Earthquake and Gargantuan Size

[rushlight]

This question arose during my last game. The players were fighting a Great White Wyrm (of Gargantuan size) and it landed to crush someone. The cleric was contemplating casting Earthquake to kill the creature. I don't have the books in front of me now, but basically the spell reads that first no creatures can move (because of the violent shaking ground) and that there's a % chance of killing any creature in the area by opening a fizzure beneath it (reflex negates).

Here's my interpretation: First, the dragon COULD fly away. The shaking ground doesn't effect the ability of the wings to function (ie., the wings still grab air where a foot wouldn't land flat). Second, I questioned the ability of a spell (with an area of 75 ft radius) to create a fizzure large enough to swallow completely a 40ft by 80ft creature. By the rules of the spell, there's only a small % (25% I believe) chance that the fizzures are large enough or close enough to kill a regular creature. What then must be % chance be for near one half of the area of effect being one gargantuan hole? Wouldn't the spell then read that everything in the area (or close to it) is swallowed by the earth? It seems to me that fizzures that would swallow regular creatures whole would just be a minor annoyance to such a large creature. Otherwise the spell would be called Summon Gaping Hole instead of Earthquake.

And what about Colossal creatures? By a strict reading of the rules, you could cast Earthquake and arrange it so that one 5ft square falls under the Tarrasque's foot and *POOF*! he fails his save (for some odd reason) and then what? He goes *flush* down a 5-ft hole in the ground somehow fitting the Colossal size into a ity-bity hole?

Anyway my player doesn't agree with me. What do you nice folks think?

 

[The_lone_gunman]

No way would I allow a 70' fissure kill the 80' creature that could fly. Especially a dragon.....

However, you could interpret it a few ways. If the whole was big enough to fit at least most of the creature in (I would say at least 50%) that the creature only half falls in, but the closing fissure cuts it in half, killing it.......

I would say that he would need to open it at least wide enough for part of the creature to fall in for it to have any effect.


TLG

 

[Otterscrubber]

I agree that this spell might only be partially usefull against such a foe. Although it could be usefull in trapping the dragon on the ground, lending a large tactical advantage to the PCs if it gets a claw caught in a fissure. Might cause some damage, or perhpas just limit its ability to move.

Also I wouldn't think that a dragon's ability to fly would save it, were not talking about a hummingbird here. I beleive dragons of that size are listed as clumsy fliers so if it was on the ground I would rule that it could not save itself from falling.

 

[Gromm]

Well if the dragon can hover, I don't see it getting caught myself.
If it can't hover than its in trouble, but what dragon can't hover?

Seems to me the spell was designed with Medium-Large humaniods primarily in mind, so it doesn't work well on really big things. I think anything larger than 5x5 is probably going to be ok, though some bipeds might still get caught. Anything that large with 4 legs probably wont fall in anyway.

Really a big judgement call.

 

[Xarlen]

If the cleric's under the dragon, and he casts the spell... Shouldn't he fall in?

 

[rushlight]

"If the cleric's under the dragon, and he casts the spell... Shouldn't he fall in?"

That's what I was saying. If the % chance to fall is rolled for a creature who's size fills the spell's area, shouldn't everyone in the area automatically fall in too, reguardless? After all, the entire spell area is just one big hole...