Is Damage Type Critical for spell balance

[KyleG]

How important is the damage type to a spells balance, to the game balance? If fire bolt became necrotic shard, or Armor of Agathys became Hellfire Armor, Melfs Acid arrow has a Poison equivalent or Cloudkill becomes storm cloud doing lightning damage?

Not as an on the fly change but treated as new spells that must be prepared etc.

[RogueJK]

While not "critical", I do think it bears a decent amount of importance.


Certain elements are noticeably more powerful/viable than others, due to enemy resistances/immunities. For example, changing any other element into Poison damage is going to be an overall downgrade the vast majority of the time, since Poison is the most commonly resisted/immune element among published enemies. The opposite is then also true, about changing Poison into an uncommonly resisted element like Radiant or Psychic.

This can be affected even further by the campaign, with some campaigns featuring a focus on certain types of enemies with certain shared resistances/immunities. (Poison would be an even worse option for an undead-heavy campaign. Fire would be a poor choice for a romp through the Abyss. Etc.)


You also have to consider how it would interact with certain class abilities, like the Tempest Cleric's ability to Maximize thunder/lightning damage rolls, a Draconic Sorcerer's added damage to their chosen element, a Celestial Warlock's added damage to fire/radiant damage, etc.


The designers have slowly started adding in ways to accomplish this, through things like Transmute Spell Metamagic or the Scribe Wizard. But those all come at a cost (spell points/metamagic options/missing out on other Wizard subclass abilities), and are only available to certain classes/subclasses. Offering such changes for free to every class would need to be considered on a case-by-case basis, looking at each altered spell in the context of the campaign and that specific character's abilities. In many cases such a change wouldn't alter the spell's overall power up or down, but in others it certainly would.

[LudicSavant]

How important is the damage type to a spells balance, to the game balance? If fire bolt became necrotic shard, or Armor of Agathys became Hellfire Armor, Melfs Acid arrow has a Poison equivalent or Cloudkill becomes storm cloud doing lightning damage?

Not as an on the fly change but treated as new spells that must be prepared etc.

Changing something from fire to cold isn't a big deal, but changing something from fire to force is a significant improvement. For example Vitriolic Sphere doesn't provide a whole lot of advantages over Fireball beyond its damage type... which is enough for me to actually bother preparing it on occasion.

Also, how big of a deal it is can depend on the nature of the spell, too. For example, if I'm gonna pre-cast a spell that lasts an hour and go through several dungeon encounters, it matters more if it's a versatile damage type than if I'm deciding on the spot which spell to cast a specific enemy. So it is quite important that, say, Summon Celestial lets my archer throw out almost-never-resisted radiant damage for that whole hour.

You also have to consider synergies. For example, it'd be a big deal if a Tempest Cleric got better lightning/thunder spells on their list.

[sithlordnergal]

I'd say its pretty critical, and its why I consider Scribe Wizards one of the strongest wizard sublcasses in the game. Not only do they get a free Familiar at level 6 and have an easier time copying spells, but they can change the spell damage type to anything they like. You never need to prepare any AoE damaging spell except Fireball, because even if you're facing something immune to Fire damage you can just make it Force/BBludgeoning/Radiant/Whatever instead. Spells like Storm Sphere can become a lot more dangerous when you change that bonus action Lightning attack into Bludgeoning damage while you have the Crusher feat.

Now, it does make certain spells a bit more viable. For example, Cloudkill affects a creature even if they hold their breath or don't need to breath. It doesn't have any clause preventing it from harming a Construct or Undead outside of the fact that it deals Poison damage. Order of Scribe Wizards can bypass issue by taking the Poison damage and making it Radiant instead. Its still not an amazing spell, but its far better. Same thing for Ray of Sickness.

[LudicSavant]

Shifting anything from fire to cold isn't a great improvement, but changing something from fire to force is. Vitriolic Sphere, for example, has little advantages over Fireball other than its damage type... which is enough for me to bother preparing it on occasion. The severity of the problem can also be determined by the spell's type. If I'm going to pre-cast a spell that will last an hour and take me through multiple dungeon encounters, it's more important that it's a versatile damage type than if I'm picking on the fly which spell to cast against a specific opponent. So it's critical that Summon Celestial, for example, allows my archer to cast almost-never-resisted spells. For the whole hour, you will be subjected to radiant harm. Synergies must also be considered. It would be significant if a Tempest Cleric's list of lightning/thunder spells was improved.

...Why did you just say almost exactly what I did, but without spacing? :smallconfused:

[Kane0]

How important is the damage type to a spells balance, to the game balance? If fire bolt became necrotic shard, or Armor of Agathys became Hellfire Armor, Melfs Acid arrow has a Poison equivalent or Cloudkill becomes storm cloud doing lightning damage?

Not as an on the fly change but treated as new spells that must be prepared etc.

Not crucial, a die size or so usually.

[PhantomSoul]

...Why did you just say almost exactly what I did? :smallconfused:

Clearly there was no better response than yours! :)

[Psyren]

I'd say its pretty critical, and its why I consider Scribe Wizards one of the strongest wizard sublcasses in the game. Not only do they get a free Familiar at level 6 and have an easier time copying spells, but they can change the spell damage type to anything they like. You never need to prepare any AoE damaging spell except Fireball, because even if you're facing something immune to Fire damage you can just make it Force/BBludgeoning/Radiant/Whatever instead. Spells like Storm Sphere can become a lot more dangerous when you change that bonus action Lightning attack into Bludgeoning damage while you have the Crusher feat.

Now, it does make certain spells a bit more viable. For example, Cloudkill affects a creature even if they hold their breath or don't need to breath. It doesn't have any clause preventing it from harming a Construct or Undead outside of the fact that it deals Poison damage. Order of Scribe Wizards can bypass issue by taking the Poison damage and making it Radiant instead. Its still not an amazing spell, but its far better. Same thing for Ray of Sickness.

This also encourages Scribes to seek out every spell they can get their grubby paws on, no matter how underpowered, if they contain different elements at a given spell level.

And then you set all that jank on fire to save yourself via One With The Word :smallcool:

[Pildion]

Aside from Tempest Cleric, I really don't think its that big a deal for elements. Most Tempest clerics that want to go blast multi with Sorcerer so they would have the meta magic to change damage types anyways. Now if you wanted to change from Fire -> Force damage thats where problems might start, or go Cold -> Radiant. I would be find with a "Lightning Ball" but not a "Radiant Ball"

[JLandan]

I'd say its pretty critical, and its why I consider Scribe Wizards one of the strongest wizard sublcasses in the game. Not only do they get a free Familiar at level 6 and have an easier time copying spells, but they can change the spell damage type to anything they like. You never need to prepare any AoE damaging spell except Fireball, because even if you're facing something immune to Fire damage you can just make it Force/BBludgeoning/Radiant/Whatever instead. Spells like Storm Sphere can become a lot more dangerous when you change that bonus action Lightning attack into Bludgeoning damage while you have the Crusher feat.

Now, it does make certain spells a bit more viable. For example, Cloudkill affects a creature even if they hold their breath or don't need to breath. It doesn't have any clause preventing it from harming a Construct or Undead outside of the fact that it deals Poison damage. Order of Scribe Wizards can bypass issue by taking the Poison damage and making it Radiant instead. Its still not an amazing spell, but its far better. Same thing for Ray of Sickness.

There are limits to this. The type that you want to switch a spell to must be represented by a spell of that type at the level you're casting in your spell book. So, if you want to convert fireball to bludgeoning, you must have a level 3 bludgeoning spell to cast it with a level 3 slot, and a bludgeoning spell at level 4 to cast it with a level 4 slot, etc. Which means you already have a bludgeoning spell at those levels. It's great for switching a single target to AoE and vice versa, but if you want to use it for type versatility, you must choose/copy spells accordingly.

[RogueJK]

...Why did you just say almost exactly what I did, but without spacing? :smallconfused:

Looks like they've done the exact same thing in a few other threads... Copy someone else's post then reposting near-verbatim, after changing some of the words to synonyms.

Odd.

[PhantomSoul]

Looks like they've done the exact same thing in a few other threads... Copy someone else's post then reposting near-verbatim, after changing some of the words to synonyms.

Odd.

We'll probably get spam with links imminently from the sounds of it...

[KyleG]

While not "critical", I do think it bears a decent amount of importance.


Certain elements are noticeably more powerful/viable than others, due to enemy resistances/immunities. For example, changing any other element into Poison damage is going to be an overall downgrade the vast majority of the time, since Poison is the most commonly resisted/immune element among published enemies. The opposite is then also true, about changing Poison into an uncommonly resisted element like Radiant or Psychic.

This can be affected even further by the campaign, with some campaigns featuring a focus on certain types of enemies with certain shared resistances/immunities. (Poison would be an even worse option for an undead-heavy campaign. Fire would be a poor choice for a romp through the Abyss. Etc.)


You also have to consider how it would interact with certain class abilities, like the Tempest Cleric's ability to Maximize thunder/lightning damage rolls, a Draconic Sorcerer's added damage to their chosen element, a Celestial Warlock's added damage to fire/radiant damage, etc.


The designers have slowly started adding in ways to accomplish this, through things like Transmute Spell Metamagic or the Scribe Wizard. But those all come at a cost (spell points/metamagic options/missing out on other Wizard subclass abilities), and are only available to certain classes/subclasses. Offering such changes for free to every class would need to be considered on a case-by-case basis, looking at each altered spell in the context of the campaign and that specific character's abilities. In many cases such a change wouldn't alter the spell's overall power up or down, but in others it certainly would.

Is the cost of the selection not enough?
To use my examples, is the cost to choose necrotic shard vs firebolt enough? Limited cantrip and now firebolt not available and so too with the other options.
I understand some types are more likely to be resisted but for a player to have some more thematic spells it seems reasonable to consider as their dm.
Which types would you avoid allowing? Force possibly although even something like thunderwave feels like that wouldn't hurt the game much.

And again i wouldn't allow this on the fly the player would have to have learnt the spell, not the original but this new spell that just happens to work in the same way.

I think interactions with class specific skills is probably the hardest to account for.

[Witty Username]

Theoretically, yes.
Empirically, no.
In theory damage type matters because of prevalence of effects related to damage type, such as resistance and immunity. In practice though, everytime I have seen damage type substituted on an effect by homebrew the effect is negligible.
I think the only times it really matters is poison, force and radiant damage effects. All else is pretty fungible.

[sithlordnergal]

There are limits to this. The type that you want to switch a spell to must be represented by a spell of that type at the level you're casting in your spell book. So, if you want to convert fireball to bludgeoning, you must have a level 3 bludgeoning spell to cast it with a level 3 slot, and a bludgeoning spell at level 4 to cast it with a level 4 slot, etc. Which means you already have a bludgeoning spell at those levels. It's great for switching a single target to AoE and vice versa, but if you want to use it for type versatility, you must choose/copy spells accordingly.

That's actually not as difficult as you might think. For example, nearly every single spell level has a spell that deals Bludgeoning damage, and nearly all levels have a spell that deals more than one damage type. Sure it means you have to be on the lookout for spell scrolls and you need to be careful with your spell choices, but you still end up being extremely versatile.

[JNAProductions]

Is Damage Type Critical For Spell Balance?
No. But is an element of it-the game won't break if you can cast Firebolt as a radiant spell, but that is a not insignificant buff.

Allowing free swapping of any spell to any other damage type is a pretty potent feature-you'll never deal with resistances or immunities with just a bit of research, and can take advantage of any vulnerabilities your foes have.

Limited swapping (be it a few times per rest, limited to some small subset of types, or whatever works) is much less powerful, though still useful.

[Chronos]

Roughly speaking, there are mostly two tiers of damage types: The rare types, like magical PSB, radiant, force, psi, necrotic, and sonic, and the common types, like fire, cold, lightning, and acid. Poison is maybe a third tier. There are some finer gradations within those (for instance, acid is usually better than fire or cold, and force and radiant are usually better than psi and necrotic), but mostly, if you're changing within the same tier, it matters little.

[Bobthewizard]

I don't think it breaks anything, especially if you limit it to keeping within elemental damage types or rare damage types. I would definitely allow it for a theme, but be skeptical of allowing it for optimization.

I let draconic sorcerers change any damage spell to their damage type. I'd allow the same for storm sorcerers and tempest clerics, even a lighting fireball.

I'd be less inclined to allow a character to change damage types so they made sure they have a variety of good spells with different damage types, or to change out fire damage after they find out they are fighting devils.

[MrStabby]

Changing something from fire to cold isn't a big deal, but changing something from fire to force is a significant improvement. For example Vitriolic Sphere doesn't provide a whole lot of advantages over Fireball beyond its damage type... which is enough for me to actually bother preparing it on occasion.

Also, how big of a deal it is can depend on the nature of the spell, too. For example, if I'm gonna pre-cast a spell that lasts an hour and go through several dungeon encounters, it matters more if it's a versatile damage type than if I'm deciding on the spot which spell to cast a specific enemy. So it is quite important that, say, Summon Celestial lets my archer throw out almost-never-resisted radiant damage for that whole hour.

You also have to consider synergies. For example, it'd be a big deal if a Tempest Cleric got better lightning/thunder spells on their list.

I think I would advise more caution than this. It is really campaign dependant. In a game where you would be underwater a lot then fire is bad... like really bad. In a forest fighting treants then fire is really good.

Sometimes I might allow a swap but rarely. Fire spells tend to do more damage anyway and I see part of this as being due to the frequency of them being really bad.

Getting the upside of the damage efficiency of fireball but without the downside of the heightened risk of it being a poor choice isn't going to fly.

[sithlordnergal]

You also have to consider synergies. For example, it'd be a big deal if a Tempest Cleric got better lightning/thunder spells on their list.

Lol, this is why I have a Tempest Cleric/Order of Scribes Wizard. Max Damage Lightning Fireball!

[Greywander]

So here's the thing: damage is damage. A radiant Fire Bolt isn't inherently stronger than a fire Fire Bolt. Against most enemies, either one will do the same damage, so you won't notice a difference. The only time it will matter is when facing an enemy that is weak or strong against specific damage types. A "better" damage type isn't stronger, it's simply more versatile. That's all. And that versatility is worth considering when balancing a spell, just keep in mind that it might not even come up in some games.

In general, the assumption should be that you're doing full damage with a spell, and the spell should be balanced around that. Whether a monster is weak or strong against that spell is a separate matter, and has more to do with enemy balancing than spell balancing. It's not really good game design to buff poison damage spells because poison is useless against a decent chunk of enemies, because then you end up with a spell that is either OP or useless depending on what you're fighting. Nor do you want to gimp a radiant damage spell just because it works on almost everything. Any spell balancing based on damage types should be slight nudges at most.

[sithlordnergal]

So here's the thing: damage is damage. A radiant Fire Bolt isn't inherently stronger than a fire Fire Bolt. Against most enemies, either one will do the same damage, so you won't notice a difference. The only time it will matter is when facing an enemy that is weak or strong against specific damage types. A "better" damage type isn't stronger, it's simply more versatile. That's all. And that versatility is worth considering when balancing a spell, just keep in mind that it might not even come up in some games.

In general, the assumption should be that you're doing full damage with a spell, and the spell should be balanced around that. Whether a monster is weak or strong against that spell is a separate matter, and has more to do with enemy balancing than spell balancing. It's not really good game design to buff poison damage spells because poison is useless against a decent chunk of enemies, because then you end up with a spell that is either OP or useless depending on what you're fighting. Nor do you want to gimp a radiant damage spell just because it works on almost everything. Any spell balancing based on damage types should be slight nudges at most.

Mmmm, I would disagree. Certain damage types are simply better than others because they aren't resisted, while others are worse due to how many things are immune to them. For example, which is best and which is worst? A Fire Bolt that deals Fire damage, Radiant damage, or Poison damage? They all deal the same amount of damage, but a Fire Bolt that deals Radiant damage is inherently better than Fire, and both are leagues better than the Poison damage one. And its all down to how common the resistances and immunities are. I know you can technically go through an entire game without ever seeing a creature immune or resistant to Fire or Poison damage, but those two resistances/immunities are so common that its far more likely that you'll run into them.

Also, if you look at Poison damage spells, they tend to do a high amount of damage, or at least higher than average. Consider Poison Spray, it was the first, and for a while only, d12 Cantrip in the game. Ray of Sickness is a first level spell that deals 2d8 damage and can cause the Poisoned condition, which is a very powerful Condition if it sticks. Not only does it deal a very high amount of damage for a 1st level PHB spell, but it causes a seriously debilitating condition that gives disadvantage on all attack rolls and ability checks. And it does so without any costly material components like Chromatic Orb has. Cloudkill is another high damaging poison spell. It deals 5d8 for 10 minutes, and it doesn't require creatures to breath to be affected by it.

[Greywander]

Doesn't really sound like you're disagreeing with me. The versatility of a "better" damage type is something that should factor into balancing, but only subtly. The fact is, you're simply not casting Fireball or Scorching Ray against something like a devil, and possibly even a demon; you're casting something else they aren't resistant or immune to. Not just casters, but every character is responsible for planning contingent strategies when their main strategy isn't viable, e.g. a Conquest paladin dealing with fear-immune enemies. You're going to have other spells that you'll use when an enemy is resistant to your bread and butter spells.

[greenstone]

In an adventure like Temple of Elemental Evil, this would become very important.

At the moment, the players must be careful with their spell preparation. Going up against the fire cultists? Not much point in taking fireball. Earth cultists ahead? Better swap out the earthquake spell.

With no spell damage type, the players just use the same old spells every combat. Boring.

Spell choice is a meaningful choice, with conequences. I'm all for requiring players to make meaningful choices.

[Kane0]

Typically larger die number/sizes: Fire, Cold, Poison, Necrotic, Thunder, Lightning
Typically smaller die number/sizes: Radiant, Force, Acid, Psychic

I would say if you're exchanging within those broad strokes its fine, but if you're swapping between the two go up or down a die size to compensate. Like for example a fireball that does radiant damage would be 8d4 instead of 8d6, or a Guiding Bolt that deals fire damage 4d8 instead of 4d6.

[Greywander]

Typically larger die number/sizes: Fire, Cold, Poison, Necrotic, Thunder, Lightning
Typically smaller die number/sizes: Radiant, Force, Acid, Psychic

I would say if you're exchanging within those broad strokes its fine, but if you're swapping between the two go up or down a die size to compensate. Like for example a fireball that does radiant damage would be 8d4 instead of 8d6, or a Guiding Bolt that deals fire damage 4d8 instead of 4d6.
IIRC, I, and a few others, have organized damage types into various tiers. I don't remember how I specifically ranked them, but I can do a quick estimate real quick.

S Tier: Force, Psychic, Radiant
A Tier: Bludgeoning, Piercing, Slashing
B Tier: Acid, Necrotic, Thunder
C Tier: Cold, Fire, Lightning
D Tier: Poison

Something like that. Some of those might not be appropriately ranked. I think thunder is unusually good, much better than lightning, so it might be A or even S tier. Psychic might not be quite S tier, as I remember that a lot of constructs are outright immune, but other than that it's extremely reliable. Actually, maybe thunder and psychic are supposed to swap placed, I can't remember exactly.

One note about poison: The creatures immune to it are mostly fiends, elementals, constructs, and undead, all of which are typically easily recognizable as such. Once you remove those from the list, there's not nearly as many poison-immune creatures. Basically, poison gets a bad rap, but it's still usually effective if you're not fighting one of those four types of creatures. And if you are, you usually know it and can just use something else instead. So poison is far from useless, it just doesn't work on specific types of monsters.

[sithlordnergal]

.
One note about poison: The creatures immune to it are mostly fiends, elementals, constructs, and undead, all of which are typically easily recognizable as such. Once you remove those from the list, there's not nearly as many poison-immune creatures. Basically, poison gets a bad rap, but it's still usually effective if you're not fighting one of those four types of creatures. And if you are, you usually know it and can just use something else instead. So poison is far from useless, it just doesn't work on specific types of monsters.

I think the main reason its bad rap exists is because those four types tend to be very, very common at nearly every level. Undead are literally everywhere, cause they are easy to make an encounter for. Elementals, Constructs, and Undead can typically be found at the side of some villainous NPC as fodder. The only type that's really rare are Fiends...but then again there are two or three published hardcover adventures that deal with fighting Fiends.

[LudicSavant]

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?612317-Resistances-Immunities-and-Vulnerabilities-of-Monsters-in-MM-Volo-s-and-MToF

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

[MrStabby]

I think the main reason its bad rap exists is because those four types tend to be very, very common at nearly every level. Undead are literally everywhere, cause they are easy to make an encounter for. Elementals, Constructs, and Undead can typically be found at the side of some villainous NPC as fodder. The only type that's really rare are Fiends...but then again there are two or three published hardcover adventures that deal with fighting Fiends.

I think tis is very true. Certainly, not every creature or even creature type appears with the same frequency.

In some of the games I have played these same creature types are more abundant due to them being "timeless", they can sit at the bottom of a crypt or dungeon undisturbed for a long long time waiting for explorers and adventurers to come along. They just fit better in dungeon delving campaigns than halflings or elephants.

The other factor that I think makes some of these overrepresented is the association with evil. Undead and fiends specifically tend to be good antagonists for a heroic party - either thrust upon them or actively sought out by the PCs.

[Greywander]

While themed campaigns could be anything (e.g. Out of the Abyss focusing on demons), I'd expect a typical campaign to have humanoids as the most common enemy type. Things like orcs and goblins and such. Not sure what would come next. Monstrosities, perhaps? Of course, things like undead would probably also be fairly common, but at the same time you could also go an entire campaign without ever seeing one. You're going to fight humanoids in almost any campaign. Now, it is true that humanoids tend to be weaker monsters, with stronger monsters being decidedly inhuman. Things like dragons, liches, or aberrations. But of those three, only the lich would be immune to poison.

My point is, there would be a lot of variability in how often you see these typically poison-immune creature types, but I'd still expect poison to be useful most of the time. Unless it's a campaign themed around one of those poison-immune creature types. Now, poison is the one damage type you want to make sure you have backups for in case an enemy is immune, but poison effects also tend to be a little stronger and can thus get you great mileage the rest of the time.

I guess what I'm saying is that I probably wouldn't build a poison focused character if it wasn't any stronger than a character focused around using a different damage type. But if they were stronger, I would consider building such a character, but also make sure I have other options for when an enemy is immune. Something like a fire mage has a similar issue, just not quite on the same level, but you'd definitely want to pack some non-fire spells just in case. People do make fire mages, so a poison character isn't really too far fetched, it just amplifies some of the benefits and weaknesses.

[Chronos]

Quoth sithlordnergal:

Ray of Sickness is a first level spell that deals 2d8 damage and can cause the Poisoned condition, which is a very powerful Condition if it sticks. Not only does it deal a very high amount of damage for a 1st level PHB spell, but it causes a seriously debilitating condition that gives disadvantage on all attack rolls and ability checks.
2d8 is not "a very high amount of damage for a 1st level PHB spell". That's an average of 9 damage, with a to-hit roll, to a single target. Burning Hands is 3d6 (average 10.5), to an area, with half damage even on a save. Magic Missile does 3d+3 (also average 10.5), with no attack roll nor save. Thunderwave is also 2d8 (average 9), but again in an area and half damage on a save. Chromatic Orb is 3d8 (average 13.5), and you can choose your damage type, and the component only costs 50 GP and isn't consumed, so the cost will quickly become trivial. Guiding Bolt is 4d6 (average 14). In fact, I don't think there's any 1st-level spell that does less damage than Ray of Sickness, aside from the paladin bonus-action spells (which are added on top of weapon damage, so still more damage per action than Ray of Sickness).


Quoth Greywander:

So here's the thing: damage is damage. A radiant Fire Bolt isn't inherently stronger than a fire Fire Bolt. Against most enemies, either one will do the same damage, so you won't notice a difference. The only time it will matter is when facing an enemy that is weak or strong against specific damage types. A "better" damage type isn't stronger, it's simply more versatile. That's all. And that versatility is worth considering when balancing a spell, just keep in mind that it might not even come up in some games.
Which shows up clearly when you compare different classes. A wizard doesn't need versatility from any single spell, because she gets versatility by knowing other spells. If a wizard is facing a fire-immune creature, she can use Lightning Bolt instead. She can do this because wizards get access to tons of different damage spells.

Clerics, by contrast, have only a few damage spells, but they're mostly radiant (like Sacred Flame, Guiding Bolt, or Spirit Guardians), plus the force Spiritual Weapon. Their damage spells have a versatile type because they have to, because a cleric who couldn't use Sacred Flame, Guiding Bolt, or Spirit Guardians would have very little they could replace those with.

[sithlordnergal]

2d8 is not "a very high amount of damage for a 1st level PHB spell". That's an average of 9 damage, with a to-hit roll, to a single target. Burning Hands is 3d6 (average 10.5), to an area, with half damage even on a save. Magic Missile does 3d+3 (also average 10.5), with no attack roll nor save. Thunderwave is also 2d8 (average 9), but again in an area and half damage on a save. Chromatic Orb is 3d8 (average 13.5), and you can choose your damage type, and the component only costs 50 GP and isn't consumed, so the cost will quickly become trivial. Guiding Bolt is 4d6 (average 14). In fact, I don't think there's any 1st-level spell that does less damage than Ray of Sickness, aside from the paladin bonus-action spells (which are added on top of weapon damage, so still more damage per action than Ray of Sickness).

Hmm, that's actually fair. I'll correct myself: Its one of the highest damaging 1st level spells that also imposes a condition on the target.

Its one of the very few 1st level spells that deals damage and imposes a condition at the same time, even if that condition is only for 1 round. And the poisoned condition is quite powerful, provided you don't have to worry about Poison immunity.,

[Witty Username]

In an adventure like Temple of Elemental Evil, this would become very important.

At the moment, the players must be careful with their spell preparation. Going up against the fire cultists? Not much point in taking fireball. Earth cultists ahead? Better swap out the earthquake spell.

With no spell damage type, the players just use the same old spells every combat. Boring.

Spell choice is a meaningful choice, with consequences. I'm all for requiring players to make meaningful choices.

No Damage type, Maybe. But say if you took ball lightning instead of fireball, this same choice point would still exist. Just changes the whens and whys. I am not convinced no damage type is going to stop this, resistance is not as much of a factor as tactical need. OmniBall would still need to compete with hypnotic pattern or haste or counterspell, as they are useful in different contexts.



Also, if you look at Poison damage spells, they tend to do a high amount of damage, or at least higher than average. Consider Poison Spray, it was the first, and for a while only, d12 Cantrip in the game. Ray of Sickness is a first level spell that deals 2d8 damage and can cause the Poisoned condition, which is a very powerful Condition if it sticks. Not only does it deal a very high amount of damage for a 1st level PHB spell, but it causes a seriously debilitating condition that gives disadvantage on all attack rolls and ability checks. And it does so without any costly material components like Chromatic Orb has. Cloudkill is another high damaging poison spell. It deals 5d8 for 10 minutes, and it doesn't require creatures to breath to be affected by it.
Poison spray and Ray of Sickness have other balancing factors more pertinent than damage type though. Poison spray has the shortest possible range of a damage spell in the game at 5ft, where the d8 cantrips tend to have 60 to 90 ft ranges and no side effects where all other cantrips do sans firebolt (which has 120ft range and d10) do. While Ray of Sickness is the only spell I know of that requires both an attack roll and a saving throw to have any effect and requires concentration. Sorry, I was thinking Ray of Enfeeblement, still your chance of inflicting the poisoned condition is very low. I would point out that thunderwave also inflicts a condition and deals 2d8 damage to potentially multiple targets, prone is not that different than poisoned for a turn especially if the movement loss is relevant even if the range of the spell is much less.

[MrStabby]

No Damage type, Maybe. But say if you took ball lightning instead of fireball, this same choice point would still exist. Just changes the whens and whys. I am not convinced no damage type is going to stop this, resistance is not as much of a factor as tactical need. OmniBall would still need to compete with hypnotic pattern or haste or counterspell, as they are useful in different contexts.


Poison spray and Ray of Sickness have other balancing factors more pertinent than damage type though. Poison spray has the shortest possible range of a damage spell in the game at 5ft, where the d8 cantrips tend to have 60 to 90 ft ranges and no side effects where all other cantrips do sans firebolt (which has 120ft range and d10) do. While Ray of Sickness is the only spell I know of that requires both an attack roll and a saving throw to have any effect and requires concentration. Sorry, I was thinking Ray of Enfeeblement, still your chance of inflicting the poisoned condition is very low. I would point out that thunderwave also inflicts a condition and deals 2d8 damage to potentially multiple targets, prone is not that different than poisoned for a turn especially if the movement loss is relevant even if the range of the spell is much less.

Just off the top of my head... I think plane shift does as well.