Design Flaws: Fire Elementals

[Shatteredtower]

Why are fire elementals as vulnerable as most other creatures to fire damage? If it's because fire resistance would make them immune to each other's attacks, then maybe designers could have reconsidered the damage they do. Really, was "1d6 damage, plus 5 ongoing fire (save ends)" so unbalancing for a 1st level skirmisher?

Did fire elementals have to be rendered completely helpless to defend themselves against efreet (immune to fire) or fire giants (resist fire 15)? One Essentials feat means you can completely ignore a fire elemental of the appropriate tier, and several magic items provide the same degree of immunity.

It doesn't stop there, however. What other creature can't perform an effective opportunity attack if it's already hit you on its last turn? All of a fire elemental's attack damage is ongoing damage. Once you're taking that, there is nothing the elemental can do to stop you from stepping away. Lesser fire elementals can't even hurt you for making ranged attacks on them from the next square, so long as you're taking ongoing fire damage already.

Making them the fastest of the elementals does not make up for the fact that they can't fight anywhere near as well as other elementals. Making them an arsonist's friend isn't an excuse for keeping them so weak either; players who want to set everything on fire have means for doing so themselves, while DMs with the same goal have no shortage of more suitable candidates to torch everything in sight (from the centre of the blaze itself, no less.)

So...why?

[NecroRebel]

I suspect that the idea behind the "ongoing damage only" thing was that they could move in, attack, then run away while their enemies burned, and thus do the skirmisher role more effectively. The minor-action shift and high speed supports this hypothesis, as it makes them hard to pin down or catch. If they dealt too much damage on the attacks themselves, that would encourage staying and fighting.

Also, at the time it was published, the Essentials feat that gives fire resistance wasn't out yet, so that's really more yet another problem with Essentials than anything else. The fact that items can give enough resistance is somewhat bad, but in most campaigns the elemental resistance items aren't very valuable compared to other items in the same slots, even for a damage type as common as fire. Fire elementals are also supposed to come out early in a tier when players may well not have the appropriate-tear magic items, so that might not have been considered a problem.

Mostly, though, I suspect that the designer simply didn't take any of those things into account when they designed the creature.

[Haberdashery]

Also keep in mind that unless you're playing with just the Essentials, most players are not going to pick up that feat. There are far more useful feats to take compared to getting a situational resistance, unless your DM has stated that the campaign will strongly focus on creatures that deal fire damage. Otherwise players are really only going to get fire resistance from being a Tiefling or picking up fire resistance items.

Also, I'm suspecting the reason fire elementals don't have fire resistance is to make it that certain builds aren't totally useless against fire elementals. Like fire blasters, for example (granted, pyromancers get a class feature that lets them ignore fire resistance, so that argument is a little less valid). As far as other monsters go though, monster stat blocks are not built with the idea of them fighting other monsters in mind. They're built on the notion that only PCs will be fighting them. A fire elemental and a efreet really are never going to fight each other using the monster stat blocks given, unless the DM wants to make his players sit and watch him play the game.

[Shatteredtower]

A skirmisher that cannot focus fire is a very weak skirmisher. Two minions attacking the same target will outpace an equal level fire elemental's damage if both hit, and barely fall behind if only one hits. Other non-minion skirmishers do even better, and they have the potential to score critical hits.

The point about efreet vs. elemental was not to make players into witnesses. (Have you never played encounters that let you turn one potential adversary against another?) It was just to point out that one of these creature types cannot fight the other at all. Making one creature weak against another of the same level is fine, but making it helpless?

As for the practicality of certain feats and items, I need only point out that a potion of fire resistance is very affordable. Should 40 gold pieces be all it takes to let a single 1st level character wipe out a level 3 encounter (seven lesser fire elementals) at no risk to the PC whatsoever?

This is a creature that can't be used against a party that has any reason to anticipate their presence in an upcoming adventure. I don't mind rewarding preparation, but this is too much.

[Zaq]

I think the point of the fire elemental is not to focus fire, but to be there in the background, spreading havoc all across the board. You know, like a skirmisher does. They just zip from PC to PC, leaving burning in their wake. Since their damage is ongoing, they can do more damage by spreading out their attacks . . . you know, like how fire tends to spread. Funny how that works. A skirmisher who keeps attacking the same target every turn isn't much of a skirmisher, after all (unless they're those crazy types that shift 15 squares and make attacks against every PC they pass, but that's not the point). This just gives them a greater incentive to do so. I think it makes perfect sense. This does make them awkward to use in groups, but honestly, that doesn't bother me much.

As for why it's strictly burning and not dice + ongoing, well, that's something I can only guess at. Aside from the whole skirmishing thing I mentioned above, I can also just guess that it keeps their expected damage values in line, allowing them to be freer with the ongoing damage, especially with their "when you attack me, BURN" effect. They tend to be lowish in the tier (MM3 has one each at 1, 11, and 21), for what that's worth. Honestly, it doesn't bother me.

As for the lack of resistance . . . eh, that's just a game balance thing, I think. No other elemental (not [elemental], mind you) has a resistance either. Really doesn't bother me. If you're having trouble fluffing it, just say that your fire is impure (alternatively, more pure) and damages them the same way that injecting some kind of foreign biological fluid into our veins would hurt us, even if it's mostly made of the same stuff as blood. They're tied to the very essence of fire, after all, and your scorching rays and flaming swords are to it just so much filth and poison. There. Done.

[Haberdashery]

The point about efreet vs. elemental was not to make players into witnesses. (Have you never played encounters that let you turn one potential adversary against another?) It was just to point out that one of these creature types cannot fight the other at all. Making one creature weak against another of the same level is fine, but making it helpless?

As for the practicality of certain feats and items, I need only point out that a potion of fire resistance is very affordable. Should 40 gold pieces be all it takes to let a single 1st level character wipe out a level 3 encounter (seven lesser fire elementals) at no risk to the PC whatsoever?

This is a creature that can't be used against a party that has any reason to anticipate their presence in an upcoming adventure. I don't mind rewarding preparation, but this is too much.

Yeah, I can see your points on both accounts, only I somewhat disagree about the fire resistance potions unless you've let your players know there will be fire elementals, or some sort of fire creature in the adventure. In which case, yeah, I get what you're saying. And I have played encounters, and actually, I've DMed encounters where I have planned out (or prepared for) if players want to turn an enemy against the monsters. Usually in such a case I edit the monsters accordingly so they don't end up useless. Which, if you're encountering issues with the fire elemental, is what I'd recommend doing. It's pretty reasonable to tack on fire resistance or immunity them, and to simply edit their damage if you feel your players are too prepared for a fight with fire elementals.

[Shatteredtower]

Let me try to make this clearer: as designed, fire elementals limit choice.

You cannot ever choose to have them focus fire, even when that would make the most sense. It's fine to have skirmishers that do their best work by spreading damage around, but they should still be able to accumulate it effectively against one target. Wolves, another skirmisher, would do that, as would any enemy seeking to win by long run attrition.

You can never choose to have them perform a coup de grace, because they don't have the ability to perform critical hits. Other skirmishers can do that without having to surrender mobility.

You cannot choose to let players determine that an upcoming encounter will include several fire elementals if you want them to pose any challenge at all. Players can choose not to use resources that would neutralize the fire elementals, but why wouldn't they?

[Zaq]

In 4e, each monster is meant to be just one aspect of an encounter, and the DMG explicitly tells you not to put too many of the same kind of monster in one encounter. If you're even close to following the guidelines (for such they are) laid out for you, you won't be up against "a group of fire elementals." You might have two fire elementals in a group of . . . well, it could be anything (a bunch of different elementals, some other fire-themed critters, a bunch of petty cultists who don't know how to summon or bargain with anything better, whatever). MAYBE three, but that's pushing it and definitely shouldn't be your first choice. This is actually true across the board . . . it's just that some monsters make it more obvious than others. The fire elemental is one of these.

I also don't see what you mean about how letting the players figure out that "here there be fire elementals" will give them an advantage. Yes, it will give them an advantage, but that's in no way limited to fire elementals. Knowledge is power, especially at higher levels when your resource pools are deeper, and it doesn't matter whether you know that you're fighting fire elementals ("Dig out your fire resist gear, folks!"), wights ("Undead in these parts! Everyone stock up on holy water and necrotic resistance!"), bandits ("Stay alert, team! We know they're around here somewhere! Don't let them get the drop on you!"), or whatever. Fire resistance also works against efreeti, fire giants, red dragons, and salamanders. Are they also unable to "pose any challenge at all" if the party isn't totally unaware of them?

As for focusing fire . . . if the target of choice isn't on fire, the fire elemental can help out and light them on fire. If the target of choice is on fire, hey, the fire elemental is still directly contributing damage, and also gets to light something else on fire. This only gets awkward when you have two or more fire elementals, but even then, that's really just playing to their role. Kind of a quirk of that specific creature, but hardly the cascading failure you're making it out to be.

As for the CdG thing . . . OK, that's a little bizarre. I'll grant you that. Enough of a niche case that I'm not about to complain about it, but I'll acknowledge that it's kind of weird.

[Shatteredtower]

The problem is that if you know that you're facing efreet or fire giants, fire resistance will give you an advantage, but it does not eliminate all of the damage your enemies can do. There are many undead against which necrotic resistance is useful, but those that do only necrotic damage tend to average more than 5 hp of necrotic damage per tier, meaning something is likely to get through.

The fire elemental never gets any damage through against tier appropriate fire resistance. Never. Even if you lack the resistance, any resource that lets you roll a saving throw out of your turn can prevent you from taking any damage at all from your attacker.

While there's merit to mixing up monster types in an encounter, fire resistance still removes one or more monsters from the fight in the first round if there are fire elementals among your enemies. The elementals could even get the drop on you and still accomplish nothing if you can drink a potion in the same round they hit you with an attack. A 3rd level encounter could include a level 3 elite controller, four level 3 minions, and three level 1 fire elementals, but a party with resist fire 5 could ignore the elementals to fight what amounts to a poorly built level 1 encounter. The elementals no longer make a difference to the fight. Sure, they can aid another and set up flanking opportunities...but most creatures can do that. It's just that they tend to have better options available to them in this situation.

[Surrealistik]

Easy fix:

Hit: Ongoing 5 fire damage (save ends). If the target is already taking ongoing fire damage, increase that ongoing fire damage by 5 instead.

[Shatteredtower]

A good suggestion with potential, Surrealistik. Thank you.

[Kurald Galain]

Also, I'm suspecting the reason fire elementals don't have fire resistance is to make it that certain builds aren't totally useless against fire elementals.

That's probably it.

it's also unjustified, because this would be an argument against giving fire immunity. Resist 5, for example, is not going to cripple a fire-based character.

[Epinephrine]

A good suggestion with potential, Surrealistik. Thank you.

Another option would be to go the Spiderling route - add vulnerability. This would help any other fire based creatures the elemental associated with.

Spiderling hit reads: Hit: 2 poison damage, and the target gains vulnerable 5 poison until the end of the spiderling’s next turn. If the target already has vulnerability to poison damage, increase the vulnerability by 2.

Something like that would allow both for making the ongoing damage deadlier, and make pairing an elemental with other fire-based creatures a nice combo.

[Asklepian]

I realize this may seem slightly off-topic, but I've never understood the 'I'm the same thing as the thing you shot me with, so it doesn't hurt me.' If someone were to fire human gristle out of a cannon at me, or even just smack me in the face with their fist, 'but we're made of the same stuff' won't do much for me.

[MeeposFire]

I realize this may seem slightly off-topic, but I've never understood the 'I'm the same thing as the thing you shot me with, so it doesn't hurt me.' If someone were to fire human gristle out of a cannon at me, or even just smack me in the face with their fist, 'but we're made of the same stuff' won't do much for me.

Unfortunately it is a D&D tradition that has been ported elsewhere. Fantasy has examples of both like being resistant to like and being damaged by like so that is a wash.

[DeltaEmil]

I realize this may seem slightly off-topic, but I've never understood the 'I'm the same thing as the thing you shot me with, so it doesn't hurt me.' If someone were to fire human gristle out of a cannon at me, or even just smack me in the face with their fist, 'but we're made of the same stuff' won't do much for me.

The D&D-theory back then was that fire elementals would be living in the elemental plane of fire, which is made of fire, where only fire exists (and some pockets of things that are not fire), so a fire elemental, which is made of fire, living in a dimension made of fire, shouldn't be hurt by fire, because it's made of fire living in fire, and if it doesn't get hurt by living in fire (because it's made of fire), then fire shouldn't hurt a being made from fire that lives in fire.

However, the 4th edition does not have a plane made of fire where fire elementals live, it has the elemental chaos. Now, the argument that a living fire shouldn't be hurt by fire because it's made of fire that lives in a world of fire isn't true anymore. It's a living fire that lives in some weird hell that is made of lightning, thunder, chaos, storms, water, earth, fire, diamonds, pancakes and monsters.

[hewhosaysfish]

I realize this may seem slightly off-topic, but I've never understood the 'I'm the same thing as the thing you shot me with, so it doesn't hurt me.' If someone were to fire human gristle out of a cannon at me, or even just smack me in the face with their fist, 'but we're made of the same stuff' won't do much for me.

Earth elementals can be hurt by earth, same as you can be hurt by (ick!) a cannon full of gristle. Rocks and gristle would both deal damage in the form of a blunt impact, crushing parts of you that you don't want crushed.

Fire doesn't crush; flames hurt humans by raising their temperature to extremes, making their fluids boil and their solid matter combust.
The theory goes that you can't make a fire elemental too hot, nor an ice paraelmental too cold.

[DefKab]

Earth elementals can be hurt by earth, same as you can be hurt by (ick!) a cannon full of gristle. Rocks and gristle would both deal damage in the form of a blunt impact, crushing parts of you that you don't want crushed.

Fire doesn't crush; flames hurt humans by raising their temperature to extremes, making their fluids boil and their solid matter combust.
The theory goes that you can't make a fire elemental too hot, nor an ice paraelmental too cold.

Although, to use real-world physics, all fire consumes some kind of fuel. If you make the fire hotter, it burns through the fuel quicker. Avoiding an 'infinite fuel' case for a fire elemental, one could say that fire damage would make it burn hotter (therefore, more damaging?), but have a shorter life span (from the energy consumption), resulting in something akin to Hit Point Damage.

But that's why you don't put physics into a game.

Fire elementals aren't hurt by fire because it's cooooooool.

[DeltaEmil]

But that's why you don't put physics into a game.

If it gives you an advantage by confusing the gm, then you should do it. :)

[Yakk]

Ignite: Fire elementals ignite squares with elemental flame. Whenever you are in or adjacent to a square ignited with elemental flame, you take ongoing fire damage equal to the value of the ignition. The ongoing damage becomes (save ends) after you are no longer in, or adjacent to, an ignited square.

Hit: The target's squares becomes ignited(5). If the target creature was already taking ongoing fire damage, the target's squares may instead be ignited (5 plus the value of the ongoing fire damage).

Burn hotter
Special: Fire elemental are immune to ongoing fire damage. If a fire elemental takes fire damage, one half the value of the damage is added to the value of the next square the fire elemental ignites before the end of its next turn.

Probably too complex.

[stainboy]

Fire doesn't crush; flames hurt humans by raising their temperature to extremes, making their fluids boil and their solid matter combust.
The theory goes that you can't make a fire elemental too hot, nor an ice paraelmental too cold.

But a fire elemental does in some ways act like it's composed of matter. You can hit them with maces and no one seems to have a problem with that.

You could make elementals that can live in fire and still punch each other. Just make them immune to fire but have their fists deal bludgeoning & fire.