Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nonlethal Force" data-source="post: 3784317" data-attributes="member: 35788">Jer - Your point and my points are really the same.  What I would argue is that the game designers could easily drop the elemental planes in favor of a more adventurous place.  But if they do, they should not call them the plane of ____.  I also think that there is nothing wrong with having an elemental plane of ____ where the elemental of ____ comes from and it is assumed that if a player visits there they will likely burn/suffocate/drown/fall forever without the proper spell to counter the planar effects.  I thik both options are viable, but if the elemental planes are kept they should be largely inhospitable (and they don't need to be fleshed out much if they are - kindof like the "deep places" or "high mountains).Remathilis - I disagree that an elemental plane of water with a bottom is believable.  If anything, that makes it less believable.  The elemental plane of water is just water.  It is a comparison that breaks down if stretched too far, but imagine a gas giant planet made up of water instead of gas.  To me, that is what the elemental plane of water should be.  It is simply that: a plane of water.  Same with fire, earth, etc.  That is precisely what makes them inhospitable.  Without the right spells you can't move and thus suffocate on the elemental plane of earth because you are stuck in rock.  You can't move and burn to a crisp in a matter of seconds on the plane of fire without the protective spels.  You drown really quickly in the elemental plane of water without the protective spells.  And you fall forever in the plane of air without the ability to fly from some source.To have a "ground" to walk on in the plane of air makes it no longer the plane of air.  Now, it is an alternate prime material plane and should be given a name.  Ditto for the other planes.And of course, this is just in my opinion, not doctrine by any means!</blockquote>

Verification