Ice Archon

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Force spells (for example the wall) disagree with you.

You mean 3.x Wall of Force spells that might work different in 4E?
In Arcana Evolved, the Wall of Force spell equivalents can take damage -including from energy attacks.

And a Wall of Force spell doesn't also take damage for any other source ...

 

[AZRogue]

Force spells (for example the wall) disagree with you.

Does it really matter if it has molecules or not? If a living flame can move around, is solid, and can wield a sword, is it that much of a leap to consider that a more powerful flame can harm it?

I thought we dealt with dragons around here.

 

[HeinorNY]

Force spells (for example the wall) disagree with you.

Nah they don't. You do.

I you want to keep changing the focus of the discussion, don't count on me, I'll not turn the thread about the Ice Archon into a debate on why Wall of Force is immune to all kinds of damage.

And since we all agree Fire Archons are not made of Force, I think that pretty much ends the debate.

 

[Derren]

Nah they don't. You do.

So?
Is the Wall of Force solid, yes or no?
Is the Wall of Force made out of molecules, yes or no?

When you steer the discussion into the "if its solid, its not energy" direction you have to expect that someone points out your faulty knowledge.

 

[HeinorNY]

So?
Is the Wall of Force solid, yes or no?
Is the Wall of Force made out of molecules, yes or no?

When you steer the discussion into the "if its solid, its not energy" direction you have to expect that someone points out your faulty knowledge.

Whatever...
The Fire Archon article says the archon's body is solid.
It doesn't say it is an energy that feels to be solid. If so, we could point the Wall of Force as a possible example. But that's not the case.
The article clearly states it is solid. If it is solid, it has molecules. If it has molecules, it can be harmed by too high or too low temperatures.


Oh, and I didn't say "if it's solid it's not energy" or whatever, the article just says it's solid. And are you really pointing my "faulty knowledge" using spells from a fantasy game? Please, don't go that way.

 

[Derren]

. If it is solid, it has molecules. If it has molecules, it can be harmed by too high or too low temperatures.

In a magical setting this can be disputed. It still doesn't change that the Archons are made out of living fire.
Also is that really true? Is all matter really destroyed when cooled down to ~0 Kelvin? And what about plasma? Is it solid and if yes it is harmed by high temperatures?

Also I really doubt that all molecules are harmed by energy extremes. Objects, made out of molecules maybe (which I don't think is universally true) but molecules? Ice might crack when it gets too cold but most of the ice molecules are still intact.

Oh, and I didn't say "if it's solid it's not energy" or whatever, the article just says it's solid. And are you really pointing my "faulty knowledge" using spells from a fantasy game? Please, don't go that way.

When the discussion is about the fluff and rules of a fantasy game I can certainly point out that your knowledge about the rules and fluff about this fantasy game is lacking if that is the case.

 

[HeinorNY]

In a magical setting this can be disputed.

Exactly!
If you can dispute that in a magical setting a solid creature may or may not have molecules, or by having or not molecules it may or may not be harmed by too high or too low temperatures, how you dare dispute that:

Great, in 4E you can freeze beings made out of cold.....

?

What's your point afterall? What are you trying to prove? Do you think it makes the game itself worse? Do you think immunities are better then resistances? Why? Do you just think the new mechanics make no sense?
In this thread there is a lot of good, imaginative and "believable" explanations to why that could happen. If you don't like any of those explanations, make one yourself and post here. If you don't want to create an explanation because you don't like the new ruling, fine, live with that.
But it's not constructive to just post "Great, in 4E you can freeze beings made out of cold...." and then start disputing other people's imaginative explanation using quasi-scientific arguments AND dispute other people's quasi-scientific explanations using the "this is a magical setting" argument.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

In a magical setting this can be disputed. It still doesn't change that the Archons are made out of living fire.

But they are not flames. They are solid, can be touched without suffering burns (although it seems they're uncomfortably hot), and so on. They are creatures of elemental fire, not fire itself (which is, after all, non-living and non-sentient).

Also I really doubt that all molecules are harmed by energy extremes. Objects, made out of molecules maybe (which I don't think is universally true) but molecules? Ice might crack when it gets too cold but most of the ice molecules are still intact.

Sufficient energy will first break up the molecules, then ionize the atoms (turning them into plasma), then disband the atomic nuclei, until finally, at Big-Bang temperatures, even the protons and neutrons fly apart into quarks.

None of which is really relevant for the discussion. You could very well argue that matter in the D&D universe is contiguous, and can be divided into infinitely small portions, or presume that there are elemental atoms, or whatever.

In any case, it's futile to try and argue from real-world physics as to whether ice archons should be able to withstand infinite cold, or fire archons take any amount of heat. The game designers have decided that absolute immunities are either rare or non-existent, because it they believe it makes for a better game, so obviously sufficient extremes of energy are harmful to the archons.

 

[Wormwood]

In any case, it's futile to try and argue from real-world physics as to whether ice archons should be able to withstand infinite cold, or fire archons take any amount of heat. The game designers have decided that absolute immunities are either rare or non-existent, because it they believe it makes for a better game, so obviously sufficient extremes of energy are harmful to the archons.

This is as correct now as it was 6 pages ago.

Oh well. See y'all on page twelve.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

This is as correct now as it was 6 pages ago.

Oh well. See y'all on page twelve.

Whoops, that's what happens when you start reading the thread from the end...