Unbalanced druid power


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 256 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

sunshadow21 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

What happens to water elementals as they leave their water around?

Why are people and things not taking damage just from being near to them?

For me personally, I would answer by saying the things being done require deliberate action, the cooperation of the elemental, and time. A torch won't automatically light just by being near a fire elemental, but sticking it in or on the fire elemental will likely result in it being lit; the fact that the character will likely end up dealing with an irate elemental is secondary for the moment, even if it isn't to the overall scene. Similar reasoning with getting air or water from an elemental. I could easily see elementals shedding air/water the same way that humans shed skin cells; get a large enough elemental and someone with enough time and a proper container could potentially gather enough to be useful. Whether it's enough to be worth the effort would be dubious, but it would still be possible.

The poster is claiming it works just like it does in real life, and it being a creature is a non factor so I am wondering how they handle certain real life aspects of this in the game, or how they would if they were a GM.


wraithstrike wrote:
The poster is claiming it works just like it does in real life, and it being a creature is a non factor so I am wondering how they handle certain real life aspects of this in the game, or how they would if they were a GM.

That is definitely where things can get tricky.


wraithstrike wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

Everything is up to the GM. The idea of a "right way" to run things has always been a fallacy.

It's not a calling for a "can't" rule. It's asking for a rule that says other rules stop applying. Without such a rule the water in water elementals follows the same rules as water and the fire in a fire elementals follows the same rules as fire.

No rule really says that wet spell components become useless. It's a GM call.

GMs are expected to fill the holes in the rules

I mean a "right" way with regard to falling in line with the rules. As an example if I say a weapon focus gives +2 to attacks because i think it works that way, then I wrong. If I houserule it to a +2 then I am not wrong. What did you think I was trying to say?

So since you keep insisting that water and fire elementals act like any other fire or water I will repeat a question.

What happens to water elementals as they leave their water around?

Why are people and things not taking damage just from being near to them?

Nothing.

Idk why they would take damage from being near water, assuming you meant fire, people don't normally take damage from being near fire either (burn effects creatures touching and objects auto-fail reflex saves).

Of course I meant fire and I meant real life fire. Nothing in the game says you have to touch fire to be harmed by it, and in real life you only have to get too close.

As for the water elemental are you saying the water never runs out? In real life if I keep taking water from a source it does not auto-replenish. <----That is what I was getting at.

Fire does cause damage to touch see torch.

Why would the elemental run out of water? It's made from water, that doesn't mean it runs out.

Also I never said it works like it did in real life. I'm just looking at the rules, which both fire and water have.


Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Why would the elemental run out of water? It's made from water, that doesn't mean it runs out.

Humans can replace blood over time as well, but that doesn't mean that they give it up willingly or that they can't still bleed to death. The same applies here. You could in theory get water or air from an elemental, but no sane elemental is going to make a habit of letting it happen to them.


sunshadow21 wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Why would the elemental run out of water? It's made from water, that doesn't mean it runs out.
Humans can replace blood over time as well, but that doesn't mean that they give it up willingly or that they can't still bleed to death. The same applies here. You could in theory get water or air from an elemental, but no sane elemental is going to make a habit of letting it happen to them.

Humans in PF don't run out of blood unless it's bleed damage.

Water elementals probably just draw water out of the air as needed


Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Humans in PF don't run out of blood unless it's bleed damage.

This is the difficulty of the position you are trying to espouse. You can't argue that fire and water have the same properties in PF as they do in real life and then turn around and say that humans don't bleed unless they are hit with a specific attack when lots of people describe the loss of HP as bleeding out of one or more severe wounds. If you are going to choose to ignore descriptions and rules, you have to be consistent about how and when you do so, especially when you are attempting even partial reconstructions of real life.


Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
sunshadow21 wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Why would the elemental run out of water? It's made from water, that doesn't mean it runs out.
Humans can replace blood over time as well, but that doesn't mean that they give it up willingly or that they can't still bleed to death. The same applies here. You could in theory get water or air from an elemental, but no sane elemental is going to make a habit of letting it happen to them.

Humans in PF don't run out of blood unless it's bleed damage.

Water elementals probably just draw water out of the air as needed

So where in the RAW does it say that? If it did that, would that not mean the air around it would be dry all the time? And when you get to that point, would that not mean that things would dry out around it, not get wet?

So many logical holes here... see, when you get into a "well common sense would say" things, then you get into all sorts of cluster mess....


Wheldrake wrote:
isn't it funny how this thread started out being about overpowered druids?

Hardly!

Having a water elemental make stuff wet is where the *real* power is. It has spelled the doom of many a campaign.

And fire elementals can totally hide in the dark in an oil soaked hay stack, as long as it doesn't attack it.

Personally, I go with what's called the the Silver Rule from the Fate Core RPG: "Never let the rules get in the way of what makes narrative sense."

So water elementals make stuff wet, and fire elementals are made of glowing constantly burning stuff. Why isn't the water elemental shrinking if all its water is soaked elsewhere: Because the overall story doesn't care!

I've had moments in my games where I allowed some situational rules bending because it made for a better story and I knew it wouldn't turn into a "I do this because you already allowed it once so it has precedence and *must* work again!"


sunshadow21 wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Humans in PF don't run out of blood unless it's bleed damage.
This is the difficulty of the position you are trying to espouse. You can't argue that fire and water have the same properties in PF as they do in real life...

I'm not. The fire in fire elementals and the water in water elementals have the same properties as fire and water does in PF.


K177Y C47 wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
sunshadow21 wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Why would the elemental run out of water? It's made from water, that doesn't mean it runs out.
Humans can replace blood over time as well, but that doesn't mean that they give it up willingly or that they can't still bleed to death. The same applies here. You could in theory get water or air from an elemental, but no sane elemental is going to make a habit of letting it happen to them.

Humans in PF don't run out of blood unless it's bleed damage.

Water elementals probably just draw water out of the air as needed

So where in the RAW does it say that? If it did that, would that not mean the air around it would be dry all the time? And when you get to that point, would that not mean that things would dry out around it, not get wet?

So many logical holes here... see, when you get into a "well common sense would say" things, then you get into all sorts of cluster mess....

I never said "well common sense would say" or any sort of appeal like that.


Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
I'm not. The fire in fire elementals and the water in water elementals have the same properties as fire and water does in PF.

If that were the case, elementals couldn't exist because in real life, neither water nor fire have form. Something clearly exists in PF that allows for a coherent form; that something will alter to at least some degree the properties of the component parts. You can still get the original properties to work, but it's not an automatic thing, and determining precisely how is not something they can really codify.


sunshadow21 wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
I'm not. The fire in fire elementals and the water in water elementals have the same properties as fire and water does in PF.
If that were the case, elementals couldn't exist because in real life, neither water nor fire have form. Something clearly exists in PF that allows for a coherent form; that something will alter to at least some degree the properties of the component parts. You can still get the original properties to work, but it's not an automatic thing, and determining precisely how is not something they can really codify.

It's a creature made out of a substance.

Both components have rules. I don't assume the properties change unless the elemental creature type and bestiary say they do.


Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
sunshadow21 wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Why would the elemental run out of water? It's made from water, that doesn't mean it runs out.
Humans can replace blood over time as well, but that doesn't mean that they give it up willingly or that they can't still bleed to death. The same applies here. You could in theory get water or air from an elemental, but no sane elemental is going to make a habit of letting it happen to them.

Humans in PF don't run out of blood unless it's bleed damage.

Water elementals probably just draw water out of the air as needed

So where in the RAW does it say that? If it did that, would that not mean the air around it would be dry all the time? And when you get to that point, would that not mean that things would dry out around it, not get wet?

So many logical holes here... see, when you get into a "well common sense would say" things, then you get into all sorts of cluster mess....

I never said "well common sense would say" or any sort of appeal like that.

No, but your whole argument hinges on the principle that something would do some effect because "common sense dictates" i.e. something being wet when contacted by water.


K177Y C47 wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
sunshadow21 wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Why would the elemental run out of water? It's made from water, that doesn't mean it runs out.
Humans can replace blood over time as well, but that doesn't mean that they give it up willingly or that they can't still bleed to death. The same applies here. You could in theory get water or air from an elemental, but no sane elemental is going to make a habit of letting it happen to them.

Humans in PF don't run out of blood unless it's bleed damage.

Water elementals probably just draw water out of the air as needed

So where in the RAW does it say that? If it did that, would that not mean the air around it would be dry all the time? And when you get to that point, would that not mean that things would dry out around it, not get wet?

So many logical holes here... see, when you get into a "well common sense would say" things, then you get into all sorts of cluster mess....

I never said "well common sense would say" or any sort of appeal like that.
No, but your whole argument hinges on the principle that something would do some effect because "common sense dictates" i.e. something being wet when contacted by water.

That's because when you touch water in PF you get wet.

I never said anything about "common sense". Just applying how water is handled in PF to a creature in PF made out of water.


sunshadow21 wrote:
If that were the case, elementals couldn't exist because in real life, neither water nor fire have form. Something clearly exists in PF that allows for a coherent form; that something will alter to at least some degree the properties of the component parts. You can still get the original properties to work, but it's not an automatic thing, and determining precisely how is not something they can really codify.

Of course they couldn't exist in real life.

But in PF (and other fantasy games), a fire elemental is *living* fire that burns without fuel, and water elementals are *living* water that can hold a shape without splashing down in a container under the force of gravity.

For years, I imagined elementals as immaterial spirits that can only manifest themselves solidly with their respective element, otherwise they are for all purposes non-existent.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
sunshadow21 wrote:
and consider any unprotected spell components (or anything else similar in nature, really) being worn by pretty much any elemental unusable.

This whole dumb argument sprang up around this phrase which has absolutely no basis in the rules. Components are not rendered useless by being wet.

And just so we're touching all our bases.

Spell Component Pouch wrote:
Most spell component pouches are waterproof and can be strung onto a belt or bandolier.

So there we have it. Doesn't matter either way. Elementals can wear armor and other gear. It isn't destroyed by them wearing it since they don't deal damage or otherwise to objects they touch.


Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:


Fire does cause damage to touch see torch.

Why would the elemental run out of water? It's made from water, that doesn't mean it runs out.

Also I never said it works like it did in real life. I'm just looking at the rules, which both fire and water have.

I did not say it did not cause damage.

I asked why are you not harmed by being close(in proximity not far away) by a fire elemental if you are harmed by being close to one in real life?

As for the water elemental I am asking you why it does not run out because real life water does not auto replenish so if a water elemental acts like real water then it makes things wet by leaving part of itself behind.

You do realize that wetness is the presence of water. That means the water has to come from somewhere. That somewhere is the water elemental. Therefore he is losing water. So does he dry up or just create more water to replace what was lost?


Scavion wrote:
Spell Component Pouch wrote:
Most spell component pouches are waterproof and can be strung onto a belt or bandolier.
So there we have it. Doesn't matter either way. Elementals can wear armor and other gear. It isn't destroyed by them wearing it since they don't deal damage or otherwise to objects they touch.

IMO:

No rule says spell components don't work when wet so I assume they work just fine when wet.

Elementals can wield weapons, wear armor, and cast spells without natural spell (they can speak and make the needed gestures)

Fire elemental Burn effect is triggered on all things that touch it, as per the burn effect. Burn isn't just on things you attack, it says that things touching you also take damage. "Creatures that hit a burning creature with natural weapons or unarmed attacks take fire damage as though hit by the burning creature and must make a Reflex save to avoid catching on fire." Objects worn are touching and auto-fail reflex saves, but chances are most hardness will negate the damage and some objects don't burn.


wraithstrike wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

Fire does cause damage to touch see torch.

Why would the elemental run out of water? It's made from water, that doesn't mean it runs out.

Also I never said it works like it did in real life. I'm just looking at the rules, which both fire and water have.

I did not say it did not cause damage.

I asked why are you not harmed by being close(in proximity not far away) by a fire elemental if you are harmed by being close to one in real life?

As for the water elemental I am asking you why it does not run out because real life water does not auto replenish so if a water elemental acts like real water then it makes things wet by leaving part of itself behind.

You do realize that wetness is the presence of water. That means the water has to come from somewhere. That somewhere is the water elemental. Therefore he is losing water. So does he dry up or just create more water to replace what was lost?

I NEVER made claims based on real life, so I have no answer for your follow up questions.


Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
sunshadow21 wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Humans in PF don't run out of blood unless it's bleed damage.
This is the difficulty of the position you are trying to espouse. You can't argue that fire and water have the same properties in PF as they do in real life...
I'm not. The fire in fire elementals and the water in water elementals have the same properties as fire and water does in PF.

What properties are those since you made it seem like you were referencing real life before?

edit:
If you can quote the properties of water and fire in PF I would like to see it.


Scavion wrote:
sunshadow21 wrote:
and consider any unprotected spell components (or anything else similar in nature, really) being worn by pretty much any elemental unusable.

This whole dumb argument sprang up around this phrase which has absolutely no basis in the rules. Components are not rendered useless by being wet.

And just so we're touching all our bases.

Spell Component Pouch wrote:
Most spell component pouches are waterproof and can be strung onto a belt or bandolier.
So there we have it. Doesn't matter either way. Elementals can wear armor and other gear. It isn't destroyed by them wearing it since they don't deal damage or otherwise to objects they touch.

The two key parts there that you missed are unprotected and similar objects. Water may not ruin all components, but enough to make anything requiring components functionally inaccessible. Same with fire. And it really comes up with things beyond spell components that people may not think about protecting. A druid in fire elemental form carrying tindertwigs that are not melded into the body will set off the tindertwigs. He will also slowly lose any water stored in a waterskin that is just sitting on the surface of that form. In an actual game, the sentence that most spell components are waterproof would end the issue with water elementals, but unless specific measures were taken against fire, that would still remain; put an unprotected item against a burning surface and it's not going to be immediately usable. Protection is rarely hard or expensive, but it is a measure I expect any player wanting to play such a character to think about.


And since we are on the topic how is PF water and fire different from real life water and fire?


Burn wrote:
A fire elemental deals fire damage in addition to damage dealt on a successful hit in melee. Those affected by the burn ability must also succeed on a Reflex save or catch fire, taking the listed damage for an additional 1d4 rounds at the start of its turn. A burning creature can attempt a new save as a full-round action. Dropping and rolling on the ground grants a +4 bonus on this save. Creatures that hit a burning creature with natural weapons or unarmed attacks take fire damage as though hit by the burning creature and must make a Reflex save to avoid catching on fire (see Burn universal monster ability for complete details.)

None of this applies to objects unless a fire elemental is attacking an object.


wraithstrike wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
sunshadow21 wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Humans in PF don't run out of blood unless it's bleed damage.
This is the difficulty of the position you are trying to espouse. You can't argue that fire and water have the same properties in PF as they do in real life...
I'm not. The fire in fire elementals and the water in water elementals have the same properties as fire and water does in PF.

What properties are those since you made it seem like you were referencing real life before?

You pull from various object interactions and scattered rules across the game. I believe the brightness of the flame comes from vision of lighting rules, the damage from touching the fire elemental comes from the Burn ability rules (which talks about what happens when you touch a burning creature)

Wet is a non-condition in PF, it does very little(nothing as far as I can tell). Water makes things wet, but only from a narrative perspective since being wet doesn't appear to do anything. At least I have yet to run into an effect that describes being wet.


Scavion wrote:
Burn wrote:
A fire elemental deals fire damage in addition to damage dealt on a successful hit in melee. Those affected by the burn ability must also succeed on a Reflex save or catch fire, taking the listed damage for an additional 1d4 rounds at the start of its turn. A burning creature can attempt a new save as a full-round action. Dropping and rolling on the ground grants a +4 bonus on this save. Creatures that hit a burning creature with natural weapons or unarmed attacks take fire damage as though hit by the burning creature and must make a Reflex save to avoid catching on fire (see Burn universal monster ability for complete details.)
None of this applies to objects unless a fire elemental is attacking an object.

Attacks that damage creatures can also damage objects as per object rules.

Objects are just inanimate constructs with a dex of 0, and constructs touching a fire elemental would still take the burn damage.


By itself, it's not. When shaped by whatever creates the elementals, enough that direct interaction is usually required to have any effect, as the driving force is going to keep most external leakage of the life energy to a minimum. At least that's how I see it, but then I tend to view elementals as creatures that have basically the same subfunctions within their bodies as most other creatures. They have a source of energy, and can renew their source material on a limited basis, the same way that humans can and do lose some blood or skin but after a certain point, the loss is too much to overcome.

A fire elemental attempting to wear something will expose that object to effects akin to putting that object on a burning surface. The larger the elemental, the hotter the equivalent burning surface. Likewise, something sitting on water is going to get wet. The precise effects will vary as not everything reacts to being wet or getting warm the same way. Usually, for smaller elementals, there's little enough effect to not be worth the effort to track, but spell components are one thing I would track, because the properties that make them useful as spell components are going to make them more prone to react to heat or water than most gear is.


sunshadow21 wrote:
but spell components are one thing I would track, because the properties that make them useful as spell components are going to make them more prone to react to heat or water than most gear is.

I don't really agree with that. It seems to me like the rules hand-wave spell components as much as possible. You buy it once and you have enough for unlimited amounts of spells.

By the way, I don't understand this entire conversation:

"Natural Spell
You can cast spells even while in a form that cannot normally cast spells.

Prerequisites: Wis 13, wild shape class feature.

Benefit: You can complete the verbal and somatic components of spells while using wild shape. You substitute various noises and gestures for the normal verbal and somatic components of a spell.

You can also use any material components or focuses you possess, even if such items are melded within your current form. This feat does not permit the use of magic items while you are in a form that could not ordinarily use them, and you do not gain the ability to speak while using wild shape."


Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
sunshadow21 wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Humans in PF don't run out of blood unless it's bleed damage.
This is the difficulty of the position you are trying to espouse. You can't argue that fire and water have the same properties in PF as they do in real life...
I'm not. The fire in fire elementals and the water in water elementals have the same properties as fire and water does in PF.

What properties are those since you made it seem like you were referencing real life before?

You pull from various object interactions and scattered rules across the game. I believe the brightness of the flame comes from vision of lighting rules, the damage from touching the fire elemental comes from the Burn ability rules (which talks about what happens when you touch a burning creature)

Wet is a non-condition in PF, it does very little(nothing as far as I can tell). Water makes things wet, but only from a narrative perspective since being wet doesn't appear to do anything. At least I have yet to run into an effect that describes being wet.

So basically when have no water or fire properties that support your claim.

So we have to assume that if water elementals act like water then we must use real life water properties. That means when the source of water makes things wet the source is lessened, even if it is by a small amount.

By this logic the water elemental slowly withers away, for lack of a better term.

Objects are NOT inanimate constructs. Object are objects. Constructs are creatures. The two are in completely different categories.

And with that said touching does not equal an attack which is what the burn ability calls for. If that were true rogues would sneak attack everything and everyone they touched that did could not add dex to AC, assuming they were not immune to it.

If the rogue shakes your hand are you taking sneak attack damage?


You know what, I am done here. I dont have time to debate if objects are going to be called "inanimate constructs".


Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Objects are just inanimate constructs with a dex of 0, and constructs touching a fire elemental would still take the burn damage.

FYI, this is false. Constructs have Wis and Cha scores. Objects do not.

EDIT: Oddly enough, this comes from a note in d20pfsrd, but is non-existent in Paizo's PRD. Still, it was the rule in 3.5, and is logically consistent with both the attributes' descriptions and published creatures.


wraithstrike wrote:
And with that said touching does not equal an attack which is what the burn ability calls for.

This is why I tend to insist on at least some actual exposure to the elemental's surface to light a torch, and why I am pretty sure that most fire elementals would not care for it. Short of on oil laden, pitch soaked, immediately fire ready torch, it's going to take a few seconds to start burning. Short enough that an amused and/or cooperative elemental won't mind it occasionally, but long enough that it will definitely evoke a reaction.


Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

"Natural Spell

You can cast spells even while in a form that cannot normally cast spells.

Prerequisites: Wis 13, wild shape class feature.

Benefit: You can complete the verbal and somatic components of spells while using wild shape. You substitute various noises and gestures for the normal verbal and somatic components of a spell.

You can also use any material components or focuses you possess, even if such items are melded within your current form. This feat does not permit the use of magic items while you are in a form that could not ordinarily use them, and you do not gain the ability to speak while using wild shape."

Congratulations, you spent a resource to deal with the problem. Very different from automatic access to the the spell component pouch while melded or leaving the spell component pouch on the surface as a normal object.


I always thought water elementals functioned similarly to water benders from Avatar. Their are a lot of scenes of water benders removing water from wet clothing and leaving it as dry as a desert.


Insain Dragoon wrote:
I always thought water elementals functioned similarly to water benders from Avatar. Their are a lot of scenes of water benders removing water from wet clothing and leaving it as dry as a desert.

You'll also recall that when they *were* in the desert, they had practically no water to speak of.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
sunshadow21 wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

"Natural Spell

You can cast spells even while in a form that cannot normally cast spells.

Prerequisites: Wis 13, wild shape class feature.

Benefit: You can complete the verbal and somatic components of spells while using wild shape. You substitute various noises and gestures for the normal verbal and somatic components of a spell.

You can also use any material components or focuses you possess, even if such items are melded within your current form. This feat does not permit the use of magic items while you are in a form that could not ordinarily use them, and you do not gain the ability to speak while using wild shape."

Congratulations, you spent a resource to deal with the problem. Very different from automatic access to the the spell component pouch while melded or leaving the spell component pouch on the surface as a normal object.

There are druids that don't take the Natural Spell feat?


Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
sunshadow21 wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

"Natural Spell

You can cast spells even while in a form that cannot normally cast spells.

Prerequisites: Wis 13, wild shape class feature.

Benefit: You can complete the verbal and somatic components of spells while using wild shape. You substitute various noises and gestures for the normal verbal and somatic components of a spell.

You can also use any material components or focuses you possess, even if such items are melded within your current form. This feat does not permit the use of magic items while you are in a form that could not ordinarily use them, and you do not gain the ability to speak while using wild shape."

Congratulations, you spent a resource to deal with the problem. Very different from automatic access to the the spell component pouch while melded or leaving the spell component pouch on the surface as a normal object.
There are druids that don't take natural spell?

It's still a resource spent, as it's not part of the base class, and therefore, limits what you can do elsewhere. Whether it should be or not is a different debate, but for now, it's a resource spent on solving a particular problem that must exist to maintain some semblance of balance in the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Here is the relevant quote regarding fire elementals:

prd wrote:
Burn (Ex) A creature with the burn special attack deals fire damage in addition to damage dealt on a successful hit in melee. Those affected by the burn ability must also succeed on a Reflex save or catch fire, taking the listed damage for an additional 1d4 rounds at the start of its turn (DC 10 + 1/2 burning creature's racial HD + burning creature's Con modifier). A burning creature can attempt a new save as a full-round action. Dropping and rolling on the ground grants a +4 bonus on this save. Creatures that hit a burning creature with natural weapons or unarmed attacks take fire damage as though hit by the burning creature and must make a Reflex save to avoid catching on fire.

Hitting a fire elemental exposes you to "catching on fire". Any flammable object (torch, tindertwigs, clothing etc) in contact with the fire elemental (held, worn, carried, etc) would logically have to suffer the same fate. Unattended, non-magical gear would automatically fail the associated reflex save, and hence catch fire.

Regarding water elementals, there is no corresponding rule, since touching water does not usually cause damage the same way fire does. However, the drench spell on which the drench ability is based does reference creatures or objects. It is logically consistent that any object held, worn or carried by a water elemental would also be "drenched" or thoroughly wet. No, the rules do not specify this property, but it is logically consistent, so I don't see why that would be an incorrect ruling, or any way in which that could be exploited.

Could a water elemental use the mechanics for "create water"? It's not listed. Could it "bleed" water, creating water through lost hit points? Seems plausible, but the water elemental in question probably isn't going to like it.

IIRC, earlier in the thread, somebody wanted to equip an elemental form with gear like clothes or armor. The description of elementals doesn't seem to reference specific humanoid forms, for example fire elementals:

prd wrote:
...some fire elementals take on shapes more akin to humans, demons, or other monsters in order to increase the terror of their sudden appearance. Features on a fire elemental's body are made by darker bits of flame or patches of semi-stable smoke, ash, and cinders.

This seems to reference vague appearances, not the ability to wield or wear humanoid gear. The other elementals appear to be able to assume vaguely humanoid forms as well, but it's quite a stretch to allow them to gear up.

Sounds like table variance will be significant.


Insain Dragoon wrote:
I always thought water elementals functioned similarly to water benders from Avatar. Their are a lot of scenes of water benders removing water from wet clothing and leaving it as dry as a desert.

So, it becomes clear the answer to can you do x with an elemental comes down to how you define an elemental. If you define it as a creature that functions more or less like every other creature in the game, just using fire or water as a base material instead of flesh and bone, you get a different answer than if you define it as spirit that manifests itself as a never ending source of that element shaped roughly into some form which is a different answer from if you see it as above. Just another reason I tend to avoid organized play and random DMs. This game is fun and fairly clear as long as you make sure to get on the same page on how things on things like this work before you begin, but becomes a mess quickly otherwise.


sunshadow21 wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
sunshadow21 wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

"Natural Spell

You can cast spells even while in a form that cannot normally cast spells.

Prerequisites: Wis 13, wild shape class feature.

Benefit: You can complete the verbal and somatic components of spells while using wild shape. You substitute various noises and gestures for the normal verbal and somatic components of a spell.

You can also use any material components or focuses you possess, even if such items are melded within your current form. This feat does not permit the use of magic items while you are in a form that could not ordinarily use them, and you do not gain the ability to speak while using wild shape."

Congratulations, you spent a resource to deal with the problem. Very different from automatic access to the the spell component pouch while melded or leaving the spell component pouch on the surface as a normal object.
There are druids that don't take natural spell?
It's still a resource spent, as it's not part of the base class, and therefore, limits what you can do elsewhere. Whether it should be or not is a different debate, but for now, it's a resource spent on solving a particular problem that must exist to maintain some semblance of balance in the game.

Ok, but that doesn't mean this RAW issue is relevant to 99.99% of druids.

Also druids pick Natural spell up for animal shapes, not because they don't want to get component pouches burnt/wet.


Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

Ok, but that doesn't mean this RAW issue is relevant to 99.99% of druids.

Also druids pick Natural spell up for animal shapes, not because they don't want to get component pouches burnt/wet.

All this shows is that most druids solve the problem before they have it because they needed that solution to solve other difficulties, not that the problems associated with becoming an elemental don't exist.


sunshadow21 wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:
I always thought water elementals functioned similarly to water benders from Avatar. Their are a lot of scenes of water benders removing water from wet clothing and leaving it as dry as a desert.
So, it becomes clear the answer to can you do x with an elemental comes down to how you define an elemental. If you define it as a creature that functions more or less like every other creature in the game, just using fire or water as a base material instead of flesh and bone, you get a different answer than if you define it as spirit that manifests itself as a never ending source of that element shaped roughly into some form which is a different answer from if you see it as above. Just another reason I tend to avoid organized play and random DMs. This game is fun and fairly clear as long as you make sure to get on the same page on how things on things like this work before you begin, but becomes a mess quickly otherwise.

Oh man yeah. Sometimes my GMs want to run everything RAW and runs into issues. I try to remind them that they are the rules, that the rules are whatever they say they are, because the rules don't cover everything, because if they did you could just make PF the video game and it would work just as well as the PnP. The beauty of PnP is that you have to fill the holes and that there are holes to fill.

The rules are just a narrative tool. The mechanics are just a vehicle. WBL, CR, APL are just things that give the GM an easier time to make encounters.


sunshadow21 wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

Ok, but that doesn't mean this RAW issue is relevant to 99.99% of druids.

Also druids pick Natural spell up for animal shapes, not because they don't want to get component pouches burnt/wet.

All this shows is that most druids solve the problem before they have it because they needed that solution to solve other difficulties, not that the problems associated with becoming an elemental don't exist.

Either way, I don't see how that is relevant to this thread.

Regardless of what you rule it doesn't effect druid balance.


Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
sunshadow21 wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:
I always thought water elementals functioned similarly to water benders from Avatar. Their are a lot of scenes of water benders removing water from wet clothing and leaving it as dry as a desert.
So, it becomes clear the answer to can you do x with an elemental comes down to how you define an elemental. If you define it as a creature that functions more or less like every other creature in the game, just using fire or water as a base material instead of flesh and bone, you get a different answer than if you define it as spirit that manifests itself as a never ending source of that element shaped roughly into some form which is a different answer from if you see it as above. Just another reason I tend to avoid organized play and random DMs. This game is fun and fairly clear as long as you make sure to get on the same page on how things on things like this work before you begin, but becomes a mess quickly otherwise.

Oh man yeah. Sometimes my GMs want to run everything RAW and runs into issues. I try to remind them that they are the rules, that the rules are whatever they say they are, because the rules don't cover everything, because if they did you could just make PF the video game and it would work just as well as the PnP. The beauty of PnP is that you have to fill the holes and that there are holes to fill.

The rules are just a narrative tool. The mechanics are just a vehicle. WBL, CR, APL are just things that give the GM an easier time to make encounters.

Rules exist for a reason, and changing them or bending them is not something to be done lightly, even if the change seems insignificant. Just like whether or not allowing a torch to be lit off of a fire elemental can lead to a discussion of what exactly an elemental is, every decision has ripple effects. Newer DMs tend to run closer to RAW after one or two rulings that get out of hand until they get a better feel for the process and can anticipate what effects their rulings are going to have down the road. Finding that balance between being too conservative, which tends to leads to players minmaxing and rules lawyering everything, and too loose, which too often leads to players ignoring the rules entirely, is a tough challenge at the best of times. For me, at least when it comes to elementals, I've found a solution that works and is consistent with how I approach the game as a whole; others who approach the game differently will have different results.

In a parallel thread right now, swarmsuits and their precise classification is up for debate. Neither side is entirely right or entirely wrong, but both rulings have ripple effects; as long as the individual DM is consistent in how they treat the ripple effects, it's not usually a problem, but PFS has the unique problem of random DMs, random parties, and the lack of anything but the hard coded rules carrying over to the next adventure, so it comes down to how easy to DMs want to make it on themselves, by handwaving certain rules to save themselves time and an argument, vs how easy do they want to make it on the future DMs, by enforcing every rule, even if it doesn't make sense, that have to deal with any given player that could suddenly feel entitled to always having every DM interpret a given rule the exact same way.


Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Regardless of what you rule it doesn't effect druid balance.

It can; take away that feat, and a lot of difficulties that are smoothed over by it rear their head and a lot of problems created by it disappear. Rule that spell components aren't affected in elemental form, and don't have to merge with the new form, and you get druids that ignore wild shape until they get elemental forms, and have the equivalent of a free feat slot that they don't have if you rule that elementals, for whatever reason, cannot easily wear a spell component pouch and access the components within it to cast spells. Just because the feat is often seen as a default druid choice, it's still a cost, and not a small one that most players would love to not have to worry about, many of which would be content to ignore the animal portion of wild shape if it meant that they could turn into an elemental at some point and not have to worry about spending a feat to access spell components.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
sunshadow21 wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Regardless of what you rule it doesn't effect druid balance.
It can; take away that feat, and a lot of difficulties that are smoothed over by it rear their head and a lot of problems created by it disappear. Rule that spell components aren't affected in elemental form, and don't have to merge with the new form, and you get druids that ignore wild shape until they get elemental forms, and have the equivalent of a free feat slot that they don't have if you rule that elementals, for whatever reason, cannot easily wear a spell component pouch and access the components within it to cast spells. Just because the feat is often seen as a default druid choice, it's still a cost, and not a small one that most players would love to not have to worry about, many of which would be content to ignore the animal portion of wild shape if it meant that they could turn into an elemental at some point and not have to worry about spending a feat to access spell components.

Problem with theory: Animal forms are still useful at high levels. ALSO, air elementals and earth elementals wouldn't have these problems regardless and they are the more useful of the forms.

The balance in the system is not so sacred that one feat throws it off. If the system was that well balanced fighters and rogues wouldn't have the problems they do.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scavion wrote:
sunshadow21 wrote:
and consider any unprotected spell components (or anything else similar in nature, really) being worn by pretty much any elemental unusable.

This whole dumb argument sprang up around this phrase which has absolutely no basis in the rules. Components are not rendered useless by being wet.

And just so we're touching all our bases.

Spell Component Pouch wrote:
Most spell component pouches are waterproof and can be strung onto a belt or bandolier.
So there we have it. Doesn't matter either way. Elementals can wear armor and other gear. It isn't destroyed by them wearing it since they don't deal damage or otherwise to objects they touch.

Actually that was my argument (for water and fire elemental only). For fire elemental that is very clear. They deal burn damage to things that touch them, from 1d4 for a smell one, to 2d10 for a large one. The spell component pouch and the stuff it draw for it will suffer that damage, and they wouldn't survive it. The pouch has a couple hp (unless it si made of special materials), most components not even 1 hp. The live spider for spider climb? It is not alive anymore. The mistletoe a druid use as a focus? Oops, charcoal.

Water elemental are a bit different. I think that they made things wet (not soaked). some item will have problems. The spider or the mistletoe? No. Some powder, paper and similar stuff? Yes.
The pouch is waterproofed, but when you draw the items to use them they can be damaged.

- * -

PRD wrote:


Water Mastery (Ex) A water elemental gains a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls if both it and its opponent are touching water. If the opponent or the elemental is touching the ground, the elemental takes a –4 penalty on attack and damage rolls. These modifiers apply to bull rush and overrun maneuvers, whether the elemental is initiating or resisting these kinds of attacks.

So the water elemental suffer some drawback for being out of the water.

In earlier version they were unable to move more than a few hundreds of feet from a body of water. The range was HD dependent.
Those little things in the creatures description, with some indication on their ecology and how they worked is something I miss in the modern bestiaries. Removing them allow Paizo to use a single page for a monster description, a thing that make easier to print them from the PDF, but it remove some cool information about the way to handle the creatures.

PRD wrote:


This translucent creature's shape shifts between a spinning column of water and a crashing wave.

"crashing wave". It seem that the water elemental is constantly falling to the ground and reforming. It has no in game effect, but saying that if it is out of the water it leave the ground wet seem reasonable.

For me it is is the same thing we do when walking, we leave footprint. It will be not enough to damage the elemental unless it stay away from the water for a long period, but enough to be noticeable


I just read through the rules on damaging objects.

The Burn ability does not apply to objects.

Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

Attacks that damage creatures can also damage objects as per object rules.

Objects are just inanimate constructs with a dex of 0, and constructs touching a fire elemental would still take the burn damage.

Can you quote a rules text on that? Because the pages I'm reading, the only reference to creatures it makes is that objects are easier to hit than creatures. Not that effects that could harm creatures could also harm objects.

Furthermore,

Burn wrote:
Creatures that hit a burning creature with natural weapons or unarmed attacks take fire damage as though hit by the burning creature and must make a Reflex save to avoid catching on fire.

You could, in fact, hug a fire elemental without burning or pat one on the head as the Burn ability only applies when "hitting" the burning creature.

151 to 200 of 256 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Unbalanced druid power All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.