6
\$\begingroup\$

Blazing Starfall is a Sorcerer power that, in its power description, includes the Fire keyword. However, the Fire keyword is apparently inherited from a zone effect that is only available when the power is used by a Cosmic Magic Sorcerer.

If Blazing Starfall is used by someone without the Cosmic Magic class feature, does it lose the Fire keyword?

\$\endgroup\$

1 Answer 1

7
\$\begingroup\$

We gain our first clue from this post which notes:

"If the damage types in a power change, the power both loses the keywords for any damage types that are removed and gains the keywords for any damage types that are added (the poison keyword is removed from a power only if that power neither deals poison damage nor has any nondamaging effects)." PHB Errata

Looking in the "Rules Updates" We find:

Page 276: After the first two paragraphs in the Damage Types section, add the following paragraph. This change reflects revisions in Player’s Handbook 3. It clarifies what happens to keywords when a power’s damage type is changed.

If the damage types in a power change, the power both loses the keywords for any damage types that are removed and gains the keywords for any damage types that are added (the poison keyword is removed from a power only if that power neither deals poison damage nor has any nondamaging effects). For example, if a wizard casts ray of frost through a flaming staff and uses the staff’s ability to change the damage to fire, ray of frost gains the fire keyword and loses the cold keyword for that use, since the power is dealing fire damage instead of cold damage. That use of the power can therefore benefit from effects, like feats, that affect fire powers, but not from effects that affect cold powers.”

From there, we can look at this other thread which deals with blazing starfall. This thread has 15 pages of arguments. It notes that:

I picked up the new Essentials Rule Compendium today and on page 114, the first thing stated under Damage Types:

"If a power has one of these keywords [see damage keywords, above with descriptions], it deals the associated type of damage."

With the other commenters immediately piling on saying that that's horribly broken and not RulesAsIntended.

Another post in the thread quotes:

The ERC (Essentials Rule Compendium) offers an update:

Page 115 under "Adding and Removing Damage Types."

"If a power gains or loses damage types, the power gains the keywords for any damage types that are added, and loses the keywords for any damage types that are removed."

Adding 1 point of cold damage adds the damage type to the attack, as it is part of the attack, conferring the keyword which confers the damage type to the entire attack.

My recommendation is to hand that thread to your GM along with a bottle of non-prescription painkiller, because this is a section where the set of books you own, the "Rules Updates" you read, and the justification you favour determine whether or not powers gain or lose keywords.

In this specific instance, due to the rules noting that "[a power] loses the keywords for any damage types that are removed" the lack of Cosmic Magic would indeed remove the damage type from the power, removing the keyword from the power. Note well, however, that this opens up all kinds of really... really... annoying lacunae.

\$\endgroup\$
7
  • \$\begingroup\$ I have a tough time claiming that Blazing Starfall's fire damage is removed by being a non-Cosmic magic Sorcerer. \$\endgroup\$ Nov 9, 2010 at 16:39
  • \$\begingroup\$ @SimonWithers If a character does not have Cosmic Magic, then they cannot create the zone from Blazing Starfall which would cause fire damage. Therefore, the power effectively deals no fire damage. What's your argument against? \$\endgroup\$
    – Iszi
    Nov 9, 2010 at 19:17
  • \$\begingroup\$ "Removal" ... That, to me would imply that it had to be there in the first place, which, by not being Cosmic, it wasn't. To me, the fire damage thing is added if you are, not removed if you are not. \$\endgroup\$ Nov 9, 2010 at 19:51
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ And this is why the answer at the end of my post said "Ask your GM" I had to wade through 15 pages of this stuff. \$\endgroup\$ Nov 9, 2010 at 22:51
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ This is noted in my answer. I'd prefer if you two pruned your comments so that this doesn't turn into a forum-style argument. \$\endgroup\$ Nov 11, 2010 at 2:23

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .