Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Igfig Oct 16, 2009 14:22:29	Something that's been bothering me a bit recently: What qualifies as an "elemental" for purposes of Khyber shard binding? Back in 3e, when "elemental" was a specific monster, there was never any ambiguity about what you could use to power, say, an airship: it had to be either a fire elemental or an air elemental. Now, however, "elemental" is a much broader and more ambiguous term, and this is what confuses me.  Technically, a "fire elemental" is any creature of the elemental origin with the fire subtype.  However, this includes hellhounds, blazewyrms, certain demons--even genasi!  Is this intentional?  Should genasi PCs be on their guard against unscrupulous artificers? That seems a little weird to me, since it's fairly well established that the elementals bound to the ships are more like beasts of burden than slaves.  At the moment, my best guess is that the intention was that only creatures that fall under the "elemental" heading in a Monster Manual, like firelashers and geonids, qualify for binding.  This isn't a perfect definition, as it still allows airships to be powered by, say, magma striders, but it's better. But am I wrong?  Is there a more accurate rule for binding that I overlooked?  Can you bind demons and efreet into Khyber shards?  Would this be, in fact, awesome? Tell me your thoughts.
#2 dieffenbachj Oct 16, 2009 14:48:22	I don't see what the problem is. There were ALWAYS mixed-element elementals. Be it the mephits or ice elementals or magma elementals or VOID elementals--4E hasn't changed that, and we couldn't use a smoke elemental to power an airship BEFORE... or if we could, it was a plot hook to something =P All 4E has done is put a label on things, calling them 'elemental'. But to suggest that because elemental refers to a category and the purest example of that category, the elementals themselves, we should retroactively say "elemental powered vessels can be powered by genasi"... No. And incidentally, since each vessel specifies what kind of elemental powers it--airships use fire elementals, water elementals for seafaring ships, and so on--you have to stretch your semantic argument to its limit to suggest a fire genasi can be physically stretched to fit inside an airship's arch or crammed into a dragonshard (despite being a corporeal being) in order to have this argument make sense. And semantic arguments bore me. So I'll just sign off on saying that the only legitimacy I see in this thought process is: wouldn't it be an interesting backstory if the party's airship was powered by, say, a magma elemental instead of a fire elemental? And as a result, it was highly unstable and independent, but also tougher and faster, or something. Or that all the Zilargo experimental vehicles that used mixed elementals were kept contained, but all broke out one day so the world is being wandered by sentient vehicles... Or something. But the genasi thought, the idea that just because 4E uses "elemental" in a tweaked sense than 3E... no, I don't think the fundamental nature of elemental vessels changes just because elemental has a split meaning now.
#3 ChrisTheS Oct 16, 2009 15:23:08	Binding demons or efreeti into vehicles would, in fact, be awesome.  It would also be bloody dangerous, since those beings are much more intelligent and self-aware than regular elementals and not only would be more pissed off by their confinement if they were ever accidentally freed, but might eventually figure out how to escape on their own. Also, efreeti in particular are prone to fits of boredom, and might upon occasion do something impetuous that would negatively impact the vehicle...
#4 Igfig Oct 16, 2009 16:15:36	I don't see what the problem is. The problem is, in 4e there's no such thing as an "elemental" in the 3e sense of the word.  A 3e elemental is the purest embodiment of its element, an incarnation of flame or water or air or earth given sentience.  You can't divide the category of earth elementals into finer distinctions, because there's no variation to be had; an earth elemental is an earth elemental, and the only way to change that is to add some impurities.  Mixing in another element gives you a different being, a paraelemental, which as you said can't be used to power an elemental vehicle. A 4e elemental is more like a species of Elemental Chaos wildlife.  A geonid is no less 'earthy' than a rockfist smasher, despite their different shapes, but neither of them is a perfect embodiment of what it means to be a rock. Moreover, an elemental is no less an elemental for including multiple elements in its anatomy; a shardstorm vortex is as much an earth elemental as a geonid. In a phrase: a 4e elemental is made of earth, but a 3e elemental is earth. That's why I'm wondering.  Evidently 4e elemental vessels are less picky than their 3e counterparts, since they don't need pure elemental beings for power.  The question is, how picky are they? A fire archon is no less a creature of fire than a firelasher elemental.  Shouldn't they be bindable too?  How about immolith demons?  They're made of fire too.  How about a flame shard?  They're fire stuck inside a crystal.  How about efreet?  They're fire stuck inside flesh. How about genasi? They're flesh stuck inside fire. And so on.  I don't deny that some of these should NOT be bindable to airships.  You're entirely right: binding a genasi into a Khyber shard would be crazy.  I just want to know where the break point is.
#5 Igfig Oct 16, 2009 16:41:27	Binding demons or efreeti into vehicles would, in fact, be awesome.  It would also be bloody dangerous, since those beings are much more intelligent and self-aware than regular elementals and not only would be more pissed off by their confinement if they were ever accidentally freed, but might eventually figure out how to escape on their own. I totally agree.  Even if it were possible to bind demons or archons into ships, I imagine that most artificers would stick to elementals.  Elementals are relatively unintelligent and pliable--animals, essentially.  You can tame an elemental.  Archons, though-- you can't tame an archon any more than you can tame a hobgoblin.  Binding an intelligent creature into your airship is just slavery, and I think there's a thread about that somewhere. Although... I could imagine a demon agreeing to be bound into an airship if it believed it could cause greater destruction that way. A deal with a crew of sky-pirates that's also a cult of the Dragon Below, selling their souls for speed and rage!  Bitter Cannith excoriates secretly replacing elementals with demons to cause mysterious airship explosions!   And it's all part of a complicated plot from the Lords of Dust involving demon-powered ships tracing giant dragonmarks in the sky to mess with the Draconic Prophecy! ...I think I have to write a new campaign now.
#6 ellorin Oct 16, 2009 16:54:04	I'm no Zil binder but in my opinion, any creature which is included to the Elemental entry of the MMs (not one which has the elemental subtype) works normally. Using demons, efreets, angels and such might be possible, yet the vessel would be way too volatile and the danger of the creature escaping disproptionatingly high. A firelasher elemental might find some contentment in acting laccording to its nature, flying and burning across the skies. no such luck with a demon or a devil. Besides, do you really want to risk the wrath of its fellows or the chance that it communicates with whomever steers the vessel?  And yes, it would defintely be slavery. Finally, I suppose that a single genasi would be way too weak to empower an elemental. A whole village of them? A vile act to be sure and, as mortal creatures, you would probably have to bind new victims as the old use up their elemental power and fade to oblivion, but not impossible. You would literally fly on a hundred screams. Wouldn't it be perfect for a BBEG's vessel?
#7 johnsnow Oct 29, 2009 13:25:10	Personally, I put "fire elementals" (and all the other single-element basic elementals) into the same category that I put dogs, cats, weasels, oxen, goats, and so forth. Just as we only have the stats for certain "special" animals, we only have the stats for "special" elementals. Your basic fire elemental exists, in various sizes, but most of the time it's no more game-relevant than a sheep. For instance, in the elemental chaos, there are probably little fire (air, earth, water) elementals that flit hither and thither, like birds. But they're not particularly hostile, like most animals, so they don't need stats. Don't make the mistake of assuming that anything without stats in a Monster Manual does not, in fact, exist in the World. So it is with the elementals that get bound into objects. Personally, I'm looking at Boons (DMG 2) as a way of representing elementals that are bound to characters (akin to the furies in Jim Butcher's Codex Alera series).
#8 Igfig Nov 10, 2009 11:52:48	Don't the elementals that get bound into airships have to be of size Huge?  I find it hard to believe that a twenty-foot pillar of elemental flame could be anything but "game-relevant".  (There're stats for elephants, after all.) Although I agree if we're only talking about the Medium-size ones that get put in weapons and the like.  There are a few Medium elementals in the book, I think, but those are the rare dangerous ones. I like your idea of elemental boons.  It would be pretty straightforward to make a boon that reproduced the power of a dragonshard augment, but it would retain the right flavour by necessity.
#9 Relo Nov 11, 2009 13:29:13	as he said, its like an animal in this way like an elephant we have the mammoth that I count as a elephant but its still a "special" creature.  If needed I make a costom ellemental based on an existing or just change the fluff. As it isn't in the MM it doesnt mean it doesn't exist, I personally miss them but hey, that doesn't stop from using them.