Weapons with the (insert element type) Burst ability

[Marshall]

Re: Re: Re: Weapons with the (insert element type) Burst ability

Or the rest of them really underpriced

Depends on the weapon you put it on.
On a X2 crit weapon, Bursts aren't bad.
On X3 theyre nasty. On X4 its ungodly.

 

[Gez]

Thundering is overpriced for the damage, maybe, but remember that 1d8 Sonic damage is usually better than 1d10 Fire damage thanks to resistances.

Notably, against trolls, mummies, frost worms and white dragons.

 

[Staffan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Weapons with the (insert element type) Burst ability

Depends on the weapon you put it on.
On a X2 crit weapon, Bursts aren't bad.
On X3 theyre nasty. On X4 its ungodly.

Actually, a burst effect on a 20/x3 weapon gives the same net effect as on a 19-20/x2 weapon (ignoring the marginal cases where a 19 won't hit in the first place). Sure, the axe will get +2d10 on a crit, but the sword will get +1d10 twice as often.

 

[Spatzimaus]

Notably, against trolls, mummies, frost worms and white dragons.

Sure, and against things like red dragons, fire giants, hellhounds, efreeti, and salamanders, it's absolutely useless.

When it comes to the Protection From Elements type of spells, yes, all elements are equal. But that doesn't mean that OVERALL they're equal.

Fire and Cold are the only two damage types that come naturally from "environmental" effects. I mean sure, you could fall in an acid pit somewhere, but just living normally in certain areas? Definitely Fire and Cold, and maybe a little Lightning.
So, there are a lot of Fire and Cold subtype creatures out there, immune to their own element but who take double damage from the opposing. So far so good, right?

Then, look at what spells are the most common. Sure, if you add in every splatbook out there it dilutes out, but just from the PHB? Very little Acid or Sonic, plenty of the others. So, when people cast Protection from Elements as a pre-combat preventative measure, which elements do they pick? (Hint: not Acid)

I'm not even going to get into the "Celestial, Fiendish, Axiomatic, Anarchic are all resistant to Cold and 3 of the 4 are resistant to Fire and Electricity but only 2 of the 4 are resistant to Acid and Sonic" type of thing, because nitpicking about resists of individual creatures/templates gets us nowhere. Other than subtype creatures, we could assume all resists are equal and it'd STILL make, say, Acid better than Fire.

The question is, which is more useful for a weapon ability: 1d6 Acid that works basically all the time, or 1d6 Fire that doesn't work at all 10% of the time and does double damage 10% of the time? Using the "randomness is bad" principle, I'd go with the first one.

Don't believe me? Put a Wizard with Energy Substitution into your campaign and watch what he does. A friend played one in a campaign I DM'd. Practically every single damage spell got substituted to Acid or Sonic, unless he knew for sure he was facing a subtype creature, and even then he'd still leave most of them Acid/Sonic just in case.

So yes, I'd say there's a heirarchy of elements. If you want to change Thundering to be more like the other ones, trade the Fort Save deafen for 1d4 sonic damage, maybe. But, if you make it 1d6, why would people take the other Burst abilities?

 

[Chacal]

I agree with spatzimus about the element being hierarchical.
It generally comes from the previous editions where they were.
When converting the monsters, they decided to keep the initial flavor and they kept the resistances associated with them.
So this hierarchy still has some impact on monsters, campaign worlds and players.
I think the spells, powers and feats that put all elements at the same level are in some games
breaking some campaigns and players assumptions, and if this is the case they should be changed or ignored.

In short, let the campaign's flavor govern the rules, not the opposite.

Chacal