Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 9040984" data-attributes="member: 6877472">Something I've long been curious about is why spells deal the kinds of damage that they do.  Sure, we can point to some damage types being better than others, and some make more sense for the type of spell they are (like say, necrotic for Necromancy magic), but a lot of times, it's hard to really say why, say, fire spells tend to be better than cold spells.It's easy to say, for example, that a fireball changed to acid or electricity is generally a better spell.  And that a magic missile that deals psychic damage would likely be worse.And any spell that deals poison damage is strictly trash tier.  But why is this so?  And should it be this way?And in the cases where the damage type is irrelevant, why isn't there a choice?  The Fire Shield spell lets you select whether it deals fire or cold, so why isn't there a "burning or freezing hands" option?  If you're a spellcaster, and you want to make sure you have access to multiple damage types, you have to put up with some terrible spells sometimes to do so.If you want to make your caster have a "theme", some are simply easier to accomplish or superior to others for what feels like to me to be an arbitrary reason.The playtest Wizard kind of addresses this, with the ability to alter and customize spells, but why aren't (and why shouldn't) some of these things already options?Sure, the DM can always allow you to alter the damage types of spells; in most cases, even if you now have a shock sphere instead of a fireball, this isn't particularly game breaking- it depends largely on the kinds of foes that you will encounter in your game.  A game where you have to deal with a troll uprising gets a tad worse if you don't have many fire spells, and a game where you deal with a lot of fire resistant foes gets a bit better if you have few fire spells.But there are some options that are right out; back in a 3.5 game, I had a player who took a feat to make their spells deal sonic damage, and boy, was that a wild ride.  Similarly, in Pathfinder 1e, a friend of mine played an Earth Sorcerer who turned everything into acid, which was very effective.Obviously, we don't want people throwing around thunderballs or force damage willy nilly, because these are strong options (and yet, paradoxically, magic missile deals force damage and every wizard can have this spell).There's not really a question here, per se, I'm mostly curious what other people think, if they have thoughts, about this topic, because I can't recall ever seeing a detailed discussion about damage types and how they are applied in the game; this extends to why are some resistances so common, and why some damage types are generally so good.And as a side debate, why energy types are almost exclusively the province of magical characters (unless you want to swing a torch at someone).  In a recent game I was playing in, we were dealing with ettercaps and giant spiders, and I asked the DM if our Ranger could make and use fire arrows.  It took several minutes for me to explain I wasn't talking about magic arrows, but simply arrows that you actually light on fire before shooting!  And even then, the answer I got was "I'll look into it" (answer still pending).Shouldn't this just be, like, a standard option?  In a world where you encounter strange beasts that need special weaponry to fight, why don't we have glass sling bullets filled with acid/holy water or what have you?  Why can't you buy specially blessed ammunition on the open market to deal with fiends and undead?  The game allows for Alchemist Tool proficiency, why isn't there a more robust supply of alchemical solutions for problems?</blockquote>

Verification