Also remember that the extra damage provided by booming blade is thunder damage. If you're ready to announce your presence to the entire area, go right ahead but booming blade is not really compatible with stealth.
I think you need to read the description again. It says nothing about it making a noticable sound.
Also remember that the extra damage provided by booming blade is thunder damage. If you're ready to announce your presence to the entire area, go right ahead but booming blade is not really compatible with stealth.
I think you need to read the description again. It says nothing about it making a noticable sound.
I think people are reading into the fact that it's thunder damage, not lightning damage. The difference would be that thunder is the sound, thus there would be sound with the damage if we infer from the damage type.
It is thunder damage, but sounds don't have to be particularly loud to cause damage. That said, combat is not quiet, hitting someone with a weapon makes significant noise on its own and add to that the V spell component and the opponent screaming as you mortally wound them. Booming blade isn't significantly louder than other spells, but it isn't silent either.
Also remember that the extra damage provided by booming blade is thunder damage. If you're ready to announce your presence to the entire area, go right ahead but booming blade is not really compatible with stealth.
I think you need to read the description again. It says nothing about it making a noticable sound.
I think people are reading into the fact that it's thunder damage, not lightning damage. The difference would be that thunder is the sound, thus there would be sound with the damage if we infer from the damage type.
I hate the fact that there is even such a thing as "thunder damage" in 5e. There is no such thing. "Thunder damage" is literally force damage. 🙄
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Also remember that the extra damage provided by booming blade is thunder damage. If you're ready to announce your presence to the entire area, go right ahead but booming blade is not really compatible with stealth.
I think you need to read the description again. It says nothing about it making a noticable sound.
I think people are reading into the fact that it's thunder damage, not lightning damage. The difference would be that thunder is the sound, thus there would be sound with the damage if we infer from the damage type.
I hate the fact that there is even such a thing as "thunder damage" in 5e. There is no such thing. "Thunder damage" is literally force damage. 🙄
You're gonna confuse people with that, since "force damage" is also a damage type and is decidedly not what you mean here :p. Bludgeoning damage would be the most appropriate, I think.
Also remember that the extra damage provided by booming blade is thunder damage. If you're ready to announce your presence to the entire area, go right ahead but booming blade is not really compatible with stealth.
I think you need to read the description again. It says nothing about it making a noticable sound.
I think people are reading into the fact that it's thunder damage, not lightning damage. The difference would be that thunder is the sound, thus there would be sound with the damage if we infer from the damage type.
I hate the fact that there is even such a thing as "thunder damage" in 5e. There is no such thing. "Thunder damage" is literally force damage. 🙄
You're gonna confuse people with that, since "force damage" is also a damage type and is decidedly not what you mean here :p. Bludgeoning damage would be the most appropriate, I think.
No, that's exactly what I meant. Thunder damage is something that factually does not exist. What they are trying to represent as "thunder" is literally force damage.
In other words, I'm saying that there is absolutely no purpose to having a "thunder" damage type in the game when the "force" damage type already exists. All references to "thunder" damage types should just be rewritten as "force". Obviously, that will never happen until a 6th edition comes out since they screwed the pooch by having a designer that clearly doesn't understand such a rudimentary STEM concept...
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Also remember that the extra damage provided by booming blade is thunder damage. If you're ready to announce your presence to the entire area, go right ahead but booming blade is not really compatible with stealth.
I think you need to read the description again. It says nothing about it making a noticable sound.
I think people are reading into the fact that it's thunder damage, not lightning damage. The difference would be that thunder is the sound, thus there would be sound with the damage if we infer from the damage type.
I hate the fact that there is even such a thing as "thunder damage" in 5e. There is no such thing. "Thunder damage" is literally force damage. 🙄
You're gonna confuse people with that, since "force damage" is also a damage type and is decidedly not what you mean here :p. Bludgeoning damage would be the most appropriate, I think.
No, that's exactly what I meant. Thunder damage is something that factually does not exist. What they are trying to represent as "thunder" is literally force damage.
In other words, I'm saying that there is absolutely no purpose to having a "thunder" damage type in the game when the "force" damage type already exists. All references to "thunder" damage types should just be rewritten as "force". Obviously, that will never happen until a 6th edition comes out since they screwed the pooch by having a designer that clearly doesn't understand such a rudimentary STEM concept...
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. What they call "thunder damage" is the concussive force of a shockwave, which is not "force damage." Force damage is as close to untyped magic damage as the game gets. It's not force in a physics sense, it's just... generic magic, which thunder damage definitely isn't.
Also remember that the extra damage provided by booming blade is thunder damage. If you're ready to announce your presence to the entire area, go right ahead but booming blade is not really compatible with stealth.
I think you need to read the description again. It says nothing about it making a noticable sound.
I think people are reading into the fact that it's thunder damage, not lightning damage. The difference would be that thunder is the sound, thus there would be sound with the damage if we infer from the damage type.
I hate the fact that there is even such a thing as "thunder damage" in 5e. There is no such thing. "Thunder damage" is literally force damage. 🙄
You're gonna confuse people with that, since "force damage" is also a damage type and is decidedly not what you mean here :p. Bludgeoning damage would be the most appropriate, I think.
No, that's exactly what I meant. Thunder damage is something that factually does not exist. What they are trying to represent as "thunder" is literally force damage.
In other words, I'm saying that there is absolutely no purpose to having a "thunder" damage type in the game when the "force" damage type already exists. All references to "thunder" damage types should just be rewritten as "force". Obviously, that will never happen until a 6th edition comes out since they screwed the pooch by having a designer that clearly doesn't understand such a rudimentary STEM concept...
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. What they call "thunder damage" is the concussive force of a shockwave, which is not "force damage." Force damage is as close to untyped magic damage as the game gets. It's not force in a physics sense, it's just... generic magic, which thunder damage definitely isn't.
And that's what I'm getting at... they are the same (in D&D, not IRL). "Force" damage is concentrated magical energy. "Thunder" damage is a concussive blast. What causes a concussive blast? Release of concentrated energy. What actually causes "thunder" damage in 5e? Magic. See where I'm going?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
And that's what I'm getting at... they are the same (in D&D, not IRL). "Force" damage is concentrated magical energy. "Thunder" damage is a concussive blast. What causes a concussive blast? Release of concentrated energy. What actually causes "thunder" damage in 5e? Magic. See where I'm going?
Right, but force damage is not a physical force. Thunder damage is. Magic might cause a thunderwave, but that's coincidental to the damage, which is entirely physical. Magic missile on the other hand doesn't create a physical force at all, it's just... magic. It's sort of inherently impossible to reason about in real-world terms because (shocked gasp) magic isn't real.
It's like how fireball does fire damage, just like a torch does. Thunderwave does thunder damage, just like (I imagine, don't think it's come up in any official source) a sonic boom would. Whether it comes from magic or not isn't relevant in comparison to the force damage type, which again is not physical force.
The game draws a distinction between spells that use magic to create natural phenomena (fireball, thunderwave, etc.) and so deal natural damage types and spells that just shoot magic at someone (magic missile) which gets a unique damage type because there's no natural way to handle it.
[EDIT] figured out how to trim all those block quotes, score
Except they really don't make any distinction in practice. A spell that produces a shockwave is produced by magic. The damage (regardless of the basic type) is magical. A fire caused by the aftermath of a Fireball is mundane, but the direct damage from the Fireball itself is magical.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Except they really don't make any distinction in practice. A spell that produces a shockwave is produced by magic. The damage (regardless of the basic type) is magical. A fire caused by the aftermath of a Fireball is mundane, but the direct damage from the Fireball itself is magical.
Okay, then make every spell only ever deal force damage. I personally find that mechanically rather uninteresting, and it doesn't respect what I find to be an important narrative distinction between the types of spells I mentioned, but if it makes more sense to some people there's nothing stopping them from running the game that way *shrug*
Except they really don't make any distinction in practice. A spell that produces a shockwave is produced by magic. The damage (regardless of the basic type) is magical. A fire caused by the aftermath of a Fireball is mundane, but the direct damage from the Fireball itself is magical.
The difference is that now you can have resistance/immunity to booming blade and not magic missile or vice versa. Otherwise, you might as well say "resistance to magic" and call it good. Regardless of whether the damage type is redundant as you say, it's presence allows for some types of "force" damage to be resisted more frequently than others by simply changed the damage type. The extra damage type gives another toggle for balancing.
Except they really don't make any distinction in practice. A spell that produces a shockwave is produced by magic. The damage (regardless of the basic type) is magical. A fire caused by the aftermath of a Fireball is mundane, but the direct damage from the Fireball itself is magical.
The difference is that now you can have resistance/immunity to booming blade and not magic missile or vice versa. Otherwise, you might as well say "resistance to magic" and call it good. Regardless of whether the damage type is redundant as you say, it's presence allows for some types of "force" damage to be resisted more frequently than others by simply changed the damage type. The extra damage type gives another toggle for balancing.
That's all well and good. Trust me, I understand the gameplay mechanic reasons why they have a catch-all generic damage type. What grinds my gears is how they've done it. "Thunder" should not be a thing. There are only a handful of abilities/spells that use this damage type; they should either be classified as other damage types that make thematic sense, or expand the amount of things that deal this type of damage (and appropriately name it, FFS 🙄). While it personally infuriates my OCD like nails on a chalkboard, the main reason I think this is important for the game is because there are sub-classes/features/feats that revolve around the thunder damage type, and those are superbly lackluster as a result. Will there be more stuff released in the future? Sure, probably. Doesn't help anything between now and then. Just poor design & vision.
Anyway, this is totally off-topic, so I'll get off my soapbox now.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I think you need to read the description again. It says nothing about it making a noticable sound.
I don't particularly care for this argument, though you are by no means the only person I have seen making it. Booming Blade produces no sound the way Fireball produces no light. Just because every aspect of a situation is not accounted for does not mean that common sense is no longer applicable to that situation. We know the spell produces sound because the description of the thunder damage type tells us so. In the context of the phrase "sheathed in booming energy," the common English meaning of the word booming means "loud."
Booming Blade produces a loud sound. How loud? I would suggest that's up to the DM.
I think you need to read the description again. It says nothing about it making a noticable sound.
I don't particularly care for this argument, though you are by no means the only person I have seen making it. Booming Blade produces no sound the way Fireball produces no light. Just because every aspect of a situation is not accounted for does not mean that common sense is no longer applicable to that situation. We know the spell produces sound because the description of the thunder damage type tells us so. In the context of the phrase "sheathed in booming energy," the common English meaning of the word booming means "loud."
Booming Blade produces a loud sound. How loud? I would suggest that's up to the DM.
Some spells/effects that produce Thunder damage will quantify the noise made, usually by saying from how far away it can be heard. Not all of them do this, but if I was a DM and one of my players tried to make a case for Thunder damage being silent or even quiet, I'd shoot that down right quick. Even if the rules are unclear on the math, I think reasonable people can agree that a spell called "Booming Blade" isn't going to be subtle or stealthy :)
I would like to point out that while booming blade does thunder damage, it also continues to exist in the target's area for one round or until the target moves. This means that either it is continually using energy to make sound or the energy is contained in that area until it is released. I would personally lean towards the latter and, as such, would rule that booming blade, while not silent, is not unusually loud either, being audible at roughly the same range as its verbal component.
Since it's thunder damage, as a DM I'd figure it's decently loud. But since it doesn't specify how loud in the spell, I'd probably rule that it's not abnormally/super-magically loud. So something that's gonna be pretty loud in the room you're in, probably audible but muted from an adjacent room or through an open door, but not going to rock the foundations of the castle or be heard miles away. About as loud as a fighter smacking a metal shield full force with a metal weapon, or a kid smacking his new drumset, or something.
Just thought I'd quote the PHB regarding thunder damage and sound:
Thunder. A concussive burst of sound, such as the effect of the thunderwave spell, deals thunder damage.
It is definitely not silent, since thunder damage is defined as "a concussive burst of sound", although the volume is not defined by the damage type, so it need not be a "thunderous boom" like Thunderwave.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think you need to read the description again. It says nothing about it making a noticable sound.
I think people are reading into the fact that it's thunder damage, not lightning damage. The difference would be that thunder is the sound, thus there would be sound with the damage if we infer from the damage type.
It is thunder damage, but sounds don't have to be particularly loud to cause damage. That said, combat is not quiet, hitting someone with a weapon makes significant noise on its own and add to that the V spell component and the opponent screaming as you mortally wound them. Booming blade isn't significantly louder than other spells, but it isn't silent either.
I hate the fact that there is even such a thing as "thunder damage" in 5e. There is no such thing. "Thunder damage" is literally force damage. 🙄
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
You're gonna confuse people with that, since "force damage" is also a damage type and is decidedly not what you mean here :p. Bludgeoning damage would be the most appropriate, I think.
No, that's exactly what I meant. Thunder damage is something that factually does not exist. What they are trying to represent as "thunder" is literally force damage.
In other words, I'm saying that there is absolutely no purpose to having a "thunder" damage type in the game when the "force" damage type already exists. All references to "thunder" damage types should just be rewritten as "force". Obviously, that will never happen until a 6th edition comes out since they screwed the pooch by having a designer that clearly doesn't understand such a rudimentary STEM concept...
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. What they call "thunder damage" is the concussive force of a shockwave, which is not "force damage." Force damage is as close to untyped magic damage as the game gets. It's not force in a physics sense, it's just... generic magic, which thunder damage definitely isn't.
And that's what I'm getting at... they are the same (in D&D, not IRL). "Force" damage is concentrated magical energy. "Thunder" damage is a concussive blast. What causes a concussive blast? Release of concentrated energy. What actually causes "thunder" damage in 5e? Magic. See where I'm going?
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Right, but force damage is not a physical force. Thunder damage is. Magic might cause a thunderwave, but that's coincidental to the damage, which is entirely physical. Magic missile on the other hand doesn't create a physical force at all, it's just... magic. It's sort of inherently impossible to reason about in real-world terms because (shocked gasp) magic isn't real.
It's like how fireball does fire damage, just like a torch does. Thunderwave does thunder damage, just like (I imagine, don't think it's come up in any official source) a sonic boom would. Whether it comes from magic or not isn't relevant in comparison to the force damage type, which again is not physical force.
The game draws a distinction between spells that use magic to create natural phenomena (fireball, thunderwave, etc.) and so deal natural damage types and spells that just shoot magic at someone (magic missile) which gets a unique damage type because there's no natural way to handle it.
[EDIT] figured out how to trim all those block quotes, score
Except they really don't make any distinction in practice. A spell that produces a shockwave is produced by magic. The damage (regardless of the basic type) is magical. A fire caused by the aftermath of a Fireball is mundane, but the direct damage from the Fireball itself is magical.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Okay, then make every spell only ever deal force damage. I personally find that mechanically rather uninteresting, and it doesn't respect what I find to be an important narrative distinction between the types of spells I mentioned, but if it makes more sense to some people there's nothing stopping them from running the game that way *shrug*
The difference is that now you can have resistance/immunity to booming blade and not magic missile or vice versa. Otherwise, you might as well say "resistance to magic" and call it good. Regardless of whether the damage type is redundant as you say, it's presence allows for some types of "force" damage to be resisted more frequently than others by simply changed the damage type. The extra damage type gives another toggle for balancing.
That's all well and good. Trust me, I understand the gameplay mechanic reasons why they have a catch-all generic damage type. What grinds my gears is how they've done it. "Thunder" should not be a thing. There are only a handful of abilities/spells that use this damage type; they should either be classified as other damage types that make thematic sense, or expand the amount of things that deal this type of damage (and appropriately name it, FFS 🙄). While it personally infuriates my OCD like nails on a chalkboard, the main reason I think this is important for the game is because there are sub-classes/features/feats that revolve around the thunder damage type, and those are superbly lackluster as a result. Will there be more stuff released in the future? Sure, probably. Doesn't help anything between now and then. Just poor design & vision.
Anyway, this is totally off-topic, so I'll get off my soapbox now.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I don't particularly care for this argument, though you are by no means the only person I have seen making it. Booming Blade produces no sound the way Fireball produces no light. Just because every aspect of a situation is not accounted for does not mean that common sense is no longer applicable to that situation. We know the spell produces sound because the description of the thunder damage type tells us so. In the context of the phrase "sheathed in booming energy," the common English meaning of the word booming means "loud."
Booming Blade produces a loud sound. How loud? I would suggest that's up to the DM.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Booming blade costs a WHOLE action, so you can use it once per turn. Not usable with Extra Attack feature.
D&D is a game for nerds... so I guess I'm one :p
Some spells/effects that produce Thunder damage will quantify the noise made, usually by saying from how far away it can be heard. Not all of them do this, but if I was a DM and one of my players tried to make a case for Thunder damage being silent or even quiet, I'd shoot that down right quick. Even if the rules are unclear on the math, I think reasonable people can agree that a spell called "Booming Blade" isn't going to be subtle or stealthy :)
I would like to point out that while booming blade does thunder damage, it also continues to exist in the target's area for one round or until the target moves. This means that either it is continually using energy to make sound or the energy is contained in that area until it is released. I would personally lean towards the latter and, as such, would rule that booming blade, while not silent, is not unusually loud either, being audible at roughly the same range as its verbal component.
It's magic ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Since it's thunder damage, as a DM I'd figure it's decently loud. But since it doesn't specify how loud in the spell, I'd probably rule that it's not abnormally/super-magically loud. So something that's gonna be pretty loud in the room you're in, probably audible but muted from an adjacent room or through an open door, but not going to rock the foundations of the castle or be heard miles away. About as loud as a fighter smacking a metal shield full force with a metal weapon, or a kid smacking his new drumset, or something.
Just thought I'd quote the PHB regarding thunder damage and sound:
It is definitely not silent, since thunder damage is defined as "a concussive burst of sound", although the volume is not defined by the damage type, so it need not be a "thunderous boom" like Thunderwave.