4
\$\begingroup\$

This question already has an answer here:

Based off of this question, "What is the role of different damage types in D&D 5e?"

That question dealt with the difference between types of damage such as fire, cold, and lightning, and what the point of using a spell that deals a certain damage is when another spell of a different element deals more damage. My question is specifically about weapons. In 5e, unless the weapon is magical, it deals either bludgeoning, slashing, or piercing damage. Is there ever a situation in which the type of damage a weapon deals has some sort of mechanical benefit? I can't remember seeing a monster in the Monster Manual that is weak to one type of damage but not another. Most entries that mention any of those types of damage typically say that the monster resists "bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing from non-magical weapons," or something to that effect; there's no entries I can remember that specifically mention one type but not the others. Are there any monsters that are vulnerable or resistant to one of those damage types but not the other two? Or spells, such as walls, that can be countered more effectively with one rather than the other?

\$\endgroup\$

marked as duplicate by DuckTapeAl, okeefe, Wibbs, Adeptus, SevenSidedDie dnd-5e Jul 26 '16 at 2:36

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • \$\begingroup\$ Magical weapons still deal bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage; becoming magic doesn’t make them stop doing that, which you kind of imply. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Jul 25 '16 at 16:19
  • \$\begingroup\$ @KRyan Not implying that; merely saying that there's no difference between a magic weapon that deals bludgeoning damage and a magic weapon that deals piercing damage. \$\endgroup\$ – chif-ii Jul 25 '16 at 16:32
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ No, you do imply it: “In 5e, unless the weapon is magical, it deals either bludgeoning, slashing, or piercing damage.” The phrase “unless X” implies that the following clause is not true when X is true. I suggest you reword. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan Jul 25 '16 at 16:35
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I'm not sure this isn't a duplicate. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Jul 25 '16 at 17:49
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I agree this is definitely related and maybe should be merged (if that is possible) but he has specific questions about the very few and far between vulnerabilities of certain monsters since they almost always have all 3 weapon damage types in a given resistance. \$\endgroup\$ – Slagmoth Jul 26 '16 at 12:01
26
\$\begingroup\$

Skeletons are vulnerable to Bludgeoning damage and some oozes have abilities triggered by slashing.

Split. When a pudding that is Medium or larger is subjected to lightning or slashing damage, it splits into two new puddings if it has at least 10 hit points. Each new pudding has hit points equal to half the original pudding's, rounded down . New puddings are one size smaller than the original pudding.

A magic sword still does slashing damage as well, it is just magical allowing it to hurt something like a golem.

And specific to the original query on piercing damage, took me a while to find it but Rakshasa:

Damage Vulnerabilities piercing from magic weapons wielded by good creatures

\$\endgroup\$
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ There's also the element of DM narration. Your DM can use the damage types to assert certain things about your actions, like trying to break down a door with a dagger. \$\endgroup\$ – Premier Bromanov Jul 25 '16 at 16:39
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ @PremierBromanov That is a wittle bit of a stretch; the DM could do that without the damage types, really. \$\endgroup\$ – Yakk Jul 25 '16 at 17:29
3
\$\begingroup\$

In short, the answer for this question is the same as the answer to the question you reference.

Damage type simply describes the damage dealt, and is mostly relevant for narration, damage resistance/immunities, and sometimes for special abilities.

Another way of saying it... this one's just flat, that one's kinda spiky, and the other one is cutty. ;)

\$\endgroup\$

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.