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

[Felon]

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a 4e hater. I like 4e enough that I am a D&D Insider subscriber. There is just one thing about the game that I really, really hate.

Forced balance.

If a rogue goes up behind a skeleton and sneak attacks them, they get to do extra damage. This makes me mad. The Sneak Attack power represents stabbing vital bits. The skeleton has no vital bits.

If a wizard wants to blast a fire elemental with a fireball, it works just fine. Fire elemental have no fire resistance. I think I remember a developer saying this was intentional.

I understand there things make the game more fair, but at what cost to realism? I'm not saying D&D should be pure simulation, I just think the developers went too far in making a balanced game. This needs to be fixed in 5e.

Seems like your default outlook is negative and narrow.

Skeletons have no vital spots? The human skeleton is full of weak points. It is not a seamless, flawless construct by any means. It has oints that can shattered, vertebrae that can be severed. Cut the spine below the ribcage, and what holds the rest up?

I've seen fire elementals with fire resistance, so I don't know where you got that they didn't. heck, I've seen ice elementals with fire resistance. 4e is actually pretty sick with energy resistances that make implement-users consistently weaker than weapon-users. They don't have fire immunity, but that can just be viewed as the creature being overloaded, disrupted, burned out.

 

[enrious]

god, I have to dig those awful 4th books out again to see if this is true or not. How could they do something so horrible to the gaming community to let a creature made of flame take damage from a fireball?

the horror,
foolish_mortals

Considering that 4e fire elementals have fire resistance 25, the simple answer is they didn't.

 

[Dausuul]

Considering that 4e fire elementals have fire resistance 25, the simple answer is they didn't.

The fire elementals in the Compendium have no listed fire resistance. Maybe it was a data entry error.

 

[enrious]

The fire elementals in the Compendium have no listed fire resistance. Maybe it was a data entry error.

I just verified that they do in the MM1, no idea about later books.

Although now I have this picture in my head of a fire elemental dying from fire, with the thought in his head that his mom always warned him that the Compendium would kill him.

 

[nnms]

I don't believe the fire elemental in the Monster Vault has any resistance at all.

 

[foolish_mortals]

It has to be a horrible mistake! If it isn't I don't know what there thinking.

foolish_mortals

 

[enrious]

It has to be a horrible mistake! If it isn't I don't know what there thinking.

foolish_mortals

Apples and oranges.

 

[SensoryThought]

A DM can certainly rule reduced or extra damage situationally - it all comes down to whether you are a proponent of an implicit rule zero.

 

[SensoryThought]

But I'll add you make an interesting point about forced balance and 4e. I think the biggest balance change is nerfing high level caster supremacy and buffing low level caster weakness.

I'm not sure still whether this is a good thing or not.

 

[Felon]

I believe skeletons are immune to sneak attack damage and i think someone pointed out fire elementals have fire resistance.

3e skeletons were immune to sneak attack damage. Pathfinder and 4e skeletons are not. in 4e, you always get sneak attack damage.

Again, it's not hard to interpret why a sneak attack is more damaging. Pretty much anything has a week point (GalaxyQuest rock monsters notwithstanding).

But even if not, a DM can rule reduced or extra damage situationally - it all comes down to whether you are a proponent of an implicit rule zero.

The topic is specific to rules design, so DM aribtrary fiat really isn't germaine.