Sup Veeky Forums

why are more monsters weak to fire than cold?

Attached: 1522215836375.jpg (312x448, 50K)

Other urls found in this thread:

Like in real life, most things are weak to fire.

For the same reasons monsters are associated with darkness - because when we were cavemen, fire saved us and scared away the sabertooth tigers.

You don't make enough monsters with cold weakness, OP.

Fire is traditionally a purifying element. You put food in it to make it safe to eat, boil water to make it safe to drink, sometimes even burn over icky wounds or other rot/mold in order to destroy/purify it. Fire leaves little but sterile ash in its wake. Naturally, when the dangers and evils of man and wild were personified in ancient storytelling tradition, fire became the element which could be used to fight back against them.

Fire also played a role in hardening leather and sinew and even some limited wood and stone work. When the tradition was taken to metal work, fire was seen as that which removes impurities from metal as well, turning malachite into copper and later smelting tin and copper to make bronze. Later still came the tradition of ironwork, and after that came steel. It's no wonder the ancients worshipped fire.

Cold, conversely, has always been an environmental hazard more than a primordial element. There are few traditions based around the use of cold, since most of them are built around using fire to survive it. Fire is a tool to be utilized, but we don't have that tradition with cold and ice seeing as contemporary refrigeration is a recent development.

There are many monsters that are made to be resistant against the cold, Wooly Mammoths, Siberian Huskies, Polar Bears etc. Not to mention that the cold won't do shit to damage an undead creature, in fact it would just preserve the rotting flesh for longer.

But almost no creature is designed to be able to withstand being on fire. Fire isn't something most creatures have to put up with the vast majority of the time, and thus they never had to evolve a resistance to it.

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 106K)

Fire burns

You should perform an experiment

First, set an ice cube on your floor and observe the results

Next, set a burning piece of charcoal on your floor and observe the results

Please report back with the results

>Fire is traditionally a purifying element

Just another reason I'm confused by fire being considered an evil element in D&D and other systems like it as well as

Fire is useful, but it's also hugely dangerous. Without proper containment, it can spread out of control. We tend to like living in the warm and dry, and fire finds that a perfect place to spread. It doesn't help that most of the stuff we surround ourselves with is flammable. Flames hurt, destroy, and kill. Untamed, fire creates hellscapes that little can survive in. In the right conditions, it even creates its own weather, amplifying its destructive power. And once grown too large, we have little power save to try and contain the damage, we just have to let it burn itself out.

Fire has a long tradition of being depended upon for warmth, food preparation, forging, light... And for just as long, if not longer, it's been an elemental force of danger and searing wounds. We only learned to harness its power when we learned to contain and respect fire, and even then it often breaks out of its bounds and runs amok.

Fire can definitely be considered an evil element, although it is absolutely useful in a contained manner. Perhaps that better exemplifies the nature of a destructive force harnessed for its usefulness; an evil power contained and used for good, though it still maintains its destructive potential.

You can jump into icy water and be conscious and capable of still taking actions for a few minutes.
You can't jump into an engulfing fire and maintain consciousness nor be able to take any actions other than flailing.

From a more gamist point of view, fire damage is infinitely more available than cold damage for most characters in most games. So when designers need new monsters, especially if they are weak or low level, they're much more likely to have interactions with fire. Then those creatures move forward as legacy elements and sometimes spread to other media.

I dunno, I think freezing would work MUCH better on an undead than on the living.
They're already room temperature, you comparatively need much less energy to sub zero them.

well, that's just not true.
I've seen people do it in front of tanks.

your first statement is simply false.
maybe a few seconds, but you can do that in flame as well.

>fire being considered an evil element in D&D
Wut? Is because of devils and de Balor?
You have neutral or good elementals and outsiders that are fire-based.

Ok OP think of an animal that has adapted to the extreme cold. Did you think of one, good? Now think of an animal that has adapted to being on fire.

>why are more monsters weak to fire than cold?

Because fire is a real weapon and cold is a thing D&D decided to include as an opposite to fire.

How to use fire as a weapon: Hit them with a torch. Use a flame-thrower. Douse them in gasoline and flick a lighter at them.

How to use cold as a weapon: ...trick them into taking an icy bath?

So any monster based on an IRL myth is going to be vulnerable to something that exists IRL. "Cold" doesn't exist as something you can apply to a creature.

To help balance that more creatures are resistant to fire.
Fire resistance is the most common resistance.

Attached: 1464871904690.jpg (223x224, 23K)

Cold, like Shadows, are only a lack of.
That's why.
>ib8 god

Dude, the majority of beings from the plane of fire are evil.
Fire is generally evil because fire is only good when its tempered and controlled. Uncontrolled fire leads to destruction as it selfishly consumes all for itself.

Would you rather get hit by a bag of icecubes or by a Molotov cocktail?

One is ambient temperature, the other an active chemical reaction of a violent nature.

Compare cold to heat, not fire, or compare being covered in fire to being covered in liquid nitrogen.

>Not Fire & Ice
>"What are 'polar extremes', for $100?"

It's significantly easier to make something too hot than it is to make something too cold. We simply don't (and never will) have the ability to create the same or more "coldness" than its "heatness" equivalent.

Thread should have ended here. /thread

>"Ara ara"

Attached: 636465500428030607.png (1115x656, 754K)

Hypothermia takes upwards of 30 minutes to set in, you are thinking of cold shock responce which is when you gasp from feeling the sudden cold and fill your lungs with water.
Dldr you drown faster than you freeze no one dies from falling in snow