Is Radiant Damage a Thing?

[REVISIONIST]

Noticed in a previous thread on damage types that undead are rarely if ever affected by radiant damage. I'm playing in a game now that is heavily
horror/undead. The DM seems to be allowing radiant damage to be a thing. I'll take it! But does it affect the balance of the game when it wasn't
originally in the rules? ie. If I were to add radiant vs. undead into my games when I'm Dm'ing, do I need to worry about bounded accuracy, and start buffing monsters?

[Foxhound438]

some enemies are vulnerable to it, others (zombies specifically) have their "not-dying" (something fortitude ability) save unless they get critted or dealt radiant. Paladin's smite specifically works better on certain creature types. Otherwise if it's not expressly stated, no, radiant is just another damage type.

[VoxRationis]

It works on ghouls, ghosts, liches, and mummies at least. Why are you saying they aren't affected by it?

[REVISIONIST]

AFB right now, I was referring to a thread earlier that said most undead were not resistant or immune to radiant damage.

[Mellack]

Almost nothing is resistant to radiant damage. It works fine on undead, and on some it even has a bonus effect. Did you mean that many undead are not vulnerable to radiant like they might have been in past versions?

[Vogonjeltz]

Almost nothing is resistant to radiant damage. It works fine on undead, and on some it even has a bonus effect. Did you mean that many undead are not vulnerable to radiant like they might have been in past versions?

Not being resistant if they are for others might be considered tantamount to being vulnerable.

[Mellack]

Not being resistant if they are for others might be considered tantamount to being vulnerable.

You might be right, which is why I am trying to get clarification on what the OP means. Vulnerable is a specific game term, and they might be mixing those with common usage.

[VoxRationis]

Not to mention that a lot of the effects that deal radiant damage have specific clauses that say they do additional damage to undead.

[REVISIONIST]

Sorry for the confusion, back at home with books, yes I meant vulnerable. That always seemed to be a thing. Clerics paladins, were able to deal radiant damage that added some sort of bonus vs. undead. "Sunlight Sensitivity" seems to be the vulnerability now but even so..as I look Z to A, wraith, vampires, shadow, duergar, drow, drider unless I missed some . Disadvantage on attack rolls, what, that's it! Look, I'll take my enemy taking the lower of two D20 rolls all day, but I think I miss the added damage a cleric or paladin vs. undead used to bring. And I guess that is my real question. My current DM is allowing radiant damage, table rule. Is that a bad nerf for game balance, if so why, because I'd like to introduce it myself but I don't want to get into the overpower, underpower spiral of playing with to many of the games stats. Is disadvantage better mechanically than a damage bonus or is it really just
game flavor in this case.

[Cybren]

I think the creatures it makes sense to be vulnerable to radiant damage already are in some way, either with built in riders on the effect that generates them, or some special vulnerability. It's not like Paladins and clerics are underpowered vs undead. They're incredibly powerful, in fact, for a variety of reasons. I don't see it adding much and it might make some fights that were challenging trivial if the party has more than one source of radiant damage

[REVISIONIST]

Maybe I'm only noticing that the MM calls out vulnerabilities as well as resistances and immunities in the same paragraph, when
immunities and resistance but vulnerability doesn't exist in 5e. I think a few plus for damage versus undead radiant damage might not unbalance the game, just looking for some feed back before I let it rip.

[Christian]

I'd advise against going so far as to add radiant damage vulnerability. The go-to attack cantrip for clerics is Sacred Flame, which does scaling radiant damage. Clerics already make encounters vs. undead much easier; add in double damage to their at-will, and they're just a win button when you're up against those foes, which isn't really all that fun. (Well, it is, but only briefly. "Woo-hoo! Did you see how I vaporized all of those wraiths without breaking a sweat?" [three fights later] "Do we have to go through all the rolling? We know how this is going to go--just tell us how much treasure they had.")

[CantigThimble]

The point of radiant damage is that even though cleric never get any spells that are situationally amazing like wizards the options they have will never get less relevant. Guiding bolt, Sacred Flame and Spectral Guardians are never going to be useless like fire or lightning spells might. Clerics and paladins already really shine against undead (smite and turn) and I don't really see the reason to make them even better.

[ShikomeKidoMi]

Maybe I'm only noticing that the MM calls out vulnerabilities as well as resistances and immunities in the same paragraph, when
immunities and resistance but vulnerability doesn't exist in 5e. I think a few plus for damage versus undead radiant damage might not unbalance the game, just looking for some feed back before I let it rip.

The important thing to note is that many sources of radiant damage already say they do more against undead, in the ability description. If you're making them vulnerable as well then that's going to be a bigger effect than I think you realize.

If you do decide to add Radiant Vulnerablity, you might want to houserule that those abilities only do normal damage (before vulnerability) instead of increasing twice.

[Shining Wrath]

It makes sense for some undead (Vampires, with their famous sunlight sensitivity) to be vulnerable to radiant damage. But, they aren't.

[Vogonjeltz]

Maybe I'm only noticing that the MM calls out vulnerabilities as well as resistances and immunities in the same paragraph, when
immunities and resistance but vulnerability doesn't exist in 5e. I think a few plus for damage versus undead radiant damage might not unbalance the game, just looking for some feed back before I let it rip.

I'd advise cross checking the abilities that say they deal radiant damage. I know at least a few increase their damage against undead.

[SharkForce]

It makes sense for some undead (Vampires, with their famous sunlight sensitivity) to be vulnerable to radiant damage. But, they aren't.

1) vampires take 20 damage per round from being in sunlight. that's pretty unpleasant
2) any radiant damage negates the vampire's regeneration for a round. that's equivalent to 30 damage,

practically speaking, vampires are pretty danged vulnerable to radiant damage, especially if it comes from actual sunlight. i don't think you need to go further than that.

[Slipperychicken]

Just went through the MM.

Vulnerable: Shadow Demons, Shadows

Not vulnerable, but it helps: Shadow Dragons, Revenants, Vampire, Vampire Spawn, Zombies (inc. Ogre Zombie, Beholder Zombie)

Not vulnerable to radiant, but holy water helps: Chasme, Vrock, Lemure, Flameskull



So it actually is good against most of the "iconic" undead. Before you mention skeletons, those are vulnerable to bludgeoning already, so adding radiant to that would make them a bit too weak. Also, don't forget about turn undead; that helps a lot against them and is basically the same thing. When you add the three together (radiant damage, holy water, and turn undead), that kind of holy energy gives an edge against a pretty wide variety of iconic monsters.