What impact would changing damage types have?

[Kzach]

I'm wondering if damage type plays a role in the balance of 4e.

It seems that they do associate certain effects with certain damage types, but taking that out of the equation and simply changing damage types, does it affect balance?

I'm wondering this because I really like the idea of elementalist wizards. By simply making feats similar to the synergistic duo of Lasting Frost and Wintertouched, you can somewhat specialise in an element.

But not quite.

I think a feat which permanently changed the energy type of all spells you cast, wouldn't be overpowered, as it's taking away the option of multiple types of damage and limiting you to one.

But why not just change the spells themselves?

Freezing Burst instead of Scorching Burst, Thundering Orb instead of Force Orb, Flaming Missile instead of Magic Missile, etc.

Would that break the system though?

 

[Scholar & Brutalman]

But why not just change the spells themselves?

Freezing Burst instead of Scorching Burst, Thundering Orb instead of Force Orb, Flaming Missile instead of Magic Missile, etc.

Would that break the system though?

It'll look a bit different when the new spells interact with existing feats. For instance, take Thunderball as a thunder based version of Scorching Burst. Once the player gets to paragon, Resounding Thunder gives them a Burst 2 at-will.

If this worries you, you could change all the relevant feats for the elementalist wizard as well.

 

[Gort]

Some damage types are a lot better than others. Tons of things have fire resistance, very few have radiant resistance, for instance. Radiant seems to be the best damage type in my experience (heroic tier up to level 5) as undead are vulnerable to it. I don't think my party's come across anything that's been vulnerable to any other damage type.

Fire and necrotic damage types seem to have a high instance of resistances as well.

 

[Gort]

Bah.

 

[Kzach]

Bah.

Humbug?

I'm guessing the resistance thing won't always be true, though, once more books come out.

 

[Scholar & Brutalman]

I'm guessing the resistance thing won't always be true, though, once more books come out.

The splatbooks books will probably change everything: more powers, more feats, more paragon paths. Come mid-October I think the CO advice on martial characters will be a lot different.

 

[Rechan]

Tons of things have fire resistance, very few have radiant resistance, for instance.

Same with Psychic.

Meanwhile, Undead are immune to poison. Just flat out immune to it.

 

[Ferdil]

IMO there is no unbalancement. If you choose to gain powers only of a certain element you gain a bonus if you take the feat, but when you'll face some creatures resistent to your type of damage you will be disadvantaged.

 

[Cadfan]

1. As more books come out, I predict that more options for elemental damage will come out. Meaning, right now, its hard to make a wizard that specializes in lightning, or even a wizard that specializes in both lightning and thunder, because a large percentage of your powers, particularly at low level, can't be either of those damage types- simply because there aren't any powers of those damage types to select. But as more books come out, I suspect this will solve itself.

2. I'd happily change damage types on an existing spell if it made a player happier. I might not do it with every spell in the book, simply because you're not expected to have every single spell of the same type, but I might do it with a few, including with at wills.

3. Some damage types are "special." Radiant and necrotic come to mind. I'd be careful with those.

 

[eamon]

3. Some damage types are "special." Radiant and necrotic come to mind. I'd be careful with those.

I'd add fire to that list too.