I remember at one point Dimension 20 introduced "Chaos Damage"... it's kind of halfway between Psychic Damage and Force Damage. The scene it came up in was fighting a bunch of evil clown things who battled with balloon swords... The swords bounced harmlessly off since they were literally just balloons, but the chaos that animated the clowns and flooded the characters' systems with Chaos energy that just kind of wrought havoc on their insides.
I feel like that's usually characterized as Force Damage, but I liked the extra layer of danger it added. I'm not sure how often it could come up, though... the more it's used across the game system, the less impactful it would be.
Warding Bond (if the DM fixes this by preserving the original damage's type they open up very powerful combinations with resistance on the caster; the best guess we have for the RAI of this spell is that it is genuinely untyped just like it's worded to be)
I know this is going off topic, but the only change I'd make is to have the types of damage be meaningful. At the moment, damage types are mostly just tell who's vulnerable, resistant and immune. Beyond that, they're just words and could almost be replaced with rock, paper, scissors, etc. Maybe it'd be too complex, but I'd like system where an attack being fire or necrotic actually means something, rather than just the niche and specific cases we have now. For example example, fire could have a chance to cause a burn, which prevents concentration - or something. Cold has a chance to temporarily reduces dexterity, etc. I don't know. At the moment, the different damage types have about as much relevance as choose scissors over rock.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I remember at one point Dimension 20 introduced "Chaos Damage"... it's kind of halfway between Psychic Damage and Force Damage. The scene it came up in was fighting a bunch of evil clown things who battled with balloon swords... The swords bounced harmlessly off since they were literally just balloons, but the chaos that animated the clowns and flooded the characters' systems with Chaos energy that just kind of wrought havoc on their insides.
I feel like that's usually characterized as Force Damage, but I liked the extra layer of danger it added. I'm not sure how often it could come up, though... the more it's used across the game system, the less impactful it would be.
Bludgeoning, Piercing, Slashing - the three default means of physical damage.
Cold - Ice or otherwise harmful temperatures below that of freezing.
Fire - duh
Force - untyped magical damage, the damage of *raw energy*.
Lightning - electric damage.
Necrotic - the damage caused by decay or entropy, and nuclear fallout.
Poison - duh
Radiant - holy damage, or in the case of sickening radiance radiation as per the flash of an atomic bomb.
Thunder - sonic damage.
The only thing that needs to be added I think is "shearing" damage. physical damage caused by tearing stuff off. Slashing is the hack I use to denote this
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
I would probably add "rending" as damage type for physical damage, move radiant to more like a radiation type, and then add another layer of holy / unholy damage on top and use necrotic only for death type magic.
I would probably add "rending" as damage type for physical damage, move radiant to more like a radiation type, and then add another layer of holy / unholy damage on top and use necrotic only for death type magic.
Rending works instead of Shearing in my example
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
The only thing that needs to be added I think is "shearing" damage. physical damage caused by tearing stuff off. Slashing is the hack I use to denote this
The only thing that needs to be added I think is "shearing" damage. physical damage caused by tearing stuff off. Slashing is the hack I use to denote this
How is it any different than slashing?
Slashing damage should be cuts with a sharp edge, rending/shearing damage from claws is more of a ripping of flesh, giving a whole different kind of wound.
To be honest, I'm not sure there is a point in defining between slashing and shearing/rending - it's a distinction without a difference. Unless you're going to have monsters that are vulnerwble/resistant/immune to one but not the other, there's not much point separating them out as things stand. Just more ink being used and extra cognitive load for newbies.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
To be honest, I'm not sure there is a point in defining between slashing and shearing/rending - it's a distinction without a difference. Unless you're going to have monsters that are vulnerwble/resistant/immune to one but not the other, there's not much point separating them out as things stand. Just more ink being used and extra cognitive load for newbies.
When adding new damage types, I would totally rework all resistances and vulnarabilities.
Rending (the act of tearing something apart) is just bludgeoning (forcibly compressing something) in reverse. It applies the same kind of pressure. A large projectile, a cannonball or catapulted stone, for example, can rend/tear a limb from the body by focused blunt force, which is still bludgeoning.
Seriously, the current types are fine as is. And "all they do is determine vulnerabilities and resistances" is all they're supposed to do. Anything more involved is overcomplicating things and 5e is specifically streamlined to avoid having to consult extra rules to resolve every action because different specific conditions and modifiers are being applied for the sake of "realism." You've no doubt heard this before so you can say it with me again, kids, because yinz keep bringing up the same complaints and suggested "improvements" that already exist in another, pre-existing system so here it comes again: "if you want that level of detail just go play Pathfinder."
I feel like perhaps the only form of damage I can think of which isn't in the existing list would be some take on disintegration damage. Necrotic implies organic decay and withering to me, but being hit by a laser dealing radiant damage (which is usually linked to divine powers rather than superfocussed light) doesn't ring true. Fire kind of works, but the classic ray gun "pew pew" and the enemy disintegrates is a damage we are kind of missing.
I'm not sure what the name of the damage would be though... disintegration damage is perhaps the most straightforward name for it. It also makes for a terrifying concept for a dragon or something similar - imagine a breath weapon that disintegrates what it touches!
Disintegrate deals force damage, aka pure energy that presumably just blasts the target apart on a molecular level by overloading the physical matter with all the raw magical power. That sounds a lot like a classic ray gun to me.
I'd much rather *remove* damage types. I don't see any reason we need force damage, and I dislike it. To reference Magic rules, and to reflect things like teleportation mishaps or Warding Bond, you could either use "loses HP" or "this damage can't be reduced." Most things that deal force damage could just as easily deal another kind of damage imo.
I would kinda like a "morale damage" -- we're told that HP reflects in some part a will to fight, but we don't see that. Psychic damage kinda does it? But psychic damage... Sucks, narratively. So idk if I actually would just add morale damage as is, but with some reworking, maybe.
Disintegrate deals force damage, aka pure energy that presumably just blasts the target apart on a molecular level by overloading the physical matter with all the raw magical power. That sounds a lot like a classic ray gun to me.
I feel like narratively, if you get actually hit by disintegrate, you die. You just turn to dust. Taking damage is representative of the cost of you narrowly avoiding a direct hit. In theory. So the damage type should be whatever best represents exertion, which I guess is necrotic, but it's not a great match.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If you could add any type of damage, what would it be?
“Magic is distilled laziness. Put that on my gravestone.”
I remember at one point Dimension 20 introduced "Chaos Damage"... it's kind of halfway between Psychic Damage and Force Damage. The scene it came up in was fighting a bunch of evil clown things who battled with balloon swords... The swords bounced harmlessly off since they were literally just balloons, but the chaos that animated the clowns and flooded the characters' systems with Chaos energy that just kind of wrought havoc on their insides.
I feel like that's usually characterized as Force Damage, but I liked the extra layer of danger it added. I'm not sure how often it could come up, though... the more it's used across the game system, the less impactful it would be.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
How about darkness, as the opposite of radiant? Sears the flesh like ice without actually freezing...
All sources of untyped damage should be removed from the game, so a type for them to share would be nice. Here are examples.
I know this is going off topic, but the only change I'd make is to have the types of damage be meaningful. At the moment, damage types are mostly just tell who's vulnerable, resistant and immune. Beyond that, they're just words and could almost be replaced with rock, paper, scissors, etc. Maybe it'd be too complex, but I'd like system where an attack being fire or necrotic actually means something, rather than just the niche and specific cases we have now. For example example, fire could have a chance to cause a burn, which prevents concentration - or something. Cold has a chance to temporarily reduces dexterity, etc. I don't know. At the moment, the different damage types have about as much relevance as choose scissors over rock.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Rust or Bacteria.
Like, I'm sure Necrotic does just fine, but it's a sibling to poison.
I've seen a few games where necrotic damage is reskinned lored as "entropic" damage.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Let's go over what we have.
Acid - anything corrosive.
Bludgeoning, Piercing, Slashing - the three default means of physical damage.
Cold - Ice or otherwise harmful temperatures below that of freezing.
Fire - duh
Force - untyped magical damage, the damage of *raw energy*.
Lightning - electric damage.
Necrotic - the damage caused by decay or entropy, and nuclear fallout.
Poison - duh
Radiant - holy damage, or in the case of sickening radiance radiation as per the flash of an atomic bomb.
Thunder - sonic damage.
The only thing that needs to be added I think is "shearing" damage. physical damage caused by tearing stuff off. Slashing is the hack I use to denote this
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
I would probably add "rending" as damage type for physical damage, move radiant to more like a radiation type, and then add another layer of holy / unholy damage on top and use necrotic only for death type magic.
Rending works instead of Shearing in my example
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
I don't think poison is a duh... I think it is seriously undefined in D&D.
How is it any different than slashing?
Slashing damage should be cuts with a sharp edge, rending/shearing damage from claws is more of a ripping of flesh, giving a whole different kind of wound.
To be honest, I'm not sure there is a point in defining between slashing and shearing/rending - it's a distinction without a difference. Unless you're going to have monsters that are vulnerwble/resistant/immune to one but not the other, there's not much point separating them out as things stand. Just more ink being used and extra cognitive load for newbies.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
When adding new damage types, I would totally rework all resistances and vulnarabilities.
Rending (the act of tearing something apart) is just bludgeoning (forcibly compressing something) in reverse. It applies the same kind of pressure. A large projectile, a cannonball or catapulted stone, for example, can rend/tear a limb from the body by focused blunt force, which is still bludgeoning.
Seriously, the current types are fine as is. And "all they do is determine vulnerabilities and resistances" is all they're supposed to do. Anything more involved is overcomplicating things and 5e is specifically streamlined to avoid having to consult extra rules to resolve every action because different specific conditions and modifiers are being applied for the sake of "realism." You've no doubt heard this before so you can say it with me again, kids, because yinz keep bringing up the same complaints and suggested "improvements" that already exist in another, pre-existing system so here it comes again: "if you want that level of detail just go play Pathfinder."
I feel like perhaps the only form of damage I can think of which isn't in the existing list would be some take on disintegration damage. Necrotic implies organic decay and withering to me, but being hit by a laser dealing radiant damage (which is usually linked to divine powers rather than superfocussed light) doesn't ring true. Fire kind of works, but the classic ray gun "pew pew" and the enemy disintegrates is a damage we are kind of missing.
I'm not sure what the name of the damage would be though... disintegration damage is perhaps the most straightforward name for it. It also makes for a terrifying concept for a dragon or something similar - imagine a breath weapon that disintegrates what it touches!
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
Disintegrate deals force damage, aka pure energy that presumably just blasts the target apart on a molecular level by overloading the physical matter with all the raw magical power. That sounds a lot like a classic ray gun to me.
I'd much rather *remove* damage types. I don't see any reason we need force damage, and I dislike it. To reference Magic rules, and to reflect things like teleportation mishaps or Warding Bond, you could either use "loses HP" or "this damage can't be reduced." Most things that deal force damage could just as easily deal another kind of damage imo.
I would kinda like a "morale damage" -- we're told that HP reflects in some part a will to fight, but we don't see that. Psychic damage kinda does it? But psychic damage... Sucks, narratively. So idk if I actually would just add morale damage as is, but with some reworking, maybe.
I feel like narratively, if you get actually hit by disintegrate, you die. You just turn to dust. Taking damage is representative of the cost of you narrowly avoiding a direct hit. In theory. So the damage type should be whatever best represents exertion, which I guess is necrotic, but it's not a great match.