James Gasik
We don't talk about Pun-Pun
I think it would be keen if there were more monsters with vulnerabilities. Just from recent experience, damage types come down to:You could always power through with more damage. You just needed weapons with higher pluses or that were made out of different materials.
What D&D (and D&D-alikes) really needs to do is lean into monster weaknesses, have monsters be weakened or repelled by the presence of a mirror or the scent of burning herbs or the sound of a rooster crowing. Have cockatrices actually die if forced to battle a weasel, or zombies die if they eat salt. Give dragons that weak spot on their breast. Things like that. Other than some monsters being weak against silver or iron, a half-hearted attempt to use "true names," and the "Ravenloft specific" various Van Richten Guides, they never really explored that idea.
(Anything that isn't Necrotic or Poison): Usually works.
Fire/Cold: occasionally things are vulnerable, occasionally things are immune.
Force: Almost always works.
Bludgeoning/Slashing/Piercing: often resisted until you get magic.
Like we'd often fight enemies where my Wizard was doing top tier damage because I had force spells (fighting oozes, devils). Several party members did radiant, but even when we fought a creature made of living darkness, it didn't take any extra damage from it.
It felt like "why do we have all these damage types, really? You could just have damage and magic damage for the vast majority of combats."