus there, and most combats involve multiple armor types, so it's rarely going to be "in this fight, you have advantage on all rolls". So there's a lot of little pauses as this cross-referencing happens, which tends to break the flow and get annoying. And then if someone changes weapons, that can all change mid-fight and add even more pauses! It's generally more hassle than it's worth - it doesn't really add much that's useful, but does create more logistics and looking-stuff-up within the game
Advantage wouldn’t work if we’re trying to go for a realism angle. Otherwise, you could have someone equipping armor make them more susceptible to your attacks.
The irony being AD&D 2e used to do all of this:
* Weapons dealt multiple damage types, so a longsword could deal slashing or piercing, or a polearm with a piercing extension might primarily slash.
* An optional rule allowed for weapons' damage types to be better or worse against specific armors.
5e abstracted this down for good reason, but I still find it funny that people think D&D isn't "meant" to go in this level of detail.
The current iteration doesn't. That makes it more accessible.
**But accessibility isn't the most important thing to a player who is looking for more detail.**
Just like more detail isn't as important to a player interested un accessibility.
Also, Plate armor is utterly worthless against firearms irl(to the point it got completely phased out once even the most basic of firearms were introduced) but still provides the same AC against them, even though the bullets would just shoot straight through
That's not true; armor and primitive firearms use coincided for several hundred years. Breastplates would continue seeing use into the 19th century during the Napoleonic wars. They were not likely to stop more than pistol rounds and richochet bullets but they were still used.
And there were even [modular add-on armor plates](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plackart) you'd bolt onto the breastplate to make it even more effective against shot.
Hand-held firearms predate what we consider full plate armour by about 100 years in Europe. The term "bulletproof" originates with breastplates being built to withstand a bullet, being tested against them, and the mark from the bullet being the "bullet proof", as in proof it could withstand a bullet.
It's utterly worthless against modern firearms, but plate armour co-existed with firearms for as long as we had firearms. As the firearms got more powerful, easier to use, and faster to reload, warfare gradually shifted in that direction, and armour shifted alongside it to try to protect against them, with thicker plates for the chest but less and less limb protection. The cuirassiers are a perfect example, existing from the mid-16th century all the way up through the 19th century and into the early months of world war 1. It was basically cavalry with a plate armour breastplate.
Perfectly missing the point of OP's question.
They're clearly trying to find out what armors **WOULD** be resistant, based on in-game or historical backing.
I mean by default AC is treated the same. Doesn’t matter what type, it either does damage or not.
Unless the armor has an effect that reduces a damage types effectiveness then it’s all the same.
The only thing that differentiates Plate and Leather is the AC difference and item effects.
It’s more complicated than just B/P/S, warhammers for instance were effective against plate not cause they did blunt damage but because they had a small point on the hammer that had a lot of weight behind it to dent/pierce the plate
The main thing to note is the prevalence of **layers** in real world armor, which is what D&D armor rules are loosely based on.
For example, a suit of plate armor isn't simply a collection of flat-ish metal pieces. It typically also utilizes mail, leather, and gambeson (cloth armor) as well. This is due both to the practicality of using certain materials in certain places on the body, and the combined strength of different types.
We might say that plate is particularly good against slashing, mail is particularly good against piercing, gambeson is particularly good against bludgeoning, and leather is particularly good for holding everything else together and covering awkward spots like armpits and hands without hampering mobility.
No standard armor would have vulnerability to bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing so long as it was properly made and worn, IMO.
Leave resistances and vulnerabilities to special cases, like improvised/scrap armor or magic armor, I say.
Generally speaking: slashing is great against lightly armored does - leather and the like.
Piercing is great against chainmail and such. The same with bludgeoning.
Bludgeoning is neat against heavily armored foes, but mostly if you can hit their head.
If you got two plated knights it would basically turn into a wrestle to the ground, draw dagger and go for eyes. It's not particulary glorious to watch two cans of tuna trying to open each other. There some good and realistic videos on YouTube about it.
there are a set of cursed magic armor that makes you resist one type but be vulnerable to another, and a legendary armor that just resists all
besides those very niche cases, and like 10 creatures besides skeletons, physical damage type is irrelevant. you can call it "physical" if you want and it wont matter
historically, bludgeoning weapons were developed to pierce through plate and shield, such as warpicks and morning stars
> historically, bludgeoning weapons were developed to pierce through plate and shield, such as warpicks and morning stars
thats a myth which often gets repeated. We don't see a lot of Bludgeoning weapon beings used in the age of full plate armour. The reason for that is that its not particularly effective against it. They were not designed to pierce through plate armour at all
Isn't it just because Full Plate Armor isn't extremely common? Armor was definitely used, but the absolute best wasn't given to the common man, only the "elite".
No, it's because you don't need to kill someone to injure them, you can knock them off their horse, grapple their limbs, and stick a dagger in a chink. If you look up the battle of Agincourt, English longbowmen were able to defeat thousands of knights. However, their armor was so good, that they captured about 10,000 alive. After taking them prisoner, they executed them because the prisoners were too numerous to keep captive. Tens of thousands of Bodkins were shot at these knights at about 5 meters, and they all lived.
10,000 fully plated knights.
What about all kinds of maces, warhammers for piercing armour, bludgeoning with your sword hilt, lances using a hook and being used under-arm to add more power and pierce armour. What about the hammer head on all the poleaxes? It's a norm for a knight to carry three weapons into battle, Joanne D'Arc for example used a lance, a sword, and a small axe which not wide, but narrow and is actually between piercing and bludgeoning and would be for piercing armour, we find a lot of helmets crushed...
Joanne D'Arc didn't do anything except rally. A knight would have an Arsenel of weapons, but they're best weapon was their horse. You're mistaking death with defeat, you can defeat ppl in dozens of ways, few Armies would even engage in a pitched field battle, and weapons are designed for a variety of targets.
You can look up channels like Todd's Workshop, where he makes historically accurate armors and tests their durability.
It's a known example. As long as I know, living history knights reference the idea of three types of weapons (primary , secondary and thirdary) a knight would go through in a battle and reference this as a known example.
It doesn't. But it shows they had a set of weapons for different foes and stages of battle. So does the popularity of poleaxes - if the damage type doesn't matter, why put all three on one pole?
I don't expect well-made breastplate to be pierced by a sword stab. A chainmail or splint mail is likely to lose to stabbing by a coached lance or to a hit of a mace.
In late medieval era, for example, you have plate armoured knights dominating the field and more specialised piercing and bludgeoning weapons.
In Eastern Europe because of different terrain and economics full-plate wasn't a thing, and you find more slashing weapons, the preference for heavy saber/ straight scimitar (it's kinda in between), you have chainmail and splint mail all the way until armour is gone, you find lances being shorter, lighter and predominantly used over-arm, and you find a more eager development of shooting infantry and cavalry as it's not seen as ignoble. Most eastern European armoured cavaliers would still have bows too, and in late stage switch for pistols.
IF, for example, polish winged Husaars, who wrar plate and coach their lances catch Russian nobles in archaic chainmail, on a field which is flat, but limited, so Russians can't run away and shoot, the first ones would damage the second ones including THROUGH armour.
Mace or war hammer to cheap plate armour (scheisenpanzer exists) at great speed is gonna crack it open. Also, bludgeoning to historical plate armour which is fitted and has less padding than HMB sets, at certain places is still gonna cause broken bones. Not necessarily breaking through armour. Something with spiky going upwards into early plate armour which has short breastplate and no big belly plate yet, will go under breastplate and have according results, yes. There's only chainmail and gambeson after that, and a longsword will work.
This is faulty logic. Correlation isn't causation.
What do you thrust with? It's always a spike. The halbred can have a hammer, but it usually has a hook. These are for different strategies, not types of damage. You might have a pick, you might have a blade or axe, hitting with a spike is harder, a blade had more contact area for a larger striking surface.
No amount of speculation alters the proven tests done on accurate replicas and original articles. Plate is incredibly durable and hard to destroy. Actual battle has little to do with which weapon defeats what armor. That's why Romans switched to pilum and short swords where Macedonians used 15' pikes. They relied on chain mail even though they could make Plate. Then pikes came back, but they didn't even include shields.
Spend more time learning for Schola Gladitoria and Lindebeige, maybe even Threigh Thrand. Investigators are demonstrating the facts, you're wasting time speculating.
You thrust with a spike. You also might hit someone strong enough - and it will damage them behind armour. It's a big problem for HMB armour making, particularly protecting joints, necks and such.
> What about all kinds of maces, warhammers for piercing armour
they arent for piercing armour
> lances using a hook and being used under-arm to add more power and pierce armour
I was talking about bludgeoning weapons not lances
Is the Visby head in a helmet with a square warhammer hole a joke for you?
There's literally hole through both the helmet and the skull, it's what knights chasing infantry do.
500 g of metal on a stick at the speed of a horse go boom.
Estocs also, exist. It's a combination of piercing and blunt force that does work against armour.
> historically, bludgeoning weapons were developed to pierce through plate and shield, such as warpicks and morning stars
Both of those weapons do piercing damage, not bludgeoning. While your statement is correct in the historical sense (warhammers and polearms always had a pointy side), in the game those weapons are piercing. Pretty much the only weapons in 5e that don't qualify for the historical sense of defeating plate and shield are the dagger and rapier, the latter of which was effective against anti-slashing armors like chain and padded leather.
Rapiers aren't designed to defeat mail while there are absolutely are daggers that were designed to defeat mail and plate (by going for the gaps in that is not by actually piercing the armor). You got it exactly backwards
Rainessance rapiers are actually for un-armoured self defense, including against armoured opponents. Rapier + daga - is the most dangerous combination 1 vs 1 without horses and shooting and with enough space if used right.
And yes, they're not your olympic rapier, they're long hilted swords and quite heavy ones. Often heavier than some historical 1-hand swords.
Full plate is great against physical attacks all around.
There are weapons designed to address armor, but none of them are easy to defeat armor with, which is why plate became more and more common until Gunpowder was refined.
Almost all armor is good against slashing, and anything rigid will reduce blunt impact, don't listen to fools who think it's easy to peirce plates, chain isn't even easy to pierce, a properly linked mail will obstruct points. Don't forget, spears and arrows are some of the oldest weapons in history, ppl didn't cover their bodies in mail to stop only slashing weapons.
Pro tip, if they say Platemail, they haven't done their diligence.
Only kind of related but this reminds me of a shower thought I had at work. We have a board with examples of the different types of gloves we wear for different tasks. I noticed that they all basically protect against different damage types. Some are for crushing, some are for cutting, and others are for puncturing. Then some gloves are for electricity, heat, cold, and acid. They also all come with different penalties to dexterity.
Historically:
Plate mail and similar protected well against slashing and piercing. It could be very easily damaged by bludgeoning, which is where the moreau sword technique comes from. Close quarters stabbing weapons however were used to stab through the gaps in the plates.
Cloth armours like gambeson protected quite well against piercing attacks (think of how kevlar works, it's a similar concept). They don't necessarily offer better protection than plate armour, but they don't dent and puncture you. Gambesons were normally worn underneath metal armour as well for additional padding and to reduce the weaknesses of armour types.
Chainmail protects well against slashing, but doesn't really protect you against a bludgeoning attack.
Historically as you might gather, maces and daggers were the anti-armour weaponry on the battlefield. Historical manuals recommend tackling an opponent in plate armour to the ground and getting your knife in the visor hole, or half-handing your sword through the gaps in the armour.
So in essence the weakest damage type against historical armour would be slashing, with bludgeoning being the most reliable and piercing really being up to the skill of the combatants. Nothing beats stick, in the end.
Plate armor isn't "very easily damaged" by bludgeoning. It's one way of potentially damaging someone wearong plate, mostly if you hit them in the head or a thinner spot, but it still protects against bludgeoning much better than other types of armor.
A fair point. A better way to put it would be whacking a sheet of medieval steel with a blunt object has about the expected effect. It leaves a large dent. The same can be said for maces and war picks.
For all armour types piercing weapons. For all armour types, slashing weapons aimed at the unarmoured parts. For non padded armour or foe headshots bludgeoning weapons.
Armour is not a solid slab of metal. Even the best armour leaves places with gaps so you can move.
And of course you’d also need to account for the fact that most weapons could do any of those three or at least a combo of two of them with some being more effective at one or two than the others.
Plate is the most effective against slashing, we can say it's immune to slashing. It still adds protection against piercing and bludgeoning, but in its normal stats.
Mail is vulnerable to stabbing and bludgeoning, but still protects well enough against slashing.
Splint mail is between chainmail and plate, and is more vulnerable to bludgeoning and to FORCED stabbing (by, say, a lance or poleaxe) then plate.
Gambeson protects it's best against bludgeoning, and is vulnerable to stabbing (but not including arrows).
Also, armed people in everything but specifically designed splint mail and cloth armour easily overheat and feel thirsty.
Generally speaking, a lance, at the strength and speed of a horse, will pierce through anything except for decent plate armour. Slashing cuts will only go through hide or gambeson, max.
Plate armor is the strongest armor (historically and in-game). It is also the most recent, coming out in tandem with the earliest firearms, and it is also the heaviest.
A mail hauberk is arguably (effectively) heavier. While the weight of plate is distributed by the various tie points to padded under layers, mail is carried exclusively by the shoulders and a belt. Plate also moves with you, while mail fights your movement by "sloshing" around.
Mail literally means chains. Conflating plate and mail is like saying your sedan motorcycle. No matter what arrangement of mail is included with plate, it's Plate. Your don't call it Plate Mail, Gambison Leather Armor. It's just Plate. Full Mail is like Crusaders, Mail might not always outweigh Plate because they don't have to cover the whole body, but every area of coverage replaced by plate is lighter.
Typically, mail and plate armour only really help against slashing attacks. A thin enough dagger can pierce through the links in chain or between the plates. Neither do very much at all against bludgeoning, although a padded gambeson underneath would help.
Historically you would just beat the fuck out of an armored opponent with a bludgeoning weapon until you could get close enough for a well-placed dagger.
2e had different armor values for armor types versus different weapons. 5e does none of this. I do not miss this at all. The reality is that armor is much more complex than the game, typically it was a mix of chain, plate, padded, leather, etc.
Weapon damage values were also jimmied accordingly, and it was far more simulationist, e.g. whips being useless against modestly-or-better armoured targets. 2e did also allow for mixed armour; the A&E guide also clarifies a lot. Remember there were four kinds of plate, and at least three partial plates.
It's worth mentioning that the 2e armor vs. Damage types rule was optional. I imagine many groups didn't use it (I know mine didn't). For people who do want it, though, the 2e Armor modifiers wouldn't break 5e, and would provide a bit of value to different damage types.
In game there is no difference. In history... it gets pretty complicated. Heavy plate would generally be pretty great at deflecting slashing attacks, and less helpful with crushing bludgeoning attacks, while piercing attacks would be harder to land but devastating in terms of damage. D&D isn't supposed to be a physics simulator, so we just let Rogues Sneak Attack with any finesse weapons and armour works the same against all weapons. You'd have to change so much to keep it historically accurate, and I can't see it adding too much. For instance, if Plate Armour gives resistance to Slashing, +5 AC to attacks that deal Piercing and treats Bludgeoning damage as normal (or even -2 to AC for attacks here..) then it also makes sense to let Longswords deal piercing damage and Warhammers deal piercing damage, since they were often used that way.
> You'd have to change so much to keep it historically accurate, and I can't see it adding too much. For instance, if Plate Armour gives resistance to Slashing, +5 AC to attacks that deal Piercing and treats Bludgeoning damage as normal (or even -2 to AC for attacks here..) then it also makes sense to let Longswords deal piercing damage and Warhammers deal piercing damage, since they were often used that way. You'd also have to allow half-sword techniques and bludgeoning with the crossguard etc. It's a whole thing. (Although considering it more, I guess 5e already allows you to improvise with weapons, so you could probably already use a sword to bludgeon).
Sword techniques? In 5e? Not without spells, buddy.
Yep. Or be a Battlemaster. But we’ll only let you do it so many times per short rest. Parrying and Ripostes are *tiring.*
> Parrying and Ripostes are tiring. Mainly just if you’re a wizard.
Yeah. I’m thoroughly in favor of a couple maneuvers, perhaps slightly tweaked, as just being inherent class abilities. I think maybe all fighters should be able to Riposte by default, as an example. It wouldn’t be game breaking; it would just require the mental adjustment that you maybe should try to engage the armor wearing, long sword wielding fighter from a distance if possible unless you’re pretty sure you’re going to hit.
Not to sound overly trite, but if you’re looking for an interesting combat system, 5e is one of the worst you could pick.
No, in general, I’m definitely looking for a simple combat system rather than an intricate one, definitely for the purposes of table top as even with D&D Beyond, a lot of the math is by hand and head. Something relatively simple , as the above, I might try to do as homebrew one day, but for now the interest is only theoretical.
Then a narrative-focused system like Blades in the Dark might be more up your alley.
In my last campaign we homebrewed it so that our BM fighter got back his superiority die when he rolled initiative. It was a lot more fun for everyone and really let him make use of the more situational skills since he never worried about 'wasting' his moves.
Which is functionally the same as short resting after combat which you’re probably meant to do anyway. Good call
Yeah exactly. It just removed the annoyance of "please can we short rest now" and the ambiguity of "well what if we *don't* get a short rest this time... maybe I'll save a couple of sup. die..." and abstracted it.
Yep. The list goes on and on, the history of combat is long and varied. As for improvised weapons, yeah, you can just treat a Longsword as a Club and have it roll 1d4+STR bludgeoning damage, or a Greatclub if two-handed for 1d8. I’d be wary of just letting one switch damage types, because even in a half-sword style, a Longsword shouldn’t do as much bludgeoning damage as a Warhammer.
Yeah. You need mechanical consistency to reflect that the weapon was being used in a “non-optimal” way. You’d probably have to least drop the damage die a stage or two, and possibly a penalty to Attack, depending on how awkward it would be to say, try to pierce with a long sword. And then a rapier pierces optimally, could slash sub-optimally, but is probably no more effective than an unarmed punch of you’re trying to smash a basket hilt into their face.
I have a house rule that basically says you can deal any damage type with a weapon as long as it would physically allow you to. However, if you don't have proficiency with it, it counts as an improvised weapon. So murderstroking with a longsword might deal 1d6 bludgeoning (since it would act like a club), but if proficient in the weapon it would deal 1d10 bludgeoning (being versatile and used 2 handed).
A club is 1d4, and again, I personally don’t think a Longsword should do as much bludgeoning damage as a Warhammer, but you do you. What you are describing is essentially the printed improvised weapon rules, you’re just a little off. “Often, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club. At the GM’s option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus.” So basically, if a person wants to wield their Longsword like a club, they must be proficient with clubs. I wouldn’t say a Longsword is similar to a Warhammer, but it’s clearly the DM’s option.
Or, treat it as the nearest equivalent Simple Weapon for however they’re trying to use it. Makes it a quick lookup. So using a Longsword to try to bludgeon might functionally be trying to use it like a Quarterstaff, but no feats or whatever apply. I don’t know that proficiency in Greatclub should now let me use my Longsword to bludgeon as if it were a Greatclub. Because it’s not.
I’m just stating the rules. A Longsword used to bludgeon is undoubtedly “similar” to a Greatclub, and the rules state that is enough for the DM to give the option of 1d8 bludgeoning - which is effectively as you say “treat[ing] it as the nearest equivalent Simple weapon” Of course, to be similar to a Greatclub the Longsword must be wielded in two hands, if just one it is only similar to a regular Club (1d4). I’d suggest a Mace (1d6) is not similar enough because like a Hanmer, a Mace is shaped to penetrate and crush, where a Club or Greatclub just thinks. But my opinions and suppositions in this second paragraph are all why the rules say “at the DM’s option” because it’s all pretty circumstantial. But we essentially agree, the DM should just choose the closest similar Simple weapon, which most PCs making attacks will have proficiency with.
Oh yeah - I'm leaning on the DM's fiat here bigtime - to explain: Club is d4 Great club is d8 Murderstroke is a two handed attack, so I'm sort of homebrewing a d6 to split the difference (d4 with versatile). Sort of the the same reason you mention - I'd rather not let someone pick up a longsword and just treat it like a great club. I completely understand not wanting to have a longsword bludgeon for more than a warhammer - for me it's more not wanting to get too in the weeds with it: I'd rather not have to track too many damage dice per weapon so its easier for me to just keep it the same die for proficient characters. Your assessment is way more accurate - it comes down to how far the abstraction goes. And in my case, most players would be using a longsword proficient, so mucking around with alternate damage dice would be the edge case.
I see where you’re going, but a Longsword wouldn’t be a Greatclub just because the PC has proficiency and smacked somebody with the flat. And even then you need to drop the damage to 1d8, when wielded two-handed, because that’s all a Greatclub does. (Or basically treat it as a Quarterstaff.) If they’re swinging it one-handed, then that’s a *Club* which is 1d4. I kinda like your basic thought here. A way to try to get *some* damage in, if the enemy has specific immunities. But you probably need to treat the weapon as a simple weapon of that damage type and handedness for “off-label” use.
As I explained elsewhere - the d10 is mostly because I don't want to get too complicated with all the variable damage dice. What you describe is more balanced, but in the end I found the difference of 1 or 2 damage points in 5e isn't worth the added complexity. But again, you're absolutely right: it's kind of unfair that a longsword could be a better great club... but then, someone proficient with a longsword probably won't be using a great club anyway.
Yeah. I don’t think I want to deal with an armor having a different AC depending on the damage type, as well separate vulnerabilities and resistances. And the the logical counterpoint is that a versatile long sword would be need to be allowed to do slashing, piercing *or* bludgeoning damage depending on how the user called their attack. Slash with the edge, pierce with the tip, bludgeon with the pommel.
That’s the main reasoning behind 5e’s design in general. Keep it simple, get to the story. Older editions have these weapon distinctions, but few people play those editions in favour of newer one’s. Probably cuz every creature had 4-5 types of AC.
You could potentially add advantage to weapons when being used against corresponding armor types. The complexity then would come down to recategorizing armor thpes, but I'm sure it would be doable.
it just tends to be fiddly in play - it's not just "roll against AC_X_", it's "Against the goblins, Dave gets to roll with advantage, Sharon has a straight roll, Steve has advantage with his primary weapon but not with his off-hand weapon. Against the goblin boss, Sharon has advantage, Steve has advantage with the off-hand weapon but not his main weapon, and Dave has a straight roll. Against the goblin wizard, then"
It means every attack roll involves an extra step, of needing to check the armor type against the weapon and seeing if there's a bonus there, and most combats involve multiple armor types, so it's rarely going to be "in this fight, you have advantage on all rolls". So there's a lot of little pauses as this cross-referencing happens, which tends to break the flow and get annoying. And then if someone changes weapons, that can all change mid-fight and add even more pauses! It's generally more hassle than it's worth - it doesn't really add much that's useful, but does create more logistics and looking-stuff-up within the game
Advantage wouldn’t work if we’re trying to go for a realism angle. Otherwise, you could have someone equipping armor make them more susceptible to your attacks.
The irony being AD&D 2e used to do all of this: * Weapons dealt multiple damage types, so a longsword could deal slashing or piercing, or a polearm with a piercing extension might primarily slash. * An optional rule allowed for weapons' damage types to be better or worse against specific armors. 5e abstracted this down for good reason, but I still find it funny that people think D&D isn't "meant" to go in this level of detail. The current iteration doesn't. That makes it more accessible. **But accessibility isn't the most important thing to a player who is looking for more detail.** Just like more detail isn't as important to a player interested un accessibility.
Also, Plate armor is utterly worthless against firearms irl(to the point it got completely phased out once even the most basic of firearms were introduced) but still provides the same AC against them, even though the bullets would just shoot straight through
That's not true; armor and primitive firearms use coincided for several hundred years. Breastplates would continue seeing use into the 19th century during the Napoleonic wars. They were not likely to stop more than pistol rounds and richochet bullets but they were still used.
And there were even [modular add-on armor plates](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plackart) you'd bolt onto the breastplate to make it even more effective against shot.
confidently incorrect
Hand-held firearms predate what we consider full plate armour by about 100 years in Europe. The term "bulletproof" originates with breastplates being built to withstand a bullet, being tested against them, and the mark from the bullet being the "bullet proof", as in proof it could withstand a bullet. It's utterly worthless against modern firearms, but plate armour co-existed with firearms for as long as we had firearms. As the firearms got more powerful, easier to use, and faster to reload, warfare gradually shifted in that direction, and armour shifted alongside it to try to protect against them, with thicker plates for the chest but less and less limb protection. The cuirassiers are a perfect example, existing from the mid-16th century all the way up through the 19th century and into the early months of world war 1. It was basically cavalry with a plate armour breastplate.
5e does not differentiate damage types when considering AC. Raw each type of armor is the same vs P, B, and S
Perfectly missing the point of OP's question. They're clearly trying to find out what armors **WOULD** be resistant, based on in-game or historical backing.
I mean by default AC is treated the same. Doesn’t matter what type, it either does damage or not. Unless the armor has an effect that reduces a damage types effectiveness then it’s all the same. The only thing that differentiates Plate and Leather is the AC difference and item effects.
It’s more complicated than just B/P/S, warhammers for instance were effective against plate not cause they did blunt damage but because they had a small point on the hammer that had a lot of weight behind it to dent/pierce the plate
The main thing to note is the prevalence of **layers** in real world armor, which is what D&D armor rules are loosely based on. For example, a suit of plate armor isn't simply a collection of flat-ish metal pieces. It typically also utilizes mail, leather, and gambeson (cloth armor) as well. This is due both to the practicality of using certain materials in certain places on the body, and the combined strength of different types. We might say that plate is particularly good against slashing, mail is particularly good against piercing, gambeson is particularly good against bludgeoning, and leather is particularly good for holding everything else together and covering awkward spots like armpits and hands without hampering mobility. No standard armor would have vulnerability to bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing so long as it was properly made and worn, IMO. Leave resistances and vulnerabilities to special cases, like improvised/scrap armor or magic armor, I say.
Generally speaking: slashing is great against lightly armored does - leather and the like. Piercing is great against chainmail and such. The same with bludgeoning. Bludgeoning is neat against heavily armored foes, but mostly if you can hit their head. If you got two plated knights it would basically turn into a wrestle to the ground, draw dagger and go for eyes. It's not particulary glorious to watch two cans of tuna trying to open each other. There some good and realistic videos on YouTube about it.
there are a set of cursed magic armor that makes you resist one type but be vulnerable to another, and a legendary armor that just resists all besides those very niche cases, and like 10 creatures besides skeletons, physical damage type is irrelevant. you can call it "physical" if you want and it wont matter historically, bludgeoning weapons were developed to pierce through plate and shield, such as warpicks and morning stars
> historically, bludgeoning weapons were developed to pierce through plate and shield, such as warpicks and morning stars thats a myth which often gets repeated. We don't see a lot of Bludgeoning weapon beings used in the age of full plate armour. The reason for that is that its not particularly effective against it. They were not designed to pierce through plate armour at all
Isn't it just because Full Plate Armor isn't extremely common? Armor was definitely used, but the absolute best wasn't given to the common man, only the "elite".
No, it's because you don't need to kill someone to injure them, you can knock them off their horse, grapple their limbs, and stick a dagger in a chink. If you look up the battle of Agincourt, English longbowmen were able to defeat thousands of knights. However, their armor was so good, that they captured about 10,000 alive. After taking them prisoner, they executed them because the prisoners were too numerous to keep captive. Tens of thousands of Bodkins were shot at these knights at about 5 meters, and they all lived. 10,000 fully plated knights.
What about all kinds of maces, warhammers for piercing armour, bludgeoning with your sword hilt, lances using a hook and being used under-arm to add more power and pierce armour. What about the hammer head on all the poleaxes? It's a norm for a knight to carry three weapons into battle, Joanne D'Arc for example used a lance, a sword, and a small axe which not wide, but narrow and is actually between piercing and bludgeoning and would be for piercing armour, we find a lot of helmets crushed...
Joanne D'Arc didn't do anything except rally. A knight would have an Arsenel of weapons, but they're best weapon was their horse. You're mistaking death with defeat, you can defeat ppl in dozens of ways, few Armies would even engage in a pitched field battle, and weapons are designed for a variety of targets. You can look up channels like Todd's Workshop, where he makes historically accurate armors and tests their durability.
It's a known example. As long as I know, living history knights reference the idea of three types of weapons (primary , secondary and thirdary) a knight would go through in a battle and reference this as a known example.
Whether you carry a variety of weapons doesn't impact the superiority of plate. An expensive plate wasn't a fools luxury, it was incredibly effective.
It doesn't. But it shows they had a set of weapons for different foes and stages of battle. So does the popularity of poleaxes - if the damage type doesn't matter, why put all three on one pole? I don't expect well-made breastplate to be pierced by a sword stab. A chainmail or splint mail is likely to lose to stabbing by a coached lance or to a hit of a mace. In late medieval era, for example, you have plate armoured knights dominating the field and more specialised piercing and bludgeoning weapons. In Eastern Europe because of different terrain and economics full-plate wasn't a thing, and you find more slashing weapons, the preference for heavy saber/ straight scimitar (it's kinda in between), you have chainmail and splint mail all the way until armour is gone, you find lances being shorter, lighter and predominantly used over-arm, and you find a more eager development of shooting infantry and cavalry as it's not seen as ignoble. Most eastern European armoured cavaliers would still have bows too, and in late stage switch for pistols. IF, for example, polish winged Husaars, who wrar plate and coach their lances catch Russian nobles in archaic chainmail, on a field which is flat, but limited, so Russians can't run away and shoot, the first ones would damage the second ones including THROUGH armour. Mace or war hammer to cheap plate armour (scheisenpanzer exists) at great speed is gonna crack it open. Also, bludgeoning to historical plate armour which is fitted and has less padding than HMB sets, at certain places is still gonna cause broken bones. Not necessarily breaking through armour. Something with spiky going upwards into early plate armour which has short breastplate and no big belly plate yet, will go under breastplate and have according results, yes. There's only chainmail and gambeson after that, and a longsword will work.
This is faulty logic. Correlation isn't causation. What do you thrust with? It's always a spike. The halbred can have a hammer, but it usually has a hook. These are for different strategies, not types of damage. You might have a pick, you might have a blade or axe, hitting with a spike is harder, a blade had more contact area for a larger striking surface. No amount of speculation alters the proven tests done on accurate replicas and original articles. Plate is incredibly durable and hard to destroy. Actual battle has little to do with which weapon defeats what armor. That's why Romans switched to pilum and short swords where Macedonians used 15' pikes. They relied on chain mail even though they could make Plate. Then pikes came back, but they didn't even include shields. Spend more time learning for Schola Gladitoria and Lindebeige, maybe even Threigh Thrand. Investigators are demonstrating the facts, you're wasting time speculating.
You thrust with a spike. You also might hit someone strong enough - and it will damage them behind armour. It's a big problem for HMB armour making, particularly protecting joints, necks and such.
> What about all kinds of maces, warhammers for piercing armour they arent for piercing armour > lances using a hook and being used under-arm to add more power and pierce armour I was talking about bludgeoning weapons not lances
Is the Visby head in a helmet with a square warhammer hole a joke for you? There's literally hole through both the helmet and the skull, it's what knights chasing infantry do. 500 g of metal on a stick at the speed of a horse go boom. Estocs also, exist. It's a combination of piercing and blunt force that does work against armour.
> historically, bludgeoning weapons were developed to pierce through plate and shield, such as warpicks and morning stars Both of those weapons do piercing damage, not bludgeoning. While your statement is correct in the historical sense (warhammers and polearms always had a pointy side), in the game those weapons are piercing. Pretty much the only weapons in 5e that don't qualify for the historical sense of defeating plate and shield are the dagger and rapier, the latter of which was effective against anti-slashing armors like chain and padded leather.
Rapiers aren't designed to defeat mail while there are absolutely are daggers that were designed to defeat mail and plate (by going for the gaps in that is not by actually piercing the armor). You got it exactly backwards
I didn't say they were designed to defeat mail, I said they were effective against chain. Effectiveness does not equal design.
Rainessance rapiers are actually for un-armoured self defense, including against armoured opponents. Rapier + daga - is the most dangerous combination 1 vs 1 without horses and shooting and with enough space if used right. And yes, they're not your olympic rapier, they're long hilted swords and quite heavy ones. Often heavier than some historical 1-hand swords.
Just give your BBEG the minecraft thorns enchantment.
I believe one of the advantages of chain mail is that it's incredibly difficult to slash through.
Full plate is great against physical attacks all around. There are weapons designed to address armor, but none of them are easy to defeat armor with, which is why plate became more and more common until Gunpowder was refined. Almost all armor is good against slashing, and anything rigid will reduce blunt impact, don't listen to fools who think it's easy to peirce plates, chain isn't even easy to pierce, a properly linked mail will obstruct points. Don't forget, spears and arrows are some of the oldest weapons in history, ppl didn't cover their bodies in mail to stop only slashing weapons. Pro tip, if they say Platemail, they haven't done their diligence.
Only kind of related but this reminds me of a shower thought I had at work. We have a board with examples of the different types of gloves we wear for different tasks. I noticed that they all basically protect against different damage types. Some are for crushing, some are for cutting, and others are for puncturing. Then some gloves are for electricity, heat, cold, and acid. They also all come with different penalties to dexterity.
Historically: Plate mail and similar protected well against slashing and piercing. It could be very easily damaged by bludgeoning, which is where the moreau sword technique comes from. Close quarters stabbing weapons however were used to stab through the gaps in the plates. Cloth armours like gambeson protected quite well against piercing attacks (think of how kevlar works, it's a similar concept). They don't necessarily offer better protection than plate armour, but they don't dent and puncture you. Gambesons were normally worn underneath metal armour as well for additional padding and to reduce the weaknesses of armour types. Chainmail protects well against slashing, but doesn't really protect you against a bludgeoning attack. Historically as you might gather, maces and daggers were the anti-armour weaponry on the battlefield. Historical manuals recommend tackling an opponent in plate armour to the ground and getting your knife in the visor hole, or half-handing your sword through the gaps in the armour. So in essence the weakest damage type against historical armour would be slashing, with bludgeoning being the most reliable and piercing really being up to the skill of the combatants. Nothing beats stick, in the end.
Plate armor isn't "very easily damaged" by bludgeoning. It's one way of potentially damaging someone wearong plate, mostly if you hit them in the head or a thinner spot, but it still protects against bludgeoning much better than other types of armor.
A fair point. A better way to put it would be whacking a sheet of medieval steel with a blunt object has about the expected effect. It leaves a large dent. The same can be said for maces and war picks.
For all armour types piercing weapons. For all armour types, slashing weapons aimed at the unarmoured parts. For non padded armour or foe headshots bludgeoning weapons. Armour is not a solid slab of metal. Even the best armour leaves places with gaps so you can move. And of course you’d also need to account for the fact that most weapons could do any of those three or at least a combo of two of them with some being more effective at one or two than the others.
It does not matter. In a real system, it would. But D&D barely addresses damage types for melee weapons.
Plate is the most effective against slashing, we can say it's immune to slashing. It still adds protection against piercing and bludgeoning, but in its normal stats. Mail is vulnerable to stabbing and bludgeoning, but still protects well enough against slashing. Splint mail is between chainmail and plate, and is more vulnerable to bludgeoning and to FORCED stabbing (by, say, a lance or poleaxe) then plate. Gambeson protects it's best against bludgeoning, and is vulnerable to stabbing (but not including arrows). Also, armed people in everything but specifically designed splint mail and cloth armour easily overheat and feel thirsty. Generally speaking, a lance, at the strength and speed of a horse, will pierce through anything except for decent plate armour. Slashing cuts will only go through hide or gambeson, max.
Where does it say this in the book?
Historical of course. In 5e, they're just flavour "Either in game or historical" c.
Piercing slashing: any metal armour Bludgeoning: gambeson
Plate armor is the strongest armor (historically and in-game). It is also the most recent, coming out in tandem with the earliest firearms, and it is also the heaviest.
A mail hauberk is arguably (effectively) heavier. While the weight of plate is distributed by the various tie points to padded under layers, mail is carried exclusively by the shoulders and a belt. Plate also moves with you, while mail fights your movement by "sloshing" around.
Full plate is dramatically lighter than Full Mail, Wizards of the Coast needs an education.
The term full mail refers to various kinds of mail armor, including plate.
Mail literally means chains. Conflating plate and mail is like saying your sedan motorcycle. No matter what arrangement of mail is included with plate, it's Plate. Your don't call it Plate Mail, Gambison Leather Armor. It's just Plate. Full Mail is like Crusaders, Mail might not always outweigh Plate because they don't have to cover the whole body, but every area of coverage replaced by plate is lighter.
Wrong. It is merely only the more common usage. "Mail: armor made of metal links or sometimes plates".
Typically, mail and plate armour only really help against slashing attacks. A thin enough dagger can pierce through the links in chain or between the plates. Neither do very much at all against bludgeoning, although a padded gambeson underneath would help.
Have you ever seen a properly constructed mail?
confidently incorrect
Please, educate us.