First, is there an FAQ or Errata for the Armory that I missed that covers how foam grenades affect fire critters?
If not, is there a set of guidelines I haven't been able to spot that would point people in the right direction?
Otherwise, would it be reasonable to treat it as a frag grenade of the closest item level that does "cold" damage only to creatures with the fire (sub)type?
Alright, so looking around, the spell Quench from the Druid spell list states that it does 1d6 damage per level of the caster. The damage is untyped. So it would seem to make sense that any effect that would result in quenching or extinguishing fires would do damage equal to the tier/level/CR of what causes the effect.
You dun let the rules. But cold damage of a grenade of roughly equal level was what i was going to suggest.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So I am going to expand this, then hit the FAQ button.
The Foam Grenade applies the Extinguish special property (Armory, pg. 27-28) to all fires within its radius, or to the burning condition. Other weapons can apply Extinguish as described under their description, usually to a single target. (Foam grenade's description also states that it ends ongoing acid damage, but I digress.) Now the part that is unclear is whether or not Extinguish affects magical fires. Usually this is explicitly stated, and in the case of magical fire entities, it would certainly make sense that such would be rather uncomfortable.
So the important part of this is; can foam grenades affect magical fires, and/or, what if any, affect would they have on creatures with the fire sub-type?
My co-GM and I are presently considering using the verbiage from the Druid spell Quench (included below), substituting 1/2 tier for caster level.
School: Transmutation; Level druid 3
CASTING
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, DF
EFFECT
Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Area or Target one 20-ft. cube/level (S) or one fire-based magic item
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw none or Will negates (object); Spell Resistance no or yes (object)
DESCRIPTION
Quench is often used to put out forest fires and other conflagrations. It extinguishes all non-magical fires in its area. The spell also dispels any fire spells in its area, though you must succeed on a dispel check (1d20 +1 per caster level, maximum +15) against each spell to dispel it. The DC to dispel such spells is 11 + the caster level of the fire spell.
Each creature with the fire subtype within the area of a quench spell takes 1d6 points of damage per caster level (maximum 10d6, no save allowed).
Alternatively, you can target the spell on a single magic item that creates or controls flame. The item loses all its fire-based magical abilities for 1d4 hours unless it succeeds on a Will save. Artifacts are immune to this effect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You don't need an FAQ for every corner case that comes up. As a DM make a ruling, yours seems reasonable, and move on. Even in society play this happens. You really only need an FAQ if its part of a build or a mechanic people have to work around.
The core point of whether or not Extinguish affects magical fires, or has any affect on creatures of the fire type, deserves 0 clarification? :/
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The core point of whether or not Extinguish affects magical fires, or has any affect on creatures of the fire type, deserves 0 clarification? :/
Yes. There's little distinction between magic and tech in starfinder, one isn't set over the other like in pathfinder. Tech works just fine on magic and vice versa , there's no reason for it not to work. It's like calling into question every time x works on y and asking if it works on a magic y.
Except that multiple effects do state whether the do or do not work against magical fires, and you entirely ignored in your most recent response the question of targets with the fire sub-type.
Except that multiple effects do state whether the do or do not work against magical fires
Does a fire extinguisher cause spontaneous hair growth?
If there is no reason to assume that it does, then it doesn't.
So what is the reason for expecting a fire extinguisher not to work on a magical fire?
and you entirely ignored in your most recent response the question of targets with the fire sub-type.
I wouldn't expect a universal answer by creature type.
being hit with a foam grenade probably hurts a fire elemental , who IS fire. If you are putting that out you lessen their existance which would hurt them. But this is really deeper than the rules tend to go. House rule and move on.
A red dragon being hit with the same grenade is just going to be annoyed. (and next round you're probably going to wish you hadn't expended the ammo from that fire extinguisher...)
You don't need an FAQ for every corner case that comes up. As a DM make a ruling, yours seems reasonable, and move on. Even in society play this happens. You really only need an FAQ if its part of a build or a mechanic people have to work around.
Right, so let me bring up just why this became a question in our group; the adventure path Dawn of Flame. We were looking at running this AP after two others, and guess what it is just chock full of? That's right, assorted creatures of the fire sub-type that are looking to conquer the Mataras, and possibly springboard out to the rest of the Pact Worlds system from there should their venture be successful enough. So while in most campaigns creatures of the fire type might be a corner case, for anyone that runs this AP, it will most definitely not be an unusual occurrence.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
RAW the items do what the say they do, no more, no less.
If something says it puts out fires then that's what it does. There's no reason to exclude magical fires from that, so you don't exclude magical fires from that. Starfinder doesn't have a magical fires trump mundane solutions clause for fire the way it did for mundane light sources getting trounced by darkness effects. But if something treats magical fires differently than mundane ones then that's what quench does because that's what it says. I don't think picking one example like quench to use for the template for all fire vs. fire fighting product interactions is the best idea.
RAW, a fire extinguisher will not do anything to a fire elemental. I think it would be reasonable to have it act as a cold grenade of its level against a fire elemental, or a being made mostly of fire. If your group wants to take it further than that I think you want to find some balance between "this is a cool idea let's use it" but not "make it so strong that a super soaker full of freon is the best weapon in the AP"
I cannot see that same argument working on a red dragon or an Efreeti. They have a physical body, and coating the dragons tail in fire fighting foam seems unlikely to be harmful (to the dragon. The soon to be erstwhile firefighter is probably going to have a tail shaped impression in their noggin) Yes they share a type, but the reason for the fire extinguisher working isn't there.
Cryo Grenades I/II/III/IV are tiers 6/10/14/18.
Foam Grenades I/II/III are tiers 3/9/15.
So first, there is nothing to really try to use as a comparison for the Foam Grenade I, second, like the Holy Water Grenade, there is a very small selection of enemies against which they could conceivably do damage. Most things would just get slightly soggy. With, as I said, the very notable exception of the Dawn of Flame AP. Even there, the cost of grenades is such that even using Quench as a benchmark for determining their effect vs fire elementals would make using them as the preferred weapon would be prohibitively expensive.
Cryo Grenades I/II/III/IV are tiers 6/10/14/18.
Foam Grenades I/II/III are tiers 3/9/15.
Have the 9 act like a 10 the 15 act like a l 14 and the 3 do a d6 instead of a cryo grenades d8.
I am somewhat confused at your continued objection to the notions I initially proposed, and your increasingly convoluted justifications for your position.
You initially stated that looking for an official ruling on a 'corner case' was silly. However, it is NOT a corner case, as there is an entire AP where creatures of the fire sub-type are common enemies.
You then objected that my proposed scaling would be to drastic, when if you do some number crunching, it would actually come out roughly equivalent to Holy Water grenades, which only do damage to undead or outsiders of the evil sub-type, both of which tend to be rather more common in adventure modules than creatures of the fire sub-type on the whole.
Now I ask this; why on Golarion would someone spend the credits for a Foam grenade to put out fires when there are much more cost effective measures available? Why would someone look to Foam Grenades to do untyped damage with a value similar to a Cryo grenade, when an actual Cryo grenade would do extra damage for being of the cold type?
I'm starting to think your arguments are nothing more than being unwilling to concede I might, just possibly, have a point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since there is a beastie with an actual weakness to being smothered in basic water and fire elementals don't have it, then the foam grenades shouldn't have an additional effect.
If you are intent on adding an effect, then what BNW said has its advantages. Larger area, cheaper and no risk of Friendly fire. Sure, a Cryo does more damage to the elemental and has the advantage of working on everything,but the foam won't hurt 99% of allies, will help burning allies and generally are cheaper.
So, why would I buy foam grenades? Personally, I wouldn't. In a setting with heavy fire beasties and the grenades have this style of house rule? Much easier to use genades.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You initially stated that looking for an official ruling on a 'corner case' was silly. However, it is NOT a corner case, as there is an entire AP where creatures of the fire sub-type are common enemies.
It IS a corner case in my view. And that makes sense if you listen. Which you re not. There has been zero increase in the covolution. It has been conistently the exact same idea.
How many creatures are actually MADE of fire the way a fire elemental is?
As stated repeatedly, there is absolutely 100% zero argument raw that fire extinguishers do anything to creatures just because they have the fire subtype.
The common sense justification of hurting a fire elemental IS an extreme corner case. Even in that AP.
But because you think they should work on all creatures with the fire subtype, you repeatedly refuse to accept that I disagree.
Inconsistency with YOUR paradigm that all fire sub type creatures should be affected is NOT an internal consistency on my part. My statements are in no way inconsistent, insensible, or indicative of stubbornness for it's own sake. They reach a different conclussion because there is a different premise. You stubbornly not recognizing that is the problem here.
Hopping around from point to point as they're answered isn't helping you either. You are trying to tie together
whether mundane equipment works on fire
what fire extinguishers do to fire elementals
what fire extinguishers do to other creatures of the fire type
why are foam grenades even a thing
Now I ask this; why on Golarion would someone spend the credits for a Foam grenade to put out fires when there are much more cost effective measures available?
Extinguish
Source Starfinder Armory pg. 27You can expend all remaining charges of this weapon (even if it has only a single charge or use) as a swift action to remove the burning condition from yourself or an adjacent creature, or to quench the flames in 1 square. If the weapon affects an area, it extinguishes all flames in that area (including ending the burning condition for all targets fully within the area). Extinguishing flames does not prevent the area from catching fire again, especially if flames survive nearby.
Foam grenades mk 1 2 and 3 put out 4 , 16, and 36 squares.
I don't know an extinguish weapon that will effect that large of an area. So what are the more cost effective measures if the fire is bigger than a 5 by 5 square?
Why would someone look to Foam Grenades to do untyped damage with a value similar to a Cryo grenade, when an actual Cryo grenade would do extra damage for being of the cold type?
Because you packed a foam grenade to put out fires but found a fire elemental before you found a forest fire.
Also there are more things with extinguish in the game than the foam grenades. For example by your suggestion you'd have a residential cryopike doing a base of 9d6 instead of 3d4 damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I tend to agree with BNW here.
Rules - foam grenades do nothing to creatures of the fire subtype, even those like fire elementals that are made of living fire. If you want to deal damage to those creatures you must buy grenades that actually deal damage.
Houserules - Using the spell quench from a different system is an idea I strongly recommend not following. Quench at 1/2 tier = caster level as written does far more damage than an equivalent level cryo grenade. Have your player's stick to buying cryo grenades instead.
Having a foam grenade do some basic damage. An equivalent mark frag grenade, or a similar level cold grenade isn't the end of the world. Though, I'd stick to it only affecting creatures literally made of flames - or perhaps the grenades not doing damage, but preventing those creatures from using their various burn abilities.
It IS a corner case in my view. And that makes sense if you listen. Which you re not. There has been zero increase in the covolution. It has been conistently the exact same idea.
First, between my initial idea of 1d6/tier on my initial mention of the Quench spell, and the large type that I falgged for an FAQ, I revised it to 1d6 x 1/2 tier (which would be typically rounded down) of the item, as I had realized that 1d6/tier was too much damage for an item.
Second, most of my discussion has been an explanation for my reasons and thought processes, about half of which you have simply ignored as if I had not made them. Most notably my point on the damage and small subset of available targets for the Holy Water Grenade.How many creatures are actually MADE of fire the way a fire elemental is?
As stated repeatedly, there is absolutely 100% zero argument raw that fire extinguishers do anything to creatures just because they have the fire subtype.
Fair points, and particularly as to the second, that's part of my stated reason for looking for clarifiction.
The common sense justification of hurting a fire elemental IS an extreme corner case. Even in that AP.
It would appear that on this particular point we will simply need to agree to disagree. I still feel that the Extinguish special property should clearly state at least whether or not it affects just mundane fires, or if it will affect magical fires as well.
But because you think they should work on all creatures with the fire subtype, you repeatedly refuse to accept that I disagree.
Inconsistency with YOUR paradigm that all fire sub type creatures should be affected is NOT an internal consistency on my part. My statements are in no way inconsistent, insensible, or indicative of stubbornness for it's own sake. They reach a different conclussion because there is a different premise. You stubbornly not recognizing that is the problem here.Hopping around from point to point as they're answered isn't helping you either. You are trying to tie together
whether mundane equipment works on fire
what fire extinguishers do to fire elementals
what fire extinguishers do to other creatures of the fire type
why are foam grenades even a thing
That last was only in my most recent point, as without additional utility, I can not see people someone would invest the credits in something they are almost never going to need.
Extinguish
Source Starfinder Armory pg. 27
You can expend all remaining charges of this weapon (even if it has only a single charge or use) as a swift action to remove the burning condition from yourself or an adjacent creature, or to quench the flames in 1 square. If the weapon...
So you tried saying that by my comments, a residential cryospike would deal a base of 9d6 damage to creatures of the fire type.
1) As stated above, I revised that to 1/2 tier (rounded down by convention)2)That would not be base, but only if you used the Extinguish property, which would require expending ALL remaining charges.
Therefore, the damage done if you burned all the charges would be 4d6 untyped damage compared to 3d4 cold damage, which against fire creature would be an average of 14 damage compared to an average of 15 damage. Making that a poor use of charges.
So I'm able to point out here multiple instances where you simply. Did. Not. Pay. Attention. Even to a rule that you directly quoted! So my general opinion of most of your comments on this topic remain unchanged.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would appear that on this particular point we will simply need to agree to disagree.
Which is fine, But You cannot act as if my statements based on that point are nonsensical because you disagree with it. My statements are based on my opinion. They are not nonsensical because they do not incorporate your own opinion.
I still feel that the Extinguish special property should clearly state at least whether or not it affects just mundane fires, or if it will affect magical fires as well.
It does. It has zero need to specify the difference. You have made zero argument that it does not.
That last was only in my most recent point, as without additional utility, I can not see people someone would invest the credits in something they are almost never going to need.
As a starfinder I have come across many large fires. Some of them were even there before the party started starfindering. I have outfited entire SFS parties with fire extinguishers and quick gear clamps, as well as had a trio of water elementals with quench on hand.
(There are certain hellknights that really. really. Don't like libraries)
It really isn't that odd that people buy something that puts out fires in order to put out fires. It doesn't NEED to do anything else. If you're not finding that many fires? Don't buy them.
So I'm able to point out here multiple instances where you simply. Did. Not. Pay. Attention.
One thing is not multiple.
The ONLY thing i missed was the revision to 1/2. Everything else was answered. Getting an answer you don't like is still an answer. Getting angry, insulting, rude, and launching attacks at other posters because you didn't get the exploitative answer you wanted is completely uncalled for.
The ONLY thing i missed was the revision to 1/2. Everything else was answered.
False.
Extinguish
Source Starfinder Armory pg. 27
You can expend all remaining charges of this weapon (even if it has only a single charge or use) as a swift action to remove the burning condition from yourself or an adjacent creature, or to quench the flames in 1 square. If the weapon affects an area, it extinguishes all flames in that area (including ending the burning condition for all targets fully within the area). Extinguishing flames does not prevent the area from catching fire again, especially if flames survive nearby.
Then later;
For example by your suggestion you'd have a residential cryopike doing a base of 9d6 instead of 3d4 damage.
Seeing as how the discussion is about the Extinguish special property, saying that my ruling would change the base damage of a weapon with that property is a pretty severe misinterpretation of that rule, as it only works if all remaining charges are expended. In the case of the residential cryospike, that could potentially be 20 charges, rather than the normal usage of 2, and thus is hardly be the base damage of the weapon. You quoted the entire special property rule, and yet you somehow overlooked that part when making your assertion that our current house ruling is stupid.
You claimed that Starfinder makes little to no distinction between technological and magical. When I made the counterpoint that there are several cases of effects, including elemental, light/darkness, etc, that have explicitly stated differences in interaction between mundane and magical, you simply ignored the point, and will likely continue to do so.
When I gave the portion of my rational that was based on the Holy Water Grenade (Does considerably more damage than grenades of approximate tier/cost. Conclusion; it's because it is only effective against undead and outsiders of the evil sub-type. Therefore, if the extinguish effect does have a harmful effect against fire creatures, which are an even smaller subset of enemies as seen in modules, it would seem reasonable that they would do at least slightly more damage than similar tier items. Also, given the suggested scaling, using cryo weaponry of the same tier would, on average, do more damage than the Extinguish effect as per my suggestion. The advantage being that allies would not be affected. Which is, again, also true of the Holy Water Grenade.), you ignored the point. As with the previous point, I have every expectation by now that you will continue to do so.
You don't need an FAQ for every corner case that comes up.
It is your opinion that this does not require a FAQ. It is also your opinion that this is a corner case. I sent the following email to the Starfinder Community:
So this has probably already been pointed out by others, but there are a couple of discrepancies I have noticed, specifically in Starfinder works, as I'm burning through those.1) Disrupting Shot (Character Operations Manual, pg. 83) is listed as an exploit available to Operatives of 6th level or higher. However, one of its prerequisite exploits is Deactivating Shot (Core, pg. 96), which is available to Operatives of 10th level or higher. So a 6th level ability has a 10th level ability as a pre-req. I'm inclined to think that Disrupting Shot was supposed to be a 10th level and up ability.
2) The fluff description of Foam Grenades (Armory, pg. 39), reads "A foam grenade explodes on impact to release a burst of fire-suppressant foam akin to that from a fire extinguisher. This foam reduces the damage from the burning condition or from the corrode critical hit effect taken by creatures within
the area by the listed amount each round; this ends the burning condition or corrode effect if it reduces the amount of damage to 0. This also ends any active fires within the affected area." However, the foam grenades listing on the weapons tables site it as having the Extinguish special property instead of having a XdY format, or a flat number that should be used to reduce ongoing damage. I suspect this is a hold over from an earlier revision.P.S. If this is the appropriate point to reach out for rules clarifications, what effect, if any, should items/weapons with the extinguish property have on creatures of the fire subtype?
The response of the Director of Community:
Thank you for writing. I've sent the issues you identified with our Starfinder team for review. As for rules clarifications, I recommend posting in our Starfinder forums, as the team may have a chance to answer there or the community may have an answer to your query. If an official answer isn't available, I encourage you to make a decision that works for you and your gaming group.Happy gaming!
So it was their suggestion that I bring this to the attention of the teams on the actual Forums, which is done by hitting the FAQ button on a post. I will respectfully take their opinion over yours.
In all, as I have shown, you have either missed key points, including in a rule you posted in its entirety, or chosen to ignore them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seeing as how the discussion is about the Extinguish special property, saying that my ruling would change the base damage of a weapon with that property is a pretty severe misinterpretation of that rule
It's doing exactly what you said the rule was. If its not doing exactly what you THINK it does, that's not missing something on my part. Fine, its not what you mean. But getting angry at people for not looking inside your skull is completely irrational.
Your argument that I missed a rule that i quoted is just that... an argument. It really doesn't follow. You see it one way. Its not how I see it. Oddly enough, my answers represent the way I see things. It's easy enough to shoot reload shoot reload shoot reload. Or use an autoloader.
People can only judge you on what you SAY. Not what you think. People are not limited in agreeing with your assumptions for their arguments. Disagreeing with you is not an internal contradiction, nor is the fact that you can think of refutation to what someone says after the fact. Case in point...
When I made the counterpoint that there are several cases of effects, including elemental, light/darkness, etc, that have explicitly stated differences in interaction between mundane and magical, you simply ignored the point, and will likely continue to do so.
I really don't see you doing this.
Except that multiple effects do state whether the do or do not work against magical fires, and you entirely ignored in your most recent response the question of targets with the fire sub-type.
Again. I can only go on what you say. What you think is doing this... isn't. Quench is in starfinder but its a water elemental ability. The spell you quoted is from pathfinder. (as other posters pointed out) You're alluding to examples but 1) you're not giving them 2) there being some abilities that treat them differently does not create a general rule that they are always treated differently.
If something says it puts out fires then that's what it does. There's no reason to exclude magical fires from that, so you don't exclude magical fires from that.<----- You no liking that answer doesn't mean I ignored your point when I gave it.
In a completely coherent rules system you can argue from A to B to C to D to E. Starfinder is not that system. You can usually go from A to B because A and B are mentioned together deliberately, after that... its a crap shoot.
Getting to the answer you have requires several questionable lines of thought all working. That is incredibly unlikely. (if you have a 90% chance of being right but have to be right 5 times your odds drop to 60%). The biggest lynchpin in your argument is that Quench, a pathfinder spell, sets a precedent for how everything that puts out fires is supposed to work in starfinder. It's hard to overstate how much that... really. Really. really does not follow. That is just a flat out no.
Any point you made relying on that idea was answered with a no as far as I'm concerned. As this was the lynch pin, thats a lot of them.
. Also, given the suggested scaling, using cryo weaponry of the same tier would, on average, do more damage than the Extinguish effect as per my suggestion.
This was answered explicitly with the example of the cryospike and the hypothetical Supersoaker of freon. Again, it really doesn't matter what the average amount of items do, it only matters what the most exploitative cost to damage item the players can find is. (and the players WILL find it). Things you or even a designer think can act as a limiter might be circumvented by an unknown or possibly future tech item, spell, or class ability.
This is why it's ripe for a house rule and a really bad fit for an official answer. If officially extinguishing items do a d6 to creatures of the fire type (or even a smaller subset of the fire type) per item level or even half item level then going forward every item and weapon that extinguishes fire has to be balanced against that consideration. That is a PITT and causes more trouble than it's worth. A small group can tailor fit every exception they can find, that sort of micromangement would occupy an exhausting amount of designer throughput.