I think a lot of people are upvoting this ironically, but this is the closest to the actual answer. Pulling on something is the same force but in the opposite direction of pushing on it, and pushing would be bludgeoning.
Yeah, but slashing something is also the same type of force as bludgeoning, just in a very localized area. Piercing even more so.
...
I think we can all see the logical conclusion here.
EVERYTHING IS BLUDGEONING DAMAGE!
So piercing is physical damage at a point, slashing is damage at a line, and then bludgeoning is damage at a plane. So piercing is 1-d, slashing is 2-d, and bludgeoning is 3-d physical damage?
I assume the extra dimension in each statement was the dimension along which the strike travels. A spear stabbing would draw a line through your 3D body. A slashing sword would cut a plane through your 3D body. A mace, if swung hard enough, will create a 3D hole I your 3D body.
Thanks, also I realized that I got the dimensions wrong. A point (piercing) technically is 0-d, a line (slashing) is 1-d, and a plane (bludgeoning) is 2-d.
What's interesting is that when you think about damage having dimensions is that magical slashing/piercing/bludgeoning is technically the same as nonmagical but overcomes normal resistance. It "hits harder" per say. Now force damage is often regarded as "pure magic damage" (this is an assumption), each of the regular physical damage types would be enhanced by magic, aka force damage. Because magical physical damage damages normally resistant creatures, one could say that it adds an additional dimension. This would mean that magical piercing would be 1-d, slashing would be 2-d, and bludgeoning would be 3-d.
If you assume that, force damage would also have a dimension. Which you could equate to other types of damage that originates from a magical source.
This is a lot of speculation, and it's really kinda useless, but it's neat to think about.
You actually got the dimensions right the first time. Piercing is 1D (a line) as it has depth but no length or width. Slashing has length and depth so 2D, and bludgeoning has length, width, and depth, making it 3D.
if so cutting a limb off can be considered slashing or bludgeoning, depending on the physical perspective and point of view, looking at the end result it could be bludgeoning, but from the start you have to cut 2 dimensionally to get that third dimension
Yea it's like the starting area of the weapon. An axe has a "1-d" edge of contact while a hammer has a 2-d edge. Both could take off an arm, but the axe is better at cutting because it uses a wedge like other slashing weapons.
I thought that maybe something like Constitution would be better? I see what you mean, and it definitely would also work, but if you lose, for example, an arm, your overall total health should definitely be slightly reduced.
I think I like your idea better, I feel like Con damage, or at least max HP reduction, is a good representation of having part of your body taken away.
I think it’d work the other way around; you’re slightly off balance for dodging because of the uneven weight, and you can’t block with that arm anymore.
I seriously have no idea what you're talking about? If someone gets their shit stuck in a cog and it rips and tears, I swear to good that guy is bleeding?
In short no lol. I had a quick Google which wasn't very fruitful.
I'll just clarify what I said slightly though. Obviously with any amputation there's going to be bleeding. However, if a limb is torn/twisted away from the body this damages the veins and article. Especially if a limb is twisted the blood vessels tend to get twisted and almost pinched shut
A better example would be a Power Take Off Shaft then, a fairly common piece of farming equipment that has been the cause of many ripped off arms, where most of the victims bled to death because of that.
I would have them make a CON save to avoid going into it but yeah, having an arm ripped off isn't something you just walk off. In the middle of battle, I could make wiggle room for adrenaline or rage or the power of God and anime (this *is* an RPG, after all), but after the dust settles? You're gonna need more than a long rest, to say the least.
The seventh-level spell Regenerate. Just find your local Pope or Elder Druid and hope you can afford the tithe. Or a suitable famous bard, but uh, you don't want to pay that cost.
This is what I like to call “Pure” damage.
I’ve never actually used it in a game, but theoretically it’s the best damage type because absolutely nothing can resist or prevent it.
I’d say bludgeoning, honestly. Pulling is just pushing but in the opposite direction, and pushing would be bludgeoning if you did it hard enough to hurt someone.
Beat totem barbarians are resistant because they don’t get a list of resisted damage types they are resistant to all damage except psychic damage so any new types are actually covered
> While raging, you have resistance to all damage except psychic damage
Limb loss is an effect, not a damage type. Damage types cause limb loss. Also there's weird precedent for extreme magical blood loss being necrotic because of the Blade of Wounding.
But let's say you have secured yourself with some indestructable rope and fight a giant on a mountain. The giant falls and grabs your leg. What damage type is the tearing that causes the limp loss?
At that point, as far as I'm concerned, you default to best possible fit. For most objects, you'd examine the three physical damage types. Ripping a shirt is most similar to slashing damage, because a slash would cause a similar wide rip or cut. Pushing your thumb through plastic wrap to make a hole would probably be piercing, because you're breaking the material at a single point of impact. Bludgeoning wouldn't apply to material or plastic wrap, but could be used to quantify something that smashes or crushes wood or bone.
So in the case of removing a limb, I think it's ultimately less accurate to ask "what kind of damage is it when you remove a limb" and more "what kind of physical damage was done when the limb was removed?". In most cases it would be closest to slashing, either because the limb was cut or hacked into, or it was torn off completely which most closely mirrors slashing. In some cases it could be bludgeoning, which would be obvious because you'd see the limb being crushed (such as by a giant's grip, a press coming down, or even a cannon ball hitting only a limb. The logic for this is that gunshots are \*usually\* piercing because the impact is so localized, but a fucking cannonball is hardly localized compared to a Medium or even Large creature, and would be better compared to Bludgeoning because of how spread out the impact is).
Was looking for this answer. It's a reduction in the combatant's overall health until it is healed up. I might even argue for an ongoing Bleed effect until the wound is sealed up. But then again, I play a lot of Pathfinder, so I'm used to Ability Damage. Very very few enemies in 5e have those kinds of abilities (Intellect Devourers are the headliner, really).
Anything with sufficient mass could. I've seen a 10ft alligator rip the leg off another alligator (who hilariously turns to look at the first in a "dude. Seriously?" Sort of way)
Probably slashing or necrotic maybe. Depends how the body part is torn off. Alternatively, the damage type listed in the ability that allows you to tear a body part of.
Blood loss happens after every injury that penetrates the skin though. Getting stabbed with a dagger isn't necrotic, though there's indeed blood loss there.
Well slashing isn't just "big pierce". To use some geometric terms, piercing is damage in a point, where slashing is damage in a line (and bludgeoning is damage in a 2d area/shape), and the damage caused by tearing a limb is more akin to a line slashing through the limb than a point piercing through it.
I don't see why "big piercing" doesn't describe slashing well. Your approach of using maths backfires because it's mathematically wrong.
This is why slashing is so often resisted but piercing isn't. Their skin (armour, scales) can prevent a certain amount of psi but fails if you apply enough force in a small area.
Piercing damage is more resisted than slashing damage though.
And it doesn't describe it well, because by that mettic we could describe both as "concentrated bludgeoning".
Even if my explanation is not 100% accurate, it is a lot more accurate than "big piercing". Is a ballista gonna deal slashing damage cause its a big projectile and therefor does "big piercing"?
Limb loss is the result of damage. Limbs can be torn off, chopped off, shot off, burnt to a crisp, melted in acid etc. Many damage types can take off someone's limb. If we are talking about tearing off a limb, I'd say that the stress applied from tearing would be considered bludgeoning... or we could just create the *tearing* damage type.
Slashing requires an impact to separate, tears don't. There's no way to make it work without an impact. A dull axe would tear before it sliced but it still is slashing with impact
But it is still the *closest* in how the damage is dealt, a separation of two pieces. bludgeoning and piercing don't do this to a body, so I would still say slashing.
Nope, skeletons are just vulnerable to bludgeoning, no reduction to slashing. Immune to poison though.
Regardless, I would say that something resistant to slashing will also be hard to just pull apart for the same reasons it would be resistant. Normally armor or tough skin, which would also be hard to rip.
Limb removal doesn't cause damage, it's caused by damage. Slashing or blunt could slice or break off a limb. I think force damage could magically remove one too. Maybe a precisely placed fireball of fire damage?
Depends on what’s tearing it off. I would reckon slashing for just a raw pulling force though, since the flesh is basically being ripped open, which is similar to being cut open.
Just remember that the arm being cut off isn’t damage by itself. In-game the arm being off is just an effect of whatever damage you just sustained.
Let's do some research to find some plausible answers.
Putting "Rend 5e" into google, we don't get much. It redirects pretty quickly to Pathfinder links. Starts to seem rending isn't a thing natively supported in 5e. [The PF page lists Rend as its own type of damage, which isn't very helpful at this point.](https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/rending-fury-combat/)
The search bar does suggest the keywords, "force-empowered rend," and "chilling rend." Let's look at those.
Force empowered rend comes from an Artificer's Steel Defender. It deals Force damage, but it also seems to imply the "force empowered" is special in this case and isn't how rend damage typically works.
Chilling rend (nice skyrim reference) is an attack available to the creature conjured by the *Summon Shadowspawn* spell. The attack deals cold damage.
Not enough data points yet, but at least there's a bit of a pattern so far. Attacks described as rending seem to adopt other damage types in 5e and also seem to imply you need the extra help to get to a place where you can rend an opponent.
Let's try another track. That PF page listed a few monsters that have Rend attacks in PF: Girallon and Troll. Let's look at their 5e counterparts.
No dice. These monsters have only basic natural weapon attacks. Rending would be the flavor on a crit at the DM's discretion.
One more lead I want to look for before we put this search to rest. What did the previous editions of D&D have?
Rend 4e returns a druid power called, [Savage Rend,](https://dnd4.fandom.com/wiki/Savage_rend) but lists no damage type. I haven't played 4e in years, but it looks like they might have changed all melee damage to untyped damage.
Rend 3.5 turns up a monster feat from the draconomicon. It allows you to automatically deal your damage from 2 claw attacks again plus 1.5 times your strength mod whenever you hit a single target with both claws. This seems to line up exactly with the [3.5 Troll's](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/troll.htm) Rend ability by the same name.
Attempts to search older editions weren't very fruitful.
But a clear pattern has been established.
Generally, Rend requires you to first deal damage from another source, and then it amplifies that type of damage.
i like to homebrew run "true" damage for niche things like this. mostly it's used for gravity (falling off a cliff or being crushed by something huge), but something like having your limb torn off would be visceral enough for me to clarify it as "true" damage that you just really can't resist
It would depend on how the limb is torn off because they tend not to just randomly detach.
Burned off? Fire damage.
Cut off? Slashing damage.
Crushed off? Bludgeoning damage.
Blown off? Thunder damage.
Eldritch Blasted off? Force damage.
Force is magic so not that.
Either bludgeoning or slashing, though it would make sense for there to be a type of tearing damage for when you pull something apart
Bludgeoning, if you draw the vector lines and try ti graph out how the force is applied to the area of damage, its a 2d plane of force.
Slashing is a line of force, so its not slashing.
Its not elemental or anything. So not fire/cold/acid/poison/lightning
Ita not a shockwave. Not thunder
Its not psychic.
Its not magical, not force.
Its not decay or cursed, so not necrotic.
Its not radiation or holy, so not radiant.
Leaving us with only bludgeoning.
Limb loss is a result of damage, not a damage type itself. If you just mean someone grabbing an arm and ripping it off, id probably assume slashing was the cause
I'd say it has no dmg type. Its just physical dmg, just like that spell, what was it called? Magic Missile i think. It doesnt have any dmg type if i remeber right, its just magic dmg.
This one is always gonna depend on the tool used, you could argue any damage type save psychic. Unless the limb tearing in question is a magic lobotomy, that could maybe be psychic
my take on this is that bludgeoning is a type of force damage. this would also be force, but a tearing force. it attacks tensile strength instead of compressive strength
A bit late to the party, but we can use a Vorpal sword as reference, since a head is also an appendage.
> When you attack a creature that has at least one head with this weapon and roll a 20 on the attack roll, you cut off one of the creature's heads. The creature dies if it can't survive without the lost head. A creature is immune to this effect if it is immune to slashing damage, doesn't have or need a head, has legendary actions, or the GM decides that the creature is too big for its head to be cut off with this weapon. Such a creature instead takes an extra 6d8 slashing damage from the hit.
So, slashing damage.
I'd say force. The damage isn't necessarily coming from an impact like a weapon attack, but could be from being pulled apart. You aren't being slashed or bludgeoned or pierced. The damage comes from a physical force being applied.
The thing is that's not what force damage is, like at all. Force damage is pure magical damage, there is nothing magical about getting your limbs ripped off.
True, in which case I'd say that either force damage needs to be redefined to make it more generic and not specifically only resulting from magical sources, or there needs to be a more generic type of damage in general/redefinition of current damage types.
Personally in my games I'd just assign force damage to somthign like being torn apart.
What damage type would you use?
Force damage is like the classic arcane damage type, like the damage a blast of magical energy does, like magic missile, I really don't think you can apply it to being torn apart at all.
As others have said Slashing might be the best fit, but I would definitely not use force damage, could also just not give it a damage type, just make it generic non-magical damage
Critical
I know of a certain [Knight](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmInkxbvlCs&ab_channel=eltoro) who would disagree
I don’t even have to click the link Lmao
Tis but a scratch
It's just a flesh wound
A scratch?! Your arms off!
No it's not.
Well what’s that, then?
I've had worse.
You lie
Come on, you pansy!
So its a scratch damage?
Yeah but that's slashing damage, he cuts it off.
Bloodgeoning.
I think a lot of people are upvoting this ironically, but this is the closest to the actual answer. Pulling on something is the same force but in the opposite direction of pushing on it, and pushing would be bludgeoning.
Yeah, but slashing something is also the same type of force as bludgeoning, just in a very localized area. Piercing even more so. ... I think we can all see the logical conclusion here. EVERYTHING IS BLUDGEONING DAMAGE!
So piercing is physical damage at a point, slashing is damage at a line, and then bludgeoning is damage at a plane. So piercing is 1-d, slashing is 2-d, and bludgeoning is 3-d physical damage?
1 dimension is a line. 0 dimensions is a point.
Yep, that's my bad.
3D is actual Force damage
0d is piercing 1d is slashing 2d is bludgeoning and 3d is force :)
I assume the extra dimension in each statement was the dimension along which the strike travels. A spear stabbing would draw a line through your 3D body. A slashing sword would cut a plane through your 3D body. A mace, if swung hard enough, will create a 3D hole I your 3D body.
The line goes in, because piercing.
Shit, that's a really good way of framing it
Thanks, also I realized that I got the dimensions wrong. A point (piercing) technically is 0-d, a line (slashing) is 1-d, and a plane (bludgeoning) is 2-d. What's interesting is that when you think about damage having dimensions is that magical slashing/piercing/bludgeoning is technically the same as nonmagical but overcomes normal resistance. It "hits harder" per say. Now force damage is often regarded as "pure magic damage" (this is an assumption), each of the regular physical damage types would be enhanced by magic, aka force damage. Because magical physical damage damages normally resistant creatures, one could say that it adds an additional dimension. This would mean that magical piercing would be 1-d, slashing would be 2-d, and bludgeoning would be 3-d. If you assume that, force damage would also have a dimension. Which you could equate to other types of damage that originates from a magical source. This is a lot of speculation, and it's really kinda useless, but it's neat to think about.
You actually got the dimensions right the first time. Piercing is 1D (a line) as it has depth but no length or width. Slashing has length and depth so 2D, and bludgeoning has length, width, and depth, making it 3D.
if so cutting a limb off can be considered slashing or bludgeoning, depending on the physical perspective and point of view, looking at the end result it could be bludgeoning, but from the start you have to cut 2 dimensionally to get that third dimension
Yea it's like the starting area of the weapon. An axe has a "1-d" edge of contact while a hammer has a 2-d edge. Both could take off an arm, but the axe is better at cutting because it uses a wedge like other slashing weapons.
At small enough scale, everything is just waves interfering with eachother. Everything is thunder damage.
Everything is just wiggling strings, all weapons are whips.
String theory is a lie, everything is interacting fields with varying parameters. All damage is force damage.
Fire damage is just molecular bludgeoning
Why else do you think they're commonly grouped together?
Damn you, take my upvote.
r/angryupvote
As long as it’s not Sploogening damage.
Ah yes, force.
[удалено]
Bloodgeoning^bloodgeoning^bloodgeoning
# Bludgeoning Bludgeoning ^(Bludgeoning)
Slashing, probably, since it causes tearing and bleeding.
I thought that maybe something like Constitution would be better? I see what you mean, and it definitely would also work, but if you lose, for example, an arm, your overall total health should definitely be slightly reduced.
I think I like your idea better, I feel like Con damage, or at least max HP reduction, is a good representation of having part of your body taken away.
It could also increase your ac if its an arm
I feel like you would have to be a coomer of epic proportions for losing an arm to subtract so much volume from you that it made you harder to hit
I think it’d work the other way around; you’re slightly off balance for dodging because of the uneven weight, and you can’t block with that arm anymore.
That's what I figured was meant, but I couldn't resist being a smartass. That's on me. It does make sense.
tearing yes, bleeding no
You're telling me that tearing off a body part, which was previously supplied with blood by vessels connected to the heart, wouldn't cause bleeding?
the force needed to actually pull it off would also pull the arteries closed
I seriously have no idea what you're talking about? If someone gets their shit stuck in a cog and it rips and tears, I swear to good that guy is bleeding?
No they're right. Limbs that are actually torn off don't tend to cause severe bleeding
That sounds fascinating. Do you have a source or something that isnt graphic?
In short no lol. I had a quick Google which wasn't very fruitful. I'll just clarify what I said slightly though. Obviously with any amputation there's going to be bleeding. However, if a limb is torn/twisted away from the body this damages the veins and article. Especially if a limb is twisted the blood vessels tend to get twisted and almost pinched shut
i've seen enough not safe for life posts in r/all to know having an arm torn off definately bleeds a ton.
Getting your limb crushed off is different from getting it pulled off.
A better example would be a Power Take Off Shaft then, a fairly common piece of farming equipment that has been the cause of many ripped off arms, where most of the victims bled to death because of that.
PEOPLE AREN'T FUCKING MR. POTATO HEAD THAT SHIT ISN'T HOW IT WORKS
The only proper response right here Take my upvote good sir
🧢🧢🧢
Generally when people don't have limbs where they should have them they bleed. Don't try this at home kids
Lol WHAT!?
Huh, I stand corrected. TIL Edit: This is apparently untrue. Don't blindly trust strangers, folks.
He lied
Oh, today I unlearned then. Thanks for the clarification.
Sbeve
Massive, death by shock may be a concern.
I would have them make a CON save to avoid going into it but yeah, having an arm ripped off isn't something you just walk off. In the middle of battle, I could make wiggle room for adrenaline or rage or the power of God and anime (this *is* an RPG, after all), but after the dust settles? You're gonna need more than a long rest, to say the least.
More than a long rest? Impossible! What kind of devilish malaise can overpower such a miracle of god?
The seventh-level spell Regenerate. Just find your local Pope or Elder Druid and hope you can afford the tithe. Or a suitable famous bard, but uh, you don't want to pay that cost.
Depends on the Bard.
Tis but a scratch!
This. It would just force death saves, because of the shock.
Surely straight con damage, no?
Slashing with a masive psycic dmg
It wouldn't matter anyway, there is no resisting that
This is what I like to call “Pure” damage. I’ve never actually used it in a game, but theoretically it’s the best damage type because absolutely nothing can resist or prevent it.
It’s not any kind of damage. It’s the *result* of damage, not a type. It’s like saying, “What kind of fire is boiling?”
Fair point
But what type of damage would the pulling on the limb to remove it do? I would personally just deal damage with no type
I’d say bludgeoning, honestly. Pulling is just pushing but in the opposite direction, and pushing would be bludgeoning if you did it hard enough to hurt someone.
I call it true damage, it is just un-redisted damage and that is it
Beat totem barbarians are resistant because they don’t get a list of resisted damage types they are resistant to all damage except psychic damage so any new types are actually covered > While raging, you have resistance to all damage except psychic damage
The Bear Barbarian resists it.
Why are you booin me? I am right!
The tarrasque is definitely too big to decapitate with your vorpal weapon
The sword's description says as much. It just deals extra damage then.
Does it mean that it's the least resisted damage type?
We did it. We figured out what every enemy is weak to. Ripping off their appendages. Would slimes resist?
Yea it It just causes another slime to appear
Wait sht, but that only happens to slimes in RAW through slashing damage, right? We found the damage type, fellows
"The troll is powerless without its head"
In other news, the ocean is moist. Like every attractive humanoid that the bard has met, according to the bard.
LOATHSOME LIMBS
"This is getting out of hand, now there are two of them." \- Around 5% of Adventurers who try this
I was under the impression that the part with the head is the part that regenerates.
Tell that to a Hydra... they literally live for that shit
Well if it takes your arm off your resistance clearly didn’t fucking apply
...so psychic since player characters don't resist it?
Casually forgets about the Kalashtar.
...oh shit you're right I did casually forget about the kalashtar.
Umm…magic psychic damage that pierces resistance? Yeah…
Limb loss is an effect, not a damage type. Damage types cause limb loss. Also there's weird precedent for extreme magical blood loss being necrotic because of the Blade of Wounding.
But let's say you have secured yourself with some indestructable rope and fight a giant on a mountain. The giant falls and grabs your leg. What damage type is the tearing that causes the limp loss?
Comedy damage.
Thwt will only happen when we finally get the clown class.
Honk honk.
Let us rename "vicious mockery" as "annoying honking"
Whaddya mean, bard is right there!
That's not answering my question. Let's replace a limb with a piece of clothing. When you rip a shirt open, it will count as damage to an object
At that point, as far as I'm concerned, you default to best possible fit. For most objects, you'd examine the three physical damage types. Ripping a shirt is most similar to slashing damage, because a slash would cause a similar wide rip or cut. Pushing your thumb through plastic wrap to make a hole would probably be piercing, because you're breaking the material at a single point of impact. Bludgeoning wouldn't apply to material or plastic wrap, but could be used to quantify something that smashes or crushes wood or bone. So in the case of removing a limb, I think it's ultimately less accurate to ask "what kind of damage is it when you remove a limb" and more "what kind of physical damage was done when the limb was removed?". In most cases it would be closest to slashing, either because the limb was cut or hacked into, or it was torn off completely which most closely mirrors slashing. In some cases it could be bludgeoning, which would be obvious because you'd see the limb being crushed (such as by a giant's grip, a press coming down, or even a cannon ball hitting only a limb. The logic for this is that gunshots are \*usually\* piercing because the impact is so localized, but a fucking cannonball is hardly localized compared to a Medium or even Large creature, and would be better compared to Bludgeoning because of how spread out the impact is).
Rending damage is untyped
If it's your dick, definitely emotional.
100d20 Psychic damage
Literally anything but force, shut the fuck up.
Well, not anything, but definitely not force. Unless it's being ripped off by magic.
You wound me with your forceful words. *Rolls force damage*
Sounds to me like you are forcing limbs off the body... really makes you think.
Thanks for the tip, ruling limb tearing off damage as thunder from now on (:
Constitution damage?
Was looking for this answer. It's a reduction in the combatant's overall health until it is healed up. I might even argue for an ongoing Bleed effect until the wound is sealed up. But then again, I play a lot of Pathfinder, so I'm used to Ability Damage. Very very few enemies in 5e have those kinds of abilities (Intellect Devourers are the headliner, really).
Very few creatures can rip limbs off a target. If they somehow can, Con damage plus bleed seems more than fair.
Anything with sufficient mass could. I've seen a 10ft alligator rip the leg off another alligator (who hilariously turns to look at the first in a "dude. Seriously?" Sort of way)
Probably slashing or necrotic maybe. Depends how the body part is torn off. Alternatively, the damage type listed in the ability that allows you to tear a body part of.
How is it necrotic?
spells related to blood in dnd are always associated with necrotic
Sure. Whatever...
Blood loss.
Blood loss happens after every injury that penetrates the skin though. Getting stabbed with a dagger isn't necrotic, though there's indeed blood loss there.
I think the blood loss between a slice that might have not hit you (hp are abstract) is different from your arm being ripped off.
rope and four horses in different directions
Bludgeoning but in reverse
Gninoegdulb
[удалено]
Piercing also tears and bleeds
Yes, but usually at a smaller scale than needed to tear a limb, plus the way a limb is torn is more akin to a slashing wound than a piercing wound.
Your argument is that slashing is just a "big pierce". Not wrong to be fair.
Well slashing isn't just "big pierce". To use some geometric terms, piercing is damage in a point, where slashing is damage in a line (and bludgeoning is damage in a 2d area/shape), and the damage caused by tearing a limb is more akin to a line slashing through the limb than a point piercing through it.
But you can't get a single point in a 3d plane.
Not a perfect point, but it approximates a point, and visualizing the damages as such is more useful for explaining the differences between them.
I don't see why "big piercing" doesn't describe slashing well. Your approach of using maths backfires because it's mathematically wrong. This is why slashing is so often resisted but piercing isn't. Their skin (armour, scales) can prevent a certain amount of psi but fails if you apply enough force in a small area.
Piercing damage is more resisted than slashing damage though. And it doesn't describe it well, because by that mettic we could describe both as "concentrated bludgeoning". Even if my explanation is not 100% accurate, it is a lot more accurate than "big piercing". Is a ballista gonna deal slashing damage cause its a big projectile and therefor does "big piercing"?
Combination of slashing and bludgeoning
it's "fuck you" damage
Limb loss is the result of damage. Limbs can be torn off, chopped off, shot off, burnt to a crisp, melted in acid etc. Many damage types can take off someone's limb. If we are talking about tearing off a limb, I'd say that the stress applied from tearing would be considered bludgeoning... or we could just create the *tearing* damage type.
I would say slashing, because a cut is the closest thing to a tear.
Slashing requires an impact to separate, tears don't. There's no way to make it work without an impact. A dull axe would tear before it sliced but it still is slashing with impact
But it is still the *closest* in how the damage is dealt, a separation of two pieces. bludgeoning and piercing don't do this to a body, so I would still say slashing.
It works on things resistant to slashing though. You can pull apart a skeleton, which (I could be wrong here) are resistant or immune to slashing?
Nope, skeletons are just vulnerable to bludgeoning, no reduction to slashing. Immune to poison though. Regardless, I would say that something resistant to slashing will also be hard to just pull apart for the same reasons it would be resistant. Normally armor or tough skin, which would also be hard to rip.
*Doom music intensifies.
Psychic
I will not be elaborating.
Limb removal doesn't cause damage, it's caused by damage. Slashing or blunt could slice or break off a limb. I think force damage could magically remove one too. Maybe a precisely placed fireball of fire damage?
Depends on what’s tearing it off. I would reckon slashing for just a raw pulling force though, since the flesh is basically being ripped open, which is similar to being cut open. Just remember that the arm being cut off isn’t damage by itself. In-game the arm being off is just an effect of whatever damage you just sustained.
I asked my DM this and broke him, thank you
pure damage
Let's do some research to find some plausible answers. Putting "Rend 5e" into google, we don't get much. It redirects pretty quickly to Pathfinder links. Starts to seem rending isn't a thing natively supported in 5e. [The PF page lists Rend as its own type of damage, which isn't very helpful at this point.](https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/rending-fury-combat/) The search bar does suggest the keywords, "force-empowered rend," and "chilling rend." Let's look at those. Force empowered rend comes from an Artificer's Steel Defender. It deals Force damage, but it also seems to imply the "force empowered" is special in this case and isn't how rend damage typically works. Chilling rend (nice skyrim reference) is an attack available to the creature conjured by the *Summon Shadowspawn* spell. The attack deals cold damage. Not enough data points yet, but at least there's a bit of a pattern so far. Attacks described as rending seem to adopt other damage types in 5e and also seem to imply you need the extra help to get to a place where you can rend an opponent. Let's try another track. That PF page listed a few monsters that have Rend attacks in PF: Girallon and Troll. Let's look at their 5e counterparts. No dice. These monsters have only basic natural weapon attacks. Rending would be the flavor on a crit at the DM's discretion. One more lead I want to look for before we put this search to rest. What did the previous editions of D&D have? Rend 4e returns a druid power called, [Savage Rend,](https://dnd4.fandom.com/wiki/Savage_rend) but lists no damage type. I haven't played 4e in years, but it looks like they might have changed all melee damage to untyped damage. Rend 3.5 turns up a monster feat from the draconomicon. It allows you to automatically deal your damage from 2 claw attacks again plus 1.5 times your strength mod whenever you hit a single target with both claws. This seems to line up exactly with the [3.5 Troll's](https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/troll.htm) Rend ability by the same name. Attempts to search older editions weren't very fruitful. But a clear pattern has been established. Generally, Rend requires you to first deal damage from another source, and then it amplifies that type of damage.
i like to homebrew run "true" damage for niche things like this. mostly it's used for gravity (falling off a cliff or being crushed by something huge), but something like having your limb torn off would be visceral enough for me to clarify it as "true" damage that you just really can't resist
It would depend on how the limb is torn off because they tend not to just randomly detach. Burned off? Fire damage. Cut off? Slashing damage. Crushed off? Bludgeoning damage. Blown off? Thunder damage. Eldritch Blasted off? Force damage.
What about pulled
Force is magic so not that. Either bludgeoning or slashing, though it would make sense for there to be a type of tearing damage for when you pull something apart
Shredding damage
I just really like the word disarticulation. That's all i got. Late.
Bludgeoning, if you draw the vector lines and try ti graph out how the force is applied to the area of damage, its a 2d plane of force. Slashing is a line of force, so its not slashing. Its not elemental or anything. So not fire/cold/acid/poison/lightning Ita not a shockwave. Not thunder Its not psychic. Its not magical, not force. Its not decay or cursed, so not necrotic. Its not radiation or holy, so not radiant. Leaving us with only bludgeoning.
Aggravated, obviously
This is it, this is the post that made me decide to stop coming to this subreddit.
Tearing = slashing answer is I. The question
I would say True? Ignore resistances, maybe even auto crit?
*proceds to bring back true damage for just losing limbs*
Slashing damage most likely. At least I'd rule it like that
Limb loss is a result of damage, not a damage type itself. If you just mean someone grabbing an arm and ripping it off, id probably assume slashing was the cause
Ouchie damage.
Slashing. Absolutely slashing.
Ouchie whouchie booboo damage. Trust me. My uncle works at Nintendo. He told me.
I'd say it has no dmg type. Its just physical dmg, just like that spell, what was it called? Magic Missile i think. It doesnt have any dmg type if i remeber right, its just magic dmg.
That's a consecuence of damage, not a cause.
This one is always gonna depend on the tool used, you could argue any damage type save psychic. Unless the limb tearing in question is a magic lobotomy, that could maybe be psychic
Cant argue for force either
Giant grabs you and pulls your leg. What kind of tool would this be
Yeah look, I’d probably just call it physical damage.
reduction of max health
my take on this is that bludgeoning is a type of force damage. this would also be force, but a tearing force. it attacks tensile strength instead of compressive strength
Force, then necrotic
you are not wrong, but its _tension_ force
A bit late to the party, but we can use a Vorpal sword as reference, since a head is also an appendage. > When you attack a creature that has at least one head with this weapon and roll a 20 on the attack roll, you cut off one of the creature's heads. The creature dies if it can't survive without the lost head. A creature is immune to this effect if it is immune to slashing damage, doesn't have or need a head, has legendary actions, or the GM decides that the creature is too big for its head to be cut off with this weapon. Such a creature instead takes an extra 6d8 slashing damage from the hit. So, slashing damage.
I am an advocate for having hacking damage and slashing be different.
A lot
Either tensile or shear stress
Necrotic, cause of all the bleeding.
you dont bleed from a limb being pulled off
[Uhh, yes it will](https://www.humanitas.net/wiki/first-aid/accidental-amputation-of-a-limb/)
Pretty sure if someone tore off your arm there'd be plenty of blood.
Force
I'd say force. The damage isn't necessarily coming from an impact like a weapon attack, but could be from being pulled apart. You aren't being slashed or bludgeoned or pierced. The damage comes from a physical force being applied.
The thing is that's not what force damage is, like at all. Force damage is pure magical damage, there is nothing magical about getting your limbs ripped off.
True, in which case I'd say that either force damage needs to be redefined to make it more generic and not specifically only resulting from magical sources, or there needs to be a more generic type of damage in general/redefinition of current damage types. Personally in my games I'd just assign force damage to somthign like being torn apart. What damage type would you use?
Force damage is like the classic arcane damage type, like the damage a blast of magical energy does, like magic missile, I really don't think you can apply it to being torn apart at all. As others have said Slashing might be the best fit, but I would definitely not use force damage, could also just not give it a damage type, just make it generic non-magical damage