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

[I'm A Banana]

I'm in broad agreement about the "forced balance" or "microbalance." I'm in favor of DMs being the ones micro-managing the balance for their own games.

But this convo thread I've gotta tease out more:

FYI, the reason fire elementals have limited or no resistance to fire was that WOTC didn't want to restrict ideas for characters. And the "Fire Mage" is an archtypical one(The character who took nothing but fire powers).

This ain't exactly the case. The 4e "fire mage" -- the pryomancer -- has an ability to ignore fire immunity built right into it.

IMO, it's a bit of a conflict between "general" and "specific." Generally, fire elementals don't take fire damage. Specifically, the pyromancer has an ability that ignores fire immunity, in order to make it playable in a fire-themed dungeon (or whatever). This is pretty Good Design, IMO. Everyone BUT the fire mage still has to deal with fire-immune elementals, but the fire mage can trump that immunity. Awesome possum.

The other side of the coin: fire elementals that are not immune to fire damage -- is a little silly. This is pretty Poor Design IMO. Fire is a reasonably effective strategy to use against things made of fire? No. Not in my games.

It was part of the "essentials-ization" of 4e that lead to fire elementals loosing their fire immunity (and gaining big resists instead), which is sort of a pointless non-change. Actually immune and functionally immune is immune as far as the party fighting the things is concerned.

I'll join the general chorus of folks who see undead with a weak point, but I also want to point out that the real question is how important is Sneak Attack? Is it a core class feature that should always be available to the rogue, or is it a situational side-ability that they may or may not be able to apply -- a narrow bonus, rather than a broad-based strategy?

If it's a situational side-ability, then, sure, whatever, make whatever you want "immune to Sneak Attack."

If it's a core part of your character class's design, then, no, basically nothing should be "immune to Sneak Attack."

It's the same question that applies to fire attacks.

If it's a situational ability, then anything you want can be immune to fire attacks.

If it's a core part of your character's design, then nothing should be immune to (your) fire attacks.

The question isn't about what the monsters should have, it's about what the character's abilities are. Are they specific, or general? Are they one option among many, or are they the ONLY option?

 

[FireLance]

I'm a Damage wizard.

One find and replace error later, you could be a Dawizard wizard!

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

It has a spine.

Seriously, though, in an imagined world where articulated skeletons can be animated and go about attacking people, it's hardly difficult to imagine preternaturally oportunistic or lucky individuals dismantling one with a well-placed attack.

Well, unless you've set you heart on certain classes being strictly inferior to others, of course...

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.

It really has nothing to do with balance, though. Lots of critters have fire resistance - they wouldn't if monsters with fire resistance were a balance problem. It was a 'realism' or 'verisimilitude' choice. Fire elementals are fire, they live in fire. You are mostly water, you live around water all the time, you drink the stuff, you can probably swim in it safely - you can still drown, though and if someone hits you over the head with a 10 lb block of ice, it'll hurt. Fire elementals are aparently just the same way. That's the logic, it holds together. I agree that it's lame, but it's got nothing much to do with balance.

 

[Incenjucar]

I feel that a fire elemental with absolutely no fire resistance is a bit... questionable. Humans certainly have a measure of water resistance, else our cells would burst. But there's no need for outright immunity. However, they could simply have something Endure Primordial Elements - ambient effects don't do anything to them, so they can hang out in superheated caves, but they could still take some small damage from insanely hot psionic flames or lava jets.

 

[Number48]

I stopped playing 4E a couple years back, so I have to ask, how do they describe a fire elemental? Is it living pure fire? Then it should be fire-immune. Is it a type of creature closely associated with fire, but physical? Then it should have fire resistance.

At least fire damage matches up with elemental fire. The torture of logic to force each energy to an element hurt, a lot.

 

[Incenjucar]

An elemental, by living and having form does not function as an actual section of burning material. The presence of a life force gives it shape and form that can be disrupted, just as our cells do to us. It's not even insubstantial like a creature using mist form would be. You can't simply walk into a fire elemental, either.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I like the alternative "resitances/vulnerabilities". But I also believe, they should be immune to non-magical fire at least.

Burning it with a fireball... ok... burning it with a torch. *facepalm*

 

[Incenjucar]

I'd be fine with them being immune to fire hazards and ambient heat.

Basically, I consider fire elementals vs. fire attacks to be a test of wills, or at least pressure. The fire elemental is trying to keep its living flame from being corrupted by external, inert flame.

I'd also be cool with a much more complex type of fire elemental that fed on flame, was insubstantial due to not being made of anything solid, could change shape and grow with fuel, and so forth. But that's waaaay too many rules for the average fire elemental in any edition.

 

[Aenghus]

I intensely dislike "all or nothing" mechanics and think they are bad design for keynote abilities. If a PC is dependent on a particular mechanic for his usefulness and it doesn't work half the time, should he retire the PC for one who isn't so handicapped? If he doesn't enjoy the depowered play experience, which isn't the one he signed on for, why should he endure it?

These sorts of resistance should be more nuanced than all or nothing, as if it happens more frequently than very rarely it punishes some players for their character concept and others not at all.

And themed adventures tend to have lots of the same type of monster with similar properties, making entire classes non-viable for entire adventures. I hate telling people enthusiastic about their character concept that it doesn't suit the campaign, because their abilties won't work on the monsters or NPCs encountered.

For me 4e meant I didn't have to do that, players could play what they wanted and were much less likely to be marginalised or overpowered from their choices.

 

[Wormwood]

I stopped playing 4E a couple years back, so I have to ask, how do they describe a fire elemental?

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