Should D&D Abandon Pairing of Elements & Damage Types?

[Kaodi]

While I cannot say that there was a time when I really liked having damage types attached to elements, I wonder if this should really be the case. They just do not make sense, given the way the world works.

Fire obviously pairs well with fire damage, but the simplicity stops there. Air could be associated with electricity, fire, or cold alternatively. Water just is acid, though it changes states so easily that you could say it has a relationship with fire, cold, and electricity as well. Earth does not really have a lot to do with acid, though it does with electricity, and should be resistant cold and fire.

I mean, I do not think you need to ditch the elements or anything, but they could be reworked... Not like 4th Edition D&D did not go and kill off a lot of traditional imagery already (looking at you, energy blob angels) .

 

[Alzrius]

It's one of those areas where an abstraction is made in the name of simplicity. Keyword-typing things often results in some rough fits, but it makes things easier to adjudicate. The question is whether or not you think it's a worthy trade-off, and if not, what you think should be done about it.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I've always disliked the association of acid with the earth element.

 

[Leatherhead]

The alternative is to use the Fire, Water, Air, and Earth damage types.
Which can be done quite easily on a mechanical level, but then you have to question if throwing a rock counts as normal (physical and/or bludgeoning, as the case may be) damage, or if it counts as Earth damage. Or if Lightning should count as Air damage or Electric type damage. Or if Ice counts as Water.

Basically, the problem of simplicity VS depth is going to exist no matter what types you start out with. Unless you simply scrap differing damage types entirely, which is an idea I don't care for in my fantasy games as it would make the very common "supernatural and magical things have a weakness" theme much harder to facilitate.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I think there are broader issues. Electricity as an energy? Sure. "Acid energy"? Huh?

The whole idea of these energy types being a standard is strange to begin with. What is "cold resistance"? High specific heat? Seems to me this is one of the more abstract areas of the game, and not for the better.

 

[D'karr]

I think there are broader issues. Electricity as an energy? Sure. "Acid energy"? Huh?

The whole idea of these energy types being a standard is strange to begin with. What is "cold resistance"? High specific heat? Seems to me this is one of the more abstract areas of the game, and not for the better.

That's one of the reasons that it's not "energy" anymore but simply a damage type.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

The alternative is to use the Fire, Water, Air, and Earth damage types.

Personally I'm disillusioned with the traditional elements. They just don't make sense.

The whole idea of these energy types being a standard is strange to begin with. What is "cold resistance"? High specific heat? Seems to me this is one of the more abstract areas of the game, and not for the better.

I can buy into resistances; cold resistance for example is an acclimation to low temperatures.

It's just that I agree with Kaodi; a lot of resistances and damage types are very forced. It's like game devs feel obligated to impose types and resistances onto powers and monsters for the sake of a higher word count.

Personally I'd prefer to use damage types and resistances sparingly; unless there's a clear justification, like a cold elemental, it's just 'damage' damage.

 

[am181d]

Personally I'm disillusioned with the traditional elements. They just don't make sense.

That's why in my home game, I replaced the four traditional elements with the periodic table. Wizards cast spells that do Magnesium or Sulfur damage. Our Barbarian has Iron Resistance. Our fighter has a sword that does a bonus die in Tellurium damage. I restrict access to radioactive isotopes like Einsteinium until epic levels.

Much more believable!

 

[Stalker0]

The alternative is to use the Fire, Water, Air, and Earth damage types.
Which can be done quite easily on a mechanical level, but then you have to question if throwing a rock counts as normal (physical and/or bludgeoning, as the case may be) damage, or if it counts as Earth damage. Or if Lightning should count as Air damage or Electric type damage. Or if Ice counts as Water.

You can do this by saying that all physical damage is earth damage. So resistance to earth would look like 3e DR, where damage resistance applies to physical attacks but not the energy types.

4e DR would be maintained, it is resistance to ALL elements, which is pure damage reduction.


As far as elements and energy goes, I don't mind 4e's system too much. The only one I don't like is lightning vs thunder damage, they are so similar (and often are seen together in attacks anyway) that I wish it was just combined into one.

 

[Greg K]

Personally, I am not happy with Thunder or Radiant. Each encompasses two different ways of doing damage.

Thunder represent "attacks" through both assaulting hearing and through shock wave. The latter, in my opinioin, should be Force damage type.

Radiant: Like thunder, does damage through two different modes. One assauting the visual senses and the other searing light. I think this should be broken into two two different damage types.