Sword versus a Mace...Who cares???

[Larry_OHF]

I have been told that a bludgeoning weapon is better on Skeletons and a sword is great on fleshy creatures, and you would not do so well at trying to use a sword on a skeleton, blah, blah...but my question is...

Does it REALLY matter? I have both weapons in my quick slots, and use them both from time to time on the same creatures, and I am doing basically the same damage. I have never encountered a creature that has immunity to a certain weapon type. Have you? Why do I want to have both weapons? Who really cares if I have extra bludgeoning, slashing, or piercing? What is the big difference? I eagerly look forward to replies.

[Legolas]

Yes, there are differences (or there should be). I don't know if they actually work, but all monsters who have some resistance or vulnerability have a skin/hide equipped that deals with them.
Skeletons are 50% resistant to both piercing and slashing damage, whilst fire giants and hellhounds should be 100% resistant to fire and 50% more vulnerable to cold damage, for example.

Regardless of whether it works or not, I do switch types just for RP reasons alone (provided I carry a weapon of the other kind or know an appropriate spell). What really bothers me about the immunities is that all higher level monsters seem immune to the same things (being paralysis, mind affecting spells and the like) which adds 'utterly useless' to spell classifications originally ranged good, useful, and occasionally useful. How often did you succesfully cast a hold monster spell at anything tougher and more deserving than an orc?

[Granamere]

If the weapon is doing fire, cold or whatever type damage that can offset it. If you go into the editor and look at the skin that a skelton is wearing here is what it says.

Immunity: Damage Type: Piercing 50% Immunity Bonus
Immunity: Damage Type: Slashing 50% Immunity Bonus
Immunity: Miscellaneous: Critical Hits
Immunity: Miscellaneous: Death Magic
Immunity: Miscellaneous: Disease
Immunity: Miscellaneous: Level/Ability Drain
Immunity: Miscellaneous: Mind-Affecting Spells
Immunity: Miscellaneous: Paralysis
Immunity: Miscellaneous: Poison
Immunity: Miscellaneous: Sneak Attack

Now with only 10 HP it does not make a huge difference but if he was at 50 HP is could change it quickly.

That is my 2 cents. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Granamere

[SpiritWarrior]

Yup. This is why clerics are so adept against undead since many use bludgeoning weapons. Look at it this way: Poking a skeleton with a piercing weapon such as a spear will, most of the time do very little damage and half of the time do no damage at all since the spear would go right through the rib-cage or pierce already dead flesh. A slashing weapon such as a sword will also do little damage to bones, chopping and slicing small bits off maybe but nothing substantial.
A warhammer on the other hand crushes. Each blow can be potentially crippling and when were talking about a supernaturally animated creature, so delicate like the Skeleton, then bludgeoning weapons really get a chance to shine. Basically they can bash and shatter a skeleton easier than any other weapon type.

In my own server I have taken this a step further and actually added a damage vulnerability to skeletons and skeletal based creatures versus bludgeoning attacks. I have also added damage vulnerability versus fire to zombies, since I have always pereceived them having more 'dead-flesh' than skellys and thus easier set alight.

[Deejax]

Why would "dead flesh" burn better? I see the point of making skeletons and, in a lesser degree, zombies vulnerable to bludgeoning weapons, but fire?

Ever tried lighting a piece of beef jerky? I haven't, but it may be a nice experiment.

The description of zombies I know is human remains just starting to decompose. I don't think they are very dry, to the contrary, they are a foodstuff. Skeletons should be much drier, but I think bone burns quite poorly.

If you were to say mummies are vulnerable to fire (I know, standard) I would agree. Dry as a tinder and soaked in embalming fluids, a walking torch.

I think skeletons should even be more resistant to fire. Unless you manage to damage the bones, it doesn't to do a thing. With living creatures you get all kind of damaging effect starting with blisters and turning worse quite fast.

Just my two cents.

[marco]

well to answer you questiuon about why zombies might be more flamable probley would be the decomposting body might give off more noxtious gas that would catch on fire. hence, a good decomposting body would be a BBQ starter waiting to happen.

any thoughts?

[Timber Loftis]

In regular PnP AD&D skeletons enjoy a 50% immunity to slashing, and piercing damage is always a bse of 1. Just 1. I remember poking at greater skeletons with a rapier in Ravenloft forever before figuring out I was doing a mere 1+Str damage with each hit. Then I switched to punching with my basket hilts, for at least a 1d3 base damage. Was that ever annoying.

[SpiritWarrior]

Why would "dead flesh" burn better? I see the point of making skeletons and, in a lesser degree, zombies vulnerable to bludgeoning weapons, but fire? Ever tried lighting a piece of beef jerky? I haven't, but it may be a nice experiment/

Beef jerky is not dead zombie. It is not dry and rotted over centuries of time, and it would not kill you if you ate it (with the exception of the stock at my local store, "Marios"). It is coated with a preservative fluid and packaged maintaining it's current state. Rotten flesh is dry, devoid of moisture, crisp and flammable, the closest thing to it is paper.

[ 08-12-2003, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: SpiritWarrior ]

[Deejax]

Originally posted by SpiritWarrior: Beef jerky is not dead zombie. It is not dry and rotted over centuries of time, and it would not kill you if you ate it (with the exception of the stock at my local store, "Marios"). It is coated with a preservative fluid and packaged maintaining it's current state. Rotten flesh is dry, devoid of moisture, crisp and flammable, the closest thing to it is paper.

Oke, we definitely have a different idea about zombies. [img]smile.gif[/img]
To me zombies are quite fresh dead bodies, still rotting and ridden with maggots (yuck). Yours sound more like dessicated corpses, a result of long time drying in a place like the mummy tombs or crypts. Come to think of it, you might have a point there. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Maybe there are two kind of zombies: The fresh and squishy ones and the old and dried (more mummy like).

[Luvian]

Originally posted by Deejax: quote: Originally posted by SpiritWarrior: Beef jerky is not dead zombie. It is not dry and rotted over centuries of time, and it would not kill you if you ate it (with the exception of the stock at my local store, "Marios"). It is coated with a preservative fluid and packaged maintaining it's current state. Rotten flesh is dry, devoid of moisture, crisp and flammable, the closest thing to it is paper.

Oke, we definitely have a different idea about zombies. [img]smile.gif[/img]
To me zombies are quite fresh dead bodies, still rotting and ridden with maggots (yuck). Yours sound more like dessicated corpses, a result of long time drying in a place like the mummy tombs or crypts. Come to think of it, you might have a point there. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Maybe there are two kind of zombies: The fresh and squishy ones and the old and dried (more mummy like). [/QUOTE]I made a study, and 3 out of 4 necromancer say they prefer their zombies still fresh and maggot ridden, but are not above using old bodies if there is a short supply of peasents and the likes.

One declined to answear my questions, prefering instead to send his minions after me. I take it he like fresh bodies better.

[ 08-13-2003, 03:33 AM: Message edited by: Luvian ]