Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Spell Damage Types
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9041108" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>It's the result of the haphazard, lopsided, not-actually-<em>designed</em> design of "traditional" D&D creatures.</p><p></p><p>Creatures are given their strengths and weaknesses, not based on what would induce players to make interesting choices, but based on vague notions of what they "should" have. As a result, tons of things are immune or at least resistant to poison, because it makes sense that any of the following "should" ignore or at least shrug off poison: outsiders due to being powerful semi-spiritual beings (fiends, elementals, celestials, etc.), undead due to poison being conceived as only damaging living tissue, many aberrations due to their bizarre anatomy, constructs because they aren't organic, some abominations/monstrosities due to their preternatural existence, and perhaps a few others besides. Poison damage sucks because poison damage is conceived as being very narrow, compared to the panoply of entities a D&D character might face. Even though, IRL, poison is actually an extremely dangerous thing and in fact often much more damaging than fire (and certainly more damaging than cold in most cases!)</p><p></p><p>More or less, it seems your problem is that faux-naturalism--naturalistic reasoning applied to fictional things--often produces results that are (in some sense) "ecologically" satisfying, but rather boring to actually <em>interact</em> with.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Because pigeonholing non-spellcasters has been a thing since at least the days of 2e, and probably a lot earlier (I just don't know earlier games well enough to speak authoritatively.) Letting the ranger have fire arrows means there's much less special about being able to shoot fire <em>balls</em>. Letting the Barbarian throw holy water flasks makes it not so special anymore to have Turn Undead. Giving the Rogue a grapnel-crossbow makes <em>misty step</em> no longer a slam-dunk "simply the best" choice. Etc. Preserving the superiority of magic-wielding characters over those who primarily do not wield magic is deeply woven into the design culture of D&D, and as a result, deeply woven into the player culture as well, at least for the old hands. I dare to hope that the massive influx of new players will weaken this hegemony enough that the designers for 6e will consider doing literally anything else, but it's a pretty faint hope.</p><p></p><p></p><p>It should. But it's one of the sacred cows of D&D. Magic > mundane. Making mundane tools that even <em>partially</em> supplant magic? Anathema.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9041108, member: 6790260"] It's the result of the haphazard, lopsided, not-actually-[I]designed[/I] design of "traditional" D&D creatures. Creatures are given their strengths and weaknesses, not based on what would induce players to make interesting choices, but based on vague notions of what they "should" have. As a result, tons of things are immune or at least resistant to poison, because it makes sense that any of the following "should" ignore or at least shrug off poison: outsiders due to being powerful semi-spiritual beings (fiends, elementals, celestials, etc.), undead due to poison being conceived as only damaging living tissue, many aberrations due to their bizarre anatomy, constructs because they aren't organic, some abominations/monstrosities due to their preternatural existence, and perhaps a few others besides. Poison damage sucks because poison damage is conceived as being very narrow, compared to the panoply of entities a D&D character might face. Even though, IRL, poison is actually an extremely dangerous thing and in fact often much more damaging than fire (and certainly more damaging than cold in most cases!) More or less, it seems your problem is that faux-naturalism--naturalistic reasoning applied to fictional things--often produces results that are (in some sense) "ecologically" satisfying, but rather boring to actually [I]interact[/I] with. Because pigeonholing non-spellcasters has been a thing since at least the days of 2e, and probably a lot earlier (I just don't know earlier games well enough to speak authoritatively.) Letting the ranger have fire arrows means there's much less special about being able to shoot fire [I]balls[/I]. Letting the Barbarian throw holy water flasks makes it not so special anymore to have Turn Undead. Giving the Rogue a grapnel-crossbow makes [I]misty step[/I] no longer a slam-dunk "simply the best" choice. Etc. Preserving the superiority of magic-wielding characters over those who primarily do not wield magic is deeply woven into the design culture of D&D, and as a result, deeply woven into the player culture as well, at least for the old hands. I dare to hope that the massive influx of new players will weaken this hegemony enough that the designers for 6e will consider doing literally anything else, but it's a pretty faint hope. It should. But it's one of the sacred cows of D&D. Magic > mundane. Making mundane tools that even [I]partially[/I] supplant magic? Anathema. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Spell Damage Types
Top