Anyone know why vulnerabilities are gone?

O

Otterscrubber

First Post

• Jun 3, 2009

• #1

Well they are not gone, but pretty much the only creature with a vulnerability is undead having vulnerability to radiant. Fire creatures no longer have weaknesses to cold or water, Cold creatures no longer have any particular reason to hate fire wielding attackers(with very few exceptions). Why did they limit this so much, I always thought this added some good flavor. Was there a balance issue?

 

log in or register to remove this ad

GMforPowergamers

Legend

• Jun 3, 2009

• #2

there are still vuneable fire, and cold, however there is no more gurantee restance to one does not mean vunrable to the other...

 

Nail

First Post

• Jun 3, 2009

• #3

Otterscrubber said:

Well they are not gone, but pretty much the only creature with a vulnerability is undead having vulnerability to radiant. Fire creatures no longer have weaknesses to cold or water, Cold creatures no longer have any particular reason to hate fire wielding attackers(with very few exceptions). Why did they limit this so much, I always thought this added some good flavor. Was there a balance issue?

Click to expand...

Good question. IMO, they should bring 'em back. It makes no sense that Frost Hounds don't have fire vulnerability.

Of course, for the edition I've been saying "it makes no sense" alot.... Ah well. Time to drink more o' that Kool-aid.

 

keterys

First Post

• Jun 3, 2009

• #4

Eh, I think the whole fire/cold opposite thing got a little overdone. In general I'd like to see a lot more vulnerabilities to all of the energies. So, necrotic vulnerability here, thunder vulnerability there, etc.

 

Derulbaskul

Adventurer

• Jun 3, 2009

• #5

Mike Mearls is on record as saying he disagrees with resistances and vulnerabilities, IIRC.

I think this is one of the weakest 4E design choices.

I like a good mixture of immunities, resistances and vulnerabilities. My own 4E monsters have them: I just add them back in. I look at the picture of a hellhound and see that it is made of flames. I think it's safe to say that 1. it's going to really resistant if not outright immune to fire (immune is my choice) and 2. water and cold should bugger it up.

For me, if a creature has a breath weapon then it should either be immune to the damage type completely or be resistant enough to take no damage from its own breath weapon otherwise it should be torn apart by its own internal energies.

Anyway, easy enough to add back in but not something I think that should have been taken out in the first place.

 

Victim

First Post

• Jun 3, 2009

• #6

Maybe it's just the monsters my group tended to fight, but vulnerability in DnD always seemed to be represented more by a lack of resistance.

Cold/Fire creatures were almost always more defended against their own element than they were vulnerable to the opposite. Especially since many monsters could have access to Energy Resist/Protection spells.

 

A

AllisterH

First Post

• Jun 3, 2009

• #7

Vulnerability basically means "kill me faster"..never really agreed with that personally.

 

CapnZapp

Legend

• Jun 3, 2009

• #8

Yeah, when was the last time the adventurers didn't use fire against Hell Hounds?

Adding vulnerable just weakens the monster for no good reason.

At least radiant isn't so easy to get hold of. I'll be limiting access to radiant to "holy" characters, essentially making undead vulnerability a reward to them.

There isn't any such theme for fire or cold. I'd use vulnerable sparingly. In fact, I bet the PCs themselves find ways to slap vulnerable onto critters, at least once they reach Paragon tier.

 

R

Regicide

Banned

Banned

• Jun 3, 2009

• #9

CapnZapp said:

Adding vulnerable just weakens the monster for no good reason.

Click to expand...

So minions...

And I think there are lots of good reasons for it, including making fights more interesting but also more importantly to actually have things work the way the player feels they should to aid immersion.

CapnZapp said:

At least radiant isn't so easy to get hold of. I'll be limiting access to radiant to "holy" characters, essentially making undead vulnerability a reward to them.

Click to expand...

Congratulations on your new character, and since you randomly picked the type I, the DM, like the most, you get to be cooler than the rest?

 

keterys

First Post

• Jun 3, 2009

• #10

I wonder why the theory is that all fire creatures are more hurt by cold, or vice versa... I mean, if you use fire on an ice creature, it gets melty! And if you fire on a normal creature, it becomes dinner.

Being really hot or really cold could just as easily be greater resistance to the other, because it requires a larger amount of energy and you're effectively buffered against the badness, rather than more damage.

Now, I do like things like cold slowing magma creatures, sure... but more damaged? Dubious.