So...why are both Rock and Ground separate instead of one, big Earth-type?

[Superfox]

I guess this is a weird question, but I was just thinking about it recently. I know that we've come to regard them as different, but Rock and Ground are technically the same thing, scientifically speaking. Sedimentary rock is essentially dirt that's been compacted and hardened. Likewise, dirt (ground) in many cases is rock that's been eroded and broken down. So...why did Pokémon make Ground and Rock into separate types instead of consolidating them into one big "Earth-type"?

It just seems weird to me that there's a distinction in this franchise between two things that are essentially the same.

 

[Amore]

Your title says the exact opposite of the question you ask, btw.

Perhaps its because, if you compare say, some volcanic rocks, and some sand, their properties are vastly different? I guess its like how we have separate Ice and Water types. Unlike your simplified explanation of "rocks and dirt", pure Ice and pure Water are both H2O, chemically identical, but different states and thus have different properties. Going through the rock cycle, you could consider Sandstone and sand to be the same in many ways, but they're at a different stage in the cycle and have different properties - a house made from sand in my area would collapse in the rain, my house is made from sandstone from probably around 50m away, and has stood for hundreds of years just fine.

 

[Rivuhh]

Rock and ground are completely different to me. When I think of ground, I think of the earth's layers. However, when I think of Rock, I think of mountains and stuff. I think there's a difference for them and the classifications are good. However, I do understand your logic and it was a good point.

 

[XeroNos]

I am not a good science student but I will say here that an Earth type is a weird name for me because if you talk about an earth type many other types also come in this categorie making it hard to let fans enjoy. I am talking about Water, Fire, Steel,Ice,Grass type here specially

 

[moon]

Want me to edit that title?

I think of Rock type as "mineral" type, sorta. Boldore and its family is a great example of the manifestation of Rock type. Hard, sharp, gleaming and not always animal-like.

Ground type is more, hmm, like Nidoking, Camerupt and Sandshrew. Has to do with being sandy or digging or earthquaky. Think of Diglett and Drilbur - digging digging digging. Onix and Rhydon are ground type AND rock type. Because they are both digging and living in the earth as well as rock-skinned and rough. While Aron is more about eating minerals and being steel hard with armor.

Steel is some kind of refined Rock type. Refined ore, eh?

So, you could think of Ground type as "Digging/Sand" type in order to understand better. Still doesn't completely make sense, but at least more so imo.

 

[Elaitenstile]

The types are mostly selected on an elemental basis, on the dissimilarities we face in everyday life. That's why there's no telling what type GameFreak can cook up. The fact that Pokémon is mainly for kids also influences it a bit. In nature, what's telling it the difference between Bug and Normal and Grass is huge, can't they just be a "Nature" type? And then Psychic with Fairy, too. Even Dark and Ghost come around together, if you think about it.

And then again, Ice and Water are exactly and essentially the same, but in the elemental point of view, there's a lot of difference. The types originate from the Five Elements thing: "Earth, Water, Fire, Nature and Air" (Or a similar comparison). Obviously, Ground and Rock are different in the sense that Rock deals with hard, sturdy and inanimate objects, and Ground deals with the strong and bulky ground. Granted, they are similar in many ways, but it's better the division was made. As such, "Dragon" is purely based on species and could easily classify for Normal types or Fire types or something of the sort if this classification wasn't made. In fact, thinking about it harder, Psychic and Electric could come together as an "Energy" type.

Remember that Light type speculation? The main reason it isn't that impressive is because there aren't just enough things that can go into the "Light" type base.

Another reason why Earth isn't there is because of bad interaction with other types. Rocks can bring birds down, but earthquakes go unnoticed. It would be weird if Rock Blast won't affect Pidgey or Earthquake be super effective against it.

I think it will stay better with Rock and Ground. Ground is more close to "Earth" than Rock, since rocks do come from volcanoes and stuff.

It might have been possible before they started Pokémon, but right now, it's out of our reach to do so.

 

[Aeroblast]

Rock and Ground, although their composition may be the same, their surface and texture are different.

★Hoenn★ brings up a good point with Ice and Water. Although they have the same composition, their properties are not exactly the same.

 

[Entermaid]

Chibi Pelippers explains my exact thoughts on why rock and ground types have distinct properties.

I would like to add that an Earth type, which I have seen in poke-clone games, blur rock, ground, and grass elements. It's too broad of a typing.

 

[Livewire]

I think it's the same reasoning why Dark, Psychic, Ghost and Fairy are all seperate types instead of one. (all occult/supernatural things) The need for type diversity, and there's enough reasoning to seperate them based on a few key differences.

Plus, I always took the Ground type as a representation of earth-dwelling creatures, (Mammals and Reptiles) ones that live in deserts, caves, etc. Whereas Rock types were more inanimate, mineral-based ones, like Onix, etc.

 

[Brendino]

I think quite a few people have hit the nail on the head in that Ground types aren't necessarily Pokemon that are of the Earth, but rather they just live in the ground or spend a lot of time there. Rock types, though, typically have the appearance of rocks themselves, sans some of the resurrected fossil Pokemon.

A combined ground and rock type isn't all that strange a thought, though, as the TCG has combined the two of them alongside Fighting types from the very beginning. And being someone who played with the cards well before I got into the games, it was a little shocking knowing that some of these Pokemon came from 3 different types.

 

[Shrew]

So many people posted the example of Water and Ice before I could. :P I feel the same way about the rock-type some times. I think one thing that might distinguish the two in your minds is to think of how the moves interact with different types:

Say you had a bird-pokemon. If you were to imagine an earthquake striking from below it, the opponent tunneling with Dig and popping up from underneath, or grains of sand that could easily be gusted away... it's easy to imagine these moves being weak or ineffective against Flying-types.

Yet if you threw a rock. No, even moreso, if a natural diaster known as a Rock Slide were to strike at the bird, the bird's wings would be crushed.

Seeing as how many pokemon in the originals made use of the Rock and Ground combination, this very well may have been intended, similar to how a Water type pokemon could freeze its element to suddenly defeat grass types.

I do think that if they were to get rid of a type completely, that Ground and Rock being merged would be the most deserving. :)

(no one dare bring up bone moves as a counter argument those never made sense)

 

[Cerberus87]

Same reason Water and Ice are separate, I believe. I like it because it adds variety to the type chart.

 

[Turnip]

I've noticed a lot of people are comparing these two to Water and Ice, and I agree with the arguments for the most part - Rock and Ground types deserve to be different because of the difference in properties, as do Water and Ice.

However, I will say that Water and Ice are in essence very different types, because Ice governs not just ice itself, but the essence of cold. It's basically a "Cold" type, but under a different name, therefore having a fundamental reason for being implemented and not necessarily being as similar to Water type as it would originally seem.

Still, that doesn't mean that Rock and Ground types aren't too different to be separate, it's just that using Water and Ice types as a similar argument isn't necessarily valid.

 

[Snowdrop]

There's a good point, but I'd say it's the softness. Rock tends to represent bulky, big, tankers while Ground is softer and represents the swifter or slimmer Pokemon (in comparison to rock at least). Rock seems designed for taking huge hits while sand was more for dishing them out or evading them? But that's really general because I'm not really into Pokemon stats and not every Rock or Ground Pokemon is popping into my head now :P Let's see, Marowak, Flygon, Sandshrew, Garchomp, Donphan... and then there's Golem, Onix, Gigalith, Pupitar... it looks like the Ground type adds a bit of flexibility to the design, while many Rock Types kind of adhere to a formula. And steel is just refined ore (thanks, Toph!) but is very different from rocks in its color, sheen, properties, etc.

 

[SmashBrony]

What about the TCG?
Would it be more interesting if there were a "mineral" type to seperate what would be rock & ground-type pokemon from the fighting-type?

 

[Superfox]

In nature, what's telling it the difference between Bug and Normal and Grass is huge, can't they just be a "Nature" type? And then Psychic with Fairy, too. Even Dark and Ghost come around together, if you think about it.

Um, because bugs are animals while grass is a type of plant.

I get where a lot of you are coming from with these responses, and yeah, I guess there is a difference in properties between rocks and regular dirt. However, if we're going by that logic, there's still inconsistencies.

For example, the Grass type. I'm pretty sure trees and woody plants have several different properties from herbaceous plants. However, there is no off-shoot called the "Wood" type (which wouldn't even be too extreme as Wood is one of the five elements in Wu Xing). They're all still grouped into the Grass type, which isn't even a proper name when you think of it. It just has a better ring to it than "Plant" type.

Likewise, Pokémon like Paras/Parasect, Shroomish/Breloom, and Foongus/Amoongus, which are based on fungi, organisms that aren't even in the plant kingdom, are part of the Grass type.

Also, for those who look to the Water/Ice split, there's still one thing that is still a bit different there. Ice and Water in most cases of symbolism are for the most part divorced. Ice has a key property that is not associated with liquid water: coldness. And I know that "cold" is just the lack of heat, but in a symbolic context, ice/cold is used to symbolize the cultures and environments of the north. Its why there is a dichotomy between Ice and Fire, with one representing heat and another representing cold. That "coldness" can't really be encapsulated in the regular Water typing.

I guess you could say something similar to Rock and Ground, but its to a much lesser extent. I mean, I guess one could say Rock represents mountainous environment and a mineral-like nature and Ground is more akin to desert and mud. But, I dunno, it still seems like too much of a manufactured differentiation to me.

Look, I'm not saying its wrong that Pokémon has done this. But that it seems weird when there's a lot of other differentiations that could have been made instead.

 

[WhiteKnightL]

Everyone pretty much nailed it so I won't say much.

When I think of Rock types, i think of boulders. Just think, a big boulder sounds good enough to break a block of ice (which would best explain Ice's weakness to the former). Tossing dirt or sand at the block of ice won't do any good, in fact it may stick to it.