D&D General Splitting, reshuffling, and creating new damage types

[ART!]

Doctors & Daleks introduces two new damage types, Logical Damage and Emotional Damage, and generally they replace Psychic Damage. The game then has Quips, which are cantrip-like feats that often do one of these new kinds of damage.

 

[CreamCloud0]

question: i don't recall if a previous edition did something similar or not but do you think it would be better for 5e if weapons dropped their B/S/P entirely for a generic 'physical' damage and instead leaned into special weapon materials that changed the base damage type the weapon deals, cold iron and silver and the like are the classics and don't actually change your damage type, but like elemental weapons, not how a flametongue does +extra XdY fire damage, but it would replace your usual damage type with the element type (so a fire shortsword would deal 1d6+MOD fire damage)

 

[Minigiant]

question: i don't recall if a previous edition did something similar or not but do you think it would be better for 5e if weapons dropped their B/S/P entirely for a generic 'physical' damage and instead leaned into special weapon materials that changed the base damage type the weapon deals, cold iron and silver and the like are the classics and don't actually change your damage type, but like elemental weapons, not how a flametongue does +extra XdY fire damage, but it would replace your usual damage type with the element type (so a fire shortsword would deal 1d6+MOD fire damage)

So instead of

Bludgeoning
Piercing
Slashing

we have

Adamantine
Cold Iron
Mithral
Silver
Steel
Stone
Wood

No edition went hard on that. That would lead to even more Pokémonication of D&D. Not a bad thing in my eyes.

 

[Cadence]

So what are your thoughts?
Any Damage types youd like to create or shift around?

Like many posters above, I periodically want to combine some of them (why are all the physical ones different? why are radiant and fire? radiant and electricity? thunder and bludgeoning and force?) and then I can always find an example where I am fine with them being different.

I wonder if there were fewer if I would want sub-types then (making it not very useful to have fewer)? I narrowly failed to resist the urge to push for a caustic/base one separate from the acid one. And is "magic fire" different than "fire", for example, in some inspirational source materials?

I also wonder if Poison is actually a damage type in the same way that the other ones are? (Why not disease then? And why call it Poison instead of Venom if it is physical attacks?)

My biggest annoyance about damage types in 5e 2024 (that mine and another character are trying to abuse) is that there is no limit to the number of rings of resistance you can have. So my Barbarian has three of the seven now that his rage doesn't cover - and then room for three utility rings that don't require attunement.

My second biggest is with the name Thunder for the sonic, vibration related one. (I'm not saying I have a better one).

 

[Minigiant]

Like many posters above, I periodically want to combine some of them (why are all the physical ones different? why are radiant and fire? radiant and electricity? thunder and bludgeoning and force?) and then I can always find an example where I am fine with them being different

They are different because of clerics and modern bards.

Clerics is a D&Dism.

Clerics "dont get slashing weapons and elemental spells" normally but can via domain/sphere/subclass.

So Cleric attack spells and weapon attacks.need their own damage types (Bludgeoning, Radiant, Necrotic).

And modern Bards have rapiers, sound spells, and mental spells (Piercing, Thunder, and Psychic).

And since you can pick up weapons of foes. (Poison).

D&D sphere games that remove this hace their clerics and bards feel like wizards and sorcerers.

 

[CreamCloud0]

They are different because of clerics and modern bards.

Clerics is a D&Dism.

Clerics "dont get slashing weapons and elemental spells" normally but can via domain/sphere/subclass.

So Cleric attack spells and weapon attacks.need their own damage types (Bludgeoning, Radiant, Necrotic).

if radiant was just named 'holy' do you think there'd be less people saying it should just be lumped in with fire?

something i was thinking about earlier was splitting necrotic, it's used as an undead damage primarily but also as a catch all 'evil' damage type which i personally think creates some thematic oddness that some creatures like devils and demons tend to deal 'undead' damage rather than us having a proper 'unholy' damage type for them.

 

[tetrasodium]

You can make it fun.

The designers just have to prioritize fun over nostalgia.

Pokémon is a fun and popular game that has heavy emphasis on effectiveness. And the game isnt over if you have normally effective attacks in most cases.

To me the key is to give player agency while allowing DMs to offer challenge with little work and heavy guidance.

Then you can have Psychic, Ghost, and Fairy attacks.

I'm not the only person who pointed out the math in your suggestion, you are just bringing up things to avoid it so I'm not sure you grasp it, maybe try showing the actual math in a level appropriate encounter where those gigantic modifiers are in play if you think it's so solid that the math is entirely dismissed. As to this:

It was only unfun because that was the point back then.

It was fun and my explainer breaking down how it functionedincluded phrases like "happy about [their] decision" because of that. However your description of that mechanic was totally incorrect in ways that probably would have been less fun due to the broken homebrew version if that's what you were using.

question: i don't recall if a previous edition did something similar or not but do you think it would be better for 5e if weapons dropped their B/S/P entirely for a generic 'physical' damage and instead leaned into special weapon materials that changed the base damage type the weapon deals, cold iron and silver and the like are the classics and don't actually change your damage type, but like elemental weapons, not how a flametongue does +extra XdY fire damage, but it would replace your usual damage type with the element type (so a fire shortsword would deal 1d6+MOD fire damage)

3.5 eberron did. Off the top of my head it had flame touched iron, byshek, crysteel. I don't recall them in 3.5 but could be 4e or kannon additions fernian ash & mournlode. The first few were treated as good or bypassed DR for various creature types.

I've tried implementing them in 5e but the trouble is that they flexibly built a mundane accessable route on top of a relatively complex set of mechanics that already existed. Those attempts tended to crash hard into "it's magic" and a complete disinterest in something that only became useful after "it's magic" was nerfed to require them

 

[CreamCloud0]

So instead of

Bludgeoning
Piercing
Slashing

we have

Adamantine
Cold Iron
Mithral
Silver
Steel
Stone
Wood

No edition went hard on that. That would lead to even more Pokémonication of D&D. Not a bad thing in my eyes.

less the 'steel stone wood' aspect of it and more, i imagine two types of material types, ones that add extra properties and ones that deal damage types.

so steel stone and wood would all be for the most part interchangeable, they just deal 'physical' damage

personally i like the idea of mythril, adamantite and ohricalchum all serving purposes other than damage type when put on a weapon so they'd also just deal 'physical' damage and have other effects on your weapon, like silver's here as the 'prevents regen' material, cold iron as an anti-magic material rather than anti-fey, it could bump the concentration save DC from being hit with it or something?

but then you'd have the selection of materials that functionally just let martials deal the classic elemental damages:
hellsteel > fire
frostiron > cold
sparkbronze > lightning
sizzlestone > acid
venomgold >poison
quakequartz > thunder

then radiant, psychic and necrotic can probably be kept as magic exclusive elements, maybe.

 

[Minigiant]

I'm not the only person who pointed out the math in your suggestion, you are just bringing up things to avoid it so I'm not sure you grasp it, maybe try showing the actual math in a level appropriate encounter where those gigantic modifiers are in play if you think it's so solid that the math is entirely dismissed.

I was trying not to go with math as it is hypothetical be this is my proposal

ASSUMPTIONS

• I'm upping the number of damage types to 15.
• Part of 5 PCs. They are at a level where damage types matters.
  • Due to class features, equipment, and treasure, it is assumed half of the party members can switch their damage to a specific damage type without massively losing offence.
  • With 5 members, it would take 3 turns to try every damage type blind.
    • Since every class can't try every damage type without losing damage
      • Add 1 turn if their optimized broadly
      • Add 2 turns if they are built to go one direction
• Their combined DPR is 100 Damage a round versus a target with no resistance, immunity, nor vulnerability to their offence.
  • Nice even number
  • So normally the party susses out the correct damage type.
    • It's not even if they whiff but we are just doing maths
      • 100 DPR if everyone hits neutral
      • 90 DPR if 1 member hits a single resistance
        • Rare because most 1 resistance monsters are obvious
      • 80 DPR if 1 member hits a single resistance
        • Very Rare because most 1 immunity monsters are very obvious (He's on fire, Jim. Ixnay on the irefay)
      • 120 DPR if 1 member hits a single vulnerabilty
      • 150 DPR if 2.5 members hits a vulnerability
• The enemies have a combined Health of 500 to make an ideal 5 round combat.
  • If they never hit a vulnerability = 5 round of damage.
    • Optimized to ignore damage type might be 25% more damage so 4 rounds
  • If they never hit a vulnerability and swing at a resistance = ~5 rounds of damage.
  • If they hit a vulnerability on turn 1 = ~3.5 rounds turn of damage.
  • If they hit a vulnerability on turn 2 = ~4 rounds turn of damage.
  • If they hit a vulnerability on turn 3 = ~5 rounds turn of damage.

So my system would let the average party having 4 round fights

boo math

 

[SkidAce]

if radiant was just named 'holy' do you think there'd be less people saying it should just be lumped in with fire?

something i was thinking about earlier was splitting necrotic, it's used as an undead damage primarily but also as a catch all 'evil' damage type which i personally think creates some thematic oddness that some creatures like devils and demons tend to deal 'undead' damage rather than us having a proper 'unholy' damage type for them.

I like radiant and necrotic as seperate things from "fire" and "undead", it gives me more mixing opportunities.

Radiant/fire could be used as Holy Fire (fire immune creatures would still take damage)
I especially like Unholy Fire (Necrotic/Fire)...PCs with fire resistance were not amused.

I even did radiant/necrotic one time for a cracked "modern" power source....the searing from radiant and the flesh rot from the necrotic made great radiation.

There's even a list I have of alloyed damages that were inspired from Dark Souls and Elden Ring.

i.e. coldfire, black lightning, etc.