What happen if a fire elemental fails to make the jump over a body of water?

[TheGogmagog]

"A slippery slope" is a strawman argument.

Not necessarily so. On the contrary your comment was the first time I have seen it refer to a fallacious argument.

It's for this reason, that when RAW is unclear I usually go for the interpretations that lead to the least ammount of 'then what if...' questions. Case in point, Old Gumphrey's retorts I am quite comfortable with. I would consider immersed up to the neck the same as immersed, I could see a DM graduating the damage up to 10d6 though. I'm also fine with 1d6 damage for throwing a pot of boiling water on a commoner or 1st level wizard might kill them. Just as falling from a 10' ledge might.

 

[Deset Gled]

I would say no. The reason it does damage is because it is its opposite element.
...
Earth is not Fire's elemental opposite.

Water is fire's opposite element. Simple!

1. D+D has opposite elements? I find no reference to that in the SRD.

2. Assuming that the "opposite element" damages a Fire Elemental (and not simply the fact that mundane water puts out normal fire), it follows that all all elementals can be damaged by their opposite element. Assuming that Earth and Air are opposite elements (the only two elements left), how much damage does an Earth Elemental take for being engulfed in air? Also, shouldn't a Water Elemental take extra damage from fire (some for the fact that fire simply causes damage, and extra for contacting its opposite element)?

 

[blargney the second]

Anti-matter go boom.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

I don't think people talking about lava rules are suggesting that the water gets turned into lava. I think that they are suggesting that you apply the same amount of damage to the Fire Elemental as a human would get if they were immersed in lave (i.e. 20d6 damage per round).

Olaf the Stout

That makes much more sense. I agree with lava then. I might also make some of the water boil and heat up. Maybe kill alot of fish.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

Not at all. It makes sense and is internally consistant with the rest of the rules. "A slippery slope" is a strawman argument.

Well its not quite a straw man. A straw man and a slippery slope are both falacus arguments though.

The slippery slope argument goes like this

A is like B
B is like C
C is like D

you try to make A seem like D by using the steps of B and C, However A and D are nothing alike.

 

[Nail]

Not necessarily so. On the contrary your comment was the first time I have seen it refer to a fallacious argument.

Interesting! Discussions of rational argument theory can be loads of fun...or loads of something, anyway.

In this case, the argument was an attempt to set up a series of examples that are easily beaten down. Hence my comment "strawman".

 

[Nail]

...and how do you spell "Fallacious" anyway?

 

[Nail]

Back on topic: Does allowing the Fire Elemental to stand on top of water (IOW not sink in water) constitute an "impassible barrier" for the elemental? I think not.

 

[Deset Gled]

Back on topic: Does allowing the Fire Elemental to stand on top of water (IOW not sink in water) constitute an "impassible barrier" for the elemental? I think not.

Impassible in which direction? A stone floor is impassible if I want to go downwards, but not if I want to walk over it.

 

[Nail]

Impassible in which direction? A stone floor is impassible if I want to go downwards, but not if I want to walk over it.

Exactly.

So: Can Fire elementals cross a lake by walking on the water's surface? Is the water's surface the "impassible barrier" the monster text mentions?

(I doubt it.)