D&D 4E My Least Favourite Thing About 4e is Forced Balance

[Incenjucar]

Fire Archon (4e's fire elemental) in the Monster Vault has resist 20 fire. Am I missing something?

MM3 introduced "classic" fire elementals with no fire resistance whatsoever. Similar oddities include volcanic dragons and magma elementals.

 

[Wormwood]

MM3 introduced "classic" fire elementals with no fire resistance whatsoever. Similar oddities include volcanic dragons and magma elementals.

Ahhhh. Thanks!

Just read it. Looks like I have a new house rule.

 

[LurkAway]

You can't simply walk into a fire elemental, either.

Not that you mention it, I think you should simply be able to walk through a fire elemental (vs a magma elemental or suchlike) albeit get burned badly. Likewise, a fire elemental could just try to overrun foes like a wildfire, burning everything inside it.

 

[LurkAway]

For me, balancing feels forced (or contrived) the moment that micro-balanced rules have superseded the story I'd enjoy organically.

For example, I don't have a problem with a keen-eyed clever rogue who can sneak attack a zombie by knowing to blast its brains out.

But I do have a problem if only a rogue can "automatically" know or discover that zombie brain is the weak spot (especially if lacking zombie lore or prior experience).

And I do have a problem if an expert shotgun fighter can't deduce the same trick of blasting zombie brains just like the rogue did.

But I don't have a problem if it's a fast-moving zombie that dodges the fighter's shotgun blasts to the head, until that zombie is shot in the back of the head by the rogue who quietly snuck around from behind.

So the process matters. Fictional positioning matters. Simply stereotyping rogues as having a monopoly on finding the weak spots of all undead feels forced and contrived.

So sell me on the process(ess) of how rogues know how to sneak attack all undead in all scenarios regardless of morphology and why fire elementals should or should not have fire immunity and maybe I'll tell you "wow, that's a great story!" and issues of balance won't even come to mind.

Otherwise, I can't help but feel that a lame story or non-existent story is a slave to balance.

And I believe this view is somewhat supported by 5E previews stating that the story is the soul of D&D, and the rules will support the story.

 

[Incenjucar]

Not that you mention it, I think you should simply be able to walk through a fire elemental (vs a magma elemental or suchlike) albeit get burned badly. Likewise, a fire elemental could just try to overrun foes like a wildfire, burning everything inside it.

It comes down to the fact that whoever wrote the 4E fire elemental wrote it with a different idea than what pops into your head when I say "fire elemental." It's like how you might think "green and regenerates" when I say troll, but I actually mean "gray and turns to stone in sunlight."

If they weren't so stingy with the monster books, maybe we could have BOTH types of fire elemental by now, eh?

 

[herrozerro]

I dont have any issue with a fire elemental missing resistance or immunity, I can definitely see a fire elemental being hurt by fire. Weather by burning the fire elemental be making it take damage because its overburning whatever sustain's its lifeforce or whatever reason you'd like.

Doesnt hurt my immersion.

 

[The Little Raven]

I dont have any issue with a fire elemental missing resistance or immunity, I can definitely see a fire elemental being hurt by fire. Weather by burning the fire elemental be making it take damage because its overburning whatever sustain's its lifeforce or whatever reason you'd like.

Doesnt hurt my immersion.

Same here.

When a campfire meets a flamethrower in battle, the flamethrower wins.

 

[LurkAway]

It comes down to the fact that whoever wrote the 4E fire elemental wrote it with a different idea than what pops into your head when I say "fire elemental." It's like how you might think "green and regenerates" when I say troll, but I actually mean "gray and turns to stone in sunlight."

I don't think that whoever wrote the 4e elemental thought about it at all one way or another. Or if they did, they disregarded an idea that was unbalancing or didn't fit the math IMO.

 

[keterys]

Eh, I know the guy who worked on them. It was thought about. It was an active (albeit experimental) decision, and there are very good reasons for it.

Of course, that doesn't make it necessarily popular

 

[herrozerro]

I think all of this "Oh Noes! My immersion is broked!" comes from people bring their own preconceptions into the game and not trying to instead look at it from where the game might be coming from instead.

Rogues sneak attacking skeletons? it should only break your immersion if you have a preconception of what seank attack should do. if sneak attack is described as going after weak points of an enemy you should have no problem coming up with the thought that you could be attacking joints or other weak spots.

its not the game breaking your immersion its preconceptions I believe that break your immersion.