Is Quench really all that?

[Nail]

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

That sounds like a great idea. (Dragon breath is not a natural weapon attack. Nor is chimera's breath weapon, etc.)

 

[Golandrinel]

Surely it is natural to the dragon? A dragon doesn't have to "cast" a breath weapon...

And in this example the red will have a resistance/immunity to fire damage, I'd say that would qualify it.

 

[Pielorinho]

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

A breath weapon isn't a natural weapon -- I'm trying to get a judgement that uses predefined terms.

Natural weapons = claw, bite, tail slap, slam, gore, constrict, trample, tentacle, horn, hoof, rake, butt (like a bison, silly!), stamp, arms, sting, etc. Anything that's listed under the "attacks" line in the monster's description and that isn't a manufactured weapon counts, I believe. Breath weapons are never listed there, to the best of my knowledge.

My thinking is that if a natural weapon causes fire damage, that generally means it's because the pointy part of the creature's body (the part causing the damage) is on fire; this means that quench would put out the fires that comprise part of the creature's body.

Daniel

 

[Celebrim]

I think that 'natural weapon' causes fire damage is a fairly good check.

As far as water damaging fire based creatures, you could have each gallon deliver 1d8 subdual damage versus 'fire-based' creatures if you wanted, but 'create water' and similar spells would then acquire pretty hefty side effects.

 

[Pielorinho]

As far as water damaging fire based creatures, you could have each gallon deliver 1d8 subdual damage versus 'fire-based' creatures if you wanted, but 'create water' and similar spells would then acquire pretty hefty side effects.

We've allowed something vaguely similar in the past: "create water", I think, we allowed to function as a dose of holy water against fire-based creatures. Once casting of the spell = 2d4 points of damage to them. It doesn't exactly track the amount of water created very well, but it keeps this in-line for other orisons in power level.

Daniel

 

[Wippit Guud]

Well... can't monks take a feat that grants fire damage to their natural attacks? (dunno if it's OA or S&F). And wouldn't that make monks who have it quenchable?

 

[Pielorinho]

Well... can't monks take a feat that grants fire damage to their natural attacks? (dunno if it's OA or S&F). And wouldn't that make monks who have it quenchable?

I've not seen that feat, but I think I'd rule it doesn't apply, since -- well, since I don't want it to.

Maybe I'd rule that it's the feat, not the monk's natural weaponry, causing the fire damage.

I know that's splitting hairs, but c'mon -- I'm trying to use existing rules to describe the difference between fire-based creatures and fire-subtype creatures. If we start adding non-core products to this, I'll never be able to get it done.

(FTR, I also wouldn't rule that a druid who cast produce flame is quenchable: it's the spell, not the natural weaponry, that causes the fire damage).

Daniel

 

[Wippit Guud]

What about a druid who wildshapes into a fire elemental?
Or a shapechange spell for that matter?

 

[Celebrim]

I would think it most certainly applies to someone who has assumed the form of a fire-based creature.

If you are a fire elemental, you can get quenched.

 

[Pielorinho]

I would think it most certainly applies to someone who has assumed the form of a fire-based creature.

If you are a fire elemental, you can get quenched.

It's a good question. I'd be inclined to agree with Celebrim, but to be sure, I'd find out first whether a druid wildshaped into a fire elemental takes double damage from cold attacks. If so, they can be quenched; if not, nope.

Daniel