Fire Elemental and create water
Denis Simpson
During an attack by a fire elemental a 14th level paladin casted a "create
water" spell on top of it.
Is there an effect at all to the elemental? If so, how much damage would it
sustain?
Would it be the same as throwing a large quantity of water on it?
Thanks.
Ken Andrews
I normally use the rule of 1D6 damage per gallon of water. If you're using
volumes, remember that 1 cubic foot is about 7 gallons (Imperial measure,
about 6 gallons).
The fire elemental should get some sort of save to get out from under the
coalescing water, but, if successful, should still take splash damage as the
water hits the ground.
By the by, this generally won't work in my own campaign as I require that it
be summoned directly above or within a container. (I also allow the use of
containers smaller than the minimum volume; the excess simply pours out onto
the ground.) This is non-canon, though.
Aristotle@Threshold
>During an attack by a fire elemental a 14th level paladin casted a "create
>water" spell on top of it.
>Is there an effect at all to the elemental? If so, how much damage would it
>sustain?
>Would it be the same as throwing a large quantity of water on it?
Fire Elemental's are WAY too buff to be messed up just by having some water
tossed at them.
I would say it created a lot of steam- most likely the steam would burn the
PCs.
-Aristotle@Threshold
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
VISIT THRESHOLD ONLINE! High Fantasy Role Playing Game!
Player run clans, guilds, businesses, legal system, nobility, missile
combat, detailed religions, rich, detailed roleplaying environment.
http://www.threshold-rpg.com -**- telnet://threshold-rpg.com:23
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Larry Mead
: This afternoon we came upon a problem regarding a fire elemental.
: During an attack by a fire elemental a 14th level paladin casted a "create
: water" spell on top of it.
: Is there an effect at all to the elemental? If so, how much damage would it
: sustain?
No. The water so created must end up in a container; this is not a combat
spell.
: Would it be the same as throwing a large quantity of water on it?
No.
DMgorgon
--
Lawrence R. Mead Ph.D. (Lawren...@usm.edu)
Eschew Obfuscation! Espouse Elucidation!
www-dept.usm.edu/~physics/mead.html
Deborah L. Sanyk
Denis Simpson wrote in message <6r87bq$gs3$1...@news.quebectel.com>...
>This afternoon we came upon a problem regarding a fire elemental.
>
>During an attack by a fire elemental a 14th level paladin casted a "create
>water" spell on top of it.
>Is there an effect at all to the elemental? If so, how much damage would it
>sustain?
Well, let's see... a 14th level paladin would be creating water as a
(14-9=5) 5th level cleric.
Now, there's two ways to go about resolving this that I think would work out
equally well:
1) You could figure out the volume of water created by the spell (look in
the spell description--you should be able to judge for yourself whether it's
the same as "throwing a large quantity of water on it") and then figure out
how large the fire elemental is. The two volumes should give a decent ratio
for determining how much of the Elemental's hit points were lost due to the
water.
Alternately, if the volume of water conjured is too small to do a large
percentage of damage, it may be able to split the elemental in half,
resulting in two, smaller 1/2HD versions of the original. Depending on the
situation, this could make things easier on the party, or all the more
difficult. When playing with other-planar creatures, I like when spells
have unpredictable consequences like this--it also shows that the DM can do
more than just follow rules, but can make up his own on the fly, and this
usually makes the gaming world seem "richer".
---->Note: there's a slight problem of not taking into account the
secondary fires started by the Fire Elemental coming into contact with
flammable objects. These secondary fires could spread very quickly and
cover a wide area, even greater than the actual size of the Elemental
itself. Depending on their locale, the Paladin may find it necessary to
divert some of the spell's effect on putting out these secondary fires (ie
to save a building or people from damage/death) and whatever percentage of
water he must use for these he can't use to do damage to the Elemental.
---->Note: Depending on how much control over the spell the paladin has, he
may be able to use the spell to contain the elemental, rather than harming
it, by completely soaking the area around where it "stands", thereby
creating a firebreak. This would detain the elemental (unless he could
somehow "jump" up to an overhanging flammable tree branch or something)
until such time as it was able to dry out the soaked ground (would probably
take at least a turn or so).
Of course, if that's too computation-intensive for you, here's the
quick-n-dirty method:
2) Treat the "Create Water" spell as a sort-of "inverse" Fireball. In this
instance, it would do 5d6 damage (but probably at +2 damage per die, due to
the Fire Elemental's vulnerability to water.)
-----guppy
Deborah L. Sanyk
Larry Mead wrote in message <6r96i5$9i2$5...@thorn.cc.usm.edu>...
>Denis Simpson (sim...@quebectel.com) wrote:
>: This afternoon we came upon a problem regarding a fire elemental.
>
>: During an attack by a fire elemental a 14th level paladin casted a
"create
>: water" spell on top of it.
>: Is there an effect at all to the elemental? If so, how much damage would
it
>: sustain?
>
>spell.
This business about ending up in a container has always seemed kindof bogus
to me. I can understand if the spell is just intended to be a "divine
sustenance" spell, and the god in question doesn't want his priests to
"waste" water. But what god is going to refuse a priest who is in good
standing the use of this spell in a situation where it could be so useful?
As for "container" you could always say that the water is "contained" by the
universe into which it is created--how is a bucket or a trough any better
than a puddle-sized depression in the ground or the top of a hill (where the
water will run off, eventually to "end up in a container" somewhere,
sometime.
Granted, there should be some restrictions... a massive volume of water
dropped from a high enough height could easily impart enough kinetic energy
to slay most low-level humanoid-class creatures, and this probably should be
avoided as an "abuse" of the spell. But rather than making up a restriction
about containers and non-combat, I'd find it better if the explanation was
that "god thought this was an inappropriate use for the spell and you should
find a better way." It would then seem more reasonable for the spell to
work against a fire elemental, but not to dump a few metric tons of water
from a mile in the air onto a charging battalion of orcs in the middle of an
open battle.
----guppy
Larry Mead
: Larry Mead wrote in message <6r96i5$9i2$5...@thorn.cc.usm.edu>...
: ----guppy
Nonetheless, that is the intent of the spell: a container is filled.
DMgorogon
Sea Wasp
>
> In article <6r87bq$gs3$1...@news.quebectel.com>, "Denis Simpson" <sim...@quebectel.com> wrote:
> >water" spell on top of it.
> >Is there an effect at all to the elemental? If so, how much damage would it
> >sustain?
>
> tossed at them.
>
> I would say it created a lot of steam- most likely the steam would burn the
> PCs.
I'd say it depends on the amount of water. A Fire Elemental isn't going
to care if it starts to drizzle, but if you break a dam and a
thirty-foot wall of water smashes into it, the Elemental goes back to
whence it came.
Water, IMCGO, does indeed damage a Fire Elemental, and depending on how
much water you hit it with, you should do a fair amount of damage. A
canteen's worth probably does a D4. A good-sized wineskin, a d8. Hit it
with a barrel full and you're talking serious damage, maybe 6d6 or more.
Water is nasty stuff; look up its chemical and physical characteristics
sometime. It's WIERD.
--
Sea Wasp http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.html
/^\
;;;
_Morgantown: The Jason Wood Chronicles_, at http://www.hyperbooks.com
Joseph Oberlander
> instance, it would do 5d6 damage (but probably at +2 damage per die, due to
> the Fire Elemental's vulnerability to water.)
A fire elemental is from the plane of fire IIRC, or "normally" resides
there, so it would do very little damamge to it.
Imagine a walking version of DragonFire - hot? Water won't do much
to it, though ice would.
We researched Iceball for this reason - creates an effect exactly like
Fireball - a "ball" of super-cold, though not solid - more like
super-cold slushy ball to keep obvious abuses from happening.
I would say it does 1 point per gallon of water, no more.
Steam might be a probem. I would rule that for every
gallon of water, you "add" a die to a total that you keep
track of. When it reaches the original hit dice of the
elemental, a steam elemental forms. Start calculating
over for the next elemental.
So, you *could* kill the elemantal, but by the time that you did,
there would be quite a few steam versions.
Wall of ice would be unfortunate to use.
1:As a sheet dropped on it, it would splatter it.
Every point of HD that it has would form into tiny
little 1 point elementals(imagine the movie "Gremlins")
It would originally take 1 point per level of the caster
from cold, but not crushing damage - how do you crush a
sentient "blob" of fire?
"We cast Wall of Ice and drop it on the Elemental"
"Well, it takes 8 points of damage from cold, and after
the damage you already did to it... humm...
It splatters into 43 tiny little elementals.
Everything within 30 feet of you erupts into fire."
"UR?... Mommmeee!..."
2:As a wall, it would split it in two.
I rule that it has to be real damage(weapons) or
a concentrated force of magic cold, as fire is
very much like air and water, in that it is very
fluid.
Azot...@aol.com
fact that there is a human already in it is of no consequence. You can dump
it from above "into" the plate - not create it IN the human. If you don't
think plate qualifies as a container a) ask the human in it, b) see Klein
Bottle.
Another point is that if you're going to dump a few metric tons of water from
on high, you might want to add some collagen (jello) to it. < cook and cool>
It makes the mass hold together on the way down and makes a much better
::SPLAT!::. I suggest lime for orcs, it goes with the taste and skin color.
An ice sculptue of Jubilex works well too.
Diety discrection and preistly discretion is the key to clerical spell
controls. Abuse the power and pay the price.
--
can it be? Azot...@AOhell.com ! (that's aol...)
"death is the easy way out..."
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Deborah L. Sanyk
Joseph Oberlander wrote in message <35D856...@irace.net>...
>> 2) Treat the "Create Water" spell as a sort-of "inverse" Fireball. In
this
>> instance, it would do 5d6 damage (but probably at +2 damage per die, due
to
>> the Fire Elemental's vulnerability to water.)
>
>A fire elemental is from the plane of fire IIRC, or "normally" resides
>there, so it would do very little damamge to it.
>Imagine a walking version of DragonFire - hot? Water won't do much
>to it, though ice would.
Why *wouldn't* plain ole water not "do much"? Water would smother the
elemental, and cool it off in the process. It takes a lot of energy to
convert water into steam (even more to go from ice to steam, but still plain
ole liquid water ought to go a long way toward slowing down a fire
elemental.)
>We researched Iceball for this reason - creates an effect exactly like
>Fireball - a "ball" of super-cold, though not solid - more like
>super-cold slushy ball to keep obvious abuses from happening.
What was wrong with Cone of Cold?
>I would say it does 1 point per gallon of water, no more.
>Steam might be a probem. I would rule that for every
>gallon of water, you "add" a die to a total that you keep
>track of. When it reaches the original hit dice of the
>elemental, a steam elemental forms. Start calculating
>over for the next elemental.
Interesting solution, kindof harsh from the player's perspective, but
believable.
>I rule that it has to be real damage(weapons) or
>a concentrated force of magic cold, as fire is
>very much like air and water, in that it is very
>fluid.
In that case, why should a weapon do any damage to it at all? You'd almost
have to resort to fire-fighting methods, because nothing else would work.
----guppy
Aristotle@Threshold
> I'd say it depends on the amount of water. A Fire Elemental isn't going
>to care if it starts to drizzle, but if you break a dam and a
>thirty-foot wall of water smashes into it, the Elemental goes back to
>whence it came.
Yup, I agree. But in the case of things like the poster listed (a bucket of
water, etc.) I personally think its too little to do any damage. I prefer the
excitement of some massively hot steam frying the party and the elemental just
laughing =).
Ken Andrews
>Larry Mead wrote
>>Denis Simpson (sim...@quebectel.com) wrote:
>>: This afternoon we came upon a problem regarding a fire elemental.
>>
"create
>>: water" spell on top of it.
>>: Is there an effect at all to the elemental? If so, how much damage would
it
>>: sustain?
>>
>>spell.
>
>This business about ending up in a container has always seemed kindof bogus
>to me. I can understand if the spell is just intended to be a "divine
>sustenance" spell, and the god in question doesn't want his priests to
>"waste" water. But what god is going to refuse a priest who is in good
>standing the use of this spell in a situation where it could be so useful?
>As for "container" you could always say that the water is "contained" by
the
>universe into which it is created--how is a bucket or a trough any better
>than a puddle-sized depression in the ground or the top of a hill (where
the
>water will run off, eventually to "end up in a container" somewhere,
>sometime.
>
>Granted, there should be some restrictions... a massive volume of water
>dropped from a high enough height could easily impart enough kinetic energy
>to slay most low-level humanoid-class creatures, and this probably should
be
>avoided as an "abuse" of the spell. But rather than making up a
restriction
>about containers and non-combat, I'd find it better if the explanation was
>that "god thought this was an inappropriate use for the spell and you
should
>find a better way." It would then seem more reasonable for the spell to
>from a mile in the air onto a charging battalion of orcs in the middle of
an
>open battle.
Could somebody C&V this rule about Create Water having to appear in a
*container*? I have both AD&D 1 and AD&D 2 PHB in front of me right now,
and I can't find it. The closest I can find is that the spell description
requires that the water appear in an *area* sufficient to contain it, or a
maximum of 27 cubic feet (1 cubic yard). Not even a rule of "whichever is
less". There isn't even a rule that the volume must be an actual cube.
Ergo, judging by what *both* versions say, you could cast it in a 3' X 9'
volume 1' thick, and let it drop where it will. The volume *will* contain
the water as per the spell description, at the moment of creation.
Now, keep in mind that, due to the limitation of 27 cubic feet, that's the
most water that can be created (i.e., roughly 1 tonne of water). (10
gallons per cubic foot = 270 gallons @ 4 gallons per level = L67 cleric
feels the pinch.)
Now, I use the rule that it must be created either within or above a
container sufficient to hold it, *but this is not canon*. The spell, as
written, *does not require this*.
So, again, could someone C&V this alteration to the rule?