Are there any creatures vulnerable to necrotic damage?

[Arkhios]

...if so, which ones?

[Desamir]

None in the Monster Manual (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?379165-MM-Resistances-Immunities-Vulnerabilities-and-Damage), at least.

[StoicLeaf]

...if so, which ones?

indirectly;
blight will deal maximum necrotic damage to plant or water based creatures.

[JobsforFun]

None in the Monster Manual (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?379165-MM-Resistances-Immunities-Vulnerabilities-and-Damage), at least.

I thought things like Unicorns (clestials) were vulnerable to necrotic since demons tend to be vulnerable to radiant

[Potato_Priest]

I thought things like Unicorns (clestials) were vulnerable to necrotic since demons tend to be vulnerable to radiant

A surprising number of demons are actually not vulnerable to radiant. In fact, the only demon with a vulnerability at all is the shadow demon, vulnerable to radiant.

[JobsforFun]

A surprising number of demons are actually not vulnerable to radiant. In fact, the only demon with a vulnerability at all is the shadow demon, vulnerable to radiant.

huh, that is surprising. I suppose you can rule that they are vulnerable if you're the DM but be default that is surprising.

[Millstone85]

huh, that is surprising. I suppose you can rule that they are vulnerable if you're the DM but be default that is surprising.You know, this might be less obvious than it seems.

Say you have a cold elemental. That thing is not like Mr. Freeze who would die on a hot day without his suit and ice gun. Making heat disappear is part of the creature's very nature. So it should be immune to cold and at least resistant to fire, not vulnerable. Every other type of damage would be the way to go.

[JellyPooga]

What sort of creature would be vulnerable to necrotic damage? Here's some of my musings...

Per the PHB, it's damage that "withers matter and even the soul". It definitely has evil-ish connotations as well as a connection to the Undead and Necromancy in general.

A certain viewpoint might associate the damage type with decay; spells like Blight support this, leading us to the thought that things that are resistant to decay should resist necrotic damage and things vulnerable to decay should, perhaps, be vulnerable?

So elemental things; stone, water, ice, fire, wind...these things should be resistant; the ravages of time have little effect on the building blocks of the universe. As should be the undead and the immortal/ageless; what's another century or two "on the clock" to them?

On the other side of the coin, living things should be vulnerable. Should any living things be particularly vulnerable is the question, I suppose. Some Plant creatures, perhaps? Maybe creatures with short life-spans? What about things that thrive on life or represent it's cyclical nature; certain Fey might fall into this category; it would certainly be an interesting creature that is vulnerable to necrotic damage, but is continuously reborn when it dies.

Just some food for thought.

[Fishyninja]

What sort of creature would be vulnerable to necrotic damage? Here's some of my musings...

Per the PHB, it's damage that "withers matter and even the soul". It definitely has evil-ish connotations as well as a connection to the Undead and Necromancy in general.
So would you say that Undead creatures are Immune to it?

[Arkhios]

So would you say that Undead creatures are Immune to it?

But they are. At least most are resistant.

[Fishyninja]

But they are. At least most are resistant.

Hmm, Undead not being immune to Necrotic......I like this *ponders away*

[JellyPooga]

So would you say that Undead creatures are Immune to it?

As Arkhios says, most are resistant to it and that's close enough for me!

I'd also argue that anything without a soul should probably be resistant/immune too, but neither animated objects or golems are.

I'm not entirely sure a great deal of thought went into the concept of necrotic damage...I suspect it was just pasted in as the generic "evil damage" and left at that, much as radiant damage is "good" and force damage is "magic", without actually considering any implications beyond that.

There's probably a discussion to be had on the subject of damage types and who/what should be resistant/vulnerable/immune to them, but I suspect this thread isn't the place...:smallwink:

[Naanomi]

I could imagine some plant monsters to be vulnerable to necrotic damage, maybe some exceptionally 'naturey' fey as well

[DracoKnight]

So would you say that Undead creatures are Immune to it?

What's weirder to me is that Constructs aren't immune to it :smalltongue:

[Fishyninja]

As Arkhios says, most are resistant to it and that's close enough for me!

I'd also argue that anything without a soul should probably be resistant/immune too, but neither animated objects or golems are.

I'm not entirely sure a great deal of thought went into the concept of necrotic damage...I suspect it was just pasted in as the generic "evil damage" and left at that, much as radiant damage is "good" and force damage is "magic", without actually considering any implications beyond that.

There's probably a discussion to be had on the subject of damage types and who/what should be resistant/vulnerable/immune to them, but I suspect this thread isn't the place...:smallwink:

In my mind Necrotic would act as an insanely fast necrotising fasciitis bacterium in the sense it degenerates organic material, therefore even undead would be prones to possible limb loss etc.

I could be talking completely out of my behind but you know.

[JellyPooga]

In my mind Necrotic would act as an insanely fast necrotising fasciitis bacterium in the sense it degenerates organic material, therefore even undead would be prones to possible limb loss etc.

I could be talking completely out of my behind but you know.

I don't think we can read too much into what necrotic damage is or is not; as I mentioned, it's just a fancy name for Eeeeevil (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ0c4_P2uno) damage and nothing is immune to that!

[Arkhios]

I believe necrotic damage is the so called "negative energy" and radiant is likewise the "positive energy" from earlier editions.

I would make shambling mound vulnerable to necrotic, given the decay of living matter.

[Fishyninja]

"negative energy"

OOOOH Anti-Matter!

[Naanomi]

All the damage types represent more than one thing in this edition. Necrotic damage is sometimes 'evil damage', is sometimes 'negative energy damage', is sometimes 'disease damage', is sometimes 'radiation/particle beam damage'... is sometimes 'dehydration damage', is sometimes 'rapidly aging' damage....

[Fishyninja]

'dehydration damage'

Beware or I shall suck all the fluids out of you!

[Millstone85]

Personally, I like to think of negative/necrotic/dark energy as the magical equivalent of the grey goo, hungry nanites ready to consume and replace everything. Most often, it sucks life and makes its own facsimile of it, but it can also brought worlds of shadows.

[Grey Watcher]

On the other hand, how consistent is the Monster Manual with resistances and vulnerabilities by categories broader than "Demon"? I feel like sometimes undead, for example, are vulnerable to radiant because it's the "opposite" while some are resistant for the exact same reason.

I.dunno. 'S'weird.

[Millstone85]

On the other hand, how consistent is the Monster Manual with resistances and vulnerabilities by categories broader than "Demon"? I feel like sometimes undead, for example, are vulnerable to radiant because it's the "opposite" while some are resistant for the exact same reason.

I.dunno. 'S'weird.If I am not mistaken, the aforementioned shadow demon and the creature simply known as a shadow are the only two creatures in the MM with vulnerability to radiant damage. The shadow is an undead but there is a more obvious reason for the vulnerability. As for resisting radiant damage, that's only done by the three angels and the couatl.

So, it seems undeath in this edition doesn't care about radiant damage one way or another.

Even vampires... You would think a cleric calling upon holy light would be as good as the sun, but nope. And I think there was a tweet about the daylight spell not counting either.

[JellyPooga]

So, it seems undeath in this edition doesn't care about radiant damage one way or another.

Zombies do, if only to overcome their Undead Fortitude.

[Vogonjeltz]

A surprising number of demons are actually not vulnerable to radiant. In fact, the only demon with a vulnerability at all is the shadow demon, vulnerable to radiant.

One way to look at it is:

They're resistant/immune to virtually everything except Radiant damage.

Ex:
Nalfeshnee is res to cold, fire, lightning, bps; immune to poison

That only leaves psychic, radiant, and necrotic.

Also, it's mostly undead that are vulnerable to radiant

[Desamir]

If I am not mistaken, the aforementioned shadow demon and the creature simply known as a shadow are the only two creatures in the MM with vulnerability to radiant damage. The shadow is an undead but there is a more obvious reason for the vulnerability. As for resisting radiant damage, that's only done by the three angels and the couatl.

So, it seems undeath in this edition doesn't care about radiant damage one way or another.

Even vampires... You would think a cleric calling upon holy light would be as good as the sun, but nope. And I think there was a tweet about the daylight spell not counting either.

Some undead who aren't vulnerable to radiant are still affected by it in unique ways. Radiant damage shuts down vampire regeneration, for example.

[SharkForce]

If I am not mistaken, the aforementioned shadow demon and the creature simply known as a shadow are the only two creatures in the MM with vulnerability to radiant damage. The shadow is an undead but there is a more obvious reason for the vulnerability. As for resisting radiant damage, that's only done by the three angels and the couatl.

So, it seems undeath in this edition doesn't care about radiant damage one way or another.

Even vampires... You would think a cleric calling upon holy light would be as good as the sun, but nope. And I think there was a tweet about the daylight spell not counting either.

there are a few undead that lack the actual vulnerability trait, but which do suffer further from radiant damage.

for example, the vampire is not vulnerable to radiant damage... but in addition to sunlight preventing vampire regeneration, radiant damage works the same (so long as you keep applying it, that is). not quite as good as actual sunlight (which additionally damages the vampire), but it does still do more than other types of damage.

[MeeposFire]

What's weirder to me is that Constructs aren't immune to it :smalltongue:

Considering decay is one way to see this damage type it could be as easy as causing an iron golem to rust in a dramatic way even if it normally won't.

[ShikomeKidoMi]

huh, that is surprising. I suppose you can rule that they are vulnerable if you're the DM but be default that is surprising.

While Undead and Demons are not technically vulnerable to Radiant damage, much like the Blight spell with water creatures and undead, many specific Radiant effects deal extra damage to them... Which would make giving them vulnerability tricky as they would now be effectively double-penalized cases.


All the damage types represent more than one thing in this edition. Necrotic damage is sometimes 'evil damage', is sometimes 'negative energy damage', is sometimes 'disease damage', is sometimes 'radiation/particle beam damage'... is sometimes 'dehydration damage', is sometimes 'rapidly aging' damage....
The core theme of necrotic damage is rot. Dehydration, disease, and rapid aging all fall under that umbrella and it's not a bad choice to represent damage from 'evil' or 'negative energy' as causing rapid decay. Radiation's a bit iffier, but I can see why they made it Necrotic.

[Monavic]

I see necrotic damage more like hastened entropy then just evil. As for making demons and undead vulnerable to radiant I would not do that unless I also changed smite damage. Paladins would be over powered in such encounters.