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

[keterys]

I think that fire elementals should have notable fire resistance, but I'm fine with volcanic dragons or azers or whatever not having it.

I'd approve of them having something that made it clear they ignore extremes of temperature common to their home environments without interacting with damage / resistance. There's probably a clean way to do that.

Basically, I think there's way too much immunity and resistance in D&D, such that juggling energy types is its own mini game rather than just letting people play. There's nothing wrong with saying that a creature is able to live in much harsher conditions than humans, without making it a recurring combat issue.

P.S. Spoken as someone who showed up to a campaign as a "storm" sorcerer in 3e, then a level later the campaign turned into going up against all sorts of skeletal undead who were resistant or immune to lightning. Cause clearly a bolt of lightning doesn't hurt a skeleton somehow

 

[mcintma]

The bottom line is that yeah fun should trump fantasy simulationism, IMO.

Agreed, but just as importantly, fun should trump balance fetishism as well.

 

[Dausuul]

Basically, I think there's way too much immunity and resistance in D&D, such that juggling energy types is its own mini game rather than just letting people play. There's nothing wrong with saying that a creature is able to live in much harsher conditions than humans, without making it a recurring combat issue.

This I do agree with, although the problem is mostly resolved in 4E. Resistance and immunity should exist only where absolutely necessary. A fire elemental should have fire resist, but a red dragon doesn't need it. A skeleton should be immune to poison, but it's senseless to make it immune to lightning. Et cetera.

 

[hanez]

Nothing stops you from creating your own skeleton with such an immunity. This is what is so good about D&D4 : you can really design monsters the way you want. So add this trait to your skeletons and play... You could also add another traits that would make the skeleton vulnerable to some power of the rogue to balance things out if you want. You don't have to though... You don't have to balance things out if you don't want to.

On the other hand, a system that would not allow to balance fun between players would not be nice. I prefer a balanced system that can be umbalanced, than a umbalanced system that cannot be balanced.

Ive never done this before so tell me if Im doing it wrong but...

OBERANI FALLACY!

Just cause I can fix the problem as DM doesn't mean the rules arent a problem.

Really Im just trying to be comical. But I do notice that when 4e "can be changed" its a graceful option of the system. But when its the other way around, its "why should the DM have to change it to make up for the faults of the system" or an Oberani fallacy (or whatever).

Personally I like immunities and weaknesses, they make monsters more then just bags of hitpoints with attacks. IMHO when the designers are considering an immunity they should lean towards giving the monster the immunity and not consider if "its really needed"

Immunities, and other things that force PCs to change their tactics, and make a varieties of strategies and classes shine are a great thing about D&D that helps make combat memorable.


Its not about realism, sure I can find all sorts of reasons why a monster should, or shouldnt have an immunity. Rather its about the PCs trying something, and it NOT WORKING. Its about them having to try something else. Its about the wizard (or whomever) being less useful for one day or one adventure. Its about remembering a signifigant fact about a monster that you learned the hard way.

 

[Hussar]

Just finished the first page, but, I'd point something out re: fire elementals and fire spells.

The game has long distinguished magical fire and normal fire. They operated under different rules in AD&D. So, having a fire elemental be affected by magical fire does have some justification in it.

 

[Number48]

Been giving this a rethought. First, is this a straw man argument? I don't play 4E anymore. There weren't as many books out when I stopped and I can't rightly remember the ones that were out. But, how many of these "problem" creatures are we talking about when you say the problem with 4E is forced balance. Is this problem greater than 2% of the monsters in the books? Every edition has had monsters entries that you look at and say, "Well, that's stupid." I mean, has anyone actually seen a quaggoth used in a game? Or a sussurus?

The second thing I thought about is that, with my group at least, it would make absolutely no difference if a fire elemental had resist 0, 20 or immunity. They wouldn't use fire attacks on a fire elemental. The only way I would see my group using fire on a fire elemental is by accident, such as using a flaming sword because that's what you're holding.

 

[herrozerro]

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.

so lets take every single game with magic, vancian magic operates on a certain established rules that tells the player how the game should be looked at.

FF espers are another way of looking at magic, as are a multitude of other systems.

You could have 10 games and 10 different ways of looking at what "magic" is.

If you play a game where magic is granted by espers or other powerful creatures then playing some kind of wizard who learns about magic isnt gonig to make much sense, even if that's what the player wants to bring to the table.

I think you are making the assumption that a game that tells it's players how to view its game world is suddenly going to have to change editions is false as well. Perhaps for something huge like D&D but there are a multitude of indie games out there and especially some of the more esoteric ones out there you really have to approach the game for what it is and not what you think it should be.

 

[BryonD]

So, 3rd edition?

I think you will need to explain to me how the game that has been converted into:
Blue Rose
Grim Tales
Pathfinder
Spycraft
Mutants and Masterminds
etc
etc
etc


even BEGINS to meet that definition.

 

[BryonD]

so lets take every single game with magic, vancian magic operates on a certain established rules that tells the player how the game should be looked at.

FF espers are another way of looking at magic, as are a multitude of other systems.

You could have 10 games and 10 different ways of looking at what "magic" is.

If you play a game where magic is granted by espers or other powerful creatures then playing some kind of wizard who learns about magic isnt gonig to make much sense, even if that's what the player wants to bring to the table.

I think you are making the assumption that a game that tells it's players how to view its game world is suddenly going to have to change editions is false as well. Perhaps for something huge like D&D but there are a multitude of indie games out there and especially some of the more esoteric ones out there you really have to approach the game for what it is and not what you think it should be.

Honest question here....

Are you a Hussar alt?

 

[BryonD]

I think you are making the assumption that a game that tells it's players how to view its game world is suddenly going to have to change editions is false as well. Perhaps for something huge like D&D but there are a multitude of indie games out there and especially some of the more esoteric ones out there you really have to approach the game for what it is and not what you think it should be.

OK, for some niche game with no observable fan base, I concede the point.

I'm pretty sure we ARE in fact talking about D&D here though, so I'll take you statement as concurrence.