Is Quench really all that?

[Dark Dragon]

Oh, yeah! Wippit, that was my other question. Is any creature with the "fire" subtype considered a fire-based creature? Or does the creature's body need to consist substantially of fire? Is this clarified anywhere?

Ideally, they would've said, any creature with the fire subtype takes the listed damage -- but then, would fire giants really be killable with the quench spell? That seems a little goofy to me. Otherwise, it'd be nice if there were some clear way to figure out which creatures constitute "fire-based."

Daniel

IIRC, there was a thread on that matter, and I'm quite sure that they agreed that the creature must be mostly made of fire (like a fire elemental, effigy, burning skeleton, magmin, salamander...) to be affected by Quench.

Well, I'd rule it like that. So, no dragon or fire giant killing with this spell.

 

[LokiDR]

I would say any creature with subtype [fire] is fire based. Look out fire giants.

 

[Nail]

I'm not so concerned about its balance -- like many druid spells, it's effective only in a narrow range of encounters. I'm more worried that it breaks one of the rules of D&D magic: a spell that directly affects a target is subject to Spell Resistance

Maze

Still, for an area based attack...I'd be tempted to allow SR. No save; just SR. Depends how you interprete the "flavor" of the spell.

As written, the spall does include Fire Giants and Red Dragons, etc. Bizarre.

 

[Pielorinho]

Here's the previous thread. I think I'd rule that it only works against fire-based creatures (i.e., creatures whose bodies consist substantially of flame); furthermore, I'd rule that it allows for SR. But I'd tell my players this ahead of time, of course.

Otherwise, even though its effect is highly specialized, it's way too powerful for a fourth-level spell, and verges on violating one of the basic concepts of D&D magic.

Daniel

 

[Pielorinho]

Maze

Still, for an area based attack...I'd be tempted to allow SR. No save; just SR. Depends how you interprete the "flavor" of the spell.

As written, the spall does include Fire Giants and Red Dragons, etc. Bizarre.

Good catch on Maze! Although I think that as written, it's unclear whether it includes Fire Giants and Red Dragons. It affects fire-based creatures, not creatures with the fire subtype; conceivably, these are two different groups. Yay being a rules-lawyer, eh?

Of course (giggle) we could always (snort) ask customer (hee hee) service (chuckle) for an answer. HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW!

Daniel

 

[Dark Dragon]

I would say any creature with subtype [fire] is fire based. Look out fire giants.

I disagree unless there is a clear rule that backs up your interpretation. If you rule 0 it FYC, ok.

Question: What happens to a red dragon when he takes a bath in the ocean and makes a dive?
Answer: Nothing at all.

Same question for a fire elemental...

 

[Golandrinel]

An ocean isn't a magical effect though is it. The spell description doesn't say anything about water at all.

 

[Pielorinho]

How would this work: any creature whose natural weapon attacks cause fire damage is subject to the spell's damaging aspects? This would catch fire elementals, thoqquas, magmin, fire mephits, etc., but not red dragons, fire giants, and so on. Would this be a good rule of thumb for who's affected by it?

Daniel

 

[Nail]

Question: What happens to a red dragon when he takes a bath in the ocean and makes a dive?
Answer: Nothing at all.

Same question for a fire elemental...

And what would your answer be, I wonder? Using core rules as a basis.

Are you suggesting that ordinary water does damage to a fire elemental? How about a lava memphit, etc? Again, we're not talkin' about 'realism" here, just core rules. After all, "realism" need not apply in a world with magic.

That bit about "Fire Sub-type" says double damage from cold. It's got nothin' about water in it........

 

[Golandrinel]

Surely the breath weapon of a red hits that spot Pielorinho.