If a fighter with a ring of regeneration is a regenerating creature, then a MU with a wand of fireballs is a fire-using creature.
The fire device case is the weakest, and I mostly base it off the regenerating creatures and ring of regeneration rationale. I think the case is strongest for spell-like ability, and moderately strong for memorized fire spells. However, these are three separate categories. Put it all together, and to me that means the frost brand will affect those able (whether it be through spell-like ability, memorization, or device use) to use fire spells. regenerating creatures does give the +3 bonus against creatures wearing a ring of regeneration. magic-using and enchanted creatures does not get the +2 against those empowered to use magic spells only through a device such as a ring of spell storing.īut, the sword +1, +3 vs. lycanthropes and shape changers gets the +3 against anything under the influence of a polymorph spell, and against druids as well.Presumably only against druids of 7th level or higher, although that's going beyond the strict btb. As such I do not include demons and devils, but even if I did consider them to be fire-using/dwelling, they are resistant to cold-based attacks (which is atypical for fire-using/dwelling), suffering only half damage, and the sword is most likely crafted by using cold-based magic.īedivere wrote:I'm not convinced on magic users casting fire spells
So fire-using/dwelling would include a red dragon but not someone carrying a torch, an efreeti but not a magic-user casting a fireball, a fire giant but not someone using a potion of fire resistance, a fire elemental but not a shambling mound or a person covered in slimy wetness, a firebat but not a type VI demon (faulty comparisons).
Being impervious or resistant to fire and/or vulnerable to cold is strongly indicative of being fire-dwelling. Simply using an implement, spell or spell-like power that uses fire is insufficient, I look for fire-use by virtue of anatomy, such as chimeras, hell hounds and magmen. I interpret fire-using/dwelling to mean innately fire-using/dwelling, otherwise any opponent that throws a flaming torch at the PCs could be construed as fire-using by way of faulty comparison. Personally I wouldn't let the sword affect lava children, after all, the sword is metal and all metal passes thru them without effect.īut I would not class, say, shambling mounds as fire using/dwelling, even though they are also, like fire giants, immune to fire. Going by Rob Kuntz's Elemental Plane of Fire adventure, they can be found in large numbers on the elemental plane of fire. What it is not, in my opinion, "fire using" is a creature which uses heat- but not fire-based abilities, such as smoke para-elemental (choking soot/ash) magma para-elementals, lava mephits or magmen (all magma), dragon turtles or thorks (both steam/hot water), or remorhaz (hot back).įire giants are ambiguous, but I think their immunity to fire and preference for volcanic landscapes puts them in the fire-dwelling class.
I would include someone with a wand of fire, helm of brilliance, or ring of fire elemental command in their possession as "fire using". 1) A creature from the elemental plane of Fire, such as azer, efreet, salamanders, firebats etc.Ģ) A creature which can use fire-based spells or spell-like powers or breath weapons, such as red dragons, giant striders, hell hounds, barbed devils, Type VI demons, pyrohydra, & including MU or Druids or clerics with fire spells memorized or cast and in effect such as fireball, flame strike, fire seeds, flame blade or hot fire shield.
0 kommentar(er)
