General Monster Manual 3 Thread

[circadianwolf]

Even funnier is that he brings it up in this thread, wherein a dev explained the reasons behind its lack of fire resist/immunity. It's good to know people read threads before they post to them!

 

[Herschel]

If someone really has a problem with it, just think of it this way: They are damaged by the MAGIC in the magical fire, not the fire in it. They (in a sense) feed off the fire in it and project it in an aura now, reflecting that portion of teh energy back at its foes.

IOW, the magical fire is conjured, not summoned.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The whole debate is what is preposterous. Magic doesn't have any rules except whatever is in the game. Maybe not everyone can quite separate reality from fantasy...

On a more useful note, I like the new Hags. The Pact Hag should be a lot of fun, hehe!

 

[quishadi]

Before I start - MM3 is awesome. The monsters are interesting, and the fluff is welcome. I really like the overall higher damage, more accurate brutes, and the welcome sight of some old monsters retooled from previous editions --- really good stuff. That said, I don't like everything. All in all though, I like .

To the four who posted before me: Wow ... pretty harsh. Truth is, none of the elemental "counter examples" on the WotC thread are from previous MM versions. One is from The Plane Below, and has the fire subtype, but no fluff, damage or mechanics relating to fire ... oh and it's both immune to lightning AND has resist 20 lightning ... but that's probably right also, because ya know the WotC editors never let typos slip through. Two are from dungeon magazine adventures (do they even edit those anymore?) and are minions and another is from an LFR module and is supposed to be an elite version of a Fire Bat (the base version is in MM and DOES have fire resistance). I know of no one that runs RUNES in the RUINS where the Elite Fire Bat does not have the Fire Bats normal resistance to fire --- it is assumed that it's an unintended omission. If you want, I can show you many other hinky monster stat block errors in LFR mods - including a swarm of spiders decked out in armor and carrying spears! The only one that I think might legitimately have no fire resistance if from The Plane Below and has both the fire and water subtypes --- I know of no other creature with both.

Truth is, prior to MM3 there isn't credible evidence that an elemental with subtype fire (and not also water) wouldn't normally have some fire resistance or even immunity.

Please, do not misunderstand me, I'm definitely not against the damaging feedback that some of the new monsters can dish out. In fact, I really like it. Regardless of what some of my fellow debaters from the WotC threads will tell you, I've never said otherwise. I only object to the lack of resistance/immunity. Given the existing rules in D&D 4e, it requires too much of a leap for me. Go ahead and tell me to "get over it" or "it's a fantasy game" or whatever. The truth is though, that some people (the game designers; some of you) are trying to tell me what is fun and what isn't and what I should be able to tolerate in terms buying into this setting so that I can immerse myself and just have a good time. For me, a fire elemental without fire resistance is just too much --- both in terms of my suspension of disbelief and also in terms of my trust in the consistency of the rules.

As a side note - I have already heard the arguments for allowing such monsters to live in punishing environments and ignore damage from associated hazards --- while at the same time being damaged by the same effects that just happen to be generated by PCs. I have yet to hear one argument that does not amount to fluff over rules. Nothing in the rules currently supports multiple fire damage types - there is only one, and lack of resistance means damage gets through. If such rules were to be clearly defined so that they could be consistently applied (and not just something a mod writer needs to interpret and hand wave his/her way through), I'd welcome it, and it would go a long way toward letting me suspend disbelief. As it stands, the three monsters that I am aware of (Fire Elemental, Volcanic Dragon and Blizzard Dragon) do not come with written resistances, and therefore require fudged resistance in order to live side-by-side with some of the common hazards for their respective preferred environments. In effect, this amounts to "immunity to fire (or cold) generated by most non-PC sources" and while it might help to move combats along, it does nothing for the internal consistency of the game.

I know that Greg from WotC has already weighed in, and there are no plans to change these monsters, so I know that what I've written on WotCs forums and here will make no difference. I'm only trying to explain my point of view and perhaps that of the others who keep getting beat up over our misgivings.

 

[Aegeri]

I've already explained to you the numerous modules that have terrain that affects PCs and not the monsters in them haven't I? I've also asked people about LFR to find you're incorrect that a module cannot specify something in its encounter, such as "X creature is immune/resistant to Y terrain effect" and have it accepted as rules. So in effect you're wrong on your core point there anyway.

But in the end a creature does not need - in effect - a "double" punishment mechanism. Reduced damage plus an effect that will go off regardless of what feats or similar you have against immunity/resistance, is really just doubling up on the "punishment" mechanism.

You do attempt to dismiss that there have been other fire subtype creatures that don't have immunity/resistance to fire, but only one of these is really a valid argument (It's likely the Storm that Walks *is* an oversight). None the less the point of these particular monsters is that they forgoe resistance for a different punishment mechanism.

If you are DMing you can simply give them resistance. Just like that the problem is solved. Amazingly hard that was. If you aren't get over it.

 

[Herschel]

I like resistences, heck I build a lot of my characters around having them. That said, I don't have a real issue with saying it's the magic and not the energy that hurts them. As I mentioned above, it's conjured energy, not summoned, so it's magical in nature, not strictly elemental like the, um, well, elemental is.

 

[MrMyth]

I like the idea of having 'tiers' of energy damage (mundane-tier, magic-tier, god-tier), so that you can easily establish certain creatures as immune to mundane flames but vulnerable to magical ones. But it doesn't seem likely we'll see that popping up in 4E any time soon.

As it is, I don't object to these 'altered resistances' as long as there is an appropriate flavor to go along with it. A fire elemental having an ability called, "The Brightest Flame Burns Fastest", which makes it more powerful whenever it takes fire damage, but still takes the damage, seems like a cool idea to me.

On the other hand, I wouldn't want to see such a thing as the only option - there is room for resistances too, I feel. When appropriate and handled well.

 

[quishadi]

I've already explained to you the numerous modules that have terrain that affects PCs and not the monsters in them haven't I?

You've said that they exist, but you haven't listed them. Also, for each one you can list, I'll bet you can also find something similar where that sort of hand waving was never used.

I've also asked people about LFR to find you're incorrect that a module cannot specify something in its encounter, such as "X creature is immune/resistant to Y terrain effect" and have it accepted as rules.

Sounds like you're not very familiar with LFR, RPGA, or what is Official and what isn't. I've actually gone so far as to provide you the exact text of the CCG with regard to where official rules can come from and whether or not DMs can substitute their own rules (little reminder - they can't). I don't know who these friends of yours are, but I do know that I've been doing this basically since LFR started, and that I DM with people that regularly judge at GenCon, Origins, etc. Here's something else that'll shock you: I'm not even the most strict (or pedantic as you like to say) one among them. (Far from it actually. That honor probably goes to a guy I'll just call Mr. Z. Truth is that agree with him or not, he is the goto guy in our area where the rules are concerned.) Module elements that fly in the face of official rules are sometimes, nipped in the bud before they can cause problems. For instance, while it makes sense that it would be more difficult to catch the edge and avoid going over a waterfall, we pretty much all agreed that we would give a saving throw even though the writer of ARTS specifically does not allow one. There is no place in the rules that supports this exception, and there are already other waterfalls and similarly slippery places in LFR mods that do not disallow a saving throw. If one writer allows a saving throw, but the next does not, then how are players reasonably supposed to make decisions. This in the end is what we try to avoid by actually doing what the CCG tells us to do - we try to avoid inconsistencies that cause players to question how the world will work from game session to game session and from DM to DM. That's why it's important to have solid core rules that work, and that do not require hand waving.

(As a side note - in a home game, you can decide that except in very special cases, no saving throw will be allowed when going over a waterfall. Guess what, you just made a house rule - I do that in my home games all the time. We are specifically not allowed to do that in LFR.)

But in the end a creature does not need - in effect - a "double" punishment mechanism. Reduced damage plus an effect that will go off regardless of what feats or similar you have against immunity/resistance, is really just doubling up on the "punishment" mechanism.

Punishment? Either way it's not a punishment so much as an incentive to never deal that type of damage to such a creature in the first place. Yes, in the case of resistances, a smart player can find ways around them, whereas with the damaging feedback this is currently less likely ... though, if this is the route WotC decides to take, I'd expect to see feats and items that mitigate or control damaging feedback.

You do attempt to dismiss that there have been other fire subtype creatures that don't have immunity/resistance to fire, but only one of these is really a valid argument (It's likely the Storm that Walks *is* an oversight). None the less the point of these particular monsters is that they forgoe resistance for a different punishment mechanism.

With that admission, you're down to two minions, each found only in a Dungeon Mag adventure, a TYPO on an LFR stat-block, and one that I think is probably legit (fire - water kind of cancel each other out).

If you are DMing you can simply give them resistance. Just like that the problem is solved. Amazingly hard that was. If you aren't get over it.

If you've never played an official game, where you are supposed to follow the rules as closely as you can, you just will never understand. The official rules are very important to the well being of shared games such as LFR, and every effort should be made to keep them straight-forward, consistent and fair. With the right rules, this addition will work. Right now we're stuck with hand waving.

 

[Aegeri]

You've said that they exist, but you haven't listed them.

Pyramid of shadows has such examples, a creature just ignores the damage from a zone. What this means is that if you reduce its resistances it still won't take damage - it's resistances aren't what makes it immune.

Sounds like you're not very familiar with LFR, RPGA, or what is Official and what isn't.

That's why I asked the admins and judges, all of whom tell me that you're wrong.

So who am I going to take the word of, the people who are running LFR and administrating it or you? You've actually been corrected several times in the other thread on this as well, where you just ignored the individuals who corrected your misconceptions (Noting that the response is to another poster, but note that the response is from an LFR Global Admin and matches what I've already been told about how LFR games are run. The DM can indeed change things as they see fit within reason. I also asked about if modules could set such things and the answer was also yes, that a DM could change a module as it was written or keep to whatever RAW within. If a module said the creature was immune to X fire zone, despite not having fire resistance/immunity, then indeed it CAN be because that's what the module said. So there you go).

So this argument is firmly dead now, because when everyone else tells me you're actually wrong on this point I'm going to take their word for it.

Punishment? Either way it's not a punishment so much as an incentive to never deal that type of damage to such a creature in the first place.

Which is the whole point of what resistances are meant to accomplish and usually fail to. They either make non specialists powers do nothing, or they are a boring and ignorable mechanic (because you've taken your feat taxes to make your fire wizard ignore resistance).

Yes, in the case of resistances, a smart player can find ways around them, whereas with the damaging feedback this is currently less likely ...

Making it a better and more relevant mechanic. Resistances just lead to feat taxes and nothing else. A genuine mechanic that punishes an energy type leads to finding different solutions, or having to maneuver the creature where it cannot harm the party.

With that admission, you're down to two minions, each found only in a Dungeon Mag adventure, a TYPO on an LFR stat-block, and one that I think is probably legit (fire - water kind of cancel each other out).

No they don't, creatures can be multiple element types and still have resistances to those types. The Storm That Walk is probably a mistake, but it doesn't change other published modules and monsters have shown this.

If you've never played an official game, where you are supposed to follow the rules as closely as you can

I have and when I asked the LFR admins myself and they've all told me that you're wrong, and when I've asked those running DnD encounters and checked and they tell me you're wrong I am confident in you being wrong. The DM does have a degree of freedom in running published adventures and published adventures can set their own rules (I specifically asked and authors who have published LFR modules tell me, they CAN indeed do this if they write it into the module). You are simply completely incorrect.

 

[Obryn]

I get the idea I'm coming in late on a debate which started elsewhere, and probably could be finished elsewhere, too.

-O