Ray of Ice vs. Spellcaster using Fly spell.

[TessarrianDM]

1. If a flying spellcaster (30' above the ground, under the effects of the fly spell, PH 232) is hit by a Ray of Ice (SC 167) and fails his Reflex save, would he be frozen to the ground or just have his feet encased in ice, allowing him to continue to fly? The spell states that "the target must make a Reflex save or be frozen to the ground with its feet encased in ice. A frozen creature cannot move, receives no Dexterity bonus to AC, and incurs a -2 penalty on attack rolls".

2. The above spellcaster would still be able to cast spells, manipulate magic items with his hands, etc. as he is still allowed to make attack rolls (with a -2 penalty). Correct?

 

[mvincent]

1. If a flying spellcaster (30' above the ground, under the effects of the fly spell, PH 232) is hit by a Ray of Ice (SC 167) and fails his Reflex save, would he be frozen to the ground or just have his feet encased in ice, allowing him to continue to fly? The spell states that "the target must make a Reflex save or be frozen to the ground with its feet encased in ice. A frozen creature cannot move, receives no Dexterity bonus to AC, and incurs a -2 penalty on attack rolls".

The "feet encased in ice" part could be viewed as flexible, since not all creatures have feet. The "cannot move" part would still imply that a winged creature stalls. Purely mental (i.e. wingless) flight should still be able to move, but I personally would still rule for one round of stalling for them.

2. The above spellcaster would still be able to cast spells, manipulate magic items with his hands, etc. as he is still allowed to make attack rolls (with a -2 penalty). Correct?

Correct

 

[Patlin]

Ice is pretty heavy. Maybe freeze his feet together and increase his encumbrance by 50 lbs? If he has enough strength to remain airborne, more power to him. Gives you an opportunity to have strength be semi-usefull to an arcane caster.

 

[eamon]

If a creature is frozen to the ground, it can still make attacks, albeit at a -2 penalty. I take it that this means it isn't paralyzed, merely that it can't move it's feet (and can't turn around, making it easier to hit - hence it loses it's dexterity bonus, but isn't treated as if it had dexterity 0).

A flying creature would still be capable of flying, even if it's feet are encased in ice. I would not rule that a flying creature can no longer fly. If pressed for time, I would simply rule that that part of the spell has no effect, and if I wanted more realism and had more time to think it out I would improvise something along the lines that a flying creature's maneuverability drops by one one category (to at worst clumsy), or that it's speed drop's by half unless flying downward.

I wouldn't rule a stall, since those are more dangerous to flying creatures, and since the in-game rationale for the extreme movement penalty doesn't fly ;-) - at least certainly not like it's described in the spell.

 

[tdow]

All manner of annoying corollaries to this case -- enough for a generic Ray of Ice thread?

A smattering of examples:

-- Against a mounted opponent:
What freezes to what, in this case? Is mobility lost? Is mount control lost? Is there damage to the mount as well?

-- Against a mount itself, or any creature with appendages all in contact with the ground (e.g., Giant Spider):
Are all appendages encased? If the creature's primary attacks are with its appendages (e.g., Horse), can it attack the ice with the encased appendages?

-- When "ground" isn't horizontal:
Giant spider, Spider-Climbing spellcaster. Do they get stuck sideways (or upside-down)? My gut answer is 'yes', based on the analogy with sticking a tongue to a subzero flagpole. Again, would *all* of a Spider-Climber's appendages be encased? If a humanoid with no significant bite attack, that would make self-liberation well nigh impossible via damage to the ice.

-- Against no-appendage beasties:
Oozes, Gibbering Mouther, etc. Are they stuck to the spot? How much of them gets stuck? Does acid (which many such beasties have) affect ice at full damage? I'm no chemistry major (physics major, actually), but I don't recall that acid dissolves away ice particularly quickly, as compared to an equal volume of sodium chloride grains (table salt) for example. Acid doesn't "damage" liquid water at all -- they just intermix.

 

[moritheil]

I'm no chemistry major (physics major, actually), but I don't recall that acid dissolves away ice particularly quickly, as compared to an equal volume of sodium chloride grains (table salt) for example. Acid doesn't "damage" liquid water at all -- they just intermix.

But again, we have no proof that chemistry works the way it does in real life, aside from a few examples where it just happens to be the same. As an example of how radically different the DnD world is, rather than 100+ elements, there are only four.

Several things may superficially be the same (wood burns and gives off heat, etc.) but the mechanics underneath must be vastly different - so using real-world chemistry to predict what should happen is dubious at best.

 

[mvincent]

we have no proof that chemistry works the way it does in real life

We would normally just follow the rules if possible. Ray of Ice says:
"A frozen creature can free itself with a DC 18 Strength check or by dealing 15 points of damage to the ice."

The rules say "Acid and sonic attacks deal damage to most objects just as they do to creatures; roll damage and apply it normally after a successful hit.". Ice is an object with 0 hardness.

I personally try all sorts of weird chemistry things in D&D... example: covering myself with soap powder (a base) or feeding it to oozes to counteract the acid. But acid's interaction with ice seems pretty spelled out in D&D. I wouldn't expect a DM to go into the chemistry of it (especially since it's already been established that say, electrical spells in 3.5 are not even affected by being underwater).

 

[moritheil]

We would normally just follow the rules if possible.

We would. But tdow started a line of speculation based on real-world chemistry, and it was that which I was responding to.

 

[tdow]

So the chemistry red herring aside, how would people interpret the effects against a mounted opponent? That's not such a rare occurrence (much more common than Oozes in most scenarios).

 

[irdeggman]

So the chemistry red herring aside, how would people interpret the effects against a mounted opponent? That's not such a rare occurrence (much more common than Oozes in most scenarios).

Since it is a ray it attacks one target.

So the answer depends on whether you are targeting the rider or the mount.

Targeting the rider, obviously has no effect on movement since he isn't using his movement mode to move in the first place.

But I would read the spell to have the most close effect to what is written.

Whether or not the feat are bound or not - I would apply the penalties as specifed to actions.

For a flying creature, again the issue on the feet is moot, IMO, but I would apply the no movement and other penalties as written. Basically the creature is now forced to
hover". The description could be that the weight added by the ice and uncontrolled "balance" issues to a flying creature has the effect that essentially no movement is allowed and all the concentration applied to moving whle flying merely keeps the creature from falling and then this concentration is what messes up the reast of the creature's actions.

Remember that you can trip a flying creature - so the same sort of twisted logic should be applied here too, IMO.