Fireshield

[denthor]

As we know fireshield can be cold or hot fire(cue Ken and Ryu).

No books may have it backwards.

Cold fire takes no damage from fire but double damage from cold.

Hot flames take no damage from cold but double from fire.

If I burn a 5th level spell slot and change to lightning or acid.

What element would do double damage?

[heavyfuel]

Your post is very confusing. What do you mean "double damage"? The shield doesn't have HP

Also, how are you turning it to Acid/Lightning, exactly? If it's something like the energy substitution feat (which doesn't increase the spell level), you still need to choose which version of the shield you're casting, but the rest doesn't change, by RAW.

If you have Energy Substitution: Acid, and change a Fire Shield [Fire] to Fire Shield [Acid], the shield still protects you from cold damage

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Fire Shield (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fireShield.htm) protects you from fire or cold damage, and deals damage to opponents who attack you in melee, depending on what mode it's in. The spell doesn't increase any type of damage dealt or received.

What edition are you playing, what book is the spell you're referring to found in?

[denthor]

Question is if you change the flames to electricity or acid.

What element would by pass? Where you save for 1/2?

[Thurbane]

Question is if you change the flames to electricity or acid.

What element would by pass? Where you save for 1/2?

Changing the descriptor of the spell, using Energy Substitution, would only change the damage type it deals when you are hit. The type of energy it defends against would remain the same.

For instance, if you used Energy Substitution (Acid) on Fire Shield (warm shield), enemies that hit you would take acid damage instead of fire, and you would still be protected form cold (half-damage, or none on a successful reflex save, if allowed).

[AnimeTheCat]

Changing the descriptor of the spell, using Energy Substitution, would only change the damage type it deals when you are hit. The type of energy it defends against would remain the same.

For instance, if you used Energy Substitution (Acid) on Fire Shield (warm shield), enemies that hit you would take acid damage instead of fire, and you would still be protected form cold (half-damage, or none on a successful reflex save, if allowed).

I don't think this is correct. The feat Energy Substitution only states "The spell's descriptor changes to the new energy type..." it doesn't say anything about changing the damage type. I also don't think that it's intended to change the damage type because the Energy Admixture feat adds the damage of the energy substitution feat to the damage of the spell in equal portion and the spell has both descriptors. A Cold Fireball modified by the Energy Admixture spell would deal xd6 fire and xd6 cold damage and would have the [fire] and [cold] descriptors. A fireball modified by the energy substitution [cold] feat would be a fireball as normal, but would be an evocation [cold] spell.

[Thurbane]

If the feat didn't change the damage type, only the descriptor, it would be largely pointless.


Choose one type of energy (acid, cold, electricity, or fire). You can then modify any spell with an energy descriptor to use the chosen type of energy instead. An energy substituted spell uses a spell slot of the spell's normal level. The spell's descriptor changes to the new energy type—for example, a fireball composed of cold energy is an evocation [cold] spell.

Bolding mine. I'll admit the wording isn't that great, but I feel that's the entire purpose of the feat i.e. to throw an Acidball instead of a Fireball, dealing acid damage instead of fire.

If you were throwing a Fireball with the Acid descriptor, and it still did fire damage...what's the purpose of the feat? A few niche cases of abilities that work with spells of a certain descriptor?

[Zaq]

If the feat didn't change the damage type, only the descriptor, it would be largely pointless.



Bolding mine. I'll admit the wording isn't that great, but I feel that's the entire purpose of the feat i.e. to throw an Acidball instead of a Fireball, dealing acid damage instead of fire.

If you were throwing a Fireball with the Acid descriptor, and it still did fire damage...what's the purpose of the feat? A few niche cases of abilities that work with spells of a certain descriptor?

It’s a RAW vs. RAI dysfunction.

[Segev]

It’s a RAW vs. RAI dysfunction.

Only if you insist on deliberately reading it in such a way to create one. "It uses a different type of energy," when speaking of something that explicitly states it does energy damage, is easily and cleanly read to mean the energy type on the damage changes.

The reason there's a question for the OP is that the fire shield spell's two options determine the base type that it has, and THAT determines the kind of damage it deals. But the order of operations would still be to choose what type of damage it protects against, assign the appropriate energy descriptor, and then apply Energy Substitution to change the energy descriptor and the kind of damage it inflicts. This wouldn't touch the kind of damage against which it protects, by the RAW, because it doesn't key that off of its energy type in a direct way.

Alternative rulings that play a little looser but use internal setting-logic better would be to either have the energy descriptor determine both the type of energy damage dealt and the type protected against, so changing it to a [fire] spell makes it protect against fire AND inflict fire damage, and changing it to [acid] makes it protect against acid and inflict acid... or to have it keep the symmetry, and have changing it to [acid] protect against [lightning] and inflict [acid], and vice-versa.

[AnimeTheCat]

Only if you insist on deliberately reading it in such a way to create one. "It uses a different type of energy," when speaking of something that explicitly states it does energy damage, is easily and cleanly read to mean the energy type on the damage changes.

The only explicit thing the spell does change te descriptor. Using Energy Substitution [cold] or Energy Substitution [acid] doesn't make your fireball a coldball or acidball, but it does state it is composed of cold energy or acid energy and is an evocation [cold] or evocation [acid] spell . That is, specifically, all the feat explicitly does. Just read the last line of the feat benefit, it just changes the spell to an evocation [energy type] spell.

I admit it implicitly changes the damage type, but D&D is not an implicit game, it is an explicit game.

Finally, nowhere I've been able to read states that a spell's damage type is determined by the spell's descriptor. In fact, all I've read about a spell descriptor is that it has little to no in-game impact, and instead is used to describe how the spell interacts with creatures, abilities, and other effects.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

ENERGY SUBSTITUTION
[METAMAGIC]
You can modify an energy-based spell to use another type
of energy instead.
Prerequisites: Knowledge (arcana) 5 ranks, any metamagic
feat.
Benefit: Choose one type of energy (acid, cold, electricity, or fire). You can then modify any spell with an energy
descriptor to use the chosen type of energy instead. An energy substituted spell uses a spell slot of the spell’s normal
level. The spell’s descriptor changes to the new energy
type—for example, a fireball composed of cold energy is an evocation [cold] spell.
Special: You can gain this feat multiple
times, choosing a different type of energy each time.

Choose a type of energy.
Pick a spell that has an energy descriptor.
The spell (not just the descriptor) uses the chosen energy type instead [of any other energy type].

Take the key sentence and break down its sentence structure:
[You can then modify] [any spell] (with an energy descriptor) to [use the chosen type of energy instead].
"with an energy descriptor" is not a noun, nor is it the subject of the sentence, it's there to describe the spell. The spell is the noun/subject, the spell is what uses the energy type. You cannot apply the end of the sentence to an adjective.

You're absolutely wrong in saying that Energy Substitution could possibly even imply that it only changes the spell's descriptor but not any of its other effects.

[AnimeTheCat]

You're absolutely wrong in saying that Energy Substitution could possibly even imply that it only changes the spell's descriptor but not any of its other effects.

I had to hunt for it, but I found the example I was looking for. In PHB II there's a feat "elven spell lore" that has the following quote in it:


Choose a single spell in your spellbook when you take this feat. When preparing that spell, you can alter the type of damage it deals to a single type of your choice.


So right there is an example of an explicit change. "Alter the type of damage it deals". You don't have the same line in Energy Substitution. It says (as you quoted above):



Choose one type of energy (acid, cold, electricity, or fire). You can then modify any spell with an energy descriptor to use the chosen type of energy instead. An energy substituted spell uses a spell slot of the spell’s normal level. The spell’s descriptor changes to the new energy type—for example, a fireball composed of cold energy is an evocation [cold] spell.


So you pick a spell with an energy descriptor. Ok, Fireball. Now change the fireball to use cold energy. Ok, so now you have a fireball composed of cold energy. Now change the descriptor. Ok, you have a fireball composed of cold energy that is an evocation [cold] spell. Neat. That's all the feat does. That's all the feat says it does. If the feat changed the damage type it would say "Modify the spell to use the chosen type of energy instead and alter the damage type to the energy you chose when selecting this feat."

Is it completely logical to assume that the feat changes the damage type? Yeah, that's a logical conclusion one could come to. Is that what the feat says it does? No, the feat never mentions changing the damage type. Just the descriptor.

[Segev]

So you pick a spell with an energy descriptor. Ok, Fireball. Now change the fireball to use cold energy. Ok, so now you have a fireball composed of cold energy. Now change the descriptor. Ok, you have a fireball composed of cold energy that is an evocation [cold] spell. Neat. That's all the feat does. That's all the feat says it does. If the feat changed the damage type it would say "Modify the spell to use the chosen type of energy instead and alter the damage type to the energy you chose when selecting this feat."

Is it completely logical to assume that the feat changes the damage type? Yeah, that's a logical conclusion one could come to. Is that what the feat says it does? No, the feat never mentions changing the damage type. Just the descriptor.

Only if you very carefully try to define energy type as having nothing to do with damage type, when by and large the two are used together, if not actually interchangeably, throughout the rules. Yes, I agree, you can parse it so that you're "logically" right. However, to do so, you have to be deliberately interpreting it that way, and equally deliberately ignoring how it is consistently used throughout the rest of the game. An energy type does that type of damage, by default. Assuming it doesn't without it calling out that it doesn't is pretty clearly TRYING to find a way to be technically correct while breaking the system.

[XionUnborn01]

Only if you very carefully try to define energy type as having nothing to do with damage type, when by and large the two are used together, if not actually interchangeably, throughout the rules. Yes, I agree, you can parse it so that you're "logically" right. However, to do so, you have to be deliberately interpreting it that way, and equally deliberately ignoring how it is consistently used throughout the rest of the game. An energy type does that type of damage, by default. Assuming it doesn't without it calling out that it doesn't is pretty clearly TRYING to find a way to be technically correct while breaking the system.

Hold up, you're telling me fire energy does fire damage? And cold energy does cold damage? That's remarkable.

[Thurbane]

Just because Elven Spell Lore makes the wording more clear, doesn't change the obvious intent and application of Energy Substitution.

There's plenty of examples where later books make things clearer than they may be in other sources, while doing the same thing.

I honestly don't know any other way you could interpret "You can then modify any spell with an energy descriptor to use the chosen type of energy instead." as doing anything other than changing the type of energy damage involved...

[AnimeTheCat]

I honestly don't know any other way you could interpret "You can then modify any spell with an energy descriptor to use the chosen type of energy instead." as doing anything other than changing the type of energy damage involved...

Because that's an interpretation. I'm not saying that's wrong, in fact I agree, but that line does not state that the damage changes. The feat only states that the descriptor changes. It's a poorly worded feat like so many others. That line is basically fluff, telling you what is happening fluff wise rather than mechanically.

[Thurbane]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. I 100% agree the wording in the feat could have been much clearer.

FWIW, I think the 3.0 version is much better worded:


Energy Substitution [Metamagic]
Prerequisites
Any other metamagic feat, Knowledge (arcana) 5 ranks.

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.

Special
You can gain this feat multiple times. Each time the feat applies to a different type of energy.

Just curious: in the 3.5 version, what do you think the "use the chosen type of energy instead" part of the description actually means?

[Zaq]

Because that's an interpretation. I'm not saying that's wrong, in fact I agree, but that line does not state that the damage changes. The feat only states that the descriptor changes. It's a poorly worded feat like so many others. That line is basically fluff, telling you what is happening fluff wise rather than mechanically.

Agreed. I’d look heavily askance at any GM who DIDN’T interpret it the way I think we’re all interpreting it (i.e., that Energy Sub changes the damage type along with the descriptor), but the RAW doesn’t actually say that. Something something monk unarmed strike proficiency something something.

Separately but somewhat relatedly, in 3.5 there doesn’t appear to be a universal system-wide rule for automatically adding/changing energy descriptor keywords when you add/change damage types. AFB and I can’t recall the specific example that necessitated me diving into that particular RAW cranny, but long story short, there do exist some ways of adding damage types to spells that don’t automatically add the relevant energy descriptor to the spell in question. Less relevant in 3.5 than in 4e, but it can be relevant if you try hard enough.

[AnimeTheCat]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. I 100% agree the wording in the feat could have been much clearer.

FWIW, I think the 3.0 version is much better worded:



Just curious: in the 3.5 version, what do you think the "use the chosen type of energy instead" part of the description actually means?

I agree, the 3.0 version specifically called out changing the damage type, albeit at a weird point in the feat description and also in a weird way, but it did none the less.

What do I think "Use the chosen type of energy instead" means? I think it means that a different type of energy is used to create the effects of the spell. I think it means you've figured out a way to temper and change cold energy to produce a fire, acid, or electric effect, thus taking some enemies by surprise and bypassing some of their innate resistence. Considering how fluid D&D is in how it describes magic and energy sources, this isn't a farfetched concept (using one energy source to produce another).

One example of how you can use this feat and only change the description is to target weaknesses of fire or water races. Fire races take a -2 penalty to resist spells with the cold descriptor. Take your Thunderhead spell, a spell that allows for you to negated the damage with a successful reflex save, and change the spell to an evocation [cold] thunderhead. You're still dealing electric damage, but the fire race creature is taking a -2 penalty to their reflex save to resist. Also, now that your thunderhead spell is an evocation [cold] spell, you can make it an uttercold spell (pointless, but for the continued example) which does specifically call out changing its damage type. Same idea applies for Electric Loop against a fire race, change it to cold and that's basically like a free spell focus (Evocation) and greater spell focus (evocation) against that creature. If you also happen to have those feats, it can be a great way to stack up the DC against enemies. I think this, alone, is well worth the feat in some cases, and is a perfect return for not having to change the spells effective level.

[Segev]

Agreed. I’d look heavily askance at any GM who DIDN’T interpret it the way I think we’re all interpreting it (i.e., that Energy Sub changes the damage type along with the descriptor), but the RAW doesn’t actually say that. Something something monk unarmed strike proficiency something something.

Nope, sorry. I'm usually on board with pedantic "the RAW don't actually say what we all know they mean" arguments, but this is spurious. This requires deliberately choosing an interpretation that is problematic to create the problem, when the interpretation we all agree is correct is equally valid under the RAW. Energy types dictate energy damage unless something specifically says otherwise. Pretending they're utterly disconnected without every case where they're connected being expressly called out is a level of pedantry that makes it impossible to write rules you can't find flaw in.

This is the level where you could also say, "Sure, it says it changes the damage type, but it doesn't say it changes what kind of damage resistances apply to match the new damage type." Should it need to? Of course not! But it doesn't say so, so your Cold-substituted fireball still is resisted by fire resistance because it didn't say it wasn't.

[Zaq]

Nope, sorry. I'm usually on board with pedantic "the RAW don't actually say what we all know they mean" arguments, but this is spurious. This requires deliberately choosing an interpretation that is problematic to create the problem, when the interpretation we all agree is correct is equally valid under the RAW. Energy types dictate energy damage unless something specifically says otherwise. Pretending they're utterly disconnected without every case where they're connected being expressly called out is a level of pedantry that makes it impossible to write rules you can't find flaw in.

This is the level where you could also say, "Sure, it says it changes the damage type, but it doesn't say it changes what kind of damage resistances apply to match the new damage type." Should it need to? Of course not! But it doesn't say so, so your Cold-substituted fireball still is resisted by fire resistance because it didn't say it wasn't.

Eh. The dysfunction is that “using a type of energy” and “doing damage of a specific type” should be related but aren’t. Tons of spells in Frostburn, for example, have the [Cold] keyword (therefore “using cold energy”) but don’t do cold damage.

The feat doesn’t say that it changes the damage type. It does say it changes the descriptor. There is not a universal rule spelling out a connection between “energy used” / descriptor and damage type. There almost certainly SHOULD be such a rule, and the writer/writers of the feat clearly held the opinion that such a rule exists, which is why I think we all run the feat by RAI.

I agree that it’s absurd, but I don’t agree that we have to intentionally twist the rules to reach absurdity. We just have to realize that some of the apparently common assumptions are in fact assumptions with less textual support than we would like.

[KillianHawkeye]

As interesting as the discussion about the wording and intentions of the Energy Substitution feat is, can I just interrupt to address something?


As we know fireshield can be cold or hot fire(cue Ken and Ryu).

Where do you get the idea that Ken and Ryu are cold and hot? And which one do you consider cold and which hot?

As a long time Street Fighter player, I have no clue where this analogy is coming from because the characters started out being completely identical and their move sets have only diverged slightly (both by adding fire in different ways, btw).

[denthor]

As interesting as the discussion about the wording and intentions of the Energy Substitution feat is, can I just interrupt to address something?



Where do you get the idea that Ken and Ryu are cold and hot? And which one do you consider cold and which hot?

As a long time Street Fighter player, I have no clue where this analogy is coming from because the characters started out being completely identical and their move sets have only diverged slightly (both by adding fire in different ways, btw).

As a long time street fire fan. I forget the internet is world wide. In North America the players say hot fire(to may of us it is what it sounds like)when casting the blue(cold)fireball at an opponent.

[KillianHawkeye]

As a long time street fire fan. I forget the internet is world wide. In North America the players say hot fire(to may of us it is what it sounds like)when casting the blue(cold)fireball at an opponent.

I'm from North America and I have no clue what you're talking about. Also, the white/blue hadoken fireball is not cold and never has been cold. It's a pure ki energy attack like the kamehameha in Dragon Ball (which is also bluish white).

[Troacctid]

I'm with Thurbane and Segev. Energy Substitution clearly says it changes the spell to use a different type of energy. It's in the RAW. You could read it in a dysfunctional way if you really wanted to, but it's not a true RAW dysfunction unless all possible readings are dysfunctional, and lo, there's a non-dysfunctional reading right there.

The real dysfunction is with Energy Affinity, which changes the damage type, but not the descriptor.

[Mr Adventurer]

What do I think "Use the chosen type of energy instead" means? I think it means that a different type of energy is used to create the effects of the spell. I think it means you've figured out a way to temper and change cold energy to produce a fire, acid, or electric effect, thus taking some enemies by surprise and bypassing some of their innate resistence.

Out of interest, if an Energy Substitution (cold) fireball still deals fire damage, what is taking the enemy by surprise, and how can it interact differently with their resistances?

[Remuko]

I'm from North America and I have no clue what you're talking about. Also, the white/blue hadoken fireball is not cold and never has been cold. It's a pure ki energy attack like the kamehameha in Dragon Ball (which is also bluish white).

Yeah this. He says Ha Do Ken. Even back on the SNES I knew what he was saying and I was quite young then. The one that confused me for a long time was the spinning air kick. It sounded like gibberish to my kid brain. I know now he says "Tatsumaki Senpuukyaku" but even then I have trouble hearing it sometimes.

[Phhase]

Oh my gods this thread....

Look, Ryu's hadouken looks like blue fire. Blue = "cold color". Ken's is red. Red = "hot color". Ryu is stoic. Ken is hot-blooded. Red oni, Blue oni. That's the joke. That's all there is to it. It has nothing to do with actual elemental typing.

As for using Energy Substitution to bypass damage resistance without changing damage type...isn't there a feat called Elemental Adept or something like that that does that but like, better?

:nale: Gah! I'm giving myself a migraine trying to understand the level of willful ignorance this requires!

[DarkSoul]

Oh my gods this thread....

Look, Ryu's hadouken looks like blue fire. Blue = "cold color". Ken's is red. Red = "hot color". Ryu is stoic. Ken is hot-blooded. Red oni, Blue oni. That's the joke. That's all there is to it. It has nothing to do with actual elemental typing.So I'm the only one that read the thing about Ken and Ryu's fire and the first thought I had was "but blue fire IS hotter than red fire..."


:nale: Gah! I'm giving myself a migraine trying to understand the level of willful ignorance this requires!Don't spend a lot of time on these boards, do ya? If you did, you'd be used to it by now. :D (Only half kidding, you've been around here a while.)

On topic: As a DM, I could be convinced to allow Energy Substitution to change either the damage done, the damage dealt, or both to the same energy type.

[Phhase]

So I'm the only one that read the thing about Ken and Ryu's fire and the first thought I had was "but blue fire IS hotter than red fire..."

I mean that's fair, and I thought of it too, but it wasn't foremost in my head.


Don't spend a lot of time on these boards, do ya? If you did, you'd be used to it by now. :D (Only half kidding, you've been around here a while.)

I'm a regular denizen. I'm aware this board contains more :vaarsuvius:s than :elan:s, to use a gross abstraction. That said, this particular bit rustled my jimmies, so y'know whatever. I couldn't pass up the perfect opportunity to quote.


On topic: As a DM, I could be convinced to allow Energy Substitution to change either the damage done, the damage dealt, or both to the same energy type.

At the distinct risk of perpetuating the cycle, what distinction are you making between "done" and "dealt"...? I feel like they mean the same thing in this context...

I know this will only add more fuel to the fire, but I now can't resist giving my two cents on how I'd rule this. Personally, I'd allow one to change either the damage type OR the resistance type, but not both, since the spell more or less has two energy descriptors. It just so happens that they are elements that are roughly polar opposites (In a figurative sense. I swear to god if someone comes at me with "cold isn't really an element in this context because it's a lack of heat" I will eat your crumpets).

[DarkSoul]

At the distinct risk of perpetuating the cycle, what distinction are you making between "done" and "dealt"...? I feel like they mean the same thing in this context...Yeah that wasn't very clear on my part. I meant the damage type protected against. So someone with energy sub. (Acid) could change the spell to protect against acid damage, deal acid damage when struck, or both.

[Remuko]

Oh my gods this thread....

Look, Ryu's hadouken looks like blue fire. Blue = "cold color". Ken's is red. Red = "hot color". Ryu is stoic. Ken is hot-blooded. Red oni, Blue oni. That's the joke. That's all there is to it. It has nothing to do with actual elemental typing.

:nale: Gah! I'm giving myself a migraine trying to understand the level of willful ignorance this requires!

Maybe I'm just old but 90% of my SF knowledge is based on SF2 and all Hadoukens were the same color so I'd never have guessed much less assumed this rather convoluted (imo) series of connections to explain the matter we were talking about.

[DrMotives]

Maybe I'm just old but 90% of my SF knowledge is based on SF2 and all Hadoukens were the same color so I'd never have guessed much less assumed this rather convoluted (imo) series of connections to explain the matter we were talking about.

Nah, you're good. I was thinking the same thing here, not recalling when SF had different color hadoukens. I guess we're old together.

[Thurbane]

I wonder what colour hadoukens you get from the Ki Blast feat? :smalltongue:

Being force energy...white maybe?

[KillianHawkeye]

Oh my gods this thread....

Look, Ryu's hadouken looks like blue fire. Blue = "cold color". Ken's is red. Red = "hot color". Ryu is stoic. Ken is hot-blooded. Red oni, Blue oni. That's the joke. That's all there is to it. It has nothing to do with actual elemental typing.

But Ken doesn't have a red hadoken! Ryu is the one with a fiery hadoken (in addition to his standard non-fiery one), Ken has a fiery shoryuken!

Okay, I'll stop! I got my answer now, and it's that nobody remembers Street Fighter. :smallsigh:

[DrMotives]

I wonder what colour hadoukens you get from the Ki Blast feat? :smalltongue:

Being force energy...white maybe?

That matches up to whatsisname, the monk character from FF6. Aura was basically white color hadoukens.

[Remuko]

That matches up to whatsisname, the monk character from FF6. Aura was basically white color hadoukens.

Sabin was his name (at least in english)

[KillianHawkeye]

That matches up to whatsisname, the monk character from FF6. Aura was basically white color hadoukens.


Sabin was his name (at least in english)

Sabin's aura bolt was holy damage, though. It did extra damage to undead.