Hello all !
I'd like somme feedback from my peers concerning a decision I made on the fly in my yesterday's evening Shackled City campaign. The PCs were fighting Huge fire elementals and the player of the priestess of Selune decided to Create Water above one of the elementals, trying to damage it in the process. As water must extinguish fire, she told me, the elemental must suffer from this lowly 0-level spell.
I explained that IMO fire elementals were coming of the plane of Fire and as such made of "magic fire" and couldn't be harmed from normal water. On top of that the quantity was less than enough to make any damage and would probably turn into vapour immediately. My player said nothing on the spot -a disciplined bunch all of them, I love them :))- but came to see me after the game and said she resented my decision as unfair.
Did I make a mistake? What do you think? How would you have handled the situation?
Bran.
|
I don't think you made a bad decision, rules-wise, but your player tried to think outside of the box and was not rewarded for it. I would have probably let it do 1 pt of damage per gallon of water or maybe 1d3 damage per 2 gallons. I would limit its usage (creatures MADE of fire, not the fire sub-type) of course, but I don't think that would have broken the spell.
Players hate being told "no". There should always be a chance or possibility, it just doesn't need to be a desirable choice to take. If a cleric is facing such a creature without higher level spells and thinks that this is a better option than trying to go toe-to-toe then good.
A player's mind needs to be cultivated and then rewarded for thinking outside of the box.
If you agree with the above you can correct it by going to the player and saying "sorry, I made a mistake(DM not perfect) and this is how we will handle it in the future...."
That's what I would do.
Hope it helps
FH
I'm with you on this, Bran. A fire elemental isn't the same as a campfire (which I would allow create water to put out). A continuous walking furnace will not be put out even slightly by a gallon or so of water. If you had said the same thing about the wizard's cone of cold or ice storm, then I would say that you were being unfair. But a 0 level spell isn't going to turn the tide against such a foe. Heck, if it did, the orcs fighting the fire wouldn't need the heroes' assistance.
|
I would have probably let it do 1 pt of damage per gallon of water or maybe 1d3 damage per 2 gallons.
A reflex save for half or even no damage would also be appropriate. Factor in that its a 0th level spell and its likely to be an easy save, depending on the cleric's Wisdom mod.
I know I've made some calls in the middle of a game that, with a little more time to think it through, I would not have otherwise made. Not that your decision is unreasonable, it is a living fire creature after all and he is using a 0th level spell. As James pointed out, its not like he's using cone of cold...
Its sounds like you have a good group of Players, let them (and this player individually) know that you appreciate their dedication to making the game good for the group. Maybe give the player a chance to shine in the next game, a custom encounter for him to excel in...
Good luck.
|
|
But a 0 level spell isn't going to turn the tide against such a foe....
Exactly my point in making the damage almost non-consequental(sp?). The cleric SHOULD have a bunch of other, more appealing options, but I still think a hard "no" is not something that anyone wants to hear for an idea that they think is viable. Just make it not very efficient. If the cleric is 12th level you would be talking about 24 gallons of water or 12-36 damage (if you went with 1d3 damage per 2 gallons) and a reflex save of like 14ish for half damage(easily made by anything that can move) or effectively 6-18 damage.....Hardly a tide-turning action especially when a cleric can dish out many times this amount of damage with a bunch of different attack options, also limiting it to usage against only creatures MADE of fire ensures that it doesn't get used as a combat option very often.
I hardly think that any cleric would choose to use this option over any other more than once or twice and now you've let the player decide that this isn't worth the effort instead of just saying "No, you can't." Everyone is happy and you look like a fair and reasonable DM that will try to work with the players wild schemes instead of squashing their creativity.2 more of mine.
FH
I like your solution, Fake Healer, but I'm not sure I would have thought of it in the heat of the moment.
Still, it rewards the player, as you said.
Additionally, it certainly would heighten memories of the encounter, giving the players the impression that they threw everything but the kitchen sink at the elemental.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I don't see this as thinking outside the box, I see it as half-assed thinking outside the box. Create water is a 0 level spell. In no way should you look at a 0 level spell and think "OMG, that will do massive damage to a creature." A crossbow bolt would have been more effective than a 0 level spell.
Compare create water with disrupt undead. The latter is specifically targeted to a particular creature type and it deals a whopping 1d6 damage on a touch attack. If there were a 0 level spell that was actually designed to harm fire elementals, it would look like that (see also: ray of frost).
Would I let the spell do 1 point of damage? Sure, that's about what a 0 level spell should do. Would I roll my eyes at the player and advise them to not waste time with piddly little tactics - you better believe it.
And all of that doesn't even get to the real question - does water put out fire? I dunno, how big is the fire? What is it burning? If a fire elemental is like a grease fire (which strikes me as highly likely) then water is going to have little to no effect, dispersing the flames but not disrupting them. The reason water is effective against fires is because it (a) is cold and (b) makes the fire's fuel harder to burn. The water created by the spell is not particularly cool and the fire elemental is not burning any fuel.
You made the right call. I'd smack the player with the phb and tell them to quit whining.
I'm with Sebastian 100% - no way a cantrip should be able to inflict any real damage, especially from a cleric. Cave in on this one example, and the player(s) will keep trying to come up with ways to inflict damage or other significant effects with cantrips, which is not what they are designed for. I would not even let the spell inflict 1 point of damage - if you need to use the rules, it's easy: the fire elemental has the Fire subtype, which means it gets extra damage from cold-based spells, and water is just not the same thing as cold!
Now, a good use of create water would be to put out the fire on a burning comrade - that would be a legitimate, smart use of the spell, as that is simply regular fire, not an elemental creature...
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I'm going to have to agree with Sebastian here as well. 0-level spells cannot inflict harm on something like that. Even if there was a 3rd level spell called 'Create MORE Water' I wouldn't allow it unless it specified damage in the spell description (which it probably wouldn't).
Now, if you do what a couple of savvy clerics in one of my campaigns did and had the wizard trap a monster inside a forcecage and then fill the cage with about 25 castings of create water to DROWN the thing... that's different.
(They had picked up a few 0-level wands way earlier in the campaign and were just WAITING to use the wand of create water for SOMETHING.)
|
|
I agree with Sebastian too; not because of my dish rag spinal column but I think he's right.
However, I think the elemental might get psyched out for a second because 2 gallons per level of water might give him pause to fear oblivion.
If you waved your finger and it made hydrochloric acid splash me on my head out of the clear blue nada, it might freak me out a little bit. I don't think it would stop the elemental though, or even hurt him much. Maybe check his morale some.
I would have looked at player, rolled some dice, added a point of damage to the elemental, given a description regarding a "puff of steam" coming from the elemental, and then moved on.
Why do the players need to know the exact mechanics of a DM's decision?
My players never ask me those kinds of questions, because all they get is the Vulcan raised eyebrow.
In the heat of action I didn't think about Ray of Frost, that's an interesting comparison. I don't think the cantrip should do more damage than that if it does damage at all. I will definitely stick with Fake Healer suggestion though and thank the player for her "creativity" if it helps her to feel better.
Thank to all of you for your quick answers. I feel comforted in my decision and received precious advice to improve my decision making in future situations like these. I'm really happy to know these boards guys ! :))
I will definitely stick with Fake Healer suggestion though and thank the player for her "creativity" if it helps her to feel better.
Try giving a non-XP, non-monetary style reward for her creativity, maybe a stone that keeps you warm at night, or an always-chilled drinking mug.
I disagree with the "it's only a cantrip" thought. Sure, it's not an attack spell, but it is putting two opposed elements together. The cleric obviously was in no position to do anything else to help. Let the player give it a whirl.
One thing you naysayers are right on: Severely limit the damage. 1 to 3 HP for the whole attack seems appropriate. Heck, I'd even give the Elemental a save to take no damage.
The last thing I would do is make the player feel like an idiot for creatively using the spell.
I will definitely stick with Fake Healer suggestion though and thank the player for her "creativity" if it helps her to feel better.Try giving a non-XP, non-monetary style reward for her creativity, maybe a stone that keeps you warm at night, or an always-chilled drinking mug.
LOL I'd give it a thought :))
Just to weigh in here, I agree with Sebastian in this circumstance as well. A fire elemental is the living embodiment of fire. It's not a campfire. I always see the pure elements as being "perfect" elements. That would mean it is as hot as the hottest fire that could ever be naturally produced. A gallon of water would turn mostly to steam before it even hit the actual body of the elemental.
I agree in allowing it to have some effect, but I would take that 1d3 points of damage and make them subdual(sp?) and tell the character they effectively gave a walking fire bruise and now it's pissed off at her.
If your character questions this, try explaining it this way. Ask her what would happen if she through a gallon of water on 10'x10' raging bonfire fueled by phosphorous or a lava flow. It is going to be that effective.
That being said, I do think the reward for such a tactic could include distracting the fire elemental, if only to have it wonder why someone would attempt such a silly thing. I probably would have had that elemental target the cleric, thus giving other players an opportunity to flank or escape its wrath if they thought of it, but that would be up to the PC's. However, that elemental is going to attack the cleric because she got its attention.
I agree with Sebastian, right up until he smacks the player. :)
Fake Healer's answer is entirely too much damage for a 0 level spell.
Was your player out of options, or did she just think this was her best solution? If she had other stuff available, I would likely talk her out of wasting her action rather than giving her the old, "you cast your spell and you make steam. Weeee!"
If you're going to rule that create water can't damage a fire elemental, the character likely knows that - even if the player doesn't. I don't think it's at all unreasonable to provide the player with the knowledge her character would have, then let her make a decision.
I am firmly in the 'reward player creativity camp' on this one. I also think the best way to adjucate the effect of any spell is to compare it to other spells. Ray of Frost and Disrupt Undead and Daze or the ones that I would look at.
Ray of Frost - This cantrip does 1-3 dmg on a successful touch attack. This spell effects pretty much most things equally (doing extra to creatures succeptible to cold). Since it effects any type of creature and water doesn't I would likely move on.
Disrupt Undead - This spell does 1-6 dmg to one specific type of creature and none to others. I like the targeted portion of this comparison since I would think water would also only affect one type of creature.
Daze - This would be a good alternative if you rule the spell wouldn't do damage, but would shake the thing up, as Heatheson suggested.
At this point in the analysis I would be leaning toward Disrupt Undead, so 1-6 dmg. However, all the above spells are arcane, not divine. Since divine spells typically do less damage than their arcane cousins of the same level I would switch back to 1-3 with a ranged touch attack (making sure the water gets the sucker).
All that said, I don't think it was the wrong call in the heat of the moment other than the player was not only punished with it not working, but by wasting an action... if you aren't going to allow rewards for creativity, then I would suggest allowing the PC to 'go back' and choose another action.
Sean Mahoney
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I am firmly in the 'reward player creativity camp' on this one. I also think the best way to adjucate the effect of any spell is to compare it to other spells. Ray of Frost and Disrupt Undead and Daze or the ones that I would look at.
I think cure minor wounds is the best comparison. It is a utility cleric spell that can potentially harm undead. Create Water should not be as good as disrupt undead irrespective of whether the caster is a cleric; disrupt undead is a combat only spell with no other effect. Create water is a non-combat spell with a large number of effects - it should not also pull double-duty as a very specialized combat spell.
Rewarding player creativity and following the rules are not mutually exclusive.
But mostly, I fail to see how "I dump a small amount of water on very large fire to try and put it out" is at all creative and worthy of a reward (other than the aforementioned head smacking).
But mostly, I fail to see how "I dump a small amount of water on very large fire to try and put it out" is at all creative and worthy of a reward (other than the aforementioned head smacking).
It depends on the situation.
If the player had blown all her spells except her 0 level spells, then what she's doing is trying to find a creative solution to the problem given the tools she has available.
If she has her full array of daily spells available, there's probably a dozen other things she could do better.
|
|
You can't just say "1d3 damage". It is a variable spell. 2 gallons per caster level, so you would need to assign damage on a variable scale. You can't compare it to disrupt undead or ray of frost as they are fixed spells. 1 gallon of water wouldn't do anything to a fire elemental of that size but 20 gallons of water? Yeah I think that would cause some damage to a creature made of fire. How much? I don't know but 1d3 per 2 gallons with a super-low reflex save for half doesn't sound like much. It certainly isn't as powerful as a 1st level spell. Maybe it would be too powerful for a 0 level spell if it did 1d3 per 2 gallons to anything, but realistically there are a severely limited number of creatures that this spell would be able to harm, that was another factor in the decision that I came up with. Heck, change it to 1d2 or even just assign 1 pt of damage per 2 gallons if you want, but to just say "a 0 level spell would have no effect" is ridiculous and sounds petty. If conditions were right you could use 20 gallons of water to kill something by drowning it unless the DM says "its a 0-level spell, you can't do that" without a viable reason and I would resent having a decent idea squashed with no viable explanation. I have never heard of a fire elemental being akin to a chemical fire or exotic substance fire, I always read that they were more like a natural fire that burns without fuel. Throw 20 gallons of water on a huge bonfire and, no it won't go out, but it certainly has SOME effect. We are talking about a creature with @150hp, 3-9 or 6-18 damage isn't game breaking for a spell caster to use up an action for if they chose to.
FH
|
Alternatively, let the player research a new spell.
***
Supersoaker
Conjuration (water)
Clr 0, Drd 0, Sor/Wiz 0
Components: V,S
Target: One creature or object
Duration: Instantaneous
Casting Time: Standard Action
Range: Close
Saving Throw: Reflex half or none (object) or none (harmless)
Spell Resistance: No
This spell creates a deluge of water that soaks the target creature or object. The spell can extinguish non-magical flames covering a 5' by 5' area or douse a creature burning with non-magical fire. Items or areas soaked in this way have no lingering effects such as dampness that would impede being reignited
Against creatures of the fire subtype, the spell deals 1d4 damage. This damaged is halved on a successful Reflex save. This use has no lingering effects on the creature's special attacks or qualities.
This spell has no effect on magical fires, magic weapons with the flaming quality, or the like.
***
Most players wouldn't bother with the time and effort of researching such a silly spell.
This is where that decanter of endless water would come in handy...;)
We're looking at a creature with (at least) DR 5/-
I wouldn't allow a non-damage, 0 lvl spell to get by that. The thing also has alertness, dodge, combat reflexes and mobility - I'm not going to have it make a reflex save against a non-attack spell. Trying to reduce a raging inferno with a barrel of water isn't nearly the same as drowning someone in the barrel of water.
At the same time, I'm going to tell the player before they go ahead and do it anyway - "that is almost certainly going to have no effect on the elemental - still want to try?"
I think the only concensus reached is that every DM runs a different game. Which is no bad thing.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Boards ate my first post. Sigh.
You can't just say "1d3 damage". It is a variable spell. 2 gallons per caster level, so you would need to assign damage on a variable scale. You can't compare it to disrupt undead or ray of frost as they are fixed spells.
Sure you can. The whole reason the spells are divided up by level is so that you can compare the power of different effects. The ability to fly is approximately as powerful as the ability to do damage to opponents in a 20 burst. Similarly, the power level of 0 level spells should be similar.
1 gallon of water wouldn't do anything to a fire elemental of that size but 20 gallons of water? Yeah I think that would cause some damage to a creature made of fire. How much? I don't know but 1d3 per 2 gallons with a super-low reflex save for half doesn't sound like much. It certainly isn't as powerful as a 1st level spell. Maybe it would be too powerful for a 0 level spell if it did 1d3 per 2 gallons to anything, but realistically there are a severely limited number of creatures that this spell would be able to harm, that was another factor in the decision that I came up with. Heck, change it to 1d2 or even just assign 1 pt of damage per 2 gallons if you want, but
The problem with that sort of reasoning is it leads to arguments like this:
DM: "Okay, the guy fails his save and is held."
Player: "Great. I stick my finger up his ass and cast lightening bolt."
DM: "Okay, roll damage."
Player: "What?! Why should I have to roll for damage? My finger is up his ass. This bolt of electricity is going to travel up his intestines and fry all his internal organs. The spell should do max damage."
If you want to let flavor text drive your game mechanics, go for it, but I can't say I'd run my game that way.
to just say "a 0 level spell would have no effect" is ridiculous and sounds petty. If conditions were right you could use 20 gallons of water to kill something by drowning it unless the DM says "its a 0-level spell, you can't do that" without a viable reason and I would resent having a decent idea squashed with no viable explanation. I have never heard of a fire elemental being akin to a chemical fire or exotic substance fire, I always read that they were more like a natural fire that burns without fuel. Throw 20 gallons of water on a huge bonfire and, no it won't go out, but it certainly has SOME effect. We are talking about a creature with @150hp, 3-9 or 6-18 damage isn't game breaking for a spell caster to use up an action for if they chose to.
I'd like to know how exactly you think water and fire interact. The way you describe it, water just intrinsically destroys fire. Water puts out fire because (i) it is cold and (ii) it makes the fuel source harder to burn and maybe (iii) it deprives the fire of oxygen to burn. As you admitted above, a fire elemental does not have a fuel source. I'm at a loss for what is a "natural fire that burns without fuel" because no such thing exists in the real world. Maybe you mean that it's like a fire you typically encounter in real life, which is generally generaged by wood or another flammable object. Just because that is the type of fire typically encountered doesn't mean it is any more or less "natural" than an oil fire, a natural gas fire or the nuclear reaction that burns in the sun.
Fire _is_ a chemical reaction between oxygen and some other substance. Unless you stop that chemical reaction, you don't stop the fire. The effect of water on a fire is based on its fuel, and to assume a particular fuel (and a fuel that does not create particularly hot fire at that) doesn't make any sense, particularly when fuel-less ultrahot fire exists in D&D and it's called a elemental fire.
Will 3-9 damage or 6-18 damage completely break the game? No, but it's completely outside the power level of the spell system to have a 0 level spell do that much damage.
|
|
Long time since I piped up on a board...
Just so I can play devils advocate...
I think that the best answer is to give it a 1 pt of damage per caster level just for creativity. Ya gotta reward the players somehow, and you have to admit it would only be useful in a fight with an elemental (not a fire subtype [can you imagine the red dragon's look when you do that to him????])
And someone will undoubtedly scream about a damage cap, but last week I saw a first level spell deal 17d6 damage to said Red Dragon. The spell: fling object!!! With the dragon making a run from the party to get into long range spell battle.....BOOOOOM, the sorcerer uses fling object to launch a tangle foot bag! Whhhhhaaaaat? The rules are quite clear what happens to a flying creature that fails if save. (I only needed to get better than a 1) Still, a 1 is a 1. 170 ft plummet to bounce twice infront of the dwarven cleric. Imagine my dismay.
I gotta say, Yotar, it wasnt a 1st level spell that killed your dragon - it was gravity ;-)
0 level spells are capable of generally inflicting 1d3 or less points of damage. Of course, those are spells intended to be used as direct damage effects (such as ray of frost or acid splash).
Conjuration spells cannot be used to create substances within a creature, so the cleric's only avenue is to attempt a downpour on top of the elemental. It is entirely up to you if rainfall is sufficient to adversely affect a being made of fire (I am inclined to say no, as I would not have one damaged by stepping in a puddle, and the spell makes no mention at all about using it for such purposes).
Of course, if you really did want to use it in such a fashion, I would have it inflict 1 point of damage, DC 10 + Wis modifier Fort negates.
I gotta say, Yotar, it wasnt a 1st level spell that killed your dragon - it was gravity ;-)
And just think, a physicist will tell you that gravity is the weakest of all the forces.
Sean Mahoney
|
|
0 level spells are capable of generally inflicting 1d3 or less points of damage. Of course, those are spells intended to be used as direct damage effects (such as ray of frost or acid splash).
Conjuration spells cannot be used to create substances within a creature, so the cleric's only avenue is to attempt a downpour on top of the elemental. It is entirely up to you if rainfall is sufficient to adversely affect a being made of fire (I am inclined to say no, as I would not have one damaged by stepping in a puddle, and the spell makes no mention at all about using it for such purposes).
Of course, if you really did want to use it in such a fashion, I would have it inflict 1 point of damage, DC 10 + Wis modifier Fort negates.
It's not rain. It is 20 gallons of water dropped on it's head. Question if a small water shed was positioned above the Elemental and a character broke it open somehow with an attack, and the remaining 20 or so gallons of water splashed down on the Elemental, would you rule that the water does no damage? If so then I, as a player, would feel like I was screwed and proceed to make sure all my future plans involve a strict adherance to riding the rules rails. Creativity that goes unrewarded (or unwanted) teaches players to not expend the effort to think creatively.
Also when people want to pick apart someone's post to shoot holes in it, don't conveniently ignore parts that you have no answer for: Specifically the effects that I put forth are well below the effects of any 1st level spell, which makes them 0-level (even if a smidge powerful for 0).looking Sebastion's direction on that last one.
FH
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
It's not rain. It is 20 gallons of water dropped on it's head. Question if a small water shed was positioned above the Elemental and a character broke it open somehow with an attack, and the remaining 20 or so gallons of water splashed down on the Elemental, would you rule that the water does no damage? If so then I, as a player, would feel like I was screwed and proceed to make sure all my future plans involve a strict adherance to riding the rules rails. Creativity that goes unrewarded (or unwanted) teaches players to not expend the effort to think creatively.
Also when people want to pick apart someone's post to shoot holes in it, don't conveniently ignore parts that you have no answer for: Specifically the effects that I put forth are well below the effects of any 1st level spell, which makes them 0-level (even if a smidge powerful for 0).
looking Sebastion's direction on that last one.
FH
As I've said in the past, I don't have time to poke holes in every single argument made by people and when I ignore a particular point it's usually because it lacks merit rather than because I can't deal with it, but if you insist:
It doesn't matter if it would still be too weak for a 1st level spell, it's too powerful for a 0 level spell. Shatter is a good example of a 1st level utility spell with an extremely narrow effect on certain creature types. Your version of create water is a lot closer to shatter than it is to any other 0 level spell. Celestial Healer posted a very reasonable version of a 0 level spell that does the effect you are seeking.
Spells have caps on how much damage they can do based on their level. The fact that they are weaker than other spells of that level is irrelevant. If you want to create a spell that does 20d6 damage to people named Fred if it's a Thursday and you are wearing purple, go for it. Heck, I'd say that's a pretty weak spell, certainly weaker than any other 20d6 spell. Guess what - it still can't be lower than 7th level, which is (I think) when you can breach the 15 dice of damage cap.
The crux of your argument is that water destroys fire. You are basing the effect on "reality" but defining reality in a very narrow way (water destroys fire) that does not match up to phyiscs, personal experience nor the game mechanics. Whether or not your effect is too weak for a 1st level spell, you haven't (and can't) answer that issue.
What about allowing the spell to do something non-damaging, like suppressing the fire elemental's Burn ability for a round or two...
Since it's a variable spell, what if it suppressed the Burn ability for 1 round for every 10 gallons that you pour over it?
That might be more in line with the spell being a utility spell...
Somnambulant.
I say throw the player a bone (especially if they are on "Empty" for spells): 1d6 damage, save for half. The DC would likely be very easy to make.
Now, if this is a 19th level wizard (with a full allotment of spells prepared) trying to low ball the elemental, the elemental splits into two! Just kidding.....
|
|
So a water elemental can't hurt a fire elemental because there is no fuel source to drench. Obviously it's slam couldn't hurt the fire elemental because it doesn't really have anything "solid" to connect with anything "solid" in order to smash it, and we all know that water can't harm fire, just the consumables that fire thrives on. No consumables, no damage from any water. Interesting stance, but not exactly what I think is intentioned. I don't remember any listing that fire elementals are immune to water. Guess I need to update my books.....
FH (BTW I am not upset or anything and I am enjoying this discussion Sebastion)
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
So a water elemental can't hurt a fire elemental because there is no fuel source to drench. Obviously it's slam couldn't hurt the fire elemental because it doesn't really have anything "solid" to connect with anything "solid" in order to smash it, and we all know that water can't harm fire, just the consumables that fire thrives on. No consumables, no damage from any water. Interesting stance, but not exactly what I think is intentioned. I don't remember any listing that fire elementals are immune to water. Guess I need to update my books.....
You must be enjoying it - now you're making my arguments for me! This is a classic reality defines mechanics argument. My arguments are always mechanics define reality. The reason straight water doesn't harm a fire elemental is because nothing in the rules says it does. From that, I create an explanation that bears out that result (no fuel = no effect by water). The reason a water elemental (or a sword, or acid) hurts a fire elemental is because the rules say they do. If you want me to explain, I can give it a shot, but I don't feel compelled to do so in my game.
0 level damage spells don't scale. That's the rule. Do whatever you need to do to get comfortable with it, justify it however you want, just don't break it.
...And by the way, a Fire Elemental has great reflex saves if I recall.
I'm just curious why a player would try something like this unless they were either totally desperate (probably not the case) or the Huge Fire Elemental provided no challenge and the player was just clowning the Elemental. In all seriousness, the in game situation would have a bearing on my ruling.
You are basing the effect on "reality" but defining reality in a very narrow way (water destroys fire) that does not match up to phyiscs, personal experience nor the game mechanics
I agree that there is no way a magical 0 level spell, can harm a magical creature made of magical fire even if the magical power behind the magical spell is divinely granted by a divine immortal with omniscient knowledge and might have granted his/her/its faithful the magical tools he/she/it needed. Next thing I expect to hear is that she did not really cast the spell, but that she just rolled some randomizing piece of plastic based on some ink markings.... chuckle I love it when discussions this fervant get generated like this O:)
|
|
The reason straight water doesn't harm a fire elemental is because nothing in the rules says it does.
I never saw anything in any rule stating specifically that a water elemental can hurt a fire elemental, it is assumed. I also never saw it spelled out that force effects can harm a fire elemental but I still allow magic missile to harm them, but I guess that I need to start disallowing that because it isn't specified that that particular type of damage will affect them. I can see the logic behind that: Fire Element basically has no solid form so a force effect would simply pass through it without connecting to anything substantial. I don't think the rules spelled out that goblins can be harmed by silver either....Hmmmmmm.
I think I'd like that explaination now.FH
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I never saw anything in any rule stating specifically that a water elemental can hurt a fire elemental, it is assumed. I also never saw it spelled out that force effects can harm a fire elemental but I still allow magic missile to harm them, but I guess that I need to start disallowing that because it isn't specified that that particular type of damage will affect them. I can see the logic behind that: Fire Element basically has no solid form so a force effect would simply pass through it without connecting to anything substantial. I don't think the rules spelled out that goblins can be harmed by silver either....Hmmmmmm.
I think I'd like that explaination now.
FH
Yup, and we have mechanics for all the things you mentioned. Why is a goblin hurt by silver weapons? Because all creatures are hurt by silver weapons.* Why isn't a goblin hurt by water? Because no creature is hurt by water.*
This reductio ab asurdism proves absolutely nothing (and isn't even done correctly). The rules instruct you as to how to handle combat. They do not need to go into all the details, they are structured to provide general principals (weapons inflict damage represented by hit points) and those principals are modified by other rules such as special abilities. Saying "There's no rule for punching someone with a knife in the kidney" is incorrect. There are general attack rules and general damage rules used to resolve exactly that situation.
Please show me in the rules where 0 level spells have scalable damage. Please show me where it says that water, which is not normally harmful to any creature, is harmful to a fire elemental? I know that cold is particularly harmful to them because it says so in the description of the fire subtype (oddly enough, it says nothing about water. Weird). I know that silver weapons harm goblins because weapons harm creatures generally, and nothing in the rules text for a goblin or a silver weapon says something different. I know that magic missiles hurt fire elementals because that's what the rules for magic missile and fire elemental say.
I just can't find that darn rule for water causing damage to fire elementals. I can find a rule that says 0 level spells shouldn't scale. I can find comparable 0 level spells specifically targeted to a particular creature type that don't scale. I can find a first level spell which has general utility which also does damage to a particular creature type that does scale. Interpreting these rules together (rather than in some absurd vacuum), I can infer that a 0 level spell shouldn't scale even if it only harms a particular type of creature.
Please, show me using the rules, where you infer that a 0 level spell should harm a fire elemental and scale.
*unless otherwise specified by a specific ability.
|
It's not rain. It is 20 gallons of water dropped on it's head. Question if a small water shed was positioned above the Elemental and a character broke it open somehow with an attack, and the remaining 20 or so gallons of water splashed down on the Elemental, would you rule that the water does no damage?
FH
actually yes I would - an average campfire (fire ring 3 foot diameter give or take) which has been stoked well during the night takes 5-10 gallons of water to put completly out withou risk of flames starting again. You also have to relize that unlike a campfire I would think that elementals would be warm enough the evaporate a certain amount (say the first 4 gallons) before it touched the flames. I would say that a small fire elemental would equal this size so would be damaged by 20 gallons of water. But as others have said these are magical beings of fire, and as long as the entire being wasn't extinguished, it would roar back to fully engulfed in flames. remember these are huge Fire elementals 32 feet tall (from monter manual)
*possibly* I would rule that particular elemental had to stand still for 2 rounds as the heat evaporated the remaining water (as the monster manual says that water is an immpassable barrier)
Since it's only a 0th level spell, I think a fair rule is that create water deals 1d6 damage to a fire elemental. This is on par with disrupt undead, which deals 1d6 damage to one monster type; fire elementals are a more specific type, but create water has other uses.
If you prefer to model that more water is created as caster level rises, you could have it deal one point of damage per two levels. This is about 2.5x as powerful on average at level 20 as 1d6, but really once you're level 20, throwing cantrips dealin ten damage to one monster isn't going to break your game very much.
|
|
Hi everyone,
I was surprised by the title and since I am a DM myself (and need sometimes to take harsh decisions also) , I began to read it.
I was VERY surprised when I read the 1st message and seemed to recall that situation (I had not read the name of the 1st poster).
Bran is my DM for SCAP and I was there (however, not playing the cleric of Selune).
I would say I mostly agree with Fake Healer, and we all tried to find a solution, but the "final cut" was not mine to take.
I suggested something like a d4 or d6 per cleric level or two-cleric level (I can't remember), given it's a very low save and this is a VERY special situation... water vs fire.
Don't forget it's not like disrupt undead :
Disrupt undead may be a 0-level spell, but it would affect LOTS of creatures, since there are lots of undead.
This situation arose since this was a pure fire creature and a pure water spell, and there are not many of pure fire creatures...
However, even if I saw that the other player was a little bit disappointed, it was a tricky situation : in the heat ;-)) of this fire elemental fight, there was no time to "take 20" and think about this.
That's also why she (cleric's player) used that spell : we were surprised (for real, not in game terms), we were far from her (bless or other helpful spells would have affected only 1 or 2 PCs including her that round), there was not a lot of time to react, and she had to take her 1st-round decision quickly... and came up with that idea, which is far from being absurd !!
I also felt a little bit disappointed for her, but, hey, that's the game, and even a very good and veteran DM can't think of EVERY options, actions or ideas his 4 / 5 or 6 players will have.
I guess I would have gone a little on FH's way...
But it was not that simple, and the DM's decision was right, never the less !
That was a cool session anyway !!, thanks Bran ;-)
I think this is a case of a discussion shedding more heat than light ;)
In the real world, water puts out fire by cooling the fuel to below its flash point--the temperature at which it gives off sufficient free radicals to sustain the chemical reaction we call combustion. (That's right, you have to vaporize wood to burn it.) Water works very well for fighting fires with solid fuel that has a high flash point, like wood. It does not have to be particularly cold to work, because the main cooling effect is caused by the water absorbing enough heat to transform it from liquid to gaseous form. Completely submerging an object also has the effect of smothering a fire, but when you douse a campfire with water, you are cooling it, not smothering it.
For fighting other kinds of fires, such as those fueled by flammable liquids, water is completely ineffective. Such liquids often have a very low flash point, and are usually less dense than water, so they quickly float to the top. In this case, what works best is a smothering agent, like foam or carbon dioxide, or an agent that interrupts the formation of free radicals, like halon or PKP.
Applying real world principles to a fire elemental is obviously problematic--its flames are generated by its elemental essence and nowhere in the rules does it imply that it requires fuel to sustain its life or its ability to do fire damage. It is also not incorporeal, and thus can be physically harmed by a mace, a sword, or the physical blow of a water elemental's (or any other creature's) slam attack. Small elementals are relatively susceptible to such blows, larger elementals are more resistant (i.e. they have DR). Fire elementals damage their foes with both physical impact (slam damage) and the intense heat of their bodies (fire damage), which is so hot that mere contact can ignite flamable materials like hair, cloth, paper, or lamp oil, maybe even leather or flesh (burn extraordinary ability).
As a creature with the elemental type and fire subtype, a fire elemental can be damaged by a quench spell. A poster above claimed that quench creates water, but the spell description does not say that. It is a transmutation spell that has three distinct functions--putting out mundane fires, damaging elementals, and supressing the ability of magic items that create or control flame. This implies that it somehow alters the target to interfere with its ability to create or draw upon "fire" (either as an element or as an energy type). If it summoned a deluge of water, it would have to be a conjuration spell, and it would also not be effective at putting out oil-fueled fires or suppressing the ability of a wand of fireball or a flametongue sword to do its thing.
One other relevant piece of information is that a fire elemental may only cross a body of water by stepping or jumping over it. (What happens if you bullrush a fire elemental into a lake is anyone's guess--maybe it just can't be done). This implies that even modest-sized pools of liquid water on the material plane somehow interfere with the elemental's connection to the energy that forms its essence. So it is not unreasonable to suppose that pouring large amounts of water on a fire elemental might damage the creature in some fashion, but there is no specific game mechanic for determining how much.
A 10th level cleric casting create water makes 20 gallons of water, or 4,620 cubic inches. If pooled under the huge elemental's 15 x 15 foot space (32,400 square inches), twenty gallons makes a pool slightly more than an eighth of an inch deep, and unless the floor is perfectly flat and smooth and not much larger than this space, the water will spread into a thin film or run down into the cracks between the flagstones. Not enough, I think, to seriously interrupt that connection to the energy source. Thinking about it another way, if it takes five or ten gallons to put out an ordinary campfire, twenty gallons doesn't do anything significant to a roaring conflagration 15 x 15 feet in area and 32 feet high. To even cast the spell where it will dump water on the elemental, the 10th level cleric has to stand within about 35 feet of it. A seventh level cleric has to stand within 30 feet to dump 14 gallons of water. Outside its reach, but a quick move action subjects you to a +17 slam attack and 2d8+4 plus 2d8 fire damage.
So, I'd say 1d3 is about right--it rewards a very modest degree of creativity very modestly, without making a cantrip unduly powerful. Tactically, you might be better off staying out of the way and saving your cantrip to stabilize a fallen comrade. (Or whipping out your wand of cure wounds and providing ongoing combat support to the fighting wounded). If the cleric is so completely out of spells and wand charges that she's reduced to creative use of cantrips for fighting a monster with 136 hp and the capability of doing 8d8 worth of damage in a full attack, retreating might be an even better use of your standard action. Not very creative, but creativeness doesn't win every battle--not unless it's tempered with judgement and a deep knowledge of both your tools and your enemies.
Just my contribution to the conflagration!
hmm, you did ok; I probably would have had the water do 1d4 per gallon of water; save applicable reflex for half damage or such depending on the creatures feats and maybe magic resistance to overcome the spell entirely. The idea of the lowely spell seems to fit with the magic resistance. I am not sure offhand if that particular fire elemental has magic resistance, but if you feel strongly about 0 level spells you could give any being not on his native plane a inherant magic resistance to 0 level spells across the board saying they have some extra planular magic static that disrupts 0 level magic; I doubt this would change your game much, but as it is a change to the basic reality of the game; you might want to give it some serious thought.
I do feel you cheated your player a little bit for trying to use his spell creatively; if someone threw a 2 gallon bucket of water on the elemental; would this have done damage? how about 500 gallons? it is just a matter of scale; personally, I always consider conjuration spells for elemental things like water to have been instantaneously imported from the plane of water and once it arrives, is just ordinary water no longer magical. It is up to you do decide on damage; no human can be killed with a match; very small fire in comparison to our total body mass, but it sure can be painful, and we are not particularly flamable. A fire elemental is trying to keep itself together outside of its natural environment and has a particular vulnerablility to water; hmm; sounds very painful; might even throw the elemental into a beserk rage even though it did very little damage.
If I were in your shoes; next game session I would give the player an aribitration exp bonus of some amount relavant to the situation, like 200, for a clever but ineffective use of a spell (ie your ruling at the time) and make a ruling on these situations for further encounters about planular creatures and zero level spells.
I have found that arbitration exps help players feel valued, that you spent time in reflection about the situation, value thier input and their playing and eases any left over hard feelings. These type things will come up from time to time and haveing a plan like arbitration exps is an effective way to produce a meathod players can understand about how to deal with rule gaps.
Thanks for the feedback Timothée. Though I must correct you on one point: Disrupt Undead is a ray so it affects only ONE undead per spell. Cantrips effects are very limited.
To answer one question I read earlier, the PC had her full array of spells, since she prays at sunset. Hence my surprise when she started to use this cantrip. She had a good line of sight for many ray spells like Searing Light she ended using instead. As Searing Light is made of...light and not fire she dealt a good amount of damage once she switched to this tactic. However the tactical positioning of the group was ugly on the first round. As they were coming from different sides of Ash Avenue, there was a group of two PCs on one side of the battlemat and 3 of them on the opposite side. So she couldn't use support spells with maximum effect on the first round as she usually does. She usually uses Recitation on round one if the ennemy is in range, otherwise she casts Bless. However both spells couldn't help the whole group so she decided to attack instead.
Once again thank you for all your ideas, and special thanks to Peruhain for the maths and physics of combustion which I find very interesting. I don't have a great scientific culture myself (I use to spend physics class writing D&D stories lol) so it's always great to learn through clearly stated scientific facts.
OMG a frog says thank you to a roastbeef !! I'm dooooomed :))
Bran.
|
|
Thanks for the feedback Timothée. Though I must correct you on one point: Disrupt Undead is a ray so it affects only ONE undead per spell. Cantrips effects are very limited.
Yep, I know : I meant lots of monsters are affected by this specific cantrip (but once at a time), since a lot of undeads do exist,... and on the other side, the use of "create water" here was very specific because very few monsters are "pure fire"...
To answer one question I read earlier, the PC had her full array of spells, since she prays at sunset. Hence my surprise when she started to use this cantrip. She had a good line of sight for many ray spells like Searing Light she ended using instead. As Searing Light is made of...light and not fire she dealt a good amount of damage once she switched to this tactic. However the tactical positioning of the group was ugly on the first round. As they were coming from different sides of Ash Avenue, there was a group of two PCs on one side of the battlemat and 3 of them on the opposite side. So she couldn't use support spells with maximum effect on the first round as she usually does. She usually uses Recitation on round one if the ennemy is in range, otherwise she casts Bless. However both spells couldn't help the whole group so she decided to attack instead.
Bad initial positionning, but HOW IN THE WORLD are we supposed to meet huge fire elementals in an avenue called "Ash avenue" : there's nothing left to burn... ;-))
Once again thank you for all your ideas, and special thanks to Peruhain for the maths and physics of combustion which I find very interesting. I don't have a great scientific culture myself (I use to spend physics class writing D&D stories lol) so it's always great to learn through clearly stated scientific facts.
OMG a frog says thank you to a roastbeef !! I'm dooooomed :))
Bran
Yes, among others, I also usually do appreciate a lot Fake Healer & Peruhain of Brithondy's advice and feedback...
Silenttimo
|
|
Yes, among others, I also usually do appreciate a lot Fake Healer & Peruhain of Brithondy's advice and feedback...
...
Thank you, I just try to think of how to keep the game fun and interesting at all times and if I think a ruling achieves that then I defend that on the basis of fun.
I really appreciate that you and some others may like my advice.FH
Reading the 0 level spells I don't believe that Create Water should do any damage to a magical creature. Yes submerging an elemental in a lake should destroy it from the Material Plane without a doubt. Yet unlike Acid Splash or Ray of Frost, Create Water does not act as a physically damaging magical spell. Yes there is the arguement of fire and water being detrimental to one another but I believe the best way to handle it would be that the water has a chance to daze the elemental. Say the creature is dazed for 1D3 rounds with a failed save. To make it a little more realistic I would follow the spell in that for every 4 levels it states that you can create one cubic foot of water. So I would say every 4th level bring the DC of the spell up by one.