Should Water and Ice be different elements?

[AkiraKotatsuhime]

[Fire] is burning air (not ~exactly~, but you know what I mean), [Wind] is fast moving air, also [Thunder] is not so far away from air, but you'd maybe never put them all together aswell (I guess).

There are two systems I know and understand well enough to be okay with and my answer if ice should be part of water depends on which of them resembles more your entire choice of elements (counting out [Light] and [Dark]):
★ [Earth] [Wind] [Fire] [Water] where [Thunder] is part of [Wind] as well as [Ice] in [Water].
★ [Earth] [Thunder] [Wind] [Ice] [Fire] [Water].

We could also slightly alter the 2nd one by replacing/renaming elements to more point out what they are meant for, like this:
★ [Ground] [Electricity] [Storm] [Coldness] [Heat] [Liquid].

Now it's not that easy anymore to e.g. just put cold-stuff into the liquid-part. But still, if you want to keep such system as simple as possible, having less elements will mostly never be a wrong choice (and if water and ice are defined as "same", wind and thunder should always be, too).

～炬燵あ

 

[TRIEBE]

There's no right or wrong interpretation about the independence of ice as an element. It literally depends on what makes senses inside your own world. People from it could even have different, conflicting views about such question.

I personally like @AkiraKotatsuhime 's proposal.

 

[Milennin]

Either way is fine, depending on how important it is to have them together or separated in terms of gameplay systems. If there is a high emphasis on elemental weakness systems, splitting them up might be better. If building a more compact system, you could just keep them the same element.

 

[woootbm]

To me, "ice" makes me think of frozen water. So it sounds redundant to have both. Maybe have cold and water if you want to have that many elements. This is all irrelevant anyway, because whether you should have more elements or fewer elements should purely hinge on your scope and your design.

In terms of scope, do you really want to make both types of assets?
In terms of design, do you have distinct enough skills to justify having both? Are they both compelling?

If you want to get really philosophical, heat and cold are the same "element" since temperature is the measure of how much heat there is; there is no such thing as a negative amount of heat.
Which is why the theoretical coldest temperature is referred to as "absolute zero."

 

[Crowverlord]

If you're going for a small elemental wheel with very few elements, no.

If you're thinking big with at least ten, it's obligatory.

'Earth' and 'Metal' have more chemical differences than Water and Ice anyways.

 

[ATT_Turan]

I mean, I suppose that strictly speaking there are changes enough at molecular level to warrant a different element

Strictly speaking, that's not accurate - water isn't an element, but the elements that create it at the molecular level (two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen) are exactly the same whether it's water, ice or steam.

So if you're going by actual molecular makeup, neither water nor ice should be considered an element

If you're not going by that, then you're already making things up and you should simply make it up in the way that seems sensible/logical/balanced to you.

As you reference in your opening post, there are dozens of existing video games that use elemental magic and have it both ways (water/ice being the same and being different), so...take your pick. I don't think other people's opinions need to influence yours.

 

[Silenity]

Depends on the game naturally.

I tend to gravitate towards the usual RPG 6. However, I do like Theo and Akira's logic on elements.
I'm actually working on something that combines the two and strips it down to 3 action elements and 4 classic elements.

You have 3 action damage types: Slash / Pierce / Strike
and 4 elemental damage types: Burn / Cold / Storm / Earth

Burn represents Fire/Explosion
Cold represents Water/Ice
Storm represents Lightning/Wind
Earth represents Stone/Nature

Still kinda working on the naming conventions for the 4 elements but it gives you a good idea.

Damaging skills will always deal an action damage type but not always an elemental damage type.

Here are some quick examples:
Laser Beam: Pierce + Burn damage
Aqua Jet: Pierce + Cold damage
Stone Smash: Strike + Earth damage
Vine Whip: Slash + Earth damage
Lightning Arc: Strike + Storm damage

 

[Dark_Ansem]

I'm in dismay I forgot to add a poll option to this.

 

[Phantomsurf]

The choice to combine them or keep them separate is really up to the game designer- I've had fun with games where they're separate and ones where they're combined. It all depends on the game design itself accommodating them well. Pokemon is a great example of how separating them just adds unnecessary complexity and a type which is basically useless in the modern meta. HEARTBEAT is a great example of how separating them can make an interesting elemental wheel that doesn't feel out of place.

I personally wound combine them. It's simple and this also makes a great "opposite" to fire. Fire can melt the ice or evaporate the water, while water can douse the fire. It also just makes the water moveset a lot more varied and interesting, so it's not all bubbles and tsunami waves (always my favorite element anyways though, lol).

 

[JohnDoeNews]

Yes. With water and ice you can do such different things.

 

[jonthefox]

Depends on your game obviously, but I'd say yes. Having "water" spells in a game that also has "ice" spells to me is like having "wind" spells in a game that also has "thunder" spells. I would not combine thunder and wind as the same element, nor would I combine ice and water. If my game has water and wind spells, I would make them their own elements, or I would just make those spells unique and not part of a specific element category.

This is also similar to how I would use a "quake" spell. If my "earth" element were for boulder and quake spells, fine - and I would NOT put "poison" spells as "earth" element. If my "earth" element were for poison and acid spells, then I would NOT also put quake in this category. They're different. Just my preference!

 

[kirbwarrior]

If you use a water jet/torrent, you are not doing water damage. You are doing impact damage.
If you are using an ice spike, you are not doing ice damage. You are doing piercing damage.

To me, I'd assume the first attack does water/impact damage, the second does ice/piercing damage. A fire cares about the water, while a wall shrugs off piercing damage.

 

[TheoAllen]

To me, I'd assume the first attack does water/impact damage, the second does ice/piercing damage. A fire cares about the water, while a wall shrugs off piercing damage.

Fire is heat damage, being wet adds resistance to heat-based damage
Also, ice could also be categorized as cold-based damage. Because being frozen is also damaging.

 

[kirbwarrior]

Fire is heat damage, being wet adds resistance to heat-based damage

Being wet is a great state wait

Also, ice could also be categorized as cold-based damage. Because being frozen is also damaging.

Yeah, cold definitely makes sense as a damage type.

Which, cold vs water makes sense as differing "elements". Ice is just a representation of cold and thus would explain why it was named such in many rpgs. But to break things down further about the above, I like systems where there are "damage" types and "elemental" types. This usually means having exactly one of the former and at least one of the latter. So "Icicle" would be piercing/water, "Torrent" would be impact/water, "Freeze" cold/water, etc.

 

[Tai_MT]

Honestly, the only real issue you'll have is one I've discussed at length with another (former?) user.

"GUIDE DANG IT!"

If your elements are "difficult to intuit", then you need a guide to help figure them out and remember them.

While I had no issue memorizing the vast majority of the Pokemon type chart (at least initially, before we added new types and changed some things around), I'm currently having a VERY HARD time making sense of the type chart in "TemTem".

Pokemon starts you off simple. Fire, Water, Plant. Fire beats Plant, Plant beats Water, Water beats Fire. Easy to understand. Then, it introduces you to two (or three) new elements. Flying, Electric, Bug. It then puts you up against enemies strong/weak to those so you can learn. It slowly introduces the other elements as you move along... finally giving you "Dragon" at the Elite Four. Which, you would likely never know the weaknesses to without the type chart.

TemTem, on the other hand, introduces you to: Crystal, Fighting, Mental. Okay, how does this work? An NPC tells you, but it's difficult to remember. Crystal is strong against Mental (why? no idea). Metal is good against Fighting (okay, reference to Pokemon, makes sense, mind over matter and all). Fighting is strong against Crystal (okay, somewhat makes sense, fighters can smash stone, I guess? Maybe?).

Then, it gets complicated. The area you start in has two new types to teach you. Flying and Neutral. What's strong against Flying? Just Electric. Nothing else. You don't have access to the Eletric Type yet. But, a few trainers you fight do. What's strong against Neutral? Mental. Just mental. You only have access to "Mind" types if you picked the Mind starter. It gets worse. You pick up two more types along the way. Nature and Electric. Electric is the most overpowered Element in the game. It is super effective against 1/3rd of the type chart (4 of 12! Mental, Water, Flying, and Digital!). It is only weak against two elements (Earth and Crystal). Nature is strong against Earth and Water. It's weak to Fire and Toxic (you might have access to Toxic moves/mons later!). Then, you get "Water" types. Water is strong against Earth, Fire and Digital. It's weak to Electric, Nature, and Toxic.

You MIGHT be able to dabble in another element before you beat the first "Zone" as well... "Toxic". What is Toxic good against? Water and Nature. What is its weakness? Just Flying.

You see how complicated that got very quickly? With the correct mons missing, it's difficult to remember any of this off-hand. You need the guide for it.

NO slow ramp up of the types to let you get used to them. No strengths or weaknesses to easily learn. Most of your party will consist primarily of Water/Flying types and the few Electric types they give you early on render much of the rest of the game "a moot point". The chart is difficult to memorize and the design of the game doesn't give you many clues or even the ability to "intuit" anything very easily.

For example: Why is Crystal weak to Fire? I dunno. But, it is! Why is Crystal strong against Mental? NO IDEA! What about Digital? Why is Digital weak to Electric and Water and Itself? Why is it only strong against Mental, Digital, and Fighting?

So, to get back to the topic at hand:

Should Ice and Water be separate or distinct?

I've played it both ways. The biggest issue I run into isn't whether or not they SHOULD be distinct or not... it's how the "type chart" works with it.

My own game separates them out, but there's game lore for that. The power to move and form Ice is different than the power to move and form Water. Ice doesn't have to be water in my game either. It can be any liquid. Even gasses (yep, you can turn a gas into ice and fling it at someone). Water is... just water. It isn't the power to move any and every liquid. Just the power to move one liquid: Water.

There is overlap, but they are not the same. A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not a square.

As such, I don't even have the traditional "type chart" either. Each "element" works on a different kind of "beast". Yes, you can use Fire against Nature types, but you're more likely to run into "Dragon" than "Nature" as a typing. You're more likely to run into "Insect" than you would "Fire" as a typing. Put simply, I have two separate charts that don't really interact that much.

Fire, Water, Earth, Air, Ice, Lightning.
Beast, Insect, Dragon, Demon, Plant, Armored, Aquatic, Undead, Angel.

So, with that said, why does one "element" have to be stronger than another? Why have any interaction at all? Is there a need to make Fire weak to Water? Or, can Fire just be strong against Beasts, Insects, and Plants, but weak against Dragons, Demons, and Aquatics?

Separate Water and Ice if you like. Combine them if you like. Just don't make it into a "GUIDE DANG IT!" with your type chart. Keep it simple if you can. Easily intuited if possible.

 

[Trihan]

Well actually, to me it never made sense why Aero and Earth are opposites, I just accepted it after seeing this in a lot of JRPGs.

So for me, in some projects, I used Water as a separate element - but it was limited to Healing whereas Ice was for attacks.

Also, there's no rule that every element must have its opposite, and vice versa. In Child of Light, the rule is:

Thunder > Water > Fire > Earth

You may think that Thunder is OP, but the rules don't mean that Thunder does extra damage on Fire or Water on Earth. Furthermore, there's no Earth Skill, so this asymmetric system checks out in the end.

I believe the root of this is in the concept that the earth doesn't touch things that are in the air, which I believe is what led to the common mechanic of flying enemies being immune or resistant to earth damage. So then logically air defeats earth, and there isn't really another available element for earth to defeat so it ends up strong against air (but not flying).

 

[Eden019]

Water and Ice should be one element. In my game, I have both water / ice spells. Water spells are likely basic of the element , meanwhile ice spells are "Water" spells with the ability to inflict "Freeze" to enemies.

So, that's how I simplify both of them.

 

[Accendor]

This reminds me about the discussion about what type of damage steam does in I think world of warcraft at some point.
Is it fire damage because of the heat?
Is it water damage, because Steam is a state of water?
Is it nature damage (cant remember the argument for this)
There was a huge discussion by the dev team going on at some point, but I can't seem to find it anymore.

 

[Corygon]

I'd say that they should. In my opinion, it wouldn't make sense to use Ice-based magic on fiery enemies, or something like that.

 

[DrBuni]

To me, less is more. There is no reason to add another element when it could be a sub-category of an existing one. So Ice falls under Water to me, but it is not like I will rage if I see both Water and Ice as elements in a game or anything like that.