Radiant Damage ?

[Bluemanarc]

I have heard someone say that Radiant damage isn't that important in 5e that it only affects a few monsters.

And I have heard from someone else that it is massive in 5e, whats the story.

First 5e Campaign being organised now.

It was very big in 4e and a lot of creatures to finally put them to rest required it.

[Quoxis]

I have heard someone say that Radiant damage isn't that important in 5e that it only affects a few monsters.

And I have heard from someone else that it is massive in 5e, whats the story.

First 5e Campaign being organised now.

It was very big in 4e and a lot of creatures to finally put them to rest required it.

What do you mean with "affect"?

About everything can be hurt by radiant damage, it's one of the least resisted damage types afaik.

The big "nerf" that radiant got is that undead and demons/devils aren't weak against it anymore, at least not in terms of damage.
Out of my head i remember that for example a vampire's hp regeneration is disrupted for one turn if it's hit with radiant damage.

Tl;dr: radiant is still a valid choice for damage, even though it's not as good against certain opponents as it was

[hymer]

Radiant (along with Force) is about the most reliable damage type you can find. Angels have resistance to Radiant damage, and that's about it. So if we're comparing damage types, radiant is among the best, and perhaps the very best.

But it depends, obviously. Between the cantrips Saced Flame (which deals d8 radiant damage) and Fire Bolt (which deals d10 fire damage), you will usually deal more damage with Fire Bolt. Or you could compare Flame Strike (4d6 radiant and 4d6 fire) to Fireball (8d6 fire) and notice that Fireball is only a third level spell, while Flame Strike is 5th level. You'll get more bang for your spell slot from fireball, which also has better AoE and range. But that's not because of the damage types. It's because Flame Strike is a cleric spell and Fireball a wizard spell, and wizards are supposed to be better at blasting on average than clerics.

And you can find examples that go in the opposite direction. Compare Moonbeam (2d10 radiant damage per round) with Melf's Acid Arrow (4d4 acid damage on round one and 2d4 acid damage on round two), both second level spells. There the radiant damage spell handily outperforms another damage type.

In conclusion: Comparing types of damage makes most sense in terms of how often you'll fight enemies who resist or are immune to those damage types. And Radiant damage is possibly the best damage type in this regard.

[Arkhios]

As the others said, but in short:

Radiant damage is worse than it was in 4e, because (AFAIK) there aren't many (if any at all) creatures vulnerable to it.

However, like Force damage, Radiant is very rarely resisted and far more common type than Force, which makes it easily quite superior type in regards to many other types.

Essentially, both sides of OP's post are correct.

[Joe the Rat]

Pretty much - it's not exceptional, but it's reliable. There aren't a lot of damage type vulnerabilities to exploit - it's more about overcoming resistances and immunities. The only things that resist radiant are (hopefully) on your side.

It's still more useful against undead, as there are some (not many) that are vulnerable, and it can disrupt some undead regeneration. Similarly, necrotic resistance and immunity are not universal to undead either.

[SharkForce]

i would add that while there are not as *many* things weak to radiant, the ones that are weak to radiant are often very weak (just not necessarily in the sense of increasing damage dealt).

[JackPhoenix]

i would add that while there are not as *many* things weak to radiant, the ones that are weak to radiant are often very weak (just not necessarily in the sense of increasing damage dealt).

Tell that to my players who spent about 10 rounds trying to kill one zombie which wouldn't just die no matter what.

And vampires aren't exactly weak.

Though both cases represent radiant damage negating specific ability, not just increasing damage dealt. Although you could argue that negating vampire's regeneration is worth 20 damage in itself

[MrStabby]

Shadows are one of the scariest creatures for their challenge rating. Spells like spirit guardians that can deal radiant damage can really help here.

[Naanomi]

Damage type doesn't matter much, but Radiant damage is one of the types that does matter (positively) more than almost any other

[MrStabby]

Damage type doesn't matter much, but Radiant damage is one of the types that does matter (positively) more than almost any other

Fire is the other one. Often resisted or immune to but also there are a bunch of vulnerabilities and effects like troll regeneration that can be helped with fire - not to mention the ability to set things on fire.

Even with the same level of damage I would be keen to have access to a source of fire damage on most characters.

[MeeposFire]

Are vulnerabilities to elements that common in general? I do not remember that often in general. Fire has more than radiant but are there any other elements that get more than radiant (counting preventing regen and the like of course I think that should count)? I am not so sure and if that is true then radiant is certainly a great option even if it hits less vulnerabilities than fire.

[ShikomeKidoMi]

Besides the excellent arguments made by people before me, it's also worth noting that while being radiant doesn't increase damage on it's own a lot of radiant damage effects do extra damage to undead and/or fiends.

[Joe the Rat]

and shapeshifters (moonbeam)


Damage type doesn't matter much, but Radiant damage is one of the types that does matter (positively) more than almost any otherI see what you did there.

[Willie the Duck]

Are vulnerabilities to elements that common in general? I do not remember that often in general. Fire has more than radiant but are there any other elements that get more than radiant (counting preventing regen and the like of course I think that should count)? I am not so sure and if that is true then radiant is certainly a great option even if it hits less vulnerabilities than fire.

Overall, there are more resistances than vulnerabilities. Even lots of the dragons and elementals do not have their traditional vulnerabilities (yes a fire elemental takes some cold damage when it is splashed with water, but it doesn't take x1.5 or x2 damage from cold, etc.).

The reigning paradigm for 5e seems to be 'some things do more damage, but have more things resistant to them.' Fire and Poison, for instance, tend to do a lot of damage (not inherently, through some mechanical enhancement, simply that fire and poison spells and effects tend to be higher in damage than other sources), but there are a lot of things immune to them. Radiant, necrotic, and psychic damages tend to be smaller (compare Fire Bolt to Vicious Mockery), but fewer things are immune.

[Findulidas]

but there are a lot of things immune to them.

Specially to poison. Resistance is common against both fire and poison, but poison get it the worst when it comes to immunities.

[Theodoxus]

Specially to poison. Resistance is common against both fire and poison, but poison get it the worst when it comes to immunities.

That's because in D&D, everything is descended from the Honey Badger.

[Willie the Duck]

Specially to poison. Resistance is common against both fire and poison, but poison get it the worst when it comes to immunities.

Yes, and to compensate, things like elite drow warriors (who use a lot of poison) get like +5d6 damage to each attack or some craziness. High risk, high reward and all that.

[JellyPooga]

Zombies are a common low-level foe, making Radiant damage very nice to have in that low tier.

[jeanquilt]

Honestly? As a DM I make my undead/etc. weak to Radiant damage just because I think it makes sense. Good thing my players haven't caught on to how good I've actually made Radiant damage...if we had a cleric, I might have to change that policy.

But regardless, very few things resist Radiant damage, it's more common than Force damage (which iirc is only resisted by one or two creatures), and it also has the added bonus that there are a few monsters weak to radiant...there are far less monsters weak to force.

[Bahamut7]

I did some digging when playing a Sun Soul Monk and discovered what happened. The creators realized while thematic, Radiant vulnerability was way too OP in 4e. So they toned it down a lot. While most creatures don't resist it, only two in the monster manual are actually vulnerable to radiant damage. Not going to lie, was going to exploit that if the DM let it happened. :smallbiggrin:

As others have said it is still good to use and very thematic, not to mention crucial to stop certain types of regeneration.

[Arkhios]

Honestly? As a DM I make my undead/etc. weak to Radiant damage just because I think it makes sense. Good thing my players haven't caught on to how good I've actually made Radiant damage...if we had a cleric, I might have to change that policy.

While in general I kinda see why you'd do that, but really, I wouldn't say every undead should be weak to radiant. Vampires, sure, but a zombie? Nah.

[SharkForce]

While in general I kinda see why you'd do that, but really, I wouldn't say every undead should be weak to radiant. Vampires, sure, but a zombie? Nah.

zombies are weak to radiant already ;) :P

(just not in a damage sense)

[Arkhios]

zombies are weak to radiant already ;) :P

(just not in a damage sense)

For my defense, I was away from book. :P