Underwater fire? Bug or WAD?
 

I found that fire shield from Charkoal Shield and "small area fire" from firebrand works fine underwater. Is this a bug or WAD? Anyway Charkoal Shield is realy evil underwater chaffcleaner. I think its wrong.

Re: Underwater fire?
 

Most fire and fire-based evocations don't work under water. There are no exceptions for weapons that deal fire damage, and that wouldn't be trivial either. I could see fire-shield being weakened under water, and removing it alltogether might also fit.

Re: Underwater fire?
 

Probably there should be no fire shield under water at all because the spell itself cannot be cast there. So, if Charcoal Shield does provide fireshield underwater, this is definitely a bug.
And the same with Fire brand, I think.

Re: Underwater fire?
 

UW combat sucks enough as it is, leave the items alone =)

Re: Underwater fire?
 

Fire shield underwater is at least strange and unthematic

Re: Underwater fire?
 

Ano - It's actually not, if you read the charcoal shield description, which is entirely heat-based and doesn't mention anything about actual flame. Besides, it's magic. The fire brand IS flame based, but again, magic. The entire purpose of the items is to be on fire, I don't find it particularly unthematic that a bit of water fails to stop them from filling their purpose (unlike a mage, who is less single-minded and more prone to fatigue). Anyhow, again, UW combat sucks.

Re: Underwater fire?
 

Heh, I've no trouble imagining a sword and shield so hot that
they "boil" underwater. After all they burn just fine in the
middle of a snowstorm or pouring rain. What's really
interesting is if they set opponents on fire underwater.
Because that would be an awesome special effect in a future
Dominions movie. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Next you will start to complain about frozen enemies not
floating to the surface. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

Re: Underwater fire?
 

I imagine the analog for setting someone on fire underwater would be trapping them in a cloud of boiling bubbles that for some reason won't just float up to the top.

Killing bubbles!

Re: Underwater fire?
 

Bubbles of Doom.

Re: Underwater fire?
 

Another thread where people who like it the way it is can easily come up with explanations and so can people who would like it changed. As to which are more reasonable,..

I don't mind either way, as long as there's a clear description saying 'Does not work underwater' or 'Even works underwater' if it isn't obvious.

Re: Underwater fire?
 

Yeah, I apologize for the needless goofing. Sombre points out
the obvious solution, that it doesn't really matter as long as
the rules are clear, equal and easy to grasp. Explanations
about the why and how of the nonintuitive, like the jumping knight
in chess, are better left to the creators of the game then
overenthusiastic bystanders like myself.

Re: Underwater fire?
 

You would think boiling all that water around you might have a slight effect on your vision, though. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Re: Underwater fire?
 

The charcoal shield seems like a mistake because it's inconsistent- the spell doesn't work, but an item generating the spell does work. "They're different" arguments seem deflated by the way both item and spell produce an identical effect (when functioning).

One can, indeed, imagine those items working either way, in and of themselves. But consistency isn't a narrative "why?" question, it's a system question.

Re: Underwater fire?
 

He sums it up guys.

Try to get something added.

How about pushing for a earth spell that causes area muddy water with movement loss and fatigue.

How about a Air spell of bubble that leaves a nonamphib flopping and gasping.

How about a fire spell that causes a ball of light to which those fishies are attracted like in the real world.

Where is my summon giant/school of jelly fish? They are the real terror of the seven seas.

Re: Underwater fire?
 

Fire does have some working effects underwater... only blood is completely canceled out by water.

Re: Underwater fire?
 

Only the blood spells that require blood slaves; the fact that Blood Boil is only such spell is irrelevant. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Re: Underwater fire?
 

I could easily see a "Blood on the Water" spell that attracted a mutated Shark Attack.

Re: Underwater fire?
 

You could argue that flame brands have magic fire like the astral fires spell. Or that it superheats the water around the target to boil them. Whereas your average fire spell uses magic to conjure a normal fire, which would get instantly snuffed out underwater.

Technically frost brands wouldn't be much use underwater either if you used the same logic to ban fire brands, because the minute you drew it it would freeze the water and you'd end up clubbing people with a large, heavy, unwieldy lump of ice.

Re: Underwater fire?
 

You can say "it's magic". This explain everything. But I just want to know: do these items work as designed?


sorry for my bad English

Re: Underwater fire?
 

In order to produce a flame you require a combustible substance and an oxidizer.

In the case of a candle the combustible substance is the wax and the oxidizer is the surrounding oxygen. Thus as long as you have both you will have a continuous flame.

In the case of an underwater cutting torch both a combustible substance and an oxidizer must be provided by hoses leading to the torch. Hydrogen and acetylene are commonly used combustible gases and the oxidizer is oxygen. The gas must be supplied at a high enough pressure to overcome the pressure exerted by the water to maintain a continuous bubble around the flame.

So it could be that the fire based spells and items that work underwater provide both their own combustible substance and oxidizer contained within a bubble while ones that don't must rely on materials that are already present. The same idea could be used in the case of the frost brand in that the magic effect is contained within a bubble.

Re: Underwater fire?
 

Right, or as others have said: "It's magic"

You can justify anything. I don't think anyone here would object to a special fire spell that burned underwater.

It's a question of whether it's intended or an oversight. Especially in the Charcoal Shield case, since that duplicates a spell that doesn't work underwater.