Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7091950" data-attributes="member: 4937">That may seem reasonable to you, but my point is that over D&D's history it's had various explicit logical conclusions in the rules that are quite different than the one you've struck on.   None of the things I mentioned as possible solutions are abstractions.  They are things that at one point in time or the other, have been explicitly true.The comment was rhetorical as well, and you are taking it out of context; I bet you won't actually find 'Fortitude' saves in the 5e rules either.But for the record, as long as we are feeling rules lawyery, 'smoke' itself doesn't so far as I know have official 5e rules.  Still, a Fire Elemental does have immunity to both fire and poison damage, and does have condition immunity to the poisoned and exhausted conditions, so I dare suggest that the designers thoughts on this might not be so far off my thinking.   I would suggest that even in 5e a fire elemental is immune to smoke independently of its immunity to fire, for all the same reasons it is immune to cloudkill.   Since that is true, your original 'logic' that the implications of A + B necessarily implied C doesn't hold up either.Likewise, if a fire elemental needed to breathe (it doesn't), and was only immune to fire but not to poison, the poisoned condition, and a variety of other condition immunities common to being an elemental, we could not say from the rules that it was immune to smoke for all the same reasons it would not then be immune to cloudkill.</blockquote>

Verification