How would you rank damage types?

[Sandeman]

I have seen some rankings of best to worst of the damage types.
Lots of monsters have fire resistance or immunity so fire seems to get a low ranking. Force and psychic seems to be in the top. Thunder seems to be in the middle.

But how would you rank them?
(Ill give my own complete ranking a bit later)

[Foolwise]

Whatever fits my character best. Theme trumps optimization in that regard.

[Amnestic]

It depends entirely on the campaign setting and typical enemies. No size fits all.

"Urban" campaigns or otherwise those with a lot of humanoid enemies probably won't care about undead and demons and whatever having immunity to poison: You're fighting dudes, poison works just fine!
A campaign in Avernus is going to require different damage types to one set in Icewind Dale. Rare indeed is a campaign where you're fighting Radiant resistant creatures, but it's not going to be 'better' than other damage types unless you're fighting a lot of undead/shadows, just shinier.

[Psyren]

I'd put nonmagical physical at the bottom, followed by fire and poison, and most of the others above that. I think Psychic, Radiant, and "magical-physical" are the least resisted but not sure.

[Naanomi]

Hrm...

Force>radiant=acid=thunder>cold=psychic=lightning>magic (slashing/piercing/bludgeoning)>necrotic>fire>non-magic (slashing/piercing/bludgeoning)>poison

[strangebloke]

It depends entirely on the campaign setting and typical enemies. No size fits all.

"Urban" campaigns or otherwise those with a lot of humanoid enemies probably won't care about undead and demons and whatever having immunity to poison: You're fighting dudes, poison works just fine!
A campaign in Avernus is going to require different damage types to one set in Icewind Dale. Rare indeed is a campaign where you're fighting Radiant resistant creatures, but it's not going to be 'better' than other damage types unless you're fighting a lot of undead/shadows, just shinier.

Pretty much. The analysis that goes through the MM and counts how many are resistant/immune to each type of damage is only relevant if there's an equal chance of every kind of monster showing up, which... well, in most campaigns that's imply not true. Poison looks bad in such an analysis, mostly because elementals, demons, devils, constructs, and undead are all immune to it, but its easy to envision a campaign where only a few enemies of those types come up.

The real rule of thumb is: don't completely pigeonhole yourself to one damage type. Have fire and lightning, or poison and acid.

If I had to rank them it'd be something like

Radiant/Force/Thunder/psychic/magical b/s/p
lightning/cold/acid
necrotic/fire/nonmagical b/s/p
poison

But only in the sense that you don't want to be exclusively focused on the lower levels of this list.

...I'm also not sure, I think there might be more psychic enemies now.

[LudicSavant]

I made a tier list of damage types here (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?612317-Resistances-Immunities-and-Vulnerabilities-of-Monsters-in-MM-Volo-s-and-MToF) based on data from all monsters in MM, Volo’s and MToF.

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/423216976001892365/730487718819266690/unknown.png

[Sandeman]

Ah, very nice list. Thanks for sharing.
That is basically what I had in mind.

[Psyren]

I made a tier list of damage types here (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?612317-Resistances-Immunities-and-Vulnerabilities-of-Monsters-in-MM-Volo-s-and-MToF) based on data from all monsters in MM, Volo’s and MToF.

Nice, I wasn't too far off. Thanks for sharing!

[jas61292]

Personally, I think how they rank depends a lot on what you are using them for. If you are, say, a Dragon sorcerer and want to pick a main damage type to use, then the lack of resistances is big. Missing out on a core class feature because enemies keep resisting you is not great. It's also a key consideration if you only ever intend to have one damaging option.

But otherwise, if you are just looking for a decent option to have, I'd actually care more about things like the AoE, damage, and number of vulnerabilities before I cared about resistances. It's easy enough to carry a back up option if you need one.

For that reason, I actually think that while it may be one of the worst in theory, Fire is probably the best damage type in practice. Sure, radiant or force might seem more attractive with their lack of resistances and immunities, but so long as you have a back up option of some other damage type, you will probably end up doing more damage by focusing on fire than you would by focusing on any other damage type (not counting warlocks using force).

Now, of course, this is looking at things like the fact that fireball is so much better than alternative spells. If you just want to look at the damage types themselves in isolation, well... I'd still put fire on top due to the highest number of vulnerabilities. Far better to have the option with the most potential as your goto with a decent backup (maybe acid?) for when resisted then to use a weaker main option all the time. But other rankings might swap some, as resistances do become a bigger factor if you are treating them as otherwise equal.

[strangebloke]

Personally, I think how they rank depends a lot on what you are using them for. If you are, say, a Dragon sorcerer and want to pick a main damage type to use, then the lack of resistances is big. Missing out on a core class feature because enemies keep resisting you is not great. It's also a key consideration if you only ever intend to have one damaging option.

But otherwise, if you are just looking for a decent option to have, I'd actually care more about things like the AoE, damage, and number of vulnerabilities before I cared about resistances. It's easy enough to carry a back up option if you need one.

For that reason, I actually think that while it may be one of the worst in theory, Fire is probably the best damage type in practice. Sure, radiant or force might seem more attractive with their lack of resistances and immunities, but so long as you have a back up option of some other damage type, you will probably end up doing more damage by focusing on fire than you would by focusing on any other damage type (not counting warlocks using force).

Now, of course, this is looking at things like the fact that fireball is so much better than alternative spells. If you just want to look at the damage types themselves in isolation, well... I'd still put fire on top due to the highest number of vulnerabilities. Far better to have the option with the most potential as your goto with a decent backup (maybe acid?) for when resisted then to use a weaker main option all the time. But other rankings might swap some, as resistances do become a bigger factor if you are treating them as otherwise equal.

Fireball isn't that much better than lightning bolt, but yeah. The sensible thing to do for a dragon sorcerer is to stack up on one element and then have transmute in your pocket as well as a few flexible spells that deal acid or force or can be manipulated (like chromatic orb and dragon's breath)

[jas61292]

Fireball isn't that much better than lightning bolt, but yeah. The sensible thing to do for a dragon sorcerer is to stack up on one element and then have transmute in your pocket as well as a few flexible spells that deal acid or force or can be manipulated (like chromatic orb and dragon's breath)

Yeah. Exactly.

Really, fireball was just an example. Lightningbolt is also a strong spell that gives a good reason to pick lightning damage.

The general point is that the specifics of spells and abilities, beyond damage type, matter far more than damage type alone. Almost everyone should have one or more backup damage type, and what actually matters is not what resists your primary attack, but what resists both your primary and secondary options.

Basically, it's that it's easy to say something like "radiant is the best damage type." But for most classes, the reality is that, if you have radiant options at all, they may be underwhelming or niche. Being a better damage type is irrelevant in the majority of battles. What is always relevant is the damage/shape/size/secondary effects of your ability. So taking what you think is best with regard to those factors, and then having a backup for when your main option is resisted will usually be the stronger option than picking based on damage type alone.

[sithlordnergal]

I tend to rank them via common resistances/immunities, regardless of setting or character type. Its why I avoid thematic characters that mostly rely on one of two damage types. Its better to have as many damage types as possible.

[strangebloke]

I tend to rank them via common resistances/immunities, regardless of setting or character type. Its why I avoid thematic characters that mostly rely on one of two damage types. Its better to have as many damage types as possible.

yeah but being "the fire dude" is cool tho.

[sithlordnergal]

yeah but being "the fire dude" is cool tho.

Until you run into a group of Fire Giants and all your stuff ends up being a bit useless...I was playing Storm Kings Thunder once and we were trying an all wizard group. I was an Abjuration Wizard, and was essentially the Healer of the group with the Heal feat. The Evocation wizard was trying to be someone who deals all fire damage. It worked well until we ran into those aforementioned Fire Giants...My Abjuration Wizard died reviving him XD

[dafrca]

I made a tier list of damage types here ...
Nice work. Well done. :smallsmile:

[strangebloke]

Until you run into a group of Fire Giants and all your stuff ends up being a bit useless...I was playing Storm Kings Thunder once and we were trying an all wizard group. I was an Abjuration Wizard, and was essentially the Healer of the group with the Heal feat. The Evocation wizard was trying to be someone who deals all fire damage. It worked well until we ran into those aforementioned Fire Giants...My Abjuration Wizard died reviving him XD

It's helpful to have a fallback but usually a single secondary damage type or a couple support spells are enough.

Unless you're in a campaign that's all elementals or something, elemental resistance for things that aren't demons are pretty unusual.

[Eldariel]

It's helpful to have a fallback but usually a single secondary damage type or a couple support spells are enough.

Unless you're in a campaign that's all elementals or something, elemental resistance for things that aren't demons are pretty unusual.

Fiends do indeed have a lot of resistances, but as per Ludic's list, there's as many other types with those as Fiends. So you'll run into it unless DM is cherrypicking and many of the things with annoying resistances are stuff like Dragons or Incorporeals or otherwise already annoying and dangerous creature types so it generally bites you where it hurts the most (in the dangerous bossy fights).

[Amnestic]

I know they don't like feat chains in 5e (and I don't disagree with it on its own), but I do kinda wish they had an Elemental Master feat to follow on from Elemental Adept that let you bypass immunity. Two feats is a heavy investment to be The Fire Guy, but it does let you be The Fire Guy with impunity.

[strangebloke]

I know they don't like feat chains in 5e (and I don't disagree with it on its own), but I do kinda wish they had an Elemental Master feat to follow on from Elemental Adept that let you bypass immunity. Two feats is a heavy investment to be The Fire Guy, but it does let you be The Fire Guy with impunity.

Or a sorcerer subclass that lets you bypass immunity at the cost of SP. Call it "hellfire" or something. It would be a hit.

[Naanomi]

Or a sorcerer subclass that lets you bypass immunity at the cost of SP. Call it "hellfire" or something. It would be a hit.
The UA Pyromancer class lets you ignore immunity at high level