Is Quench really all that?

[SoulStorm]

Steverooo,

It's been a long time, but I'm pretty sure Quench was the reverse of Firestorm, not produce fire.

I'd have to go along with having the Fire Subtype as the determining factor for what Quench can affect.

As far as the Spell Resistance debate is concerned, I'm guessing the logic is that the target of the spell is the environment, not the creatures in it. The spell affects the environment in a manner detrimental to creatures with the fire subtype. With this logic the spell makes sense as written.

The Fireball spell (since it has been used as an example) states that it (the fireball) "deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level to all creatures within the area."

Quench states that Fire-based creatures within the area take 1d6 points of damage per caster level from the spell. As written it states the same exact thing as Fireball, just in a different way. If they took of the "...from the spell" you could just say the spell affects the environment and not the creatures directly.

When 3.5 comes out, maybe they should standardize the effect rules between those that change the enviroment and those that affect creatures directly. This would be a standard for determining if spell resistance applies or not. Obviously, spells that affect the environment would require a higher spell slot than otherwise equal spells which affect creatures directly. You could even make it a metamagic feat (+ 4 levels?) to give casters more options against creatures with obscene spell resistance. Just a thought.

 

[SoulStorm]

Celebrim,

... Ahhhh, ...Hmmm, ...Errr, ...What?
*scratches head*

 

[Pielorinho]

Remoraz cause fire damage but are not fire creatures.

Dang! I was trying to remember their name, but I forgot it.

At any rate, given the choice between hurting fire giants (who aren't even particularly hot, from what I can tell) and Remorhaz (who heat up to red-hot), I'd rather have quench hurt the latter. If it's a spell that puts out fire, it makes more sense that it would hurt a being that heats up to red-hotness.

Daniel

 

[Pielorinho]

Okay, a new super-sweet hypercool way to determine who's affected by Quench:

Any creature of the fire subtype whose natural weapons deal fire damage takes 1d6 hit points of damage per caster level (no saving throw, spell resistance applies.

How does that sound? It excludes both Remorhazes and fire giants, but includes the obvious beasties; and it accounts for Spell Resistance.

Celebrim, I don't buy the argument that this is simply changing the environment.

Compare transmute rock to mud and spike stones. Both spells affect a stone surface in such a way that it causes damage to critters (assuming you cast TRtM on a ceiling). The former, however, causes indirect damage: you magically turn rock to mud, and then nonmagically gravity takes over and throws the now-nonmagical mud down on a creature. TRtM therefore allows no SR. Spike stones, however, magically turns rocks into spikes, and these magical rocks directly damage a creature. Spike stones therefore allows SR.

Both change the environment, but one changes it in such a way that damage to a creature is indirect, and the other changes it in such a way that the damage to a creature is direct (i.e., directly caused by the magical changes). The general rule is that if magic affects a creature directly, then SR applies. In the case of quench, even though it's an environmental effect, it seems to me that the damage caused to the creature is caused directly by the environmental change; since that environmental change is magical, SR ought to apply.

It is reassuring to be a rules-lawyer player who's arguing something to the detriment of my character; it makes me suspect that I'm not a munchkin after all.

Daniel

 

[Silver Griffon]

For those who require "reasonable" magic...

SR does not apply to Quench because it does not target the creature. From its description, it is clearly an AoE spell unless used against a magic item. Then, SR of the magic item does apply because quench was used as a targeted spell in that instance. Examining the spell description further, you will find that it is an instantaneous transmutation effect. What is it transmuting? In the case of targeting a wand of fireballs that is obvious. When used as an AoE it is a little more subtle. In that case, you are actually transforming the area itself into an environment that is antithetic to the existence of fire. This transmutation lasts only an instant. All regular, everyday, normal fires are extinguished in that instant. IMHO, one can assume that magical fire, like that which fire elementals and continual flame spells is composed of, is made up of regular fire that is held together, sustained, and enhanced by a magical force. The magic is a "skin" of sorts that sustains the fire. During the instant that the area affected by the quench cannot sustain fire, the magic "skin" attempts to do this. The damage dealt to the fire creature results from some of its "innards" suddenly ceasing to exist. If it survives, then the magic succefssfully sustained or rekindled the fire. The reason that there is no Ref save given to fire creatures in the area is that unlike a fireball, for example, it is not an effect that spreads outwards from a point in space. (Fireball's area entry specifically reads "20-ft. radius spread".) Quench cannot be dodged because the entire area of the spell effect is transmuted all at once. When determining which creatures it would affect, ask this question: Would having some or all of the creature's fire extinguished reasonably be expected to harm the creature? In the case of a remorhaz it would not. Its internal fire is extinguished for only an instant. This does not harm the remorhaz. A generous DM might negate the fire portion of the damage sustained by anyone in the creature's gullet for a single round. A red dragon? Same thing. Again, a generous DM might deny the dragon the use of its breath weapon during that round while its internal fires rekindle. A super-generous DM might even make the dragon wait 1d4 rounds before using the breath weapon just as if it had used it that round. Now, for the munchkins who are thinking about taking advantage of such a generous DM by readying a quench to stop a red dragon's breath weapon, you are out of luck. A breath weapon is a supernatural ability, not a spell, and is not subject to quench. I would allow it to be readied as a counterspell against a fire spell, though.

Note: I am responding to so many different ideas posted here all at once that I am unable to quote everybody. Suffice it to say that I completely agree and vehemently disagree with several of you. Sometimes simultaneously.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

Well, the spell, despite the evocative name, doesn't mention water at all.

I'm thinking it just extinguish fire.

As for what creatures it affects, I'm thinking that any [fire] creature has a very high body temperature and that quench "extinghuish" them a little too.

As a result I always ruled that any [fire] creature is affected. Hey, the spell is already limited enough that way, no need to go farther.

Concerning the SR; now that I read the description of the spell I can't help to notice that Quench can dispell magical fire but needs to succeed at a standard dispel check (maximumk +15).

How come you need a dispel check for magical fire but not an SR test for magical creature?

Either there should be no dispel check or there should be a SR check. Just being logic, that's all.

 

[Dark Dragon]

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........

Okay, I'll try to clear things up on fire based and fire subtype (at last what I'm thinking about it...).

To stay on my question regarding the dragon and the elemental: A fire elemental cannot cross water by touching it and he cannot enter it (MM, p. 84), a red dragon has no problem with water. I don't suggest that water would be harmful to a fire elemental, magmin or magma mephit (unless it's cold enough, and that determination is up to the DM), and realism would sometimes be nice, but it's a world of magic, so...no need to argue .

I'd rule it that all creatures wrathed in flames and/or made of fire (and having a problem entering water) could be affected by Quench. Seems that I'm with Pielorinho on that...

The occasions to use the spell are rare, no need to weaken it. I admit that the dispel check and SR seem to be a bit contrarious, removing the check would make things easier, IMHO.

 

[Pielorinho]

Silver Griffon, I take it you're not a big proponent of Occam's Razor....

Daniel

 

[Golandrinel]

To clarify, Quench was the reverse of the 2e spell Produce Fire which only quenched NORMAL fires.

Produce Fire
(Alteration)
Reversible

Sphere: Elemental (Fire)
Range: 40 yds. Components: V, S, M
Duration: 1 rd. Casting Time: 7
Area of Effect: 12-ft. sq. Saving Throw: None

By means of this spell, the caster creates a common fire of up to 12 feet per side in area. Though it lasts only a single round (unless it ignites additional flammable material), the fire produced by the spell inflicts 1d4 points of damage plus 1 point per caster level (1d4 + 1/level) upon creatures within its area. It ignites combustible materials, such as cloth, oil, paper, parchment, wood, and the like, so as to cause continued burning.
The reverse, quench fire, extinguishes any normal fire (coals, oil, tallow, wax, wood, etc.) within the area of effect.
The material component for either version is a paste of sulfur and wax, formed into a ball and thrown at the target.

However Fire Quench was the reverse of Firestorm.

Fire Storm
(Evocation)
Reversible

Sphere: Elemental (Fire)
Range: 160 yds.
Components: V, S
Duration: 1 rd.
Casting Time: 1 rd.
Area of Effect: two 10-ft. cubes/level
Saving Throw: ½

When a fire storm spell is cast, the whole area is shot through with sheets of roaring flame that equal a wall of fire spell in effect. Creatures within the area of fire and 10 feet or less from the edge of the affected area receive 2d8 points of damage plus additional damage equal to the caster's level (2d8 +1/level). Creatures that roll successful saving throws vs. spell suffer only one-half damage. The damage is inflicted each round the creature stays in the area of effect. The area of effect is equal to two 10-foot x 10-foot cubes per level of the cater--e.g., a 13th-level caster can cast a fire storm measuring 130 feet x 20 feet x 10 feet. The height of the storm is 10 or 20 feet; the imbalance of its area must be in length and width.
The reverse spell, fire quench, smothers twice the area of effect of a fire storm spell with respect to normal fires, and the normal area of effect with respect to magical fires. Fire-based creatures, such as elementals, salamanders, etc., of less than demigod status have a 5% chance per experience level of the caster of being extinguished. If cast only against a flametongue sword, the sword must roll a successful saving throw vs. crushing blow or be rendered nonmagical. Such a sword in the possession of a creature first receives the creature's saving throw, and if this is successful, the second saving throw is automatically successful.

 

[Nail]

Waaaaaaaaay OT

The following is with tongue firmly planted in cheek:

"Gold coins don't quench fires on your world, do they?"

No, they don't, because gold is formed from ball like clusters of energized and illumined earth element. Fire element introduced to gold lubricates it and causes it to soften, .....

This is basic alchemy that any third year student ought to know.

...as long as that student is taught alchemy from an out-dated text book from the last century.

(Still, even such an ill-informed student should have been able to tell you that indeed, a fire can be smothered with gold.)

Most modern wizards and well-versed sorceresses know that there are, in fact, only three elements: Air, Water, and Earth. "Fire" and "flame" is merely an expression of the Energy of Heat through the medium of Air. This is made clear when we think of the ways Heat is expressed in the other two elements: Earth => Lava, and Water => Steam.

Moreover, it becomes clear that Heat is only one type of energy expressed through the elements; Fog, Ice, and Crystals are the the Cold-energy opposites of Heat through each of the respective real elements. There are other energy types as well, such as Entropy and Magic, each in turn capable of being expressed through the three fundamental elements. The evidence for this is all around us; in our magic, in our travels, and in our communes with higher powers.

It is presently in vogue for modern magi to criticize those of earlier ages for their inability to see this more fundamental truth. They say that the ancient magician's first clue should have been the inability of the supposed element of fire to last indefinitely without support, as the other three elements can. Moreover, present-day wizards point to the fact that only these "pseudo-elements" (fire, lightning, acid, etc.) may do damage when in contact with creatures or items, while the three "real" elements do not. Again, the elders seem to have grasped part of this truth (witness the abundance of sonic-acid-fireballs, as an example), but failed to take the knowledge to it's logical conclusion.

Still, we should not belittle our aged forefathers for their inability to grasp the full implications of their own work and magic. For we ourselves only have risen to these heights by standing on the shoulders of these ancient Titans.