Post/Author/DateTime	Post
tos_shai_hulud 04-18-08, 10:30 AM	A character with a spiked chain is facing a fire elemental. He decides to trip it. What happens? Can a fire elemental be tripped? Can it reform standing up again? I mean, it is fire! Fire can be in any form imaginable, but as a fire creature, I am not sure it has that ability.
Kouk 04-18-08, 10:51 AM	Logically, no you couldn't really grab on to it. However, mechanically fire elementals do not have any such ability, so they can be tripped. They are like "solid" fire. They have Natural AC after all, and Slam attacks (as opposed to Touch attacks for just fire damage) ...
tos_shai_hulud 04-18-08, 11:35 AM	Well, a water elemental is liquid, yet if you have ever done a belly flop, that is certainly bludgeoning damage! Still, I wouldn't expect to be able to grab a hold of one! Perhaps this is a similar principle?
Merestil Haye 04-18-08, 12:28 PM	Well, a water elemental is liquid, yet if you have ever done a belly flop, that is certainly bludgeoning damage! Still, I wouldn't expect to be able to grab a hold of one! Perhaps this is a similar principle?No, it's not. Why do you think you cannot trip a water elemental? The rules lay out that creatures can be tripped. Unless there is a specific rule or an exception to the contrary, any creature can be tripped. Creatures that fly without the use of limbs cannot be tripped. is the Fire elemental a creature that flies without the use of limbs? No. (It can't fly, period). Does the Fire elemental's description say it cannot be tripped? No, it does not. If there is no rule that says or implies a fire elemental cannot be tripped, then it can. If you wish to houserule otherwise that is your prerogative, but by the rules, Fire, Earth and Water elementals can be tripped. (Air elementals cannot because they fly without use of limbs.)
tos_shai_hulud 04-18-08, 03:00 PM	No, it's not. Why do you think you cannot trip a water elemental? The rules lay out that creatures can be tripped. Unless there is a specific rule or an exception to the contrary, any creature can be tripped. Creatures that fly without the use of limbs cannot be tripped. is the Fire elemental a creature that flies without the use of limbs? No. (It can't fly, period). Does the Fire elemental's description say it cannot be tripped? No, it does not. If there is no rule that says or implies a fire elemental cannot be tripped, then it can. If you wish to houserule otherwise that is your prerogative, but by the rules, Fire, Earth and Water elementals can be tripped. (Air elementals cannot because they fly without use of limbs.) I never suggested that a fire elemental was immune to trip, although I did question it. What I suggested was that because a fire elemental was amorphous (as indicated by its immunity to critical hits and flanking) was that being tripped meant nothing to it. It has no form, so it has no way of being prone. Prone is an aspect of creatures with face, but because elementals lack facing, they cannot be prone. Of course, this is my interpretation of being amorphous, and I have no indication that an amorphous creature cannot be prone. Hence my asking the question in the first place. Can it reform standing up again? I mean, it is fire! Fire can be in any form imaginable, but as a fire creature, I am not sure it has that ability. Edit: Take a look at the Gibbering Mouther (another creature that is amorphous). Can a Gibbering Mouther be prone?
Merestil Haye 04-18-08, 07:32 PM	I never suggested that a fire elemental was immune to trip, although I did question it. What I suggested was that because a fire elemental was amorphous (as indicated by its immunity to critical hits and flanking) was that being tripped meant nothing to it. It has no form, so it has no way of being prone. Prone is an aspect of creatures with face, but because elementals lack facing, they cannot be prone. Of course, this is my interpretation of being amorphous, and I have no indication that an amorphous creature cannot be prone. Hence my asking the question in the first place.Who said a fire elemental is amorphous? The rules don't. There is no mention whatever of fire elementals possessing an "amorphous" quality. Therefore they don't possess such a quality. Since they don't have it they cannot possibly benefit from it. Edit: Take a look at the Gibbering Mouther (another creature that is amorphous). Can a Gibbering Mouther be prone?The Gibbering Mouther has no specifically defined immunity to being prone. Therefore the answer is yes, it can be prone. Again, do not attribute to creatures something which the rules or the creature's description say nothing about. The Mouther cannot fly, let alone fly without limbs, and nothing whatsoever in the creature's description, not even the Amorphous quality, allows it to escape the consequences of being tripped.
tos_shai_hulud 04-19-08, 12:12 AM	The rules may not directly state that elementals are amorphous, but they certainly indicate as much: Invisible stalkers have an amorphous form. ... Size/Type: Large Elemental No indication is given to the effects of their being amorphous, while a gibbering mouther has an actual entry for its being amorphous: Amorphous (Ex) A gibbering mouther is not subject to critical hits. It cannot be flanked. Not subject to critical hits or flanking. Note how the description of the Invisible Stalker claims that it is amorphous, the Amorphous ability grants a creature immunity to critical hits and flanking, and the elemental type has immunity to critical hits and flanking. It is no wonder that the creature entry for Invisible Stalker does not list Amorphous as one of its qualities. All elementals possess the ability. Since they do have an ability equivalent to being amorphous, the do benefit from it. Again, I have not said that a gibbering mouther cannot be prone. I did say that it is meaningless for a creature that is amorphous to be prone. A creature that has no facing is always neither prone nor not prone at the same time. Why? Because it has no facing to be considered otherwise. Prone: Lying on the ground. A creature that cannot lie down cannot be prone. A creature that is amorphous has no facing and therefore the term "lie down" is meaningless for such a creature. Since elementals have a property that is equivalent to being amorphous, they may fall under this category.
Kouk 04-19-08, 12:57 AM	Are you arguing a rule, or do you want feedback on making a houserule to allow elementals to be immune to falling down? It is pretty clear there is no mechanical statement of the effects that an elemental is immune to Tripping or being Prone. I also would disagree with your interpretation that being Prone has anything to do with "facing," since 3.5 does not deal with facing (except for the FAQ on Tower Shields really). As you stated, the definition of Prone is "lying on the ground." Doesn't say anything about face down or face up. Note also that the quote about an Invisible Stalker having an amorphous form shows up in the flavor text portion of the description only. Flavor text does not imply mechanical game effects all the time. Not having a true face doesn't necessarily mean it has all-around vision either. That is also a quality that elementals do not automatically possess. Their type states they cannot be Flanked, but that is quite possibly because they are never worried about being hit in any vital spot if they let their guard down, and can focus fully on a single enemy at a time. If you would like to rationalize this, perhaps their consciousness is not capable of focusing on its entire body at the same time. Similarly, they are not able to switch their consciousness and reorient their physical structure at will. If you look at most pictures of elementals (do not misconstrue this as my saying pictures are rules) you will see that almost without exception they are in a humanoid or mostly humanoid form. Unless a creature states it does have something, then it does not. It may state what it has explicitly, as the Gibbering Mouther does, or it might do it implicitly with simply denoting a creature type or subtype. Mainly though, you can't apply flavor text from one monster to being a rule on another monster unless you are changing the rules.
tos_shai_hulud 04-19-08, 01:39 AM	While I appreciate your discourse, I am doing nothing of the sort. Throughout the monster manual, creatures that are described as "amorphous" possess a single line stating immunity to critical hits and flanking. The rule I am referring to is a PHB glossary definition of prone. A creature that is amorphous is not capable of lying down any more than it is standing up. Definitions do fall into the realm of mechanics. I am also not arguing that the rules state in any clear fashion that elementals should be treated this way, but I am pointing out many parts of the rules where this is indicated. And there are more, if you would like to see them. Look up Phasm, Ooze, etc. All of them possess the common quality that they are immune to critical hits and flanking. I am also suggesting that this may be enough to invalidate the concept of being prone for them. I am not saying that they cannot be tripped. I am saying that the consequence of being tripped, namely being prone, may not have meaning. The rules may even support this. I am not saying it with certainty, but I have certainly provided support for it. I am also not trying to make a house rule (if I wanted to do that, I would have done it already). I disagree on the point: There is no mention whatever of fire elementals possessing an "amorphous" quality. There most certainly is mention of it, albeit not direct. As to the point that gibbering mouthers can be prone, I disagree on that point as well: Amorphous: lacking definite form; having no specific shape; formless lie: to be in a horizontal, recumbent, or prostrate position, as on a bed or the ground; recline. Since the definition of prone is to be lying down, and lying down indicates the ability to be horizontal, recumbent, or prostrate, I contest that it may be impossible for an elemental to do that. It is impossible for a gibbering mouther. Unless you are claiming that the definition of prone has no bearing on its mechanics, which seems inane to me. If you don't see my point, I guess we agree to disagree.
Merestil Haye 04-19-08, 06:54 AM	The rules may not directly state that elementals are amorphous, but they certainly indicate as much:False generalisation. The Invisible Stalker may or may not be amorphous, but that is a rule for the Invisible Stalker only. Anything that affects all elementals will be found in the rules for the creature type. There is no such statement (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#elementalType) in the rules for the Elemental type, therefore Elementals are not amorphous unless their description explicitly says so. There is no such statement for Fire Elementals, therefore they are not amorphous. Note how the description of the Invisible Stalker claims that it is amorphous/quote]As a matter of fact, I see no such thing. The stat block for the Invisible Stalker says it has the following special qualities.[quote]Darkvision 60 ft., elemental traits, natural invisibility, improved trackingWhere, there,is the word "Amorphous?" Nowhere. The Invisible Stalker does not possess the quality of being Amorphous. If they do not possess the ability they cannot - that's can not - benefit from it. Again, I have not said that a gibbering mouther cannot be prone. I did say that it is meaningless for a creature that is amorphous to be prone. A creature that has no facing is always neither prone nor not prone at the same time. Why? Because it has no facing to be considered otherwise.No creature has facing. None. So you are asserting here that no creature can ever be prone. A creature that cannot lie down cannot be prone.That is a good point. It sounds a reasonable justification for excluding some creatures from becoming prone. Snakes, say. And probably the Mouther as well. A creature that is amorphous has no facing and therefore the term "lie down" is meaningless for such a creature.Nonsense. As discussed above, "facing" is not used in D&D, so no creature ever has it. Amorphous creatures are no different from regular creatures in that respect. So why conclude that they cannot lay down? Since elementals have a property that is equivalent to being amorphous, they may fall under this category.Once more. Elementals are not amorphous. They have a defined shape, unless their creature description explicitly states otherwise. The fact that they are immune to critical hits and precision damage is not because of a lack of shape, but because of a lack of vital organs. By contrast, the Gibbering Mouther does have some form of vital internal organ, so it needs another ability to be immune to crits and sneak attacks. There is absolutely no reason in the rules to suppose that Elementals cannot be tripped (Air elementals excluded). If you want to make it so, houserule away. But do not justify it on the basis that Elementals are amorphous and therefore immune to tripping, because (a) they are not, and (b) Amorphous creatures are not immune to tripping.
tos_shai_hulud 04-19-08, 07:07 AM	As I said, we will agree to disagree. But again, elemental possess an ability that is equivalent to being amorphous, and the fact that their elemental type shows immunity to critical hits and flanking is evidence of this. The ooze type says in the description that they are amorphous, but in the creature's traits, hey, they are only immune to critical hits and flanking. So, have fun tripping your black puddings, even though they are clearly amorphous from their description! And again, I have said this at least three times now, but I will say it again, the fact that the elemental type does not say that they are amorphous does mean that I can see the interpretation that they do not receive the same benefit of being immune to being prone, but the fact that they have an equivalent mechanical property (namely that they are immune to critical hits and flanking) may provide the evidence that a house rule is not needed to grant them the trait that they cannot be prone. Again, I am not saying that they have immunity to being tripped. You have missed me saying that twice now, so I will say it again, I do not think that elementals have immunity to being tripped. I do think that they may qualify as a creature type that cannot be prone. Edit: The rules actually tell you to use common sense with trip attacks. It says: Who Can Be Tripped: ... The rules don't give any guidance on creatures whose body types make them immune to trip attacks, so you'll have to rely on your common sense here. Common sense indicates that prone is not something that an elemental can be. While the rules do not specifically state this, it is common sense.
Merestil Haye 04-19-08, 08:44 AM	"Amorphous" does not mean "immune to critical hits and precision damage" in D&D. The word has no actual defined meaning in the rules at all. If it did, I might agree, but it does not. Since it is not defined, use the English definition (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/amorphous). Therefore immunity to critical hits and damage is not equivalent to being amorphous. Or do you contend that someone wearing Heavy Fortification armour is amorphous? Your contention that the two are equivalent is simply wrong. A houserule absolutely is required.
runestar 04-19-08, 09:22 AM	Minor nitpick - he was actually stating that immunity to crits and flanking was proof of being amorphous. Though I would be inclined to disagree. An amorphous creature is immune to both crits and flanking, but it does not mean that any creature immune to both is necessarily amorphous.
tos_shai_hulud 04-19-08, 12:20 PM	"Amorphous" does not mean "immune to critical hits and precision damage" in D&D. The word has no actual defined meaning in the rules at all. If it did, I might agree, but it does not. Since it is not defined, use the English definition (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/amorphous). Therefore immunity to critical hits and damage is not equivalent to being amorphous. Or do you contend that someone wearing Heavy Fortification armour is amorphous? Your contention that the two are equivalent is simply wrong. A houserule absolutely is required. Your point is lost on me. Heavy fortification armor does not grant immunity to FLANKING.
Kouk 04-19-08, 05:17 PM	OK, you are saying something that is immune to flanking and crits can be thought of as amorphous. What about a Beholder Death Tyrant (Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting)? That creature cannot be flanked, and cannot be the subject of critical hits. All it is is an undead beholder. Possessing certain similar traits does not indicate that you can extrapolate everything else. If I made a golem with eyes all over it, such that it had all-around vision, and which could float and shoot eye rays, that similarly would not indicate it was a death tyrant. Still immune to crits and mind affects and sneak attacks and flanking and such, but if you try to Turn the golem, nothing will happen. Being "Amorphous" like the Gibbering Mouther is just a means to an end, it is not indicative of the aberration type itself. A Gibbering Mouther is an Aberration. Aberrations do not normally have such immunities to crits and flanking, so they invented a special extraordinary ability to explain that trait. This is an exception rather than a rule of the creature type. A Rogue can deny his opponent a Dex bonus to AC from quite a number of ways: Attacking a flat-footed opponent, Feinting, attacking paralyzed enemies -- just the condition of the enemy having lost his Dex bonus against the attack does not indicate that that opponent is paralyzed, flat-footed and feinted all at once. This is the same as a creature being immune to crits and flanking not necessarily being amorphous. I have no problem if you say that elementals in your game are formless blobs of element which can drift over terrain and generate appendages/heads/eyes wherever they want. The "standard" elemental though has definite physical limitations. Fire elementals don't "float across the ground" they walk as evidenced by their land speed. Nothing about them says they ignore difficult terrain such as rubble or narrow ledges. They don't have infinite ways to strike out at enemies, they have at most two Slams which can extend 15 feet away from them, just like any other Huge (Tall) creature. Nothing says they are solid walls of flame; if you are 3 sizes smaller than them you can move through their squares with no problem just like anything else. If something is not stated then it is not the case. All subject to the DM making his own statements of course. Can you use a Net or Tanglefoot Bag to Entangle a slime? You might logically think not, but the Sage said there's no rule to disallow that. Similarly, there is no rule to disallow you to make an elemental Prone through whatever means you employ, unless something about it states otherwise. Not everything in this game is 100% clear-cut. Actually, I would say the majority of things can easily be argued. Just tell your players that Elementals cannot be made Prone.
tos_shai_hulud 04-19-08, 05:46 PM	I am not stating that all things with those traits are considered amorphous. I am saying that things with descriptions that sound as though they are amorphous (such as oozes, elementals, gibbering mouthers) will have the properties of being immune to critical hits and flanking if and only if they are amorphous. Since the rules state that common sense should be used, and creatures of a similar nature are referred to as amorphous, it is within the rules to say that elementals should, by common sense, be considered unable to be tripped as they lack the ability to be prone. Edit: I point out again the gibbering mouther ability called Amorphous which grants immunity to critical hits and flanking as an indication that being amorphous grants those qualities. Edit 2: Additionally, I point out that just because a creature has both immunity to critical hits and flanking does not automatically indicate that it is amorphous, but because amorphous is not a defined D&D term, one cannot rely upon it to be in a creature's description. Instead, it is descriptive text that may or may not be present in a creature's description. It seems clear that while elementals take a semi-humanoid shape in pictures, nothing indicates that they must remain in that form. We must rely on common sense (as the rules indicate should be the guiding factor for whether or not a creature can be tripped or not). So, to say that an earth elemental could be tripped while the water and fire elementals could not may be accurate, although I tend to think a case could be made even for the poor earth elemental.
Merestil Haye 04-20-08, 05:53 PM	Heavy fortification does grant immunity to precision damage, which is what I was thinking of; however it does not remove the bonus flanking creatures get. So no, it doesn't make the wearer immune to flanking. You persist in claiming that elementals are immune critical hits and flanking because they are shapeless. This simply is not the case. The elemental's immunity to these things arises because they are homogeneous internally. They have no vital organs. You cannot stab one in the kidney, because they don't have kidneys. It really is that simple. The Mouther, however, does have vital organs and therefore should be subject to critical hits and damage. it is not, because the body shifts around in a fluid way. This is why the Mouther is amorphous. I find no reason whatever to suppose that elementals are amorphous. I feel your conclusion that they are is that you want them to be. Fine. Houserule it. But please don't claim that it's based on an invalid extension of a quality of one specific creature to all creatures with certain traits, because not every creature with those traits (immune to flanking and critical hits) is amorphous. Specifically, constructs and undead are not amorphous. But their immunities are worded in just the same way as an elementals. Consequently you are asserting that these creatures are amorphous as well. Think about that.
tos_shai_hulud 04-20-08, 07:34 PM	* No Constitution score. * Low-light vision. * Darkvision out to 60 feet. * Immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects). * Immunity to poison, sleep effects, paralysis, stunning, disease, death effects, and necromancy effects. * Cannot heal damage on their own, but often can be repaired by exposing them to a certain kind of effect (see the creature’s description for details) or through the use of the Craft Construct feat. A construct with the fast healing special quality still benefits from that quality. * Not subject to critical hits, nonlethal damage, ability damage, ability drain, fatigue, exhaustion, or energy drain. * Immunity to any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects, or is harmless). * Not at risk of death from massive damage. Immediately destroyed when reduced to 0 hit points or less. * Since it was never alive, a construct cannot be raised or resurrected. * Because its body is a mass of unliving matter, a construct is hard to destroy. It gains bonus hit points based on size, as shown on the table. * Proficient with its natural weapons only, unless generally humanoid in form, in which case proficient with any weapon mentioned in its entry. * Proficient with no armor. * Constructs do not eat, sleep, or breathe. Constructs are not immune to flanking. They also don't have any qualities that seem to make them amorphous, while elementals are frequently described as amorphous. * No Constitution score. * Darkvision out to 60 feet. * Immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects). * Immunity to poison, sleep effects, paralysis, stunning, disease, and death effects. * Not subject to critical hits, nonlethal damage, ability drain, or energy drain. Immune to damage to its physical ability scores (Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution), as well as to fatigue and exhaustion effects. * Cannot heal damage on its own if it has no Intelligence score, although it can be healed. Negative energy (such as an inflict spell) can heal undead creatures. The fast healing special quality works regardless of the creature’s Intelligence score. * Immunity to any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects or is harmless). * Uses its Charisma modifier for Concentration checks. * Not at risk of death from massive damage, but when reduced to 0 hit points or less, it is immediately destroyed. * Not affected by raise dead and reincarnate spells or abilities. Resurrection and true resurrection can affect undead creatures. These spells turn undead creatures back into the living creatures they were before becoming undead. * Proficient with its natural weapons, all simple weapons, and any weapons mentioned in its entry. * Proficient with whatever type of armor (light, medium, or heavy) it is described as wearing, as well as all lighter types. Undead not indicated as wearing armor are not proficient with armor. Undead are proficient with shields if they are proficient with any form of armor. * Undead do not breathe, eat, or sleep. Undead are not immune to flanking, nor are they frequently described as amorphous. Common sense would also tell us that neither constructs nor undead are amorphous, while common sense tells us that fire and water are. You claimed that both of these types possess entries claiming both immunity to critical hits and flanking. But neither of these types claim immunity to flanking. I performed a search on the entire SRD. The ONLY creatures with the wording I am mentioning are creatures that by common sense would be considered amorphous. Here are creatures that are immune to both: Gibbering Mouther Elementals Worm that Walks Swarms Oozes Phasm Gibbering Orb
Kouk 04-21-08, 04:35 AM	Back to the original issue: Where in those descriptions does it say they can't be Tripped and/or made Prone?
tos_shai_hulud 04-21-08, 09:41 AM	Right here: Who Can Be Tripped: ... The rules don't give any guidance on creatures whose body types make them immune to trip attacks, so you'll have to rely on your common sense here. Since the definition of amorphous contradicts the definition of prone, common sense says that they cannot be prone, so while you can make a trip attack, and even succeed, the effect is that nothing is different for the creature. It can attack as normal, since it is not actually prone at the end of a successful trip attack.
Kouk 04-21-08, 11:23 AM	Well, your common sense seems to differ from mine then. I consider Who Can Be Tripped: Any creature that is subject to gravity and somehow holds itself off the ground is subject to trip attacks. Incorporeal creatures can't be tripped -- even by other incorporeal creatures -- because they can't fall down. A prone creature has already fallen down and can't be tripped. (This can prove significant when you've tripped a foe and wish to keep him down; see the section on being tripped [below].) Limbless creatures pretty much just lie on the ground (at least while using their normal land speeds or just standing around on a fairly level space) and usually can't be tripped unless they're climbing or in some other precarious situation. This includes creatures with the ooze type, snakes, and anything else that wiggles and slithers. The rules don't give any guidance on creatures whose body types make them immune to trip attacks, so you'll have to rely on your common sense here. to discount the majority of elementals.
Zuggster 04-21-08, 11:28 AM	Well, your common sense seems to differ from mine then. I consider to discount the majority of elementals. Well, since "Anything else that Wiggles and Slithers" is how I would view a Water Elemental, would that then be in the category?
tos_shai_hulud 04-21-08, 03:31 PM	Not to mention, fire rises. I would expect a fire elemental to follow the same principle as fire itself. This means that a fire elemental that is "knocked prone" is in the same position as it was before, only now, its "new head" is where its midsection used to be, and it's "new feet" are where the "other side" of its midsection used to be. And why might this be? Because it has no "parts" to be an actual head or feet. It is a mass of fire. The fact that it has feet in images is purely for convenience, and whatever portion if it happens to be touching the ground can be its feet. That seems like common sense to me. And as Zuggster stated, I would expect a water elemental to slither or wiggle. The full description indicates specific examples of when a creature might be immune to trip and then IMMEDIATELY after that, says that it is not all encompassing and that one must use common sense to determine if a creature should be immune. I see no reason that elementals are not immune except that people keep says, "Because it is not explicitly stated, they are not." Clearly, the Rules of the Game say that it is NEVER stated, and one must use common sense to make the determination, so the argument of explicit stating fails.
mvincent 04-21-08, 05:31 PM	Also, from the 3.5 FAQ: "Things that don’t need limbs for locomotion can’t be tripped. You can’t trip a snake, a beholder, or a gelatinous cube. You won’t find this in the rules, but then it really doesn’t need to be in there—the rules can leave some things to the DM’s common sense." Fire elementals do not appear to use limbs for locomotion.
Lootus 04-21-08, 07:22 PM	I think it's perfectly reasonable to rule that fire and water elementals can't be tripped in this manner. That quote from the FAQ says it all. The Monster Manual doesn't say that oozes or a gelatinous cube are immune to being tripped, but that doesn't mean that the DM's ability to utilize common sense when refereeing the game should be questioned in this sort of situation. The rules don't cross-reference every single special action and spell in the PHB with each monster. I see plenty of room in the physical descriptions of fire and water elementals to support this simple DM ruling. Here's some good examples of this common sense ruling in action: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/DQ_Minis_x/HugeFireElemental.jpg http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/BW_Gallery/38.jpg http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/dnd_minis/Fire_Elemental_tn.jpg