Energy Substitution rules question

[danielxcutter]

So I was talking with a guy I know in D&D and he complained about the DM of the game he's in not letting his Electricity Substituted Fireball disperse the cloud from an Obscuring Mist spell like a normal Fireball should.

I mean, I suppose it's not entirely without merit because Energy Substitution only changes the energy type of the spell, and high-voltage electricity seems it'd do as good a job of burning the mist away as fire to be honest, but at the same time the examples given in the Obscuring Mist entry are Fireball, Flame Strike, and Wall of Fire - which sounds like the RAI is very much intended it to be about burning it away with fire.

I think the guy's a bit of a rules-lawyer and I don't have the details of their game, but the argument itself seems ambiguous enough to ask here in the forum.

[Troacctid]

The DM's ruling is consistent with the expanded text of the feat's 3.0 incarnation in Magic of Faerun.

If a spell has a secondary effect, the altered spell still has that effect. For example, a shout spell can deafen creatures and deals extra damage to crystalline creatures; if fire is substituted for sonic energy in a shout spell, creatures can still be deafened and crystalline creatures still suffer extra damage. Sometimes a spell's minor effects are directly related to the spell's energy, for example, a flaming sphere can set items afire, but a purely sonic or acidic flaming sphere does not.
This wording wasn't carried over to subsequent iterations of the feat, but it's more than enough to inform intent for the purpose of DM adjudication, if the DM wills it.

[danielxcutter]

Yeah I saw that, but knowing my friend he'd probably argue that since it's not worded like that in Complete Arcane his ruling should be right.

I mean it's a fairly clear-cut RAI instance if you ask me, but I'm guessing that the current rules aren't quite as concrete?

[Darg]

Obscuring mist should still be dispersed. Energy substitution does not remove the explosive quality of fireball and obscuring mist explicitly allows explosive effects to disperse it.

Electrical explosions are a thing. Sonic booms, implosion caused by rapid contriction due to loss of heat, and balls of acid rapidly expanding can all cause a shockwave.

[Khedrac]

Obscuring mist should still be dispersed. Energy substitution does not remove the explosive quality of fireball and obscuring mist explicitly allows explosive effects to disperse it.
Fireball has no explosive component - RAW there is no shockwave and (almost) no blast pressure.

As for the substitued spell what obscuring mist says is this:

A fireball, flame strike, or similar spell burns away the fog in the explosive or fiery spell’s area. A wall of fire burns away the fog in the area into which it deals damage.
So, it's not a property of fireball that it burns away obscuring mist, it's a property of obscuring mist that fire spells burn it away - so an energy substituded fireball will not do this.

[Crake]

So, it's not a property of fireball that it burns away obscuring mist, it's a property of obscuring mist that fire spells burn it away - so an energy substituded fireball will not do this.

Agreed. A fire energy substituted cone of cold would likewise burn away said obscuring mist imo.

[Darg]

Fireball has no explosive component - RAW there is no shockwave and (almost) no blast pressure.


A fireball spell is an explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area. Unattended objects also take this damage. The explosion creates almost no pressure.


A fireball, flame strike, or similar spell burns away the fog in the explosive or fiery spell’s area.

"Explosive" is not a quality that is defined by the rules. You have explosive bursts and spreads. Nor is it a quality only available to fire.


As for the substitued spell what obscuring mist says is this:

So, it's not a property of fireball that it burns away obscuring mist, it's a property of obscuring mist that fire spells burn it away - so an energy substituded fireball will not do this.

We say sunlight burns away fog, but it isn't actually burning it. The only qualities needed to "burn away" the mist is either fiery or explosive.

[danielxcutter]

Yes, but Fireball isn't an explosion - maybe some sonic spells would count, but not that.

[Vaern]

"Explosive" is not a quality that is defined by the rules. You have explosive bursts and spreads. Nor is it a quality only available to fire.
Presumably, any spell affected with the explosive spell feat or whose name and/or description mentions or implies a forceful explosion (such as explosive runes) is explosive.

[Darg]

Yes, but Fireball isn't an explosion - maybe some sonic spells would count, but not that.

It's right there in the spell text. By definition, an explosion doesn't have to create a forceful pressure wave. Explosion of color, explosion of taste, etc. Obscuring Mist doesn't say anything about explosive force. Only that the effect has to be explosive. Fireball is described as an explosion and therefor energy substitution changes the spell into an explosion of a different energy type. This satisfies the condition of obscuring mist.

[Seto]

The DM's ruling is consistent with the expanded text of the feat's 3.0 incarnation in Magic of Faerun.

This wording wasn't carried over to subsequent iterations of the feat, but it's more than enough to inform intent for the purpose of DM adjudication, if the DM wills it.

Honestly, I find this quote more confusing than helpful. In terms of in-game logic, it seems obvious to me than Shout's propensity to deafen people and hurt crystalline creatures IS "directly related to the spell's energy". It deafens people because it is sonic (duh).
In general, while I can easily imagine an-energy substituted Cone of Cold, it's much harder to visualize a non-sonic Shout. What's a cold Shout and why would it deafen people if a cold Fireball doesn't set them on fire?

Of course, deafening and damaging crystalline creatures is not a minor effect of Shout. It's barely even secondary: it's a main draw of the spell. In terms of game balance, it's unfair to take that away when a player energy-substitutes it.
So, taking the rules quote you provided, I find it clearer to just ignore everything they said about being "directly related to the spell's energy", and just emphasize the distinction they make between "primary/secondary effects" and "minor effects". The former always stays, the latter doesn't apply if it was directly related to the spell's energy.

So, back to OP: is clearing away Fog Cloud a minor effect of Fireball? Pretty clearly, yes. Is it directly linked to it being fire? This could go either way. The argument for "yes" is the fact that every spell described as blowing it away is a fire spell. The argument for "no" is the explosive quality of Fireball.

[danielxcutter]

Except that virtually no blast pressure means it's not really much of an explosion per se, I guess. It sounds like it's more the actual heat that does the damage.

Which incidentally means it must be pretty damn hot; IRL most of the injuries people get from explosions are from shrapnel I think?

[Gruftzwerg]

The DM's ruling is consistent with the expanded text of the feat's 3.0 incarnation in Magic of Faerun.

This wording wasn't carried over to subsequent iterations of the feat, but it's more than enough to inform intent for the purpose of DM adjudication, if the DM wills it.

Wouldn't that quote also imply that my Acid Fireball now bypasses SR?

I mean, if setting things on fire is a minor/basic poverty of fire, then ignoring SR is that of acid.

[Khedrac]

So, back to OP: is clearing away Fog Cloud a minor effect of Fireball? Pretty clearly, yes. Is it directly linked to it being fire? This could go either way. The argument for "yes" is the fact that every spell described as blowing it away is a fire spell. The argument for "no" is the explosive quality of Fireball.

Except there is nothing in the fireball spell description that say it clears away fog clouds and the like.


A fireball spell is an explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area. Unattended objects also take this damage. The explosion creates almost no pressure.
You point your finger and determine the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst. A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point. (An early impact results in an early detonation.) If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must “hit” the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely.
The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area. It can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze. If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the fireball may continue beyond the barrier if the area permits; otherwise it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does.
Material Component
A tiny ball of bat guano and sulfur.
Fireball clearing away obscuring mist is a minor effect of obscuring mist (fireball doesn't clear fog cloud - that takes a strong wind).

[hamishspence]

Wouldn't that quote also imply that my Acid Fireball now bypasses SR?

I mean, if setting things on fire is a minor/basic poverty of fire, then ignoring SR is that of acid.

Not really. The Energy seed doesn't automatically gain "SR - No" simply because you picked Acid for it:

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/seeds/energy.htm

Nor does the Mastery of Elements Archmage High Arcana specifically grant "SR - No" to spells that were originally "SR - Yes".

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/prestigeClasses/archmage.htm

It just so happens that PHB Acid spells tend to be "SR - No" - there's nothing about the Acid energy type that guarantees "SR - No".

A better example of a "minor property of the energy type" - whether the spell does full damage to objects or not.

[Seto]

Except there is nothing in the fireball spell description that say it clears away fog clouds and the like.


Fireball clearing away obscuring mist is a minor effect of obscuring mist (fireball doesn't clear fog cloud - that takes a strong wind).

Right, I meant Obscuring mist. And I'm aware the text about that minor effect is found in Obscuring Mist, not Fireball, but the argument is the same regardless: is that due to Fireball being fire, or due to being Fireball, a 3rd-level-spell exploding in a 20ft area burst for 1d6/CL damage, Reflex half? I'd honestly be comfortable with either ruling. It's really a corner case anyway. Due to the fact that every spell that clears Obscuring Mist is a fire spell, I'd probably lean towards the direction that Electricity Fireball doesn't do that, but I don't feel very strongly about that ruling.

[hamishspence]

Given "Fiery or explosive" can we agree that all spells modified with the Explosive Spell metamagic feat will scatter it?

[RexDart]

The DM's ruling is consistent with the expanded text of the feat's 3.0 incarnation in Magic of Faerun.

This wording wasn't carried over to subsequent iterations of the feat, but it's more than enough to inform intent for the purpose of DM adjudication, if the DM wills it.

I would actually argue the opposite. If I was analyzing a statute in real life, and the 2020 language of a statute omitted a sentence that had appeared in a mostly-the-same 2005 statute that had expired, I'd say the absence indicates legislative intent to make the old sentence null and void.

[Biggus]

Except that virtually no blast pressure means it's not really much of an explosion per se, I guess. It sounds like it's more the actual heat that does the damage.

Which incidentally means it must be pretty damn hot; IRL most of the injuries people get from explosions are from shrapnel I think?

Fireball says it melts copper, which means it must be at least 1085C/1985F.

[denthor]

Simple science and seen effects. I agree with the DM.

We see electric discharge in the form of 🌩 lightning inside clouds. They are not destroyed or diminished by internal lightning strikes. So since clouds are fog lightning does get rid of mist.

[Bronk]

I agree with the player. Obscuring Mist says a 'fiery or explosive' spell disperses it. Fireball is 'an explosion of flame'. With energy substitution, the spell is now an 'explosion' of whatever. The DM just made a snap judgement, didn't read through the spells, and doesn't want to change their mind.

Also, yes, the newer feat replaces the old feat.

I'd also say real clouds are both much bigger and much less magical than an Obscuring Mist spell, so they don't make a great comparison.

[hamishspence]

The Energy Ball psionic power also has that "explosion of energy" phrasing:

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/energyBall.htm

but the ability to substitute, is built in rather than requiring a feat.

[danielxcutter]

It sounds like the rules aren't iron-clad enough to make a 100% consistent judgement excluding intentional bad faith interpretations I guess, then? :smallconfused:

[Darg]

Except that virtually no blast pressure means it's not really much of an explosion per se, I guess. It sounds like it's more the actual heat that does the damage.

Which incidentally means it must be pretty damn hot; IRL most of the injuries people get from explosions are from shrapnel I think?

An explosion is simply the violent expansion of something. That violent expansion does not actually have to be harmful to be an explosion, nor does it have to create a pressure wave. This means that that the displacement caused by the effect is a valid reason for the fog not to be in the area.

As for lightning in the clouds...that is no where near an explosion. It's the accumulation of enough energy to forceful discharge along a path of least resistance. A example that might be easier to understand would be like a dam breaking. Water spreads out within the confines of the valley and into tributaries until the energy/mass has equalized with the surrounding environment.

[hamishspence]

The thunder created by a real-life lightning bolt, is caused by the rapid expansion of air. It could be characterised as the air imploding.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunder


But D&D separates lightning from thunder. By RAW, D&D magic lightning doesn't even make noise unless the DM chooses to rule that it does.

So I'd rule that a D&D magic lightning bolt does not scatter an obscuring mist.

[Darg]

But D&D separates lightning from thunder. By RAW, D&D magic lightning doesn't even make noise unless the DM chooses to rule that it does.

Hence why the explosion of fireball isn't removed by simply changing the damage type. Magic can do what it wants. As the explosion of fireball isn't an inherent quality of fire damage, unlike catching things on fire, changing the energy type would not remove that quality.

Is it that hard to picture an orb of electricity spell expanding to the area size of fireball in a fashion fast and disorderly enough to be considered violent?

[hamishspence]

I agree. The psionic example IMO shows that you can have energy balls that are not fire but are still "explosive" - without the "shove things aside ability that the Explosive Spell feat does.

[Vaern]

Wouldn't that quote also imply that my Acid Fireball now bypasses SR?

I mean, if setting things on fire is a minor/basic poverty of fire, then ignoring SR is that of acid.
Acid doesn't ignore SR inherently. Acid spells tend to be conjurations while other energy spells are generally evocations, and that is the factor that matters where spell resistance is concerned. The means by which an acid arrow is created may be magical, but the acid itself is no more magical than, say, a flask of acid from the equipment section in the PHB. Acid damage dealt by evocation spells is still subject to spell resistance, and there are even a few acid conjurations that allow for spell resistance against them.

A major benefit to substituting a spell's energy damage for acid would be to deal more damage to objects. Fire and electric damage are halved before applying hardness and cold damage deals only 1/4 damage before hardness, while acid effects deal full damage minus hardness. If anyone were to try creating a spellcaster who specializes in ranged magical sundering or something, energy substitution (acid) would be practically essential to their build.

[Darg]

energy substitution (acid) would be practically essential to their build.

Energy Substitution (Sonic) is also a good choice.

[danielxcutter]

Energy Substitution (Sonic) is also a good choice.

Unfortunately the newer(and therefore default) version doesn’t let you select sonic.

Man, psionic blasting is so much less of a hassle, now that I think of it.

[Gruftzwerg]

Unfortunately the newer(and therefore default) version doesn’t let you select sonic.

Man, psionic blasting is so much less of a hassle, now that I think of it.

Imho warlocks shine here the most. Untyped damage by default. Add acid essence in chases where the target has SR and you are done. Life can be simple or complicated.. your choice ;)

[danielxcutter]

Imho warlocks shine here the most. Untyped damage by default. Add acid essence in chases where the target has SR and you are done. Life can be simple or complicated.. your choice ;)

Warlocks also have lower burst damage and can’t do nearly as well if the target resists acid and also has SR.

[Gruftzwerg]

Warlocks also have lower burst damage and can’t do nearly as well if the target resists acid and also has SR.

Add hellfire ontop of the acid blast for those rare chases. Warlocks still have the most simple solutions imho.

[Darg]

Unfortunately the newer(and therefore default) version doesn’t let you select sonic.

Man, psionic blasting is so much less of a hassle, now that I think of it.

Read it again, nothing actually prevents you from selecting sonic.


Add hellfire ontop of the acid blast for those rare chases. Warlocks still have the most simple solutions imho.

Brimstone blast lets you do the 2d6 immediately as under the catching on fire rules.

Chausable + brimstone + hellfire + level 20 =19d6 the first round

Add in empower and maximize SLA, sudden empower, a warlock's scepter, mortalbane, and gloves of eldritch admixture and you do a lot of damage.

If acid immunity is a problem, there's always penetrating blast. Arcane mastery along with caster level boosts can get you through anything CR appropriate.

[danielxcutter]

Read it again, nothing actually prevents you from selecting sonic.


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.

Oh, and reprinted versions take priority over the original.

[Gruftzwerg]

Brimstone blast lets you do the 2d6 immediately as under the catching on fire rules.

Chausable + brimstone + hellfire + level 20 =19d6 the first round

Add in empower and maximize SLA, sudden empower, a warlock's scepter, mortalbane, and gloves of eldritch admixture and you do a lot of damage.

I did mention the acid because of the SR example.

And if you want to stack d6's, Glaivelock is the way to go. (see build in my signature)
@lvl 20: 170d6 (dmg of 10 touch attacks in total)
@lvl 21: 340d6 (dmg of 20 touch attacks in total)

[Darg]

Oh, and reprinted versions take priority over the original.

I don't see anything excluding sonic though? Unless you are talking about the parenthetical. In which case making the assumption that the exclusion of sonic has any bearing on the rules is giving the parenthetical authority beyond it's scope. A parenthetical is only a reference apart from the text. It doesn’t say "excluding sonic" and therefore doesn't have any authority to exclude sonic from selection.

[Vaern]

I don't see anything excluding sonic though? Unless you are talking about the parenthetical. In which case making the assumption that the exclusion of sonic has any bearing on the rules is giving the parenthetical authority beyond it's scope. A parenthetical is only a reference apart from the text. It doesn’t say "excluding sonic" and therefore doesn't have any authority to exclude sonic from selection.
The parenthetical also doesn't list force, nor does the feat specifically say that you can't select force as an energy type. Do you suggest that energy substitution (force) is a legal and valid choice as well?

[Gruftzwerg]

I don't see anything excluding sonic though? Unless you are talking about the parenthetical. In which case making the assumption that the exclusion of sonic has any bearing on the rules is giving the parenthetical authority beyond it's scope. A parenthetical is only a reference apart from the text. It doesn’t say "excluding sonic" and therefore doesn't have any authority to exclude sonic from selection.

The problem is that the things in the parentheses aren't presented as possible examples (no indicator like "e.g."). As such the information has to be treated as a finite list (excluding sonic.. sadly).

[danielxcutter]

If someone says they have vanilla and strawberry ice cream, you wouldn't automatically assume they have mint chocolate chip just because they didn't explicitly say no.

Plus, it's not like acid's that commonly resisted anyways.

[Darg]

The parenthetical also doesn't list force, nor does the feat specifically say that you can't select force as an energy type. Do you suggest that energy substitution (force) is a legal and valid choice as well?

Force isn't an energy damage type:


Damage caused by one of five types of energy (not counting positive and negative energy): acid, cold, electricity, fire, and sonic.

You only have the 5 types to choose from.


The problem is that the things in the parentheses aren't presented as possible examples (no indicator like "e.g."). As such the information has to be treated as a finite list (excluding sonic.. sadly).

Except that extremely limits the scope of a lot of things. An example of this would be snap kick. You would only ever be able to use it with an attack action, full attack, or strike maneuver. If we are being extremely literal, there is no such thing as a standard attack and therefore the feat could only work on full attacks or strike maneuvers. This is not how the feat was written and the parenthetical even implies this isn't the case.


If someone says they have vanilla and strawberry ice cream, you wouldn't automatically assume they have mint chocolate chip just because they didn't explicitly say no.

Plus, it's not like acid's that commonly resisted anyways.

A more appropriate analogy would be you being given a menu with 5 drink options and the waitstaff comes up to you and says "do you want milk, coke, beer, or coffee?" No one says you can't order the 5th option of coconut water.

[Gruftzwerg]

Except that extremely limits the scope of a lot of things. An example of this would be snap kick. You would only ever be able to use it with an attack action, full attack, or strike maneuver. If we are being extremely literal, there is no such thing as a standard attack and therefore the feat could only work on full attacks or strike maneuvers. This is not how the feat was written and the parenthetical even implies this isn't the case.

Snap Kick is not the same situation as in Energy Substitution:

(including a standard attack, full attack, or even a strike maneuver)
"Including" is an indicator that "examples" are given and that these examples don't cover all situations.
Whereas energy substitution lists finite "options", since it lacks any indicators that would suggest otherwise.


Choose one type of energy (acid, cold, electricity, or fire)

[Batcathat]

Except that extremely limits the scope of a lot of things. An example of this would be snap kick. You would only ever be able to use it with an attack action, full attack, or strike maneuver. If we are being extremely literal, there is no such thing as a standard attack and therefore the feat could only work on full attacks or strike maneuvers. This is not how the feat was written and the parenthetical even implies this isn't the case.

So your argument is that after writing four of the five possible options, the writer go tired and decided not to write the fifth or what? If there were like ten types and they only included four I could sort of see your point (even if the fact that they didn't write "for example" or "etc." would still make me question it) but as it is, it just seems like a very odd choice from the writer.

[Troacctid]

MIC's version also explicitly has only four types.

[Darg]

Snap Kick is not the same situation as in Energy Substitution:

"Including" is an indicator that "examples" are given and that these examples don't cover all situations.
Whereas energy substitution lists finite "options", since it lacks any indicators that would suggest otherwise.

Are you 100% sure that is the only way to read it? Inclusion can also be read as including those mentioned but excluding other options. This is especially the case when used as a parenthetical. A parenthetical as a tool of language is already capable of being the provision of examples itself without the addition of language to express that intent.


So your argument is that after writing four of the five possible options, the writer go tired and decided not to write the fifth or what? If there were like ten types and they only included four I could sort of see your point (even if the fact that they didn't write "for example" or "etc." would still make me question it) but as it is, it just seems like a very odd choice from the writer.

It might well be the intent, but syntax dictates that excluding sonic as an energy type is beyond the scope of a parenthetical without a direct statement. There is no rule that declares parentheticals are a declaration of rules beyond their role of reference.

[Saint-Just]

Are you 100% sure that is the only way to read it? Inclusion can also be read as including those mentioned but excluding other options. This is especially the case when used as a parenthetical. A parenthetical as a tool of language is already capable of being the provision of examples itself without the addition of language to express that intent.

It might well be the intent, but syntax dictates that excluding sonic as an energy type is beyond the scope of a parenthetical without a direct statement. There is no rule that declares parentheticals are a declaration of rules beyond their role of reference.

Parentheticals are not 100% proof that the options are confined to those listed in parentheticals, but in D&D (or in any rule or law) they are usually used this way. And this is not a RAW vs RAI issue it's a semantic argument for one or other option as RAW.

On the other hand starting the list with "including" is a 100% proof that if sentence is well-formed than options are not limited to those in the list, because if they are "including" is superfluous and may be misleading. There is no way that any referee or judge or anyone else charged with interpretation of any rules will allow the argument that because the option is not listed in the list started with "including" it cannot be included there (a particular option may fall the criteria of inclusion, but it's not a general rule that list prefaced by "including" is exhaustive).

[Remuko]

it doesnt say you can choose sonic so you cant. period. thats how D&D rules work. it doesnt explicitly say you can, so you cant.

[Thurbane]

The difference in wording from the 3.0 version of the feat to the 3.5 update really doesn't leave much wiggle room, at least IMHO.


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.


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.

Any reading to the contrary is extreme rules lawyering, and I don't know a single table where it would fly.

[Darg]

Parentheticals are not 100% proof that the options are confined to those listed in parentheticals, but in D&D (or in any rule or law) they are usually used this way. And this is not a RAW vs RAI issue it's a semantic argument for one or other option as RAW.

On the other hand starting the list with "including" is a 100% proof that if sentence is well-formed than options are not limited to those in the list, because if they are "including" is superfluous and may be misleading. There is no way that any referee or judge or anyone else charged with interpretation of any rules will allow the argument that because the option is not listed in the list started with "including" it cannot be included there (a particular option may fall the criteria of inclusion, but it's not a general rule that list prefaced by "including" is exhaustive).

Parentheticals are used to list, but in no way are they used to limit something expressly permitted by the sentence. Choose one type of energy out of five (acid, cold, electricity, or fire). Doesn't make sense right? The only difference is that energy type is already defined and it's unnecessary to reiterate that there are 5; unless there was an errata somewhere that removed sonic from being an energy type.


it doesnt say you can choose sonic so you cant. period. thats how D&D rules work. it doesnt explicitly say you can, so you cant.

That's the issue, it does. Right there in the first sentence: "Choose one type of energy." When did sonic lose being an energy type?

[Gruftzwerg]

Parentheticals are not 100% proof that the options are confined to those listed in parentheticals, but in D&D (or in any rule or law) they are usually used this way. And this is not a RAW vs RAI issue it's a semantic argument for one or other option as RAW.

On the other hand starting the list with "including" is a 100% proof that if sentence is well-formed than options are not limited to those in the list, because if they are "including" is superfluous and may be misleading. There is no way that any referee or judge or anyone else charged with interpretation of any rules will allow the argument that because the option is not listed in the list started with "including" it cannot be included there (a particular option may fall the criteria of inclusion, but it's not a general rule that list prefaced by "including" is exhaustive).

^This. Rules and laws all follow specific syntax and formatting rules. Unless you have an indicator (e.g. "including"/"e.g."/"..." ...) you have to assume that a list is finite. The use or absence of keywords or symbols is important. The definition of specific keywords and a Rule Hierarchy (aka Primary Source Rule) are always present where there are rules, laws and that kind of stuff. Imho the so called unwritten rules of rules xD (that is imho the reason why the Primary Source Rule wasn't included in the core books. People that are used to these rule/law mechanics get so used to em that they always expect them as a given (known by the audience). But the regular guy has problems to read and understand laws, because he lacks the knowledge/training about these things. This is the reason why I like to advise everybody to get used to these kind of things. These aren't just tools to solve your D&D 3.5 problems. They also help and aid you in real life.

[Darg]

^This. Rules and laws all follow specific syntax and formatting rules. Unless you have an indicator (e.g. "including"/"e.g."/"..." ...) you have to assume that a list is finite.

I don't know how you equate one with the other. Rules and Laws follow different syntax and formatting based on the entity creating them. They are not some universal rule. Why do I have to assume rules for something else have to apply for this when the "general rule" of using parentheses for lists means I don't have to assume that the list is exhaustive. Proper general use would dictate they use an indicator in either case. Normal use in the D&D 3.5 architecture would dictate that all items be presented when there is a lack of indication to be an exhaustive list. As far as I know, energy types is the only time D&D 3.5 does not provide all possible items in a parenthetical list without an indicator. By precedent set by listings in parentheses, the list must be exhaustive; however, to do so would would require making sonic not an energy type. Simple parentheticals have no authority to do this.

[Gruftzwerg]

I don't know how you equate one with the other. Rules and Laws follow different syntax and formatting based on the entity creating them. They are not some universal rule. Why do I have to assume rules for something else have to apply for this when the "general rule" of using parentheses for lists means I don't have to assume that the list is exhaustive. Proper general use would dictate they use an indicator in either case. Normal use in the D&D 3.5 architecture would dictate that all items be presented when there is a lack of indication to be an exhaustive list. As far as I know, energy types is the only time D&D 3.5 does not provide all possible items in a parenthetical list without an indicator. By precedent set by listings in parentheses, the list must be exhaustive; however, to do so would would require making sonic not an energy type. Simple parentheticals have no authority to do this.

1. Rules and Laws always make use of keywords that you define (specific) in the first place or fall back to the "general" definition in the used language.

2. They also use Rule/Law Hierarchies based on the primary source rule.

a) Topic Precedence
e.g. Weapons: First you have "real weapon" and laws to restrict their use, then you have specific situations like a murder chase where the definition of "weapon" gets expanded for that niche. E.g. You wont get any problems with weapon possession laws just because your bottle broke at home and could be considered a weapon in a murder chase. The laws for murder and how it redefines weapons don't become general laws/rules, they are just specific exceptions for its niche.

b) Book Precedence
Book here can be exchanged by rule/law sets if you want to have a more generic name. In real life we have different type of law sets. e.g. National Laws from a country or International Human rights. Most countries have set their laws below the International Human Rights. As such they always take precedence despite what national laws say (in those countries that have agreed to this concept).
Even within a single country you can have different rule/law books/set for citizens and economy as simple example.

[Batcathat]

I don't know how you equate one with the other. Rules and Laws follow different syntax and formatting based on the entity creating them. They are not some universal rule. Why do I have to assume rules for something else have to apply for this when the "general rule" of using parentheses for lists means I don't have to assume that the list is exhaustive. Proper general use would dictate they use an indicator in either case. Normal use in the D&D 3.5 architecture would dictate that all items be presented when there is a lack of indication to be an exhaustive list. As far as I know, energy types is the only time D&D 3.5 does not provide all possible items in a parenthetical list without an indicator. By precedent set by listings in parentheses, the list must be exhaustive; however, to do so would would require making sonic not an energy type. Simple parentheticals have no authority to do this.

I'm not sure if you're arguing that RAW can support your interpretation or if you really believe it's the intended meaning. If it's the former... maybe, I guess? Though I don't see a lot of GMs accepting it, if it's the latter, I still think it's extremely unlikely that someone intending to include all five types write four of them and then stops. Especially since, as been pointed out, the 3.0. version specifically included sonic and the 3.5. version specifically don't.

[Darg]

I'm not sure if you're arguing that RAW can support your interpretation or if you really believe it's the intended meaning. If it's the former... maybe, I guess? Though I don't see a lot of GMs accepting it, if it's the latter, I still think it's extremely unlikely that someone intending to include all five types write four of them and then stops. Especially since, as been pointed out, the 3.0. version specifically included sonic and the 3.5. version specifically don't.

The proper sentence reads: "Choose one type of energy." Use of sonic is expressly permitted by this statement. If they wanted to limit the energy types through listing, they could have simply kept the colon instead of wasting ink using the closing parenthesis.

I don't really see why your DMs wouldn't accept it. Everyone here on these forums are saying that evocation is the weakest of all the spell schools and yet it's apparently unacceptable to read the sentence as it was written.

[Batcathat]

The proper sentence reads: "Choose one type of energy." Use of sonic is expressly permitted by this statement. If they wanted to limit the energy types through listing, they could have simply kept the colon instead of wasting ink using the closing parenthesis.

Yes, I suppose that would have made it clearer but I think the fact that they specifically mention four energy types and not the fifth (which, again, was specifically mentioned in an earlier edition) is a pretty good sign that the fifth is intentionally excluded.


I don't really see why your DMs wouldn't accept it. Everyone here on these forums are saying that evocation is the weakest of all the spell schools and yet it's apparently unacceptable to read the sentence as it was written.

Personally, I prefer RAI to RAW and for the aforementioned reasons I'm leaning strongly towards sonic being left out on purpose. I find someone misusing parenthesis far more likely than someone listing examples but stopping after four of five (and not using "ex." or "etc." or something like that).

That said, I'd be open to an argument of "Hey, evocation isn't that strong anyway so can't you let me substitute sonic energy?" but I don't think that's how it was intended.

[danielxcutter]

Personally, I would be fine with someone asking "hey, can I just use it to select sonic?", but I wouldn't assume that to be the default.

Also considering Born of Three Thunders is a thing...

[Vaern]

I don't really see why your DMs wouldn't accept it. Everyone here on these forums are saying that evocation is the weakest of all the spell schools and yet it's apparently unacceptable to read the sentence as it was written.

It's because sonic is a particularly strong energy type due to natural resistances to it being so rare. It was likely removed when converted from 3.0 to 3.5 because the developers were trying to make the game a bit more balanced and decided that making sonic damage a bit more difficult to build around was a good way to do that. You'll probably notice looking through sonic spells that they tend to have fixed damage, smaller damage dice, or scale at a slower rate than comparable spells that deal other types of damage.
Whether or not sonic is technically still rules legal, a DM may still decide not to allow it, and would have reason and decent contextual evidence for doing so.

[danielxcutter]

And if you really want a rarely-resisted energy type, there's always acid.

[Vaern]

And if you really want a rarely-resisted energy type, there's always acid.
Acid resistance may not be especially common, but it's practically everywhere when compared to sonic. Especially among outsiders from strongly aligned planes... Devils and demons all have acid resist 10 as common traits unless otherwise specified. The celestial, half-celestial, and half-fiend templates all gain acid resist 10. Angels are fully immune to acid.
And if we take a closer look at a few of those groups of creatures...
Angels are immune to acid and cold, plus resistant to fire and electricty.
The half-fiend template grants resistance to acid, cold, fire, and electricity.
Demons are resistant to acid, cold, and fire, and immune to electricity.

By comparison, after thoroughly combing through every monster entry on the SRD, there are exactly 3 individual creatures (avoral, formian, and leonal) with resistance to sonic and 0 with immunity. There as many categories of creatures available on the SRD with combined resistances and/or immunities to all four other energy types simultaneously as there are individual creatures with resistance to sonic.

Just a bit of extra perspective as to why sonic may have been excluded from the most recent iteration of energy substitution or why a DM might decide to rule against allowing it :p

[JNAProductions]

By the reading that allows Sonic, wouldn't it also allow Positive and Negative energy to be selected? They are, indisputably, energy damage (it's in the name!) but I don't think letting you turn Fireball into Healball would fly at any table.

[Thurbane]

By the reading that allows Sonic, wouldn't it also allow Positive and Negative energy to be selected? They are, indisputably, energy damage (it's in the name!) but I don't think letting you turn Fireball into Healball would fly at any table.

Fortunately the glossary saves us from this kind of silliness: http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_energydamage&alpha=E


energy damage
Damage caused by one of five types of energy (not counting positive and negative energy): acid, cold, electricity, fire, and sonic.
Source: PHB

Rules Compendium re-iterates this as well:


Energy
Some effects use or create energy, dealing damage according to the type of energy used. Energy comes in five types: acid, cold, electricity, fire, and sonic. The types of energy help to determine whether certain creatures are more resistant or more vulnerable to the attack that uses the energy.

NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE
Negative energy and positive energy are damage types, but they are not considered energy types the way that acid, cold, electricity, fire, and sonic are.

[Vaern]

If you look at the description of spells like Inflict Light Wounds:

When laying your hand upon a creature, you channel negative energy that deals 1d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level.
...it looks a lot like the negative energy being channeled is merely a weapon or a power source for the spell, and the damage it's dealing is actually untyped. It is a type of energy, but not an energy type.
They also don't have descriptors associated with them as the five main energy types do, which makes that portion of energy substitution difficult to work with...

[Feldar]

If a sonic fireball goes off inside the area of a silence, does it make a noise?

More fundamentally, does it do damage to those inside the silence? I believe there is a spell with the sonic descriptor that specifically spells out that it does not.

The quotes allowing sonic energy to be substituted appear to be correct. However, given that it can be defeated by a single low level spell is an excellent reason not to choose sonic energy for subsitution.

[tyckspoon]

By the reading that allows Sonic, wouldn't it also allow Positive and Negative energy to be selected? They are, indisputably, energy damage (it's in the name!) but I don't think letting you turn Fireball into Healball would fly at any table.

Note that even if you convinced somebody to let you Substitute to Positive Energy, this would not make it heal. It would just be Positive Energy damage. Living creatures are not necessarily healed by positive energy, just as undead are not necessarily damaged by it - spells like Cure Light Wounds heal living creatures and damage undead because they say they do, not simply by virtue of being positive energy effects.

[Doctor Awkward]

Common sense dictates that you are dealing with spell effects that were probably written by two different people that really thoroughly thought things through but didn't bother to consult with each other in the process.

Person A: "Classic wizards* are throwing around explosions. Fireball should be an explosion. But, hm, I should specify that it creates no blast pressure to avoid unintended consequences."
Skip Williams: "Mm, good catch."

Person B: "Fire and heat sources should burn away the mist, just like they do in real life. And it makes sense that you can push it out with increases in air pressure too. I'll say, explosions and fire. Hey Skip! A fireball explodes, right?"
"Right."
turns back to desk, "Awesome. Perfect example spell to add then."


*(Monty Python and the Holy Grail was an obvious inspiration)

It's frankly anyone's guess in my opinion what the "correct" answer is. If you think fireball creates enough air pressure, in spite of the fact that the spell says it doesn't, to push out a mist, then that's what happens. Otherwise it's the fire that burns the mist away, and changing the fire stops this from happening.

[Gruftzwerg]

Common sense dictates that you are dealing with spell effects that were probably written by two different people that really thoroughly thought things through but didn't bother to consult with each other in the process.

Person A: "Classic wizards* are throwing around explosions. Fireball should be an explosion. But, hm, I should specify that it creates no blast pressure to avoid unintended consequences."
Skip Williams: "Mm, good catch."

Person B: "Fire and heat sources should burn away the mist, just like they do in real life. And it makes sense that you can push it out with increases in air pressure too. I'll say, explosions and fire. Hey Skip! A fireball explodes, right?"
"Right."
turns back to desk, "Awesome. Perfect example spell to add then."


*(Monty Python and the Holy Grail was an obvious inspiration)

It's frankly anyone's guess in my opinion what the "correct" answer is. If you think fireball creates enough air pressure, in spite of the fact that the spell says it doesn't, to push out a mist, then that's what happens. Otherwise it's the fire that burns the mist away, and changing the fire stops this from happening.

?

A fireball, flame strike, or similar spell burns away the fog in the explosive or fiery spell’s area. Fire spells don't need any pressure to burn the mist. Am I missing the point here?

[Doctor Awkward]

?
Fire spells don't need any pressure to burn the mist. Am I missing the point here?

We have no way of knowing if the author intended the explosion of fireball to push away the mist or the fire of fireball to burn away the mist. It's patently ridiculous to include fireball on a list that includes "explosions" unless they were unaware that fireball explicitly does not create overpressure with its explosion.

If you believe that fireball was put there because its the fire that burns away the mist and not the "explosion" then this whole argument is academic because Energy Substitution explicitly says that additional spell effects that are present due to the element no long apply if you change that element, and the OP's friend's DM made the right call.

[Gruftzwerg]

We have no way of knowing if the author intended the explosion of fireball to push away the mist or the fire of fireball to burn away the mist. It's patently ridiculous to include fireball on a list that includes "explosions" unless they were unaware that fireball explicitly does not create overpressure with its explosion.

If you believe that fireball was put there because its the fire that burns away the mist and not the "explosion" then this whole argument is academic because Energy Substitution explicitly says that additional spell effects that are present due to the element no long apply if you change that element, and the OP's friend's DM made the right call.

Notice that the latest version of Energy Substitution (Complete Arcane) doesn't have the part about secondary effect anymore. It gives permission to change the energy type and point. That's it.

A strict RAW reading wouldn't change any spell text part besides from the elemental damage change. As such, (beware of 3.5 nonsense..) even a Fireball [cold] could still set things on fire ...

___

RAI should be clear, since the Obscuring mist gives 2 options to clear it:

1.) Wind
Not pressure, "wind" will disperse the mist. Even if only hit partially, the entire mist is affected.

2.) Fire
Any kind of fire spell burns the mist in its overlapping area.

Conclusion: A Fireball [electricity] spell won't help much here.

[hamishspence]

RAI should be clear, since the Obscuring mist gives 2 options to clear it:

1.) Wind
Not pressure, "wind" will disperse the mist. Even if only hit partially, the entire mist is affected.

2.) Fire
Any kind of fire spell burns the mist in its overlapping area.

Conclusion: A Fireball [electricity] spell won't help much here.

Fire or explosive.

Regarding RAI, a case can be made that if they didn't want "non-fiery explosions" such as the Energy Ball psionic power or Energy Substituted fireballs, to dissipate Obscuring Mist, then the would have phrased it as "or similar fiery spell" instead of "or similar fiery or explosive spell".

But RAW isn't particularly ambiguous here. Anything characterised as "explosive" or "explosion" dissipates it.