Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Gaiden" data-source="post: 1767939" data-attributes="member: 103">My post is entirely a rules extrapolation.The lava rule seems to be the most coherent ruling I can find.&nbsp; Based on the rule:If a fire elemental cannot enter water at all, I think what's behind the impassability of the water is that the fire creature would be destroyed.&nbsp; I would think it would be completely nonsensical to treat the water like a force effect for example - after all, then the fire elemental could just walk on top of the water.&nbsp; Also, I don't think there is a precedent for treating the water like a repulsion effect.&nbsp; So what's left is that the body of water would destroy the fire elemental outright.You might want to rule exactly that - fire creature enters body of nonflammable liquid and it is destroyed with no save.&nbsp; However, There is no real precendent for that other than the extrapolation of the impassable barrier.&nbsp; I would alternativly use the lava rules for a fire elemental in water looking at the impassability of water as a simplification.&nbsp; The designers probably never really considered the possibilities and just make a general catch all ban for convenience.&nbsp; They could have done the same for normal characters and lava but for that the normal characters would probably encounter lava far more often than a fire elemental would encounter a body of water.&nbsp; Also, the 20d6 damage makes a bit more sense to me.&nbsp; If it is the case that they are magically powered from the elemental plane of fire, and you have elementals of varying sizes, it would seem to me that the bigger ones will take slightly longer to extinguish than the smaller ones because there is a larger connection to the plane of fire.A good support for this ruling would be the quench spell.&nbsp; Descriptively it is doing something similar and IIRC does a d6 dmg per level.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Gaiden, post: 1767939, member: 103"] My post is entirely a rules extrapolation. The lava rule seems to be the most coherent ruling I can find. Based on the rule: If a fire elemental cannot enter water at all, I think what's behind the impassability of the water is that the fire creature would be destroyed. I would think it would be completely nonsensical to treat the water like a force effect for example - after all, then the fire elemental could just walk on top of the water. Also, I don't think there is a precedent for treating the water like a repulsion effect. So what's left is that the body of water would destroy the fire elemental outright. You might want to rule exactly that - fire creature enters body of nonflammable liquid and it is destroyed with no save. However, There is no real precendent for that other than the extrapolation of the impassable barrier. I would alternativly use the lava rules for a fire elemental in water looking at the impassability of water as a simplification. The designers probably never really considered the possibilities and just make a general catch all ban for convenience. They could have done the same for normal characters and lava but for that the normal characters would probably encounter lava far more often than a fire elemental would encounter a body of water. Also, the 20d6 damage makes a bit more sense to me. If it is the case that they are magically powered from the elemental plane of fire, and you have elementals of varying sizes, it would seem to me that the bigger ones will take slightly longer to extinguish than the smaller ones because there is a larger connection to the plane of fire. A good support for this ruling would be the quench spell. Descriptively it is doing something similar and IIRC does a d6 dmg per level. [/QUOTE]

Verification