Is Quench really all that?

(Heehee. Interesting veiwpoint, but I've already to highly worked out my cosmology to change now. Err, back to the psuedo-rant just for the fun of it...)

Bah! If you had read the works of Draban of Sarcothenes you would have dropped such outdated notions of three elements a long time ago. Not only should simple logic dictate fundamental symmetry of the universe requires a bi-fold of bi-folding to produce completeness - four principal alignments, four cardinal directions, four dimensions of space and time, and so forth, but the arguements you raise are easily dismissed.

If fog is cold energy expression of air, why is it wet?

Why are not crystals cold? Indeed, why should crytals be such powerful focuses for light, heat, life, and healing and many other things if they were allied exclusively or even principally with cold?

And any wizard ought to be able to tell you that 'magic' is no single force.

Most importantly, it is _known_ and widely proven that fire may exist independently of any other element. Relatively simple conjurations can call into being enternal flames which have been shown to burn readily and indefinately in a floating and enclosed glass spheres from which all the air has been drawn forth. Moreoever, such tricks by theorists are not even strictly speaking necessary. For what clearer evidence have we of the independent existance of fire, than an infinite universe of flame where earth and air are but rare commodities and couriousities to the inhabitants and water is an unknown thing of legend.

Your opinions seem as much formed by the spells and conjuring tricks you have encountered as anything else. I assure you that it is quite possible to conjure forth explosions of sand, clouds of metal shards, rods of stone, and hails of granite.

(As a side note, I actually balked at energy admixture and energy substitution when I first encountered them for these reasons as much as the fact that I figured everyone would use Sonic 90% of the time.)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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

Daniel
Bah! Don't give me any of that scientific modelling and theory building nonsense! Without numerous half-baked assumptions how could I post such a needlessly long and tedious reply just to present a simple opinion? Assumption is fun. That, and jumping to conclusions.
... :D
 

Cosmology is all fine and good, and I defnitely recommend it -- but I don't think a weird rule should require a specific cosmology to justify. With the exception of the "invisibility" spell, but that's another rant for another day.

I think I'll stick with (and recommend) my revised fire-subtype, fiery-natural-weapons criterion for being affected by Quench; although it's not been errata'ed that I could find, I'll house rule that Quench, like all other AoE spells that deal direct damage, allows SR.

As a side note, I think that incorporeal creatures are unaffected by things that don't allow SR. Drop a ton of mud on a ghost using transmute rock to mud, and they won't take a point of damage, because the damage isn't directly caused by magic. A fire elemental ghost (yes, yes, I know it won't work) would be affected by quench, however, if the caster passed the 50% miss chance. That's because quench is a directly magical efect: subject to spell resistance, able to hit incorporeal creatures.

Daniel
 

Remove ads

Top