From the Eldritch Blast description: "A beam of crackling energy streaks toward a creature within range" - So I've always thought of it looking like whatever Emperor Palpatine is doing when he gets mad.....
Magic Missile, though, more like blaster shots from Star Wars :-)
Perhaps it’s more controlled lightning kinda look?
I concur with the official description of it looking like Force/Sith Lightning, and I can see that working with the Steel Defender's Force-Empowered Rend (not to mention the Artificer ability Arcane Jolt). Bearing in mind that's for Eldritch Blast, which is so integral to the Warlock that many DMs open it up to the player to decide how it looks.
The way I narrate force damage in most terms is it's like the Dragonborn's shout from The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim. It's a hammerblow of magical force that ripples through the air, a gut punch from an invisible fist. Or to paraphrase Commissar Yarrick of Warhammer 40,000: "an avalanche from an unexpected quarter, a thunderbolt from a clear sky."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
I have giving this some consideration; specifically, does applying force damage to an object impart heat? If, for instance, you repeatedly pound a penny with a hammer, in addition to eventually flattening the penny, you will heat it. This is because the inefficiency of the energy transfer causes some of the kinetic energy to be expressed as heat. This is bludgeoning damage, however, and force damage is not that.
Force damage is a magical damage that looks a bit like bludgeoning, but how is it different? Defined as pure magical energy, I posit that it is magically efficient damage. No waste heat is generated.
I think of it as atomic level damage. Force damage is not a physical force (bludgeoning and/or thunder cover that), it is damaging the target at some fundamental or atomic level.
If I had written the game, I would have called it somethng different, like "fundamental damage" or "raw damage". The word "force" isn't really right.
Then again, I would have written a lot of the damage types differently. For example, I'd remove thunder. There isn't any difference between thunder and bludgeoning.
I'm gonna have to disagree with you on that. Thunder damage is sound, which I do agree could have been called something different, like "sonic". But being hit with a rock and being hit with a powerful sound wave are definitely two different things.
I always think of Thunder damage as the concussive damage that would be caused by the shockwave of a large explosion. Not just audible sound, but a rapid change in the ambient air pressure around the target. Bleeding/ringing ears, ruptured eyes, disorientation, aching sinuses, concussion, etc...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Aut Inveniam Viam Aut Faciam (Find a way or make one) - Hannibal Allegedly
Lessons learned in blood are not soon forgotten. - Clyde Shelton
The truth is not what you want it to be; it is what it is and you must bow to it's power or live a lie. -Miyamoto Musashi
5e largely just uses force damage for untyped magical damage, there's no coherent reason for something like disintegrate to do force damage.
Yeah, it's because 4th and 5th Edition both made the decision to give every spell and effect a damage type so that they can more easily implement resistance and immunity to them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
5e largely just uses force damage for untyped magical damage, there's no coherent reason for something like disintegrate to do force damage.
Yeah, it's because 4th and 5th Edition both made the decision to give every spell and effect a damage type so that they can more easily implement resistance and immunity to them.
Force damage was introduced in 3e, but both 3e and 4e had untyped damage, it's only 5e that gives everything a type.
5e largely just uses force damage for untyped magical damage, there's no coherent reason for something like disintegrate to do force damage.
Yeah, it's because 4th and 5th Edition both made the decision to give every spell and effect a damage type so that they can more easily implement resistance and immunity to them.
Force damage was introduced in 3e, but both 3e and 4e had untyped damage, it's only 5e that gives everything a type.
No, in 3rd Edition it was called a force effect, not force damage. Force effect spells like Magic Missile and Spiritual Weapon did untyped damage. Useful if you had an opponent with a lot of damage resistances. What force effects in 3rd edition did was allow the spell to fully effect incorporeal or ethereal targets (provided you could see the latter), because otherwise there was a 50% chance of them being unaffected.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Perhaps it’s more controlled lightning kinda look?
I concur with the official description of it looking like Force/Sith Lightning, and I can see that working with the Steel Defender's Force-Empowered Rend (not to mention the Artificer ability Arcane Jolt). Bearing in mind that's for Eldritch Blast, which is so integral to the Warlock that many DMs open it up to the player to decide how it looks.
The way I narrate force damage in most terms is it's like the Dragonborn's shout from The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim. It's a hammerblow of magical force that ripples through the air, a gut punch from an invisible fist. Or to paraphrase Commissar Yarrick of Warhammer 40,000: "an avalanche from an unexpected quarter, a thunderbolt from a clear sky."
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
- The Assemblage of Houses, World of Warcraft
I have giving this some consideration; specifically, does applying force damage to an object impart heat? If, for instance, you repeatedly pound a penny with a hammer, in addition to eventually flattening the penny, you will heat it. This is because the inefficiency of the energy transfer causes some of the kinetic energy to be expressed as heat. This is bludgeoning damage, however, and force damage is not that.
Force damage is a magical damage that looks a bit like bludgeoning, but how is it different? Defined as pure magical energy, I posit that it is magically efficient damage. No waste heat is generated.
I found similar reasoning here:
https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/100844/can-wall-of-force-transfer-thermal-energy
Sadly, this means that I cannot easily use a sphere of annihilation to mimic a thermo-nuclear reactor core. Back to the drawing board.
I've always considered force damage and force effects to be kinetic energy without mass.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
When I think of force damage, for some reason I always imagine the concussive damage
I always think of Thunder damage as the concussive damage that would be caused by the shockwave of a large explosion. Not just audible sound, but a rapid change in the ambient air pressure around the target. Bleeding/ringing ears, ruptured eyes, disorientation, aching sinuses, concussion, etc...
Aut Inveniam Viam Aut Faciam (Find a way or make one) - Hannibal Allegedly
Lessons learned in blood are not soon forgotten. - Clyde Shelton
The truth is not what you want it to be; it is what it is and you must bow to it's power or live a lie. -Miyamoto Musashi
5e largely just uses force damage for untyped magical damage, there's no coherent reason for something like disintegrate to do force damage.
Yeah, it's because 4th and 5th Edition both made the decision to give every spell and effect a damage type so that they can more easily implement resistance and immunity to them.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Force damage was introduced in 3e, but both 3e and 4e had untyped damage, it's only 5e that gives everything a type.
No, in 3rd Edition it was called a force effect, not force damage. Force effect spells like Magic Missile and Spiritual Weapon did untyped damage. Useful if you had an opponent with a lot of damage resistances. What force effects in 3rd edition did was allow the spell to fully effect incorporeal or ethereal targets (provided you could see the latter), because otherwise there was a 50% chance of them being unaffected.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.