Can you share, or is it classified?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
D&D 4E My Least Favourite Thing About 4e is Forced Balance
- Status
keterys
First Post
It's very well tread and retread ground... here's a random link or two to one of the developers talking about it, though, and some of the responses go into greater detail. Also, Mearls did an article (legends and lore?) about wanting to monkey with resistances at one point. Greg Bilsland posted about the design being intentional. Etc.
Klaus
First Post
Everything has a vital bit. It's more fun if the DM and the player come up with an entertaining way to explain the attack. Plus, a skeleton is easy. What about a ghost? Or a gelatinous cube? Or a ghostly gelatinous cube, trapped between life and death because it never fulfilled it's dream of becoming raspberry jello?
Hey, there's a trope for that! Maybe that fireball sucked out all the air fueling the elemental, causing it to sputter, or maybe the fireball's inherent magic actually *robbed* fire from the elemental to go off!
Sorry, I haven't had any prior exposure to those discussions.
I agree with @Plane Sailing that the title of this thread is unfortunate, because there's no point in criticizing 4E, as this is the New Horizons thread. So trying to put the points into context... the links you indicated (and I admit I skimmed it quickly so I may have missed something), the "good reasons" for the decision are very mechanical and metagame-oriented. Is there a story reason?
The "soul of D&D" is the story, according to the D&D Next previews, and that the rules should support the story. The way I'm understanding that mantra, it means that 5E designers are not going to be so quick to make decisions about immunity and sneak attack without asking "what is the story?". And if people have different stories about undead weak spots and fire elementals, then the rules will need to support those different stories vs the way that 4E made those kinds of decisions.
Mark CMG
Creative Mountain Games
My solution? I think there is room for certain creatures/monsters to be rendered as setting-specific. In the core rules they have certain nebulous features that are not clearly defined and can only be explored through researching or encountering them in a given campaign.
If a GM wants the "fire creature" to be utterly immune to fire, then adventurers need to find that out one way or another, by finding someone who knows (if they know for fact is a campaign concern) or through trial and error in combat. This has the added, intended, advantage of restoring a sense of wonder in a game where too many gamers can just memorize the books in advance or who have no trepidations during encounters with creatures for which they, through other PCs, have discovered all they need to know for the new PC.
This is also why I like the idea of a PH with some well-known cratures (pack animals, regularly hunted animals, domesticated animals, etc.) a GM's Guide with some "classic" creatures and monsters, and skipping MMs in favor of setting books with the monsters and creatures indigenous to them outlined for the GM alone, along with options for how the GM can tailor them to their specific home campaign (the players in the campaign unaware of those specifics).
If a GM wants the "fire creature" to be utterly immune to fire, then adventurers need to find that out one way or another, by finding someone who knows (if they know for fact is a campaign concern) or through trial and error in combat. This has the added, intended, advantage of restoring a sense of wonder in a game where too many gamers can just memorize the books in advance or who have no trepidations during encounters with creatures for which they, through other PCs, have discovered all they need to know for the new PC.
This is also why I like the idea of a PH with some well-known cratures (pack animals, regularly hunted animals, domesticated animals, etc.) a GM's Guide with some "classic" creatures and monsters, and skipping MMs in favor of setting books with the monsters and creatures indigenous to them outlined for the GM alone, along with options for how the GM can tailor them to their specific home campaign (the players in the campaign unaware of those specifics).
I agree 100%. I think that many of the arguments about "nod to realism" and how magic works and wuxia fighters and low/traditional vs high/anime fantasy are actually setting-specific issues.
The problem, of course, is what goes into "core" or baseline story, and what goes into setting-specific modules? I think everyone can agree that elves and flying dragons are core, and that Dark Sun sorcery kings are setting specific, but how about everything inbetween from Vancian magic to warforged to warlords and wuxia fighter powers?
The other problem is that a lot of people don't seem to like default campaign settings, but I love the idea because a) it provides strong branding and identity for that book or boxed set, and b) if a group says they're playing with this or that setting, you know what to expect and join or avoid the group accordingly
Mark CMG
Creative Mountain Games
This is why I think it is better to design the core rules for the genre and not for even a default setting. Of course, that requires the designers to make specific decisions about genre for the purposes of both presentation of the rules and the culling of setting elements, but I feel this helps focus the rules and the design process.
BryonD
Hero
I'm ok with burning fire elementals and I've very ok with sneak attacking skeletons.
Personally, I prefer my elementals immune, but no biggie. And I can go either way on SA for undead.
But, show me a game that tells its players that they need to look at things from where it is coming from instead of the game being able to service the notions the players want to bring into the game, and I'll show you a game where the designers are thinking about a new edition two years later.
Well said.
I think previous editions went way overboard with immunity and resistance. But if you present me with a monster that is literally and visibly made of fire, I expect it to be fire-resistant if not immune. As a player, I wouldn't even try to use fire attacks on such a creature except in desperation, and if the fire attack worked normally it would wreck my immersion. I don't see how this is setting-specific, either.
Last edited:
- Status
