Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SoulStorm" data-source="post: 704334" data-attributes="member: 1294">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.</blockquote>

Verification