D&D (2024) Force damage in one dnd

[Valetudo]

I'm not a fan of how wotc is switching some things over to force damage. This is gonna hurt barbys alot. Even wildhearts are gonna get slapped around. It seem like every creature and their mother is getting a force option that bypasses the barby rage resistance. I would like to see a resist vulnerability update, but I'm not sure if I like how they are handling it(admitting we haven't seen monsters yet).

 

[Will Brandiman]

I agree. The move away from 'magical' attacks to force damage makes little sense and I really don't think that WotC thought this through when they wrote the Wildheart barb. I also struggle to see what the problem is with the existing mechanics. It makes sense thematically and mechanically.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Force damage is fine, as long as they increase how available resistence to it is.

Barbarians should have resistence to at least acid, cold, fire, poison, lightning, thunder, damages, in the base rage feature.

 

[mellored]

I'm not a fan of how wotc is switching some things over to force damage. This is gonna hurt barbys alot. Even wildhearts are gonna get slapped around. It seem like every creature and their mother is getting a force option that bypasses the barby rage resistance. I would like to see a resist vulnerability update, but I'm not sure if I like how they are handling it(admitting we haven't seen monsters yet).

IMO, the creatures getting force damage, where ones with magical attacks.

So Barbarians where going to take damage from those monsters either way. (Except bear, which is intentionally nerfed).

 

[MatthewJHanson]

I agree. Force damage was super well defined before, but not it's further muddied to also include monsters that just have really strong attacks, and the only thing I see it saving is deleting the special ability entry to say that a monsters attacks were magical. Were a lot of GMs overlooking that entry, or did the one sentence take up too much space?

My idea is to just include it in the weapon line: "Slam. Magic Melee Weapon Attack:"

Force damage is fine, as long as they increase how available resistence to it is.

Part of the point of force damage is that finding resistance to is much rarer, so that it's a "better" damage type. Broach of shielding just became a lot more useful though.

So Barbarians where going to take damage from those monsters either way. (Except bear, which is intentionally nerfed).

No, barbarian's rage ability is: "You have resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage." Nothing about it being magical.

 

[Charlaquin]

No, barbarian's rage ability is: "You have resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage." Nothing about it being magical.

In the playtests, yes. In the 2014 PHB, it’s nonmagical bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing.

 

[RoughCoronet0]

In the playtests, yes. In the 2014 PHB, it’s nonmagical bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing.

Barbarians resist all bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage in the 2014 player handbook as well though. It doesn’t specify that it’s only non-magic damage like for other class abilities.

 

[CleverNickName]

I'm not a fan of how wotc is switching some things over to force damage. This is gonna hurt barbys alot. Even wildhearts are gonna get slapped around. It seem like every creature and their mother is getting a force option that bypasses the barby rage resistance. I would like to see a resist vulnerability update, but I'm not sure if I like how they are handling it(admitting we haven't seen monsters yet).

I really don't like the use of the word Force in D&D. Words mean things, and that's just not the right word for what the game is trying to describe. They call it "force" but I think they really mean "impact." But I digress.

Barbarians should be resistant to force damage. Since I'm both an engineer and a pedant: piercing, bludgeoning, and slashing damage is all "force damage" when it hits something. Force = (mass)(acceleration), so if you swing anything with a mass (ie., a weapon) and swing, drop, throw, shoot, or otherwise accelerate it, you create force. There's more to it, of course--it's not the "force" that's doing damage, it's the impulse, collision, time of impact--but you get where I'm coming from.

 

[Charlaquin]

I really don't like the use of the word Force in D&D. Words mean things, and that's just not the right word for what the game is trying to describe. They call it "force" but I think they really mean "impact." But I digress.

Barbarians should be resistant to force damage. Since I'm both an engineer and a pedant: piercing, bludgeoning, and slashing damage is all "force damage" when it hits something. Force = (mass)(acceleration), so if you swing anything with a mass (ie., a weapon) and swing, drop, throw, shoot, or otherwise accelerate it, you create force. There's more to it, of course--it's not the "force" that's doing damage, it's the impulse, collision, time of impact--but you get where I'm coming from.

That’s exactly why I think force damage is actually not impact. D&D, or at least 5e, seems to treat “force damage” as essentially untyped damage. It’s just, direct harm without any particular medium to be resisted. No mass, no acceleration (so not actually force in the physics sense), just magically induced destruction of tissue. Especially with the apparent move towards force damage replacing magical damage as the standard means of circumventing resistance/immunity to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing, I think they’re using the word force to mean “an unstoppable force” rather than F=MA

 

[CleverNickName]

That’s exactly why I think force damage is actually not impact. D&D, or at least 5e, seems to treat “force damage” as essentially untyped damage. It’s just, direct harm without any particular medium to be resisted. No mass, no acceleration (so not actually force in the physics sense), just magically induced destruction of tissue. Especially with the apparent move towards force damage replacing magical damage as the standard means of circumventing resistance/immunity to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing, I think they’re using the word force to mean “an unstoppable force” rather than F=MA

Huh. I admit, that's a better (or at least, more elegant) solution to the problem I was having. Cheers!