D&D 4E 4e Monster Manual excerpt

[vagabundo]

Actually it isn't powerful at all. Unless there are additional information about charm effects the only thing the kiss does is that the character interposes himself when he is standing directly next to the Succubus and he won't attack her.
Other than that the victim is free to do what he wants including killing the Succubus minions or bosses.

Naw, the power has the Charm keyword. The DMG or more likely the MM will have the rest of the information on what can be done with Charm. I'd assume it would be similar to what could be accomplished with 3e Charm spell:

"Protect me, good friend! Your friends are possessed, I'll escape through the window"

 

[Derren]

Yes, let's toss a Pit Fiend into the sun and have it come out unharmed on the other side...

AFAIK, we have no living flame creatures in this world, so how can you claim that it is unrealistic that such a creature wouldn't be hurt by a stronger flame?

Wait, don't answer, because last time, it was a 10-pager as I recall, and quite boring.

To use the defense most 4E supporters use: Its fantasy, it doesn't have to be realistic.
PS: And please do what Cirex suggested. As soon as you managed to douse a fire with another fire without burning up all oxygen in a enclosed space (fire elementals are self sustaining) you can come with "realism argument, not sooner.

 

[hong]

To use the defense most 4E supporters use: Its fantasy, it doesn't have to be realistic.

Funny, that.

PS: And please do what Cirex suggested. As soon as you managed to douse a fire with another fire without burning up all oxygen in a enclosed space (fire elementals are self sustaining) you can come with "realism argument, not sooner.

Are you arguing with yourself now, Derren?

 

[Jack99]

To use the defense most 4E supporters use: Its fantasy, it doesn't have to be realistic.
PS: And please do what Cirex suggested. As soon as you managed to douse a fire with another fire without burning up all oxygen in a enclosed space (fire elementals are self sustaining) you can come with "realism argument, not sooner.

Are you saying that a flame = fire elemental? ><

 

[Derren]

Are you saying that a flame = fire elemental? ><

Fire Elemental(archon) = living flame to be exact.

 

[hong]

Fire Elemental(archon) = living flame to be exact.

Well, if you've already done one impossible thing before breakfast, let's plan to have lunch at Milliways!

 

[med stud]

And that name on the war devil stinks. The naming conventions of 4th ed continue to blow chunks. Next we'll have sword devils, mace devils and to feed them all, the evil cook devil.

I must be alone in liking the names. The naming conventions they are going for now reminds me much of Germanic naming conventions, something some WotC- employee said they are going for now.

Germanic languages often names thing with a noun + noun or noun + verb. A dragon that breaths fire is "fire dragon" in Swedish, femur is "thigh bone", batter is "strike man". I also like that there are no made up names like glabrezu and baatezu and stuff like that; I think learning curves should be kept to a minimum, and monster names is really one learning curve I defenitly can live without.

 

[vagabundo]

Fire Elemental(archon) = living flame to be exact.

Has that not changed in 4e? All the elementals seem more fleshy now, which would explain the lack of immunities.

To use the defense most 4E supporters use: Its fantasy, it doesn't have to be realistic.
PS: And please do what Cirex suggested. As soon as you managed to douse a fire with another fire without burning up all oxygen in a enclosed space (fire elementals are self sustaining) you can come with "realism argument, not sooner.

The flame being would lose coherency, if it was doused in a torrent of flame that was hot enough. It would no longer be an organised living being. Unless you were going to say they were magic, in which case it is the immunities that were unrealistic.

 

[Derren]

Has that not changed in 4e? All the elementals seem more fleshy now, which would explain the lack of immunities.

This definition comes directly from the Fire Archon preview article.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The closest thing we can try is to analyze what happens if we attack a fire with a bigger fire.

...

I can't believe I actually suggested that.

We really need to get the Myth Busters team to test this!