D&D 5E (2014) Fire Bolt vs other Wizzard offensive cantrips

[Sword of Spirit]

5e encourages creativity.

Let your winter wizard take Fire Bolt only call it Cold Snap and change the damage type to cold. Similarly let the fire wizard take Ray of Frost and instead call it Hot Foot and do fire damage along with slowing the opponent.

Don't be so hung up on ONLY using exactly what is printed in the book.

Great idea! As a DM, I'd probably require the PC to do a bit of spell research for such purposes (and might adjust the effect slightly), because I like to think of the PHB spells as being the most commonly known spells, with most other spells being rare. But for some reason I had never thought of doing that to the standard cantrips.

 

[Staffan]

5e encourages creativity.

Let your winter wizard take Fire Bolt only call it Cold Snap and change the damage type to cold. Similarly let the fire wizard take Ray of Frost and instead call it Hot Foot and do fire damage along with slowing the opponent.

Don't be so hung up on ONLY using exactly what is printed in the book.

For the record, I'm against this sort of thing. I want the damage types to actually mean something. Fire should be the most damaging element, with other elements doing less damage but with various riders.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

5e encourages creativity.

Let your winter wizard take Fire Bolt only call it Cold Snap and change the damage type to cold. Similarly let the fire wizard take Ray of Frost and instead call it Hot Foot and do fire damage along with slowing the opponent.

Not quite. Rather, this edition encourages the DM to create additional content, or collaboration between the player and DM to create additional content. If the player wants to swap out the damage type of a spell, then you first need to convince the DM that you should be allowed to, and that's far from guaranteed.

The game mechanics reflect the reality of the world. Given a certain amount of magical power, fire is more destructive than ice. If you wanted to cause that much damage with ice, without having any of the accompanying effects of actually being cold, it would require changing the reality of the game world or inauthentically representing that reality. That's saying nothing of the terrible power imbalances it would case.

 

[Uchawi]

If changing spell damage types are on the table I would hope the DM does the same thing for weapon material/damage type equivalents or armor resI stances from mundane materials,i.e. don't need a wizard to create it.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

For the record, I'm against this sort of thing. I want the damage types to actually mean something. Fire should be the most damaging element, with other elements doing less damage but with various riders.

That's great, and fully supports my idea of getting creative and going beyond just what is printed in the book. Elements always having various themes is fine and dandy. Fire being the BIG DAMAGE element makes sense.

Just choosing this version of elemental damage then forces you to look at all the elemental spell effects and adjust on the fly when things don't fit correctly, so you still end up arriving at "adjusting spells to fit the world" only with a different aim than I have.

My ultimate aim is for a player to have fun and play the character they want to play. Reskinning and slightly altering things has never destroyed game balance or a campaign I've been in because we are all adults out for a fun time, not players trying to destroy the game.

 

[MostlyDm]

The game mechanics reflect the reality of the world. Given a certain amount of magical power, fire is more destructive than ice. If you wanted to cause that much damage with ice, without having any of the accompanying effects of actually being cold, it would require changing the reality of the game world or inauthentically representing that reality. That's saying nothing of the terrible power imbalances it would case.

What do you mean by "accompanying effects of actually being cold" exactly? The reduced speed? Because if so... Well, I disagree, but I want to confirm your intended meaning first.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

If changing spell damage types are on the table I would hope the DM does the same thing for weapon material/damage type equivalents or armor resI stances from mundane materials,i.e. don't need a wizard to create it.

I'm not certain what you are asking/saying, but here is my version of a similar ruling I would make for weapons...

Player: I want to play this really primitive barbarian character with a huge club but I don't think its fair the stats for a club are so bad compared to a sword.

GM: Just use the stats for a Greatsword but change the damage type to Bludgeoning. Call it a War Club.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Not quite. Rather, this edition encourages the DM to create additional content, or collaboration between the player and DM to create additional content. If the player wants to swap out the damage type of a spell, then you first need to convince the DM that you should be allowed to, and that's far from guaranteed.

Sorry if I wasn't clear in my previous posts. I am speaking from the seat of the GM, not as a player. I would never suggest that players start randomly changing things in spell descriptions and just start using those new spells without talking to the GM first.

I will say that, as a GM, I would rarely say "NO" to any proposed alternate spell that just changed damage type. Something as simple as Fireball could easily be a Thunderball or Necroball. Wall of Fire could be a Wall of Lightning or Radiant Wall if the spell fit the caster's theme. This doesn't mean that all of a sudden hundreds of wizards all of a sudden have learned Radiant Wall, but Galstaff The Sorcerer of Light might have that in his spellbook.

Some spells do not make sense to alter, however, such as Vampiric Touch. The only element type that would make sense to substitute would be Radiant Touch, and I would allow that if I fit a characters theme. I wouldn't allow Flaming Touch or Acid Touch to heal the caster.

I am aware that the world is full of power gamers, however, and I would NOT allow characters to freely change spells for reasons solely for power gaming. Jimmy the Conjurer does not get to change fireball to radiantball just because he finds himself in Vampire Castle and later back to Fireball on Water Elemental Island.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

What do you mean by "accompanying effects of actually being cold" exactly? The reduced speed? Because if so... Well, I disagree, but I want to confirm your intended meaning first.

Yes, cold has a numbing effect, which is represented in-game by some form of slowing. Ray of Frost makes you slow because that's what cold does. Fire doesn't do that.

 

[MostlyDm]

That's not actually an attribute of cold damage, though. Right? Chromatic sphere doesn't do that. Cone of cold? And these deal more cold damage than ray of frost, right?

Does taking sudden intense frostbite actually make you *move* slower? Slower than being lit on fire or shocked or taking poison damage would? Tasers seem to slow people down a bit, don't they? So does pepper spray (poison?) and those experimental maser crowd control weapons (fire?). Never mind flame throwers... Those slow people down quite a bit.

I just don't see it.

What I see is... Cold damage slows people down in MMORPGs. 4e introduced this effect to add variation in effect and to keep in line with the general strategy of hewing as closely to MMO conventions as possible.

I accept that low damage with a rider is a useful mechanical distinction. I don't specifically object to it being cold. But it's hardly a consistent, objectively determined rule.