Renaming "Blunt"?

[Pootscooter]

So I recently happened across a minor quirk. Basically, I have a spell called Asphyxiate, which Silences the target and deals some damage when the state leaves (or I may make it a DoT). However, making it deal "Blunt" damage sounds a bit weird. I was thinking of renaming it "Crush" damage instead, so more skills/spells could utilize this damage type w/ more thematic accuracy? Any better suggestions besides "Crush"? It's evolved from "Bludgeoning" to "Blunt" and now to "Crush" unless a better alternative is found...thoughts?

 

[Shaz]

Bruise? That would suit something that happens slowly over time. Crush kinda implies immediate and significant damage.

 

[Pootscooter]

I mean, I need a name/term that works for the widest variety of skills/weapons. For example, all Maces would deal this type of damage as would an Earth spell in which boulders are hurled at the target. A Water spell where a tidal wave crashes upon the target would also deal this type of damage. I hope this clarifies things, ty.

 

[TheoAllen]

Impact damage.

 

[gstv87]

in D&D any magical damage that is not an element is usually "force" damage.
like, the general pain caused by an electric shock, or the pain of heavy breathing when you have the flu, or the head ache from high fever.... that feeling, that's "force" damage.

 

[alice_gristle]

Crush sounds good to me! I mean, if ya strangle somebody, you crushing the air outta them... and if you beat somebody with a hammer, you crushing them, too. And if a boulder hits you, it's gonna crush you. Nice and broadly applicable, you got it!

 

[Frostorm]

Crush sounds good to me! I mean, if ya strangle somebody, you crushing the air outta them... and if you beat somebody with a hammer, you crushing them, too. And if a boulder hits you, it's gonna crush you. Nice and broadly applicable, you got it!

Ooh, now I wanna use "Crush" too lol. However, these are the icons I use for Blunt, Slash, & Pierce respectively. Would the 1st icon be a good fit for "Crush"?

 

[Pootscooter]

Crush sounds good to me! I mean, if ya strangle somebody, you crushing the air outta them... and if you beat somebody with a hammer, you crushing them, too. And if a boulder hits you, it's gonna crush you. Nice and broadly applicable, you got it!

I guess "Crush" it is then! Thank you! I just hope there's no instance where it makes sense to call something Blunt dmg, but not Crush dmg...

 

[zelanius]

I guess "Crush" it is then! Thank you! I just hope there's no instance where it makes sense to call something Blunt dmg, but not Crush dmg...

Yup, I think Crush makes the most sense. Crush, Slash and Pierce are the 3 physical damage types in AD&D 2E (they changed Crush to Bludgeon in 3E), so that makes the most sense to me. I am using the same thing (plus Shock, which stands for Shockwave) in the world I am building for physical damage.

 

[Frostorm]

I hope @Pootscooter doesn't mind me asking this here...

Do you guys think a Tornado would deal Crush damage? Or something else perhaps? It's definitely physical damage of some kind. Maybe a hybrid Crush/Slash damage? Thoughts?

 

[zelanius]

I hope @Pootscooter doesn't mind me asking this here...

Do you guys think a Tornado would deal Crush damage? Or something else perhaps? It's definitely physical damage of some kind. Maybe a hybrid Crush/Slash damage? Thoughts?

I would say it deals Crush, Slash and Pierce damage. A tornado basically also suck up debris, some of which are sharp and pointy, and so anything goes.

 

[Celestrium]

I always considered wind to be equivalent to a blade in the way it moves, so if I was to assign it a physical attribute I would say Slash. Gasses interact with us differently than solids though, so that's not really always right either...in actuality you could have wind spells that use different physical attributes depending how they behave!
I really like to use Bludgeon, but feel like Impact is a better choice for game use and understanding.
Crush I feel isn't 100 percent accurate, if you attack someone with a bat, you aren't compressing or squeezing them, but I also was thinking that you could use the term to apply in a high school setting game instead of "charm"

 

[Frostorm]

When I think about being hit by a baseball bat, I imagine cells being Crushed by the atk lol.

 

[zelanius]

Yup, and that's why crush/impact/bludgeon is kind of interchangeable. I have seen some games using "Impact", so I think it is fine. It is just that once you get into the various tenses, "impacting" kind of sounds weird against "slashing" and piercing", which is why I prefer crush.

 

[Celestrium]

Ouch, the violent imagery of the baseball bat crushing someone lol, I never thought of it that way!

 

[duty]

Crush definitely makes more sense than blunt or bludgeon to describe that kind of damage.

 

[Beregon]

I don't think it matters that much just how accurate the term you choose to use makes, the important parts are that it sounds good, you are consistent with its use and there's some kind of logic to why these two separate attacks are grouped under one category. The fact that they work similar enough is usually fine.

Though, you should take care that the term makes some kind of sense at first glance. I'm still reminded of Oblivion's two melee weapon categories, Blade and Blunt. Blade was basically Swords and Daggers, Blunt was Maces and the definitely sharp Axes.

The logic for this was that both Maces and Axes work similar enough that a person skilled in the use of a mace should be able to perform decently with an axe and vice versa, but... calling the skill Blunt will still look wrong to the vast majority of people. The average player will just look at the name and say "but wait, axes aren't blunt!"

As for my opinion, Crushing works well. In my opinion, Impact is too general a term that would cover most attacks outside of some weird magic spells (and even then, you could argue it still counts).

 

[AfroKat]

When I had this dilemma I ended up with Strike. So Slash, Pierce and Strike. That way Strike holds true for Clubs, Maces, Long Poles, Punches, Tackle etc etc etc.

Dark Souls uses the Slash, Thrust, Strike as well.

 

[Aesica]

As a native English speaker, the word "Blunt" is just fine for a damage type. Not at all weird.

 

[Frostorm]

As a native English speaker, the word "Blunt" is just fine for a damage type. Not at all weird.

I think the issue was that certain skills/spells wouldn't seem right if listed as "Blunt" damage. @Pootscooter's OP gives an example of this:

Basically, I have a spell called Asphyxiate, which Silences the target and deals some damage when the state leaves (or I may make it a DoT). However, making it deal "Blunt" damage sounds a bit weird.

Whereas "Crush" damage would be a better fit since you can imagine the target's trachea being crushed lol.