PDA

View Full Version : [RAI] Energy Sub and non-damage effects [crunch vs fluff][maybe a rant]



AmeVulpes
2019-02-19, 02:57 AM
This thread might be a little strange, but I want to brainstorm with fellow Playgrounders a bit!

I only care because I like explaining how things work in graphic detail, and my players demand that things make sense.

Example 1:

Flames as bright as a torch appear in your open hand. The flames harm neither you nor your equipment.

In addition to providing illumination, the flames can be hurled or used to touch enemies. You can strike an opponent with a melee touch attack, dealing fire damage equal to 1d6 +1 point per caster level (maximum +5). Alternatively, you can hurl the flames up to 120 feet as a thrown weapon. When doing so, you attack with a ranged touch attack (with no range penalty) and deal the same damage as with the melee attack. No sooner do you hurl the flames than a new set appears in your hand. Each attack you make reduces the remaining duration by 1 minute. If an attack reduces the remaining duration to 0 minutes or less, the spell ends after the attack resolves.

This spell does not function underwater.

Benefit
You choose one type of energy: acid, cold, electricity, fire, or sonic. When employing a spell with the acid, cold, electricity, fire, or sonic designator, you can modify the spell to use your chosen type of energy instead. The altered spell uses a spell slot of the spell’s normal level.

The altered spell works normally in all respects except the type of damage dealt.

I know RAW doesn't make sense all the time. Clearly a ball of sonic in your hand (whatever the hells that means) shouldn't be "providing illumination." Should it make noise in the same area? That's probably outright homebrewing, but I'm interested in your opinions on that.

Should it still not work underwater?

Tome and Blood has a sidebar about this! (and example 2:)

If a spell has a secondary effect, so does the altered version. For example, a shout spell can deafen creatures and deals extra damage to crystalline creatures. If fire is substituted for sonic energy, the altered shout spell still has these effects[1,4,5], but deals fire damage instead of sonic. Sometimes, however, a spell’s minor effects are directly related to its energy type[2]: for example, a fireball can set things alight, but a sonic or acid fireball cannot.[3]

[1] Why?
[2] I would say that the deafen and double damage against crystalline creatures are directly related to sonic damage. Is that a stretch?
[3] This makes sense, but then why does a fire-subbed shout still deafen?
[4] Should a Fortitude save really halve the fire damage? Really? (see Shout (https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Shout))
[5] Can the fire damage not penetrate an area of Silence?

My best reading of this says that Produce Flame (sonic-subbed) still produces light (WHAT) and doesn't work underwater.

Does Freezing Sphere (https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Freezing_Sphere) dealing Fire damage freeze a body of water? Does it instead boil it? Does it deal extra to Water Elementals?
Does Ice Storm (https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Ice_Storm) dealing Electric damage reduce land movement to one half? It definitely does blugeoning damage, but how? Electrically charged ice balls?
Heat Metal (https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Heat_Metal) deals half damage and boils water against submerged targets, while Chill Metal (https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Chill_Metal) deals no damage underwater and causes the target to float by freezing said water. How about a Heat Metal subbed for cold? Chill Metal subbed for acid?
Take Shatter (https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Shatter) and deal fire damage. Does it still break glass into tiny pieces?

Can anyone think of, say, some guidelines, to not arbitrate the hundreds of energy spells on a case-by-case basis?
Because magic, /thread./s

Crake
2019-02-19, 03:05 AM
Regarding the whole fire damage underwater etc, water explicitly acts as a barrier for line of effect for fire attacks, so changing something to [fire] makes it adhere to those rules.

AmeVulpes
2019-02-19, 03:08 AM
Regarding the whole fire damage underwater etc, water explicitly acts as a barrier for line of effect for fire attacks, so changing something to [fire] makes it adhere to those rules.


Nonmagical fire (including alchemist’s fire) does not burn underwater. Spells or spell-like effects with the fire descriptor are ineffective underwater unless the caster makes a Spellcraft check (DC 20 + spell level). If the check succeeds, the spell creates a bubble of steam instead of its usual fiery effect, but otherwise the spell works as described. A supernatural fire effect is ineffective underwater unless its description states otherwise. The surface of a body of water blocks line of effect for any fire spell. If the caster has made a Spellcraft check to make the fire spell usable underwater, the surface still blocks the spell’s line of effect.1
I was unaware of how exactly this worked, so thank you for exposing me to this, but, all the same, misleading.
[1]Let's assume casting from underwater to underwater.

Upon re-reading, I realize I misunderstood you. Apologies for going on the aggressive-defensive so quickly.

SangoProduction
2019-02-19, 04:27 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonoluminescence

AmeVulpes
2019-02-19, 04:34 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonoluminescence

Very interesting read. Upon slight investigation, I found a lot people talking about things we can't talk about that it would probably take a huge amount of pressure, thus a huge amount of heat (thus looping back to fire damage) to cast useful light no evidence that this works out of water. I don't quite buy this as an answer to Produce casting light, but again, very interesting.

EDIT: If you assume a non-fire Produce [redacted] can work underwater, I'd allow it there for rule of cool if nothing else.

I'd be more (still not very) willing to call it just arcane light or what have you.

Hackulator
2019-02-19, 08:03 AM
The answer is even RAI, it still probably makes light. Trying to make D&D "make sense" from the point of view of consistent scientific principles is a losing endeavor. It's magic, if it made sense it would be science (and real science at that, not RPG science).

As to your question about fiery shout vs sonic fireball, it's because the game cares more about mechanical consistency than logical consistency. Shout does extra damage to crystalline creatures. This mechanic does not change unless something specifically changes it. Fireball secondarily setting things on fire is not really part of the spells mechanics, but something they threw in descriptively at the end because they thought it made sense, which is why it leads to issues like this one because as I said before, trying to make D&D make sense is a losing endeavor.

AmeVulpes
2019-02-19, 08:12 AM
As to your question about fiery shout vs sonic fireball, it's because the game cares more about mechanical consistency than logical consistency. Shout does extra damage to crystalline creatures. This mechanic does not change unless something specifically changes it. Fireball secondarily setting things on fire is not really part of the spells mechanics, but something they threw in descriptively at the end because they thought it made sense, which is why it leads to issues like this one because as I said before, trying to make D&D make sense is a losing endeavor.

Yep. Been losing my whole life, not about to stop now. (but for the purpose of this discussion, in this case, I guess I actually will)

I think I can wrap my head around this if we can draw a distinction between "secondary" and "minor" effects (see TaB excerpt). Casting light seems to be the primary effect, according to the description, so yeah, looking at the rules and tossing logic out the window, it casts light. I can sort-of-kind-of live with that. I think I'll start a thread about this (where we discuss spells and pick apart "secondary" and "minor" effects) if anybody feels like being this pedantic with me. Because I absolutely feel like being this pedantic.

Oh, and /thread, because you are absolutely right, this is madness.

So /thread

ShurikVch
2019-02-19, 08:21 AM
Are you aware you're using outdated version of Energy Substitution?
(I mean - you can, but, technically - it's a houserule)

Energy Substitution was changed in 3.5 (Complete Arcane, reprinted in the Shadowdale: The Scouring of the Land): now it change spell's [descriptor], but not damage type - thus Produce Flame [sonic] still do fire damage

If you want to actually change the spell's damage type, you will need Energy Affinity - +0 [metamagic] feat from the Miniatures Handbook: it changes the spell's damage type, but not [descriptor]

AmeVulpes
2019-02-19, 08:38 AM
Are you aware you're using outdated version of Energy Substitution?
(I mean - you can, but, technically - it's a houserule)

Energy Substitution was changed in 3.5 (Complete Arcane, reprinted in the Shadowdale: The Scouring of the Land): now it change spell's [descriptor], but not damage type - thus Produce Flame [sonic] still do fire damage

If you want to actually change the spell's damage type, you will need Energy Affinity - +0 [metamagic] feat from the Miniatures Handbook: it changes the spell's damage type, but not [descriptor]

I don't have Shadowdale.

My copy of 3.5's Complete Arcane calls out changing the spell's energy, almost the same text, but elaborated (and it removes Sonic)

But it specifically says-

You can then modify any spell with an energy descriptor to use the chosen type of energy instead[...] The spell's descriptor changes to the new energy type--for example, a fireball composed of cold energy[...]


What SRD source does the quoted text in my OP come from? It's on both dandwiki and d20srd.

Hackulator
2019-02-19, 08:45 AM
Are you aware you're using outdated version of Energy Substitution?
(I mean - you can, but, technically - it's a houserule)

Energy Substitution was changed in 3.5 (Complete Arcane, reprinted in the Shadowdale: The Scouring of the Land): now it change spell's [descriptor], but not damage type - thus Produce Flame [sonic] still do fire damage

If you want to actually change the spell's damage type, you will need Energy Affinity - +0 [metamagic] feat from the Miniatures Handbook: it changes the spell's damage type, but not [descriptor]

That's an incorrect reading. When it says it uses the new type of energy, it is talking about damage effects.

ShurikVch
2019-02-19, 09:48 AM
I don't have Shadowdale.No need - I checked, it's the same as in the Complete Arcane, letter-to-letter. (It's why I said "reprinted" rather than "revised")


My copy of 3.5's Complete Arcane calls out changing the spell's energy, almost the same text, but elaboratedElaborated - how?
And "changing the spell's energy" ≠ "changing the damage type"


(and it removes Sonic)Huh!.. :smallconfused:
You're right!
Neither Energy Substitution 3.5, nor Energy Affinity are including option for Sonic!
Apparently, it was removed for "being too OP" :smallamused:
Or, maybe, authors decided it don't fit into "classical 4 elements"?
(Or simply forgot about it...)


What SRD source does the quoted text in my OP come from? It's on both dandwiki and d20srd.Well, it could be Dandwiki (https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Energy_Substitution), Dnd-Wiki (https://dnd-wiki.org/wiki/SRD:Energy_Substitution), or "Divine Abilities & Feats" in D20srd (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/divineAbilitiesFeats.htm#energySubstitution) (or System Reference Document v3.5 (http://dndsrd.net/divineFeats.html)).
Or, maybe, Evoker Variant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/specialistWizardVariants.htm#energySubstitution)?



That's an incorrect reading. When it says it uses the new type of energy, it is talking about damage effects.It doesn't even using the "damage" word!
Also, please, tell me: why to print two different feats with similar effects (up to the missing Sonic!), same metamagical adjustment (+0), and just slightly different prerequisites - Knowledge (arcana) 5 to both, Affinity also required to be able to cast spells of 4 energy types, Substitution - to any other metamagical feat?
In the reading which I using, it make sense - one feat changes damage (but not [descriptor]), another - [descriptor] (but not damage)

Hackulator
2019-02-19, 10:00 AM
It doesn't even using the "damage" word!
Also, please, tell me: why to print two different feats with similar effects (up to the missing Sonic!), same metamagical adjustment (+0), and just slightly different prerequisites - Knowledge (arcana) 5 to both, Affinity also required to be able to cast spells of 4 energy types, Substitution - to any other metamagical feat?
In the reading which I using, it make sense - one feat changes damage (but not [descriptor]), another - [descriptor] (but not damage)

They thought you could figure out on your own that a ball of acid would do acid damage, so they removed a lot of unnecessary text.

As to the why, there is more than one redundant feat set in D&D, that's what happens when 20+ different writers make 60+ different rulebooks.

HouseRules
2019-02-19, 10:16 AM
As to the why, there is more than one redundant feat set in D&D, that's what happens when 20+ different writers make 60+ different rulebooks.

There are 22 Setting Neutral Rule Books in 3.0, and 48 Setting Neutral Rule Books in 3.5 for 70 Setting Neutral Rule Books.

ShurikVch
2019-02-19, 12:05 PM
They thought you could figure out on your own that a ball of acid would do acid damage, so they removed a lot of unnecessary text.Let's see:
Chill Touch don't cause any Cold damage.
Blackfire, Darkfire, Eilistraee's Moonfire, Fire and Brimstone, Greenfire, Hellfire, Moonfire, Quillfire, Smite of Sacred Fire, Venomfire - none of them actually do Fire damage
Yeah, "unnecessary text"... :smallwink:


As to the why, there is more than one redundant feat set in D&DI dare you to demonstrate it!
Show us those "redundant feat sets"!

Hackulator
2019-02-19, 12:16 PM
Chill touch isn't a cold spell. Pretty much none of those other spells are fire spells, though honestly I'm not looking them all up to check.

ShurikVch
2019-02-19, 12:23 PM
Pretty much none of those other spells are fire spells, though honestly I'm not looking them all up to check.Darkfire and Fire and Brimstone are both very much [fire] spells

Hackulator
2019-02-19, 12:33 PM
Darkfire and Fire and Brimstone are both very much [fire] spells

My honest answer would be they probably just screwed up on those spell entries.