As AmberFD is explicitly parameterized to EDA, we should expect the best agreement from our model over the compared force fields for the remaining energy types. Rather than judging each force field's "accuracy" over DFT derived quantities other than E int , the performed decomposition is used to highlight the differences between what traditional force fields are designed to accomplish and what a more systematic parameterization might hope to achieve. As such, under or over estimation of any of the described energies are mostly referring to it's deviation from EDA-DFT derived values. An example of an obvious improvement that could be added to point-charge force fields is the inclusion of charge penetration effects, as see by the uniform differences in electrostatic energies ∆E elec for both stacked and H-bonded geometries using the other 3 force fields. It is here that charge penetration effects become clearly important, as even the addition of higher order multipole moments in AMOEBA only marginally improves the agreement with DFT. As E elec is computed solely from frozen fragment electron densities, there is very little room for ambiguity in how charge penetration could be modeled as long as some form of electron-electron repulsion dampening is used. On the other hand, polarization, charge transfer, and even dispersion energies at close ranges, and what constitutes Pauli repulsion, can be somewhat arbitrarily defined quantities and highly dependent on the decomposition scheme being used. It should be pointed out that all models fit the frozen charges/multipoles to some form of QM electrostatic potentials, either as initial quantities that are further refined in it's parameterization process (AmberFD, Drude-2017), or as final frozen electrostatic parameters (Amber99, AMOEBA).