# Horrid Wilting



## Trainz (Jun 11, 2005)

My players cast _Horrid Wilting_ on some elementals.

I ruled that the fire elem wasn't harmed. How could it ? The spell removes water from the target; how could that harm a fire elem ? If anything, it should actually HELP it.

But by the RAW, the spell SHOULD affect it.

What say you ?


----------



## hazmat (Jun 11, 2005)

I would probably have ruled that the fire elementa was un affected as it hs no moisture in its body.


----------



## Trainz (Jun 11, 2005)

Thanks. That's also my opinion.

Anyone else ?


----------



## Fieari (Jun 11, 2005)

Likewise.







> ...This spell evaporates moisture from the body of each subject living creature...




Similarly, Vorpal weapons don't work on creatures without heads (whether or not they are subject to crits), Heartseeking weapons don't work on creatures without hearts, etc.


----------



## Scion (Jun 11, 2005)

Who says that fire elementals arent like liquid napalm constantly going?

While I can see a dm ruling that way dropping it on people in the middle of combat seems like a poor move (poor move is relative, it is simply something I wouldnt want to have done to me not do to others).



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Elemental Type: An elemental is a being composed of one of the four classical elements: air, earth, fire, or water.
> Features: An elemental has the following features.
> —8-sided Hit Dice.
> —Base attack bonus equal to 3/4 total Hit Dice (as cleric).
> ...




Bold mine. So elementals are living creatures, and might have some fluid like substance keeping them together on some level. I'd have no problem with it working on air elementals, water elementals, fire elementals or even earth elementals, since they are living creatures and it is definately possible that they have moisture in them somehow.

::shrugs:: if I was going to tell the player such things I'd give them a knowledge check ahead of time at the very least.


----------



## RandomPrecision (Jun 12, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> Who says that fire elementals arent like liquid napalm constantly going?
> 
> While I can see a dm ruling that way dropping it on people in the middle of combat seems like a poor move (poor move is relative, it is simply something I wouldnt want to have done to me not do to others).




I don't think the matter could arise in a non-combat situation.  When else could the DM have informed the players?



> So elementals are living creatures...




Eh, I don't know about that.  Remember the part at the end of your quotation where it points out that elementals to not sleep, eat, or breathe.



> and might have some fluid like substance keeping them together on some level. I'd have no problem with it working on air elementals, water elementals, fire elementals or even earth elementals, since they are living creatures and it is definately possible that they have moisture in them somehow.




Would you rule that Horrid Wilting works on Salt Elementals?

What did the players think of the ruling?


----------



## Shellman (Jun 12, 2005)

Salt Elemental?

Isn't an elemental comprised of one of the four basic elements earth, fir, water or air?


----------



## Scharlata (Jun 12, 2005)

Shellman said:
			
		

> Salt Elemental?
> 
> Isn't an elemental comprised of one of the four basic elements earth, fir, water or air?




Alas, there are much more Elementals than the basic four. 

I.e., look into the Manual of the Planes, Paraelementals [Ice, Magma, Ooze, and Smoke]...

If you just look hard enough into other sourcebooks, you may encounter some strange creature like radiance, lightning, ash, salt, positive/negative energy elementals...

Enjoy


----------



## S'mon (Jun 12, 2005)

Obviously Horrid Wilting isn't going to affect Fire Elementals - and there's no RAW that says "Horrid Wilting Affects Fire Elementals" either.  Only an idiot demands that everything be spelt out in words of one syllable.  A kind GM might let HW do extra damage to Water Elementals, also.


----------



## boolean (Jun 12, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> A kind GM might let HW do extra damage to Water Elementals, also.






			
				Horrid Wilting said:
			
		

> This spell is especially devastating to water elementals and plant creatures, which instead take 1d8 points of damage per caster level (maximum 20d8).




Ruling that the spell has no effect on a fire elemental seems reasonable to me. But the character should probably know things like that, so I'd have told the player _before_ he cast the spell, so he could choose a different action.

Or possibly allow a Spellcraft or Knowledge (Planes) check to know this before wasting the action.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Jun 12, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> A kind GM might let HW do extra damage to Water Elementals, also.




So kind DM's are those who use the rules?    


And my opionion on the matter: I can see it be ruled either way - fire elementals are pure flame and not subject to horrid wilting and fire elementals contain gasoline or something else that is liquid (which may not even exist in our non-magical world) and be affected by it. But a DM should inform the players how he rules it, and should do it before the player wasted an action. If he doesn't want to just tell them, a knowledge check would be appropriate. But don't just jump on them and say: "Hah, I rule otherwise, you wasted your action."


----------



## Scion (Jun 12, 2005)

Kae'Yoss did a good job, but I'll go over it again 



			
				RandomPrecision said:
			
		

> I don't think the matter could arise in a non-combat situation.  When else could the DM have informed the players?




Preferably whenever the spell was picked, but at the very least before it was cast.

Now, not everything will be spelled out beforehand, and certainly not everyone will think of this so far ahead of time, but 'definately' before the action and spell are wasted.



			
				RandomPrecision said:
			
		

> Eh, I don't know about that.  Remember the part at the end of your quotation where it points out that elementals to not sleep, eat, or breathe.




So, even though it says they are living you say they arent living because they dont have to sleep, eat, or breathe? So are outsiders only 1/3 alive? Living constructs arent alive?

In d&d land I dont define living by whatever I feel might be appropriate at the time, I go by the rules (either houserules or raw, but houserules are all spelled out ahead of time)

If the dm was going to say, 'sorry, you cant cast spell X on the elemental because it isnt alive' then I would say, 'great, but please let me know about your houserules ahead of time so I can plan accordingly'



			
				RandomPrecision said:
			
		

> Would you rule that Horrid Wilting works on Salt Elementals?




'Salt' elementals might be that way because they are a combination of an acid and a base, and as such may be semi-aqueous. Of course, given that 'acid and base' are rolled into the acid energy type a salt elemental would likely have the acid descriptor anyway.

It depends on the situation though. Just because there could be living creatures who are immune *does not* mean that any who might be because it is more difficult to imagine them having some sort of fluid in them are automatically immune.

The dm could say either way in this case, but it certainly is not a 'definately no' or 'definately yes' sort of case.

Unless of course there is something in the raw that we have all missed?


----------



## Devin Cole (Jun 12, 2005)

As a DM and a player i can see both sides.  I tend mostly to think with my DM hat on and would have most likely ruled that the spell did not effect the fire elemental.  I also would have given the player the chance to recind the spell and choose another to cast.  WIzards and Sorcerers know the effects of their arcane spells and should know what effect the spell will have on various creatures.  My suggestion for in game rulings such as this would be to ask the player to make a Knowledge check DC (10+hit dice of the creature), knowledge planes in this case.  If the player succeeds the check then he would have known the spell would be of no conciquense and then should be allowed to cast a different spell but if she failed then the player cast the spell and will know better next time....if there is a next time.


----------



## Thanee (Jun 12, 2005)

Just wanted to point out, that since the spell specifically works against water elementals, that is also a rather strong hint, that they are indeed considered living creatures, since the spell only works on living targets.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Scion (Jun 12, 2005)

Devin Cole said:
			
		

> My suggestion for in game rulings such as this would be to ask the player to make a Knowledge check DC (10+hit dice of the creature), knowledge planes in this case.




This has the odd effect that if they had run into a 1hd fire elemental the check would be trivial, but running into a 400hd fire elemental would make it impossible.

So why would it make sense that the knowledge of 'fire elementals have/dont have any moisture' would vary so greatly depending on whether you ran into the baby or the grandpappy?


----------



## Devin Cole (Jun 12, 2005)

This thread has given me a really stupid idea, which means that it will most likely show up in my campaign soon knowing my players A new spell against fire elementals Abi Dazim's Horrid soaking......fills the subjects body with fluids.....fire elementals beware


----------



## Scion (Jun 12, 2005)

Devin Cole said:
			
		

> This thread has given me a really stupid idea, which means that it will most likely show up in my campaign soon knowing my players A new spell against fire elementals Abi Dazim's Horrid soaking......fills the subjects body with fluids.....fire elementals beware




You could likely do this with quench. Just use some flavor text revisions and a few other minor changes and you are set


----------



## Trainz (Jun 12, 2005)

Thanks for all the feedback.

I would of course allow the player to change his action, even if some dice were rolled.

It would be hard to warn the player before hand because quite simply, the situation never occured to me in the first place.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 12, 2005)

boolean said:
			
		

> Ruling that the spell has no effect on a fire elemental seems reasonable to me. But the character should probably know things like that, so I'd have told the player _before_ he cast the spell, so he could choose a different action.
> 
> Or possibly allow a Spellcraft or Knowledge (Planes) check to know this before wasting the action.




Yeah, I'd either have told them - "Er, doesn't it occur to you...?"  or at least given them a crooked eyebrow...


----------



## S'mon (Jun 12, 2005)

Kae'Yoss said:
			
		

> So kind DM's are those who use the rules?




1.  Obviously, I didn't reread the HW text before posting.

2. Kind GMs I guess use the rules when it benefits the players, but tweak/modify the rules in the player's favour, and in extreme cases give the most favourable possible rulings like "fire elementals are made of flammable water" even when these are unsupported by the text.

3. Personally I'm a RBDM at least to an extent.  One thing I do that's anathema on Rules Forum is nerf any spell I think is overpowered - eg IMC Horrid Wilting centres on the caster and affects at most 1 creature per caster level.  Even with that it' still overpowered compared to Meteor Swarm IMO.


----------



## Oryan77 (Jun 12, 2005)

Fire evaporates water (and moisture from the air). A fire element can't have properties from other elements (water or gas) because it would no longer be a pure "FIRE" elemental. It would be part fire & part water. Water can't exist in the El. Plane of Fire because it would evaporate. It can't exist in a Fire Elemental either because it would evaporate.

That doesn't mean some elemental properties don't exist in the inner planes. There are Earth chunks in all the inner planes. The Fire Plane just hardens those chucks. There's pockets of air in the Fire Plane because fire needs air to exist.


----------



## Oryan77 (Jun 12, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> "Elemental Type: An elemental is a being composed of *one* of the four classical elements: air, earth, fire, or water."
> 
> 
> Bold mine. So elementals are living creatures, and might have some fluid like substance keeping them together on some level.




Remember, Elementals are PURE elements. Look at the SRD quote. "one" of four elements. A fire elemental can't have "moisture" because moisture is a water element. A Fire Elemental is just a mass of flames that resemble a humanoid shaped form. 

When the SRD mentions "soul & body" it isn't referring to a physical fleshy "moist" body. It just refers to the element that resembles a body. When it is slain, it can't be resurrected because there is no physical body to raise and no soul attached to a body. You can sorta think of it like animating an object. Rock & dirt is animated for an Earth Elemental, when it's slain, the rock & dirt just fall back to the ground into a pile. Fire is animated for a Fire Elemental, when it's slain, it flickers out as if you blew out a candle. That's always been my interpretation of elementals.


----------



## Bad Paper (Jun 12, 2005)

Oryan77 said:
			
		

> There are Earth chunks in all the inner planes. The Fire Plane just hardens those chucks. There's pockets of air in the Fire Plane because fire needs air to exist.




Actually the EPoF liquefies the earth chunks into lava.  The pockets of air do not feed the fire there; they just exist for the convenience of travellers.


			
				Manual of the Planes said:
			
		

> Fire survives here without need for fuel or air to burn.


----------



## Oryan77 (Jun 12, 2005)

Bad Paper said:
			
		

> Actually the EPoF liquefies the earth chunks into lava.  The pockets of air do not feed the fire there; they just exist for the convenience of travellers.




Yeah, there is lava in the El Plane of Fire, but there are also chunks of hardened earth. There are plenty of Citadels and cities that sit upon hardened earth chunks that protrude from the flames. Check out the 2e module "Eternal Boundary" for pictures of a Citadel built onto an earth chunk in the El. Plane of Fire.

As for air feeding fire...fire cannot exist without air. I guess you can say it's "magical" fire...but scientifically, you can't start a fire without air fueling it. Native elementals don't need to breath, so I don't concider pockets of air existing for the convenience of travellers. Flavor wise, it sounds better explaining that air pockets end up in the plane which is what allows the flame to burn eternally.


----------



## Cheiromancer (Jun 12, 2005)

For "fire" you might read "plasma".  The sun and stars are examples of fire/plasma that don't need oxygen.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 12, 2005)

I would have the fire elemental be affected because I don't want to fill a house rules tome with corner case rulings that are likely to come up once or  twice. Also, I don't change the rules mid-game, so all in all, fire elemental is affected by _Horrid Wilting_.


----------



## Chorn (Jun 12, 2005)

Oryan77 said:
			
		

> As for air feeding fire...fire cannot exist without air. I guess you can say it's "magical" fire...but scientifically, you can't start a fire without air fueling it.



I find it odd that you say fire requires air in the D&D world when earlier you said the following:



			
				Oryan77 said:
			
		

> Remember, Elementals are PURE elements. Look at the SRD quote. "one" of four elements. A fire elemental can't have "moisture" because moisture is a water element.



Air is one of the four classical elements and is represented in D&D as one of the four basic elemental planes.  Elemental Fire does not and should not require Air because it's elemental Fire.  As you said, moisture cannot exist inside the Plane of Fire because it's part of Water.  So why would Air be any different?  Furthermore, there's this quote from the Planes subsection of the SRD.



			
				SRD 3.5 said:
			
		

> Fire survives here without need for fuel or air. . .



Being one of _the_ elements, it's a basic building block of creation.  Don't bring your so called Real World "science" into it!


----------



## Scion (Jun 12, 2005)

Oryan77 said:
			
		

> Fire evaporates water




Moisture != Water. There goes that whole arguement 

As I said earlier, there is no reason to assume there isnt some sort of moisture that keeps it going somehow. Such as some sort of odd napalm like fluid for whatever reason.

I see no reason at all for this to be 'definately no'. One can argue that it makes sense for it to be no, just like one can argue it makes sense for it to be yes.

I'd allow it to work in my games. They are living beings and there is no reason to assume that they have nothing enough like moisture to not be effected.

Even failing that though, I'd allow it to work the first time if I didnt tell the players in advance it wouldnt.


----------



## Oryan77 (Jun 13, 2005)

Chorn said:
			
		

> Being one of _the_ elements, it's a basic building block of creation.  Don't bring your so called Real World "science" into it!




If you're going to quote what I say to debate it, then also quote and respond to the comments where I'm possibly agreeing with you and questioning my own knowledge for D&D rules:



			
				Oryan77 said:
			
		

> I guess you can say it's "magical" fire...but scientifically, you can't start a fire without air fueling it.




So if the SRD says it's magical fire, then this whole debate about air or water existing is pointless. That doesn't mean those elements don't slip over into the EpoF, they do. But those elements don't make up ANY part of a Fire Elemental.



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> Moisture != Water. There goes that whole arguement




Huh? Yeah, that's what I'm saying, moisture = water, therefore, you can't have a 2nd element in a "FIRE" elemental. Where exactly did that arguement go?



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> As I said earlier, there is no reason to assume there isnt some sort of moisture that keeps it going somehow. Such as some sort of odd napalm like fluid for whatever reason.




1. I said fire evaporates moisture. You point out moisture = water (wow, yer smart). Therefore, fire evaporates water.

2. *Moisture* doesn't fuel fire, air fuels fire. Apparently the SRD says that it is in fact magical fire, so air isn't even needed to fuel a Fire Elemental. So nothing is needed to fuel the flames...so why would there be anything else for Horrid Wilting to affect? 

3. A Fire Elemental is *pure fire*. It's not fire that surrounds a mass of some type of gas, water, air, flesh, or anything else. If it was, it would be a Cross Breed. 

The original poster asked for advice. I'm just pointing out what a Fire Elemental is. If you want to make a Fire Elemental be a half-breed in your game and allow Horrid Wilting to suck water from a *Fire* Elemental, then whatever. I'm just saying that it doesn't make sense...especially when fire doesn't even store water; fire feeds from air (and which has been pointed out in the SRD, the fire element doesn't even need air to fuel it). So again, fire evaporates water, so why would there be water in a Fire Elemental for Horrid Wilting to affect?


----------



## Chorn (Jun 13, 2005)

Oryan77 said:
			
		

> If you're going to quote what I say to debate it, then also quote and respond to the comments where I'm possibly agreeing with you and questioning my own knowledge for D&D rules



The way I read it, you were simply saying fire needs air.  Whatever.  I was just poking holes in your theory in good humor.



> Huh? Yeah, that's what I'm saying, moisture = water,



Scion did NOT say moisture equals water.  He said moisture does NOT equal water.  In the C programming language a "!=" operator is used to mean "not equal".



> Apparently the SRD says that it is in fact magical fire, so air isn't even needed to fuel a Fire Elemental.



Nitpick.  It's not magical fire, but simply fire.  It's just that it doesn't happen to require air on the Plane of Fire because of the plane's very nature.


----------



## Oryan77 (Jun 13, 2005)

Chorn said:
			
		

> The way I read it, you were simply saying fire needs air.  Whatever.  I was just poking holes in your theory in good humor.




Well, like you pointed out from the SRD...apparently D&D fire doesn't require air..so I guess my theory is bull 



			
				Chorn said:
			
		

> Scion did NOT say moisture equals water.  He said moisture does NOT equal water.  In the C programming language a "!=" operator is used to mean "not equal".



Ya know, it's already embarassing enough that we play D&D. It doesn't help our geeky image any when people communicate in C programming language also. But now I'm even more confused about where my argument went because if moisture doesn't equal water, then what's he think moisture is made up of?



			
				Chorn said:
			
		

> Nitpick.  It's not magical fire, but simply fire.  It's just that it doesn't happen to require air on the Plane of Fire because of the plane's very nature.



Any fire that doesn't need air is pretty magical to me


----------



## RandomPrecision (Jun 13, 2005)

Oryan77 said:
			
		

> Well, like you pointed out from the SRD...apparently D&D fire doesn't require air..so I guess my theory is bull




Scientifically, magic doesn't exist...but it does in D&D. 



> Ya know, it's already embarassing enough that we play D&D. It doesn't help our geeky image any when people communicate in C programming language also.




Not to scare visitors away, and not to be rude, but if you're embarrassed about playing D&D, maybe this isn't the place for you.

Put yourself in a freezer and chill.


----------



## Elephant (Jun 13, 2005)

Just rule that Horrid Wilting removes some of the volume of flame from the Fire ele and run with it.


----------



## apesamongus (Jun 13, 2005)

RandomPrecision said:
			
		

> Not to scare visitors away, and not to be rude, but if you're embarrassed about playing D&D, maybe this isn't the place for you.



I'd have to say that if you're not at least a little embarrassed about playing D&D, then maybe Earth isn't the place for you.


----------



## Scion (Jun 13, 2005)

Oryan77 said:
			
		

> Huh? Yeah, that's what I'm saying, moisture = water, therefore, you can't have a 2nd element in a "FIRE" elemental. Where exactly did that arguement go?




It was already explained, but '!=' is 'not equal'. Also, this is used quite a bit in online forums, so I am glad that I have helped you understand a bit more of the internet culture. Sure, not everyone uses it, but it is used often enough that knowing what it means is fairly important.

Also, as to why your arguement goes away, is because not all moisture is water. Moisture can be any fluid that can condensate somewhere, somehow. So, as I said in my very first post, 



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> So elementals are living creatures, and might have some fluid like substance keeping them together on some level.






			
				Oryan77 said:
			
		

> The original poster asked for advice. I'm just pointing out what a Fire Elemental is. If you want to make a Fire Elemental be a half-breed in your game and allow Horrid Wilting to suck water from a *Fire* Elemental, then whatever. I'm just saying that it doesn't make sense...especially when fire doesn't even store water; fire feeds from air (and which has been pointed out in the SRD, the fire element doesn't even need air to fuel it). So again, fire evaporates water, so why would there be water in a Fire Elemental for Horrid Wilting to affect?




It doesnt make sense to you when you bring in a bunch of nonsense that has nothing to do with the game.

Thats fine though, to you it doesnt make sense so you would go with it not working.

But, it can easily be said to make sense while still being within the raw (in fact, it is very within the raw and well outside of your 'half-breed' statement which you are making up wholecloth.

Once again though, Moisture is not the same as Water. If water is somewhere you can say that it is moisture, but if someone tells you that there is moisture over somewhere that does not mean that it is water. It 'might' be, but it is not a definate.


----------



## Scion (Jun 13, 2005)

apesamongus said:
			
		

> I'd have to say that if you're not at least a little embarrassed about playing D&D, then maybe Earth isn't the place for you.





I suppose anyone can feel embarassed about doing anything, but that does not make it healthy.


----------



## Nail (Jun 13, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> .....dropping it on people in the middle of combat seems like a poor move ......



Exactly.

House rules are fine....as long as they don't happen in the middle of a crucial scene in-game.

The _Horrid Wilting_ works on fire elementals.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jun 13, 2005)

No one said that this scene was crucial, though.


----------



## Scion (Jun 13, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> No one said that this scene was crucial, though.




Wasting a round at high levels can make or break an entire combat, not to mention the high level spell gone


----------



## Nail (Jun 13, 2005)

Oooooo....good point.  Perhaps I should have said "in the middle of combat, or during a crucial scence outside of combat".

Depending on circumstances and PCs, evn allowing the Wizard to cast a different spell might not be fair.  Suppose he memorized this spell for this particular circumstance?


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 13, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> No one said that this scene was crucial, though.




Do PCs routinely drop high level spells on non-crucial encounters? I'm not saying it isn't possible, but I think it unlikely at least, for non-epic games.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jun 13, 2005)

True, but how about if this was merely a random encounter with a few Small fire elementals?  Sure, HW seems like overkill, but maybe the player just wanted to 'test' his new high level spell.  The encounter could be totally useless for the story. 

Anyway, I agree with the spirit of your point.  Don't make houserules at crucial junctions unless absolutely necessary or unless the players agree right then and there.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jun 13, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Do PCs routinely drop high level spells on non-crucial encounters? I'm not saying it isn't possible, but I think it unlikely at least, for non-epic games.



 Beats me, it's not my game.  I was trying not to judge 'em, though.  IMC, yes, sometimes.  Believe it or not, it's quite fun when the Archmage uses pristmatic spray on a group of orcs.


----------



## Voadam (Jun 13, 2005)

I think under RAW it should work but it is a reasonable house rule based on the flavor descriptions of the spell and what elementals are.

As a PC I would not be sure that a spell with the description of horrid wilting would work against a non water elemental and would be fine with finding it did not work.


----------



## Nail (Jun 13, 2005)

.......or Meteor Swarm.  

Additionally: Some of my players just agree with whatever I (the DM) say; they want the game to go on, and don't care much about rule-lawyering.  In this case, I try not to house rule at all within the game....'cause they might agree with anything just to get the game moving.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 13, 2005)

I'm pretty sure that with my gaming group this wouldn't pass the 'does it make sense?' test. I'd rule that the fire elementals were unaffected in this case and the PCs would learn by experience. Just like they learn by experience that devils are immune to fire. The PCs play in a world that doesn't include the monster manual and the PHB, they know how a spell 'ought' to work, but until they use it in anger they don't really know what effect it wil have on any given creature - they don't know about resistances or vulnerabilities until they experience it or manage a knowledge check (which I base on the old rarity values of a creature rather than HD, CR or somesuch. More is known about more common creatures, less about rare creatures.)

Cheers


----------



## werk (Jun 13, 2005)

I would allow it to work.

Horrid Wilting's only stipulation is that it be a living creature.  Fire elemental, is a living creature (SRD:Unlike most other *living creatures*, an elemental does not have a dual nature—its soul and body form one unit. When an elemental is slain, no soul is set loose.)

Don't make it hard on yourself by adding 'sense' to the equation.  It doesn't have to make sense, and when you try to make sense out of it it becomes subjective.


----------



## Oryan77 (Jun 13, 2005)

apesamongus said:
			
		

> I'd have to say that if you're not at least a little embarrassed about playing D&D, then maybe Earth isn't the place for you.




I was only joking about my comment of D&D being embarassing, so I had no response to the poster that couldn't take a joke. But your response is hilarious. Thanks for the laugh this morning 




			
				Scion said:
			
		

> It doesnt make sense to you when you bring in a bunch of nonsense that has nothing to do with the game.




You're calling common sense "nonsense"? Yeah, I can see this conversation is a waste of time. But I'll amuse you. I have given you substantial *facts* as to why Horrid Wilting wouldn't work on a *Fire* Elemental. You've given nothing to back up your ruling except assumptions that a Fire Elemental "might" have another element to it that consists of moisture. Which as far as I'm concerned, another element added to an elemental makes it something besides a pure elemental.  



			
				dictionary.com said:
			
		

> Moisture,
> 1. Diffuse wetness that can be felt as vapor in the atmosphere or condensed liquid on the surfaces of objects; dampness.
> 2. The state or quality of being damp.
> 3. Wetness caused by water; "drops of wet gleamed on the window"




Does a Fire Elemental need fuel? No, it is pure fire. Therefore, why would it consist of any moisturized substance? 
1. Can the moisture be a vapor in the air? Sure, but fire evaporates moisture in the air. So there's no vapors inside fire.
2. Can fire be damp? No, it would be a miracle for someone to produce a moist flame.
3. Can fire have wetness caused by water? No, fire evaporates water.
What happens to fire when moisture is taken away from the air or the burning object? The fire grows! So as someone said before, if anything, Horrid Wilting would benefit a Fire Elemental before it would harm it.

This is all basic grade school science. Basing the spell off of common sense and what the D&D definition of how the elements work; I have a more logical answer to the question than anything you've provided. I can agree, the description of a Fire Elemental isn't clear, "A mass of flames flikering around a humanoid-shaped conflagration"...we don't know if the humanoid shape is still pure fire, or if it's like shaped lava. But even if it's lava, there's no moisture there. There's no gas because the flames don't need fuel.

Horrid Wilting is meant to be used to dry up plant substances that contain water. That's why it's called "wilting". Fire rages when you remove moisture from burning wood. Instead of being so quick to call someone wrong; why don't you use some common sense and think about what you're saying. Anyway, if you want to make a Napalm Elemental, go right ahead and have Horrid Wilting harm it, it's your game.

Doh, there goes your whole nonsense argument  :\


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 13, 2005)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Just like they learn by experience that devils are immune to fire. The PCs play in a world that doesn't include the monster manual and the PHB, they know how a spell 'ought' to work, but until they use it in anger they don't really know what effect it wil have on any given creature - they don't know about resistances or vulnerabilities until they experience it or manage a knowledge check (which I base on the old rarity values of a creature rather than HD, CR or somesuch. More is known about more common creatures, less about rare creatures.)




I know many people would disagree with me on this, but I see a great difference between changing how monsters work outside of a game and changing how they work during the game. If someone wants to change it so that earth, fire, and water elementals are immune to_ Horrid Wilting_, or even make fire elementals that are immune to all damaging spells except water based or cold based ones, then that's their perogative, as long as they give the PCs a fair shake at learning said information in character during the game.

But, changing things on the fly because they don't make sense at that particular point in time, when the DM is in the middle of making several different decisions, maybe thinking ahead to the next encounter, or trying to figure out what to do after the PCs did something completely off the wall earlier, or even just keeping track of hit points for multiple monsters, is not a good time to be making decisions like "monster X should be immune to spell Y."

Also, my philosophy is that when the rules and common sense collide, change your common sense. The rules are much better balanced than common sense is most of the time. When I head to play D&D, I leave all my knowlege of science at the door.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Jun 13, 2005)

I'd agree with this if you were talking about writing the appropriate code in for combats in _Neverwinter Nights_, but not in a live-table game situation. There is absolutely NO question in my mind that I would never, EVER penalize a player by allowing him to waste an action on something that was perfectly legal by the RAW, but that I had decided just "didn't make sense." However, I might well decide to warn him before he cast the HW spell that it probably wouldn't work on a fire elemental, such a creature having no moisture in its body (in my game universe, anyway), et cetera. I would allow him to choose another spell. Nor do I think that this is particularly unfair. Unless the player prepared the HW spell with the specific idea in mind of using it against fire elementals, this is no different from a PC with _cone of cold_ prepared running across a gelugon. The PC might say, "Hmm, should I use this against a devil? Most devils are affected by cold," and I might say, "Y'know, Dave, they are called _ice_ devils in common parlance for a reason." 

In short, I wouldn't require a Knowledge check in a situation like this, nor would I force the player to waste an action, but determining in the middle of combat, _before the PC uses his action_, that a particular action isn't going to have the desired effect even though the RAW says it will but because common sense says it won't, is reasonable DM conduct in my book. I also don't play with any rules lawyers, so this situation would be unlikely to cause any effect other than my wizard player nodding and saying "Yeah, I guess that makes sense. Okay, I throw a _prismatic spray_ at it instead."


----------



## Nail (Jun 13, 2005)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> .....Unless the player prepared the HW spell with the specific idea in mind of using it against fire elementals, ......



Exactly my point.

How do you (the DM) know?  You might not.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 13, 2005)

A wizard who picked it randomly for the day not knowing what he was going to run into is one story; a sorcerer who picked the spell as their only known one thinking it worked on elementals, outsiders, and other various creatures is another.

Obviously, the importance of the ruling is going to vary greatly from situation to situation.


----------



## Trainz (Jun 13, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> Exactly my point.
> 
> How do you (the DM) know?  You might not.




Well, they didn't prepare the spell with an elemental encounter in mind, they had no way of knowing it was coming. They prepared it as a generic attack spell.

When they cast it, it just felt wrong that a fire elem could be harmed by it. I made a ruling, giving the option to the player to change his mind, but he went ahead and did it anyways (they were facing 4 elems, one of each type, elemental monoliths actually). They did reg dmg on the earth and air one, and REALLY hurt the water one.

Isn't the fact that the spell does more damage on water elems a good indicator that it shouldn't harm the fire elem ?


----------



## Nail (Jun 13, 2005)

Oryan77 said:
			
		

> You're calling common sense "nonsense"?




Common sense is based on real world experience.

Where in your real world expereince have you encountered a fire elemental?



Moreover, in the real world, fire _does_ have "moisture" within it.  Combustion (of hydrocarbons) always produces carbon dioxide and water (given excess reactants).  Just ask my Intro. Chem. students.  



			
				Oryan77 said:
			
		

> I have given you substantial *facts* as to why Horrid Wilting wouldn't work on a *Fire* Elemental. You've given nothing to back up your ruling except assumptions that a Fire Elemental "might" have another element to it that consists of moisture.



Bud:  there are no "facts" in this case beyond the RAW.  All else is subject to DM whim and fiat.  Since you've avoided RAW, you have given _NO_ facts.  Sorry.

Scion is putting forth a possible interpretation.  It is no less correct than yours....except that his is based off of RAW, and yours isn't.

Who's "_given nothing to back up your ruling except assumptions_", again?


----------



## Nail (Jun 13, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Obviously, the importance of the ruling is going to vary greatly from situation to situation.



Obviously.


----------



## Nail (Jun 13, 2005)

Trainz said:
			
		

> Isn't the fact that the spell does more damage on water elems a good indicator that it shouldn't harm the fire elem ?



<shrug>  Not really.  _Energy Drain_ doesn't give UD extra HD either.  There are lots of issues like these...and the key is: _There are satisfactory ways of explaining these apparent inconsistancies._

House rules are (practically always) simply a matter of taste, not necessity.  As such, they shouldn't be introduced mid-game-session.  (As always, YMMV.)


----------



## Voadam (Jun 13, 2005)

*for reference*

Horrid Wilting
Necromancy
Level: Sor/Wiz 8, Water 8
Components: V, S, M/DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
Targets: Living creatures, no two of which can be more than 60 ft. apart
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Fortitude half
Spell Resistance: Yes
This spell evaporates moisture from the body of each subject living creature, dealing 1d6 points of damage per caster level (maximum 20d6). This spell is especially devastating to water elementals and plant creatures, which instead take 1d8 points of damage per caster level (maximum 20d8).
Arcane Material Component: A bit of sponge.


----------



## Voadam (Jun 13, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> Moreover, in the real world, fire _does_ have "moisture" within it.  Combustion (of hydrocarbons) always produces carbon dioxide and water (given excess reactants).  Just ask my Intro. Chem. students.




So if the fire source is impure there will be moisture from excess reactants. But if there are no excess reactants such as from pure elemental fire?


----------



## Trainz (Jun 13, 2005)

Thanks for the quote Voadam.



			
				Voadam said:
			
		

> This spell evaporates moisture from the body of each subject living creature




Hah. See ? Evaporates moisture from the body of living creatures. If there's no moisture in the living creature's body, there is nothing to evaporate.

That's not house ruling, that's reading the text and applying it.


----------



## Oryan77 (Jun 13, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> Where in your real world expereince have you encountered a fire elemental?




Yeah, I've never encountered a fire elemental...but I've encountered plenty of Fat Elementals. I've fought plenty of them within the last year and I'm finally down 10 lbs.




			
				Nail said:
			
		

> Moreover, in the real world, fire _does_ have "moisture" within it.  Combustion (of hydrocarbons) always produces carbon dioxide and water (given excess reactants).  Just ask my Intro. Chem. students.




So you're saying that fire produces moisture within itself which you could then actually dehydrate the flame and it would extinguish itself? That's news to me. I always learned that the dehydration of moisture causes fire to burn even more.


----------



## Voadam (Jun 13, 2005)

werk said:
			
		

> I would allow it to work.
> 
> Horrid Wilting's only stipulation is that it be a living creature.  Fire elemental, is a living creature (SRD:Unlike most other *living creatures*, an elemental does not have a dual nature—its soul and body form one unit. When an elemental is slain, no soul is set loose.)
> 
> Don't make it hard on yourself by adding 'sense' to the equation.  It doesn't have to make sense, and when you try to make sense out of it it becomes subjective.




Its not hard to make this house rule adjustment. It doesn't have to make sense for the game to work, but it might be cooler to have themed spells and monster work according to their flavor descriptions rather than a strict appliation of RAW.

It is a water draining spell, having it not work on non-water elementals seems thematically fine.

It seems to me you have to work hard to make it fit descriptively in affecting fire elementals and ultimately say, "that's the way it works because of how the rules work." which isn't as satisfying when trying to present an in game explanation.


----------



## Oryan77 (Jun 13, 2005)

Trainz said:
			
		

> Thanks for the quote Voadam.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yeah, I've been saying that the whole time. A Fire Elemental can't have moisture or it would no longer be "ONE" element to that creature. Like Voadam said, it wouldn't be pure fire.



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> "Elemental Type: An elemental is a being composed of *one* of the four classical elements: air, earth, fire, or water."


----------



## Nail (Jun 13, 2005)

Oryan77 said:
			
		

> Yeah, I've never encountered a fire elemental...but I've encountered plenty of Fat Elementals. I've fought plenty of them within the last year and I'm finally down 10 lbs.



  Yeowch.  Good job!   



			
				Oryan77 said:
			
		

> I always learned that the dehydration of moisture causes fire to burn even more.



Yep, you've got it right.  As you remove the compounds that are products of a reaction (even if they were not formed by the reaction), the reactants tend to react faster.

i.e. "dry wood burns more quickly than wet wood" and "burning the wood produces water vapor".

Then again, we've all been agreeing that Fire Elementals don't need anything to burn.  So all of this real-world science (a.k.a. Common Sense) goes flying out the window.


----------



## werk (Jun 13, 2005)

Trainz said:
			
		

> If there's no moisture in the living creature's body, there is nothing to evaporate.
> 
> That's not house ruling, that's reading the text and applying it.




The house rule is that there is no moisture (or any variable) in the target creature.


----------



## Nail (Jun 13, 2005)

We could, I suppose, posit that the "moisture" need not be water.


----------



## werk (Jun 13, 2005)

This argument is RAW vs. interpretation.  No one can overcome interpretation, as it is subjective and therefor always 'correct' to the interpreter.

RAW baby!


----------



## Scion (Jun 13, 2005)

Trainz said:
			
		

> See ? Evaporates moisture from the body of living creatures. If there's no moisture in the living creature's body, there is nothing to evaporate.




As I said in my first post, it is just as easy to say that the elemental has some strange sort of fire-burning-moisture-like substance that qualifies.

One can rule either way, the players should be able to know ahead of time.

Personally, I'd let it work. I really dont see any overpowering reason not to. Living creatures with anatomies that we really have no idea about. Literally they cannot exist in our world as we currently understand it, so they are not bound to the laws of physics that we are.


----------



## Scion (Jun 13, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> We could, I suppose, posit that the "moisture" need not be water.




which is true. Moisture 'can' be water, but there is no requirement for it to be so. It could be like taking the oil out of a car, it doesnt run so well after that


----------



## Voadam (Jun 13, 2005)

werk said:
			
		

> The house rule is that there is no moisture (or any variable) in the target creature.




I don't see any rule that would indicate a fire elemental has moisture in its body.

A plausible rules interpretation of the elemental type would be that it has none, just the D&D element fire.


----------



## Voadam (Jun 13, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> which is true. Moisture 'can' be water, but there is no requirement for it to be so. It could be like taking the oil out of a car, it doesnt run so well after that




So it would work on constructs that have oil? Oh that's right they are not living creatures. Just animate non living material. Which is different from say an animate pure flame.


----------



## Scion (Jun 13, 2005)

Voadam said:
			
		

> they are not living creatures.




there is your answer, they fail at the primary requirement.


----------



## Nail (Jun 13, 2005)

Voadam said:
			
		

> A plausible rules interpretation of the elemental type would be that it has none, just the D&D element fire.



True.

Both are equally plausible.  Looking at _Horrid Wilting_, there's not an exception for Fire elementals, even though there _is _ an exception for water elementals.  So there's no compelling reason to say Fire Elementals have no moisture within them, other than personal taste.


----------



## Nail (Jun 13, 2005)

Mmmmmmmm.....tasting Fire Elementals.  Spicy!


----------



## Trainz (Jun 13, 2005)

I also agree that saying that a fire elemental has some kind of meta-fluid in it is actually the house-rule, not the norm.

By the book, the only indication that we have is that a fire elem is only... fire.


----------



## werk (Jun 13, 2005)

Voadam said:
			
		

> I don't see any rule that would indicate a fire elemental has moisture in its body.




I, likewise, see no rule that says there is no moisture.  Prove me wrong.

In the absence of a rule to the contrary play it as written.  So allow it.


----------



## werk (Jun 13, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> there is your answer, they fail at the primary requirement.




It says in the description of an elemental that they are living creatures.


edit: I hate pronouns...


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jun 13, 2005)

werk said:
			
		

> It says in the description of an elemental that they are living creatures.
> Try again.



 But, Scion was referring to Voadam's comment regarding constructs.  They are not living, unless you are talking about special constructs.


----------



## Goolpsy (Jun 13, 2005)

Remember that horrid wilting, can hit the players too


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jun 13, 2005)

Trainz said:
			
		

> I also agree that saying that a fire elemental has some kind of meta-fluid in it is actually the house-rule, not the norm.




I disagree.

It is entirely possible that a fire elemental's body is made up, in part, of "liquid fire," just like the Elemental Plane of Fire has regions in which fire flows.

Is it water?  No.

Does that make it "not moisture"?  Not necessarily.


----------



## Voadam (Jun 13, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> True.
> 
> Both are equally plausible.  Looking at _Horrid Wilting_, there's not an exception for Fire elementals, even though there _is _ an exception for water elementals.  So there's no compelling reason to say Fire Elementals have no moisture within them, other than personal taste.




There is no explicit description of the moisture content of fire elementals. The spell just says it drains moisture from living creatures. No rule explicitly addresses whether fire elementals have "moisture".

So there is no compelling reason to say fire elementals have moisture or do not have moisture in their bodies, other than personal taste.


----------



## Voadam (Jun 13, 2005)

werk said:
			
		

> I, likewise, see no rule that says there is no moisture.  Prove me wrong.
> 
> In the absence of a rule to the contrary play it as written.  So allow it.




As written it says it drains moisture. So what happens if the living creature target has no moisture? As written I would have to say no damage.

So the DM must make a judgment call on whether fire elementals have moisture in their bodies. No rules cover this judgment call. Either way seems a valid call. So allowing it or not, either is a valid choice.


----------



## Nail (Jun 13, 2005)

@ Voadam: Yep. 

 'Cept some might argue that since "moisture" isn't a game term, it's flavor text.  Being a living creature _is_ a game term, and therefore takes precedence.


----------



## werk (Jun 13, 2005)

Voadam said:
			
		

> So what happens if the living creature target has no moisture?



That is the issue.
Assume all living creatures have moisture, since nothing says otherwise.
HW is especially devastating to water elementals and plants (note that it doesn't say why).  Maybe it is not because they have more or less moisture, but rather that they can't regulate moisture level as well and non-water-based creatures.  It doesn't say, so it's not important, and you should not draw further conclusions.  You (figurative you) are hung up on how the spell works mechanically (sensibly) on the moisture of different creatures, which is not explained at all, really.  It just works, and has the described effect.

This can go around and around, but if you just play it as written, there is no confusion.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jun 13, 2005)

OK -- so I just read through this whole thread and wonder if this is much ado about nothing.  My personal interpretation may (and likely will) differ from others on this board, but doesn't negate the fact that as a DM, I would choose to adjudicate that use of horid wilting to be inefective.  Again, this is my personal interpretation.  My point here is that if I rule on this during combat, this is not generating a new "house rule", but simply judging a situation to work a certain way because not EVERYTHING can be determined by RAW.  Why do I need to "house rule" this?  Does this mean that every single personal decision I make as a DM, like fudging dice in favor of the players, needs to be documented and made law?

I am glad I don't have any rules lawyers in my game...

I like what Plane Sailing said....



			
				Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure that with my gaming group this wouldn't pass the 'does it make sense?' test. I'd rule that the fire elementals were unaffected in this case and the PCs would learn by experience. Just like they learn by experience that devils are immune to fire. The PCs play in a world that doesn't include the monster manual and the PHB, they know how a spell 'ought' to work, but until they use it in anger they don't really know what effect it wil have on any given creature - they don't know about resistances or vulnerabilities until they experience it or manage a knowledge check (which I base on the old rarity values of a creature rather than HD, CR or somesuch. More is known about more common creatures, less about rare creatures.)




This is a reasonable and understandable decision that -- as the DM -- I would make.  My players would understand since I don't just kill them for no reason and I act fairly in their favor most of the time anyway.

catsclaw


----------



## James Heard (Jun 13, 2005)

Fire elementals have firewater in their sooty, fiery veins of course. That's why all my goblin injuns seek them out and slay them in such great numbers.

If you dismissed the flavor text or reduced the text to its essentials the RAW allow for the spell to be used against elementals, I'd rule that you could sweat _something_ out of an elemental and just hope my Spellcraft/Knowledge(Planes) 30+ players didn't start asking specific questions. Basically I think it's just common sense that if they're living creatures, and you look at the way Shadow creatures are set up, that elementals of all types operate basically like pigs, sheep, goats, & bears would if they too were formed on planes where the only essential qualifier involved was some magical variant of the regular stuff of life with the [element] descriptor involved.


----------



## Oryan77 (Jun 14, 2005)

I wonder if Salt Elementals have anything to say about dying from a Horrid Wilting spell evaporating "moisture" from their body. Afterall, it's a living creature also.


----------



## Kilroy (Jun 14, 2005)

Devin Cole said:
			
		

> This thread has given me a really stupid idea, which means that it will most likely show up in my campaign soon knowing my players A new spell against fire elementals Abi Dazim's Horrid soaking......fills the subjects body with fluids.....fire elementals beware




Piratecat beat you to it. ;-)


----------



## Nail (Jun 14, 2005)

catsclaw227 said:
			
		

> My players would understand since I don't just kill them for no reason and I act fairly in their favor most of the time anyway.



Sounds like you've got good players.  Good job!


----------



## Nail (Jun 14, 2005)

Oryan77 said:
			
		

> I wonder if Salt Elementals have anything to say about dying from a Horrid Wilting spell evaporating "moisture" from their body. Afterall, it's a living creature also.



Not much.....cause they'd be dead.   Since they have no souls, they simply cease to be, so no moaning on and on in the afterlife either.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Jun 14, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> Exactly my point.
> 
> How do you (the DM) know?  You might not.



_Might_ not, to be sure, but IMG we have a good deal of table talk, and in any case I trust my players well enough that I can reasonably expect one to say "But I prepared that spell specifically to use against fire elementals!" and know it's not a bald-faced lie. I might suggest as an alternative in games in which this is NOT the case that the player be allowed to swap out the HW spell and pick another spell of his choosing.


----------



## Nail (Jun 14, 2005)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> ...in any case I trust my players well enough .....



Good.  Mine too, frankly.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jun 14, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> 3. Personally I'm a RBDM at least to an extent.  One thing I do that's anathema on Rules Forum is nerf any spell I think is overpowered - eg IMC Horrid Wilting centres on the caster and affects at most 1 creature per caster level.  Even with that it' still overpowered compared to Meteor Swarm IMO.



You realise, right, that meteor swarm does 24d6 area damage to horrid wilting's maximum possible 20d6, and further can do 32d6 to a single target with no save, in addition to the area effect?

I don't really see how it can be flatly ruled to be an inferior spell...


----------



## Elephant (Jun 14, 2005)

Oryan77 said:
			
		

> This is all basic grade school science.




No, no, no, no, NO, NO, NO!  Do NOT start down that path; mixing D&D and physics leads only to pain.


----------



## James Heard (Jun 14, 2005)

> No, no, no, no, NO, NO, NO! Do NOT start down that path; mixing D&D and physics leads only to pain.



And more importantly it leads to bad physics and bad D&D, because good game design arbitrarily scoffs at physics and physics wasn't discovered for the benefit of gamers. Though, I admit, that would be cool.

"And after we cleared it with Gygax, we decided that the Earth did indeed revolve around the Sun."


----------



## Oryan77 (Jun 14, 2005)

Elephant said:
			
		

> No, no, no, no, NO, NO, NO!  Do NOT start down that path; mixing D&D and physics leads only to pain.




I find that it mixes just fine when I'm DM'ing my games. The time it never seems to mix is when I'm in an online discussion about D&D with random gamers. Go figure


----------



## S'mon (Jun 14, 2005)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> You realise, right, that meteor swarm does 24d6 area damage to horrid wilting's maximum possible 20d6, and further can do 32d6 to a single target with no save, in addition to the area effect?
> 
> I don't really see how it can be flatly ruled to be an inferior spell...




Horrid Wilting lets you choose your targets, which is a huge benefit in a melee - you can repeatedly HW the bad guys & leave your fighters unaffected.  If HW were just a burst/spread like fireball that could hurt friends it maybe wouldn't be overpowered, although not being an energy damage spell makes it far far better than a equivalent fire or other energy spell in high level play.  Given these 2 advantages and how I've seen both spells work in play, I say HW is more powerful in a typical scenario.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 14, 2005)

Oryan77 said:
			
		

> I find that it mixes just fine when I'm DM'ing my games. The time it never seems to mix is when I'm in an online discussion about D&D with random gamers. Go figure




I think it's just the Rules Forum.  It's full of freaks.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Jun 14, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> I think it's just the Rules Forum.  It's full of freaks.




Hey, who you're calling a freak, buddy? You don't wanna make me assemble my death elven killer squad and pay a visit to your cave, you goblin! 


;-)



			
				Elephant said:
			
		

> No, no, no, no, NO, NO, NO!  Do NOT start down that path; mixing D&D and physics leads only to pain.




Physics leads to Inconsistency.
Inconsistency leads to Anger.
Anger leads to suffering.


I have to concur. Physics have no place in D&D. Either you slow down the game so much that even a fight between level 1 characters takes an hour real time for one round of game time (and I haven't spoken of high-level magic just yet) or it gets inconsistent to the point of bein ridiculous. 

We'll have stuff like fireball spells that use up all their space, and then you either have to calculate the exact dimensions of that thing (taking into account all obstacles and all that crap) or you make a half-hearted attempt and get situations where a ceiling will mean that the wave of fire comes back from a ceiling but not from the floor.

We'll have to consider what happens when you have a fire elemental in a closed room (it would use up all the air pretty quickly)

We'd have to figure out the actual reach and speed factor of all weapons, and modifiers for arm length and stuff like that.

You'd have to get rid of hit points and introduce hit zones and stuff like that. "Let's see: we rolled a 27 and a 68 and a 44 on your hit location. He's 5'5" and you're 6'2", that means that you have hit his colon."


----------



## glass (Jun 14, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> I think it's just the Rules Forum.  It's full of freaks.




Some of us freaks visit all the main forums.   


glass.


----------



## werk (Jun 14, 2005)

Voadam said:
			
		

> As written it says it drains moisture. So what happens if the living creature target has no moisture? As written I would have to say no damage.
> 
> So the DM must make a judgment call on whether fire elementals have moisture in their bodies. No rules cover this judgment call. Either way seems a valid call. So allowing it or not, either is a valid choice.




No, the DM can play it as written, which means it would work on fire elementals as well as orcs.

The judgement call is whether or not to make a judgement call.  Don't you see how you are confounding yourself by calling into question the relative moisture content of creatures?


----------



## Trainz (Jun 14, 2005)

werk said:
			
		

> No, the DM can play it as written, which means it would work on fire elementals as well as orcs.
> 
> The judgement call is whether or not to make a judgement call.  Don't you see how you are confounding yourself by calling into question the relative moisture content of creatures?




The spell removes moisture.

Physics or no physics, it doesn't make sense to have moisture inside a being made of pure fire.

That's all.


----------



## werk (Jun 14, 2005)

Trainz said:
			
		

> The spell removes moisture.
> 
> Physics or no physics, it doesn't make sense to have moisture inside a being made of pure fire.
> 
> That's all.





Elementals are incarnations of the elements that they represent.  Where do you see that they are made entirely of pure fire (and no moisture)?

It says it has a flaming body, but that doesn't mean 'made out of flame' to me...

You are thinking too much


----------



## Voadam (Jun 14, 2005)

werk said:
			
		

> That is the issue.
> Assume all living creatures have moisture, since nothing says otherwise.
> HW is especially devastating to water elementals and plants (note that it doesn't say why).  Maybe it is not because they have more or less moisture, but rather that they can't regulate moisture level as well and non-water-based creatures.  It doesn't say, so it's not important, and you should not draw further conclusions.  You (figurative you) are hung up on how the spell works mechanically (sensibly) on the moisture of different creatures, which is not explained at all, really.  It just works, and has the described effect.
> 
> This can go around and around, but if you just play it as written, there is no confusion.




If you assume the moisture part of the description of the spell _as written _ has no effect or assume that all living creatures have moisture, then yes, as written it affects all living creatures without exception.

Those are not necessary assumptions under RAW though. Or necessarily desirable in running a flavorful RPG with magic and elementals. And saying a person reading the moisture part of the spell description _as written _ has no reason to be confused on its application to a fire elemental is disingenuous.


----------



## Voadam (Jun 14, 2005)

werk said:
			
		

> No, the DM can play it as written, which means it would work on fire elementals as well as orcs.
> 
> The judgement call is whether or not to make a judgement call.  Don't you see how you are confounding yourself by calling into question the relative moisture content of creatures?




Yes, a DM must make a judgment call on whether or not the moisture part of the spell description can have a game effect and then decide whether in his judgment a fire elemental has any moisture in it.

No I don't see that I am confounding myself at all.

It appears to be an ambiguous rules situation with conflicting reasonable calls that a DM could make without conflicting with any RAW.

An unambiguous rules situation would be if there was only one explanation without conflicting with any RAW.


----------



## Voadam (Jun 14, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> @ Voadam: Yep.
> 
> 'Cept some might argue that since "moisture" isn't a game term, it's flavor text.  Being a living creature _is_ a game term, and therefore takes precedence.




You can reasonably say that moisture isn't a general game term and has no rule effect other than describing the spell effect.

However you can also reasonably argue that since it is in the spell description it is a game term that limits the effects of the spell and that can exist side by side with the spell's limitation to living creatures.


----------



## werk (Jun 14, 2005)

Voadam said:
			
		

> You can reasonably say that moisture isn't a general game term and has no rule effect other than describing the spell effect.



yes 







> However you can also reasonably argue that since it is in the spell description it is a game term that limits the effects of the spell and that can exist side by side with the spell's limitation to living creatures.




No.  The spell description does not say that moisture content of the target is limiting.  You are inferring that because it lists water elms and plants you think the effectiveness of the spell is based on moisture level, which is not stated.

Bottom line, it's an 8th level spell, it's supposed to be powerful.  If you are going to make the spell subjective to moisture content of the target, you're making a mess for yourself (and worse, for your caster).  My friendly advice is to resist the urge to use logic.  Using logic only leads to every decision being subjective to the decision maker...which is unpredictable at best.

Come from a different angle...I see your argument, it's very clear and sensible, but I think that it causes issues when applied.

Can you find a way to explain why it *would* work on fire elementals?  Something that would be acceptable to you.  If you can explain it to yourself, you'll probably decide that is a good enough explanation to avoid on-the-fly rulings about moisture level of targets in the future.


----------



## Chacal (Jun 14, 2005)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure that with my gaming group this wouldn't pass the 'does it make sense?' test. I'd rule that the fire elementals were unaffected in this case and the PCs would learn by experience.
> Cheers



I'd rule exactly this way, using the same assumptions about the game.



Chacal


----------



## Nail (Jun 14, 2005)

Voadam said:
			
		

> However you can also reasonably argue that since it is in the spell description it is a game term that limits the effects of the spell and that can exist side by side with the spell's limitation to living creatures.



I agree.

Two points: 
  #1) The spell works fine as written.  As written, the spell works on all living creatures, and does not require an evaluation of the being's moisture content.  

  #2) Should you change this in your game, allow a bit of wiggle room for your players.  It sounds like most of us do that.


As a complete tangent off into real world chemistry:  It is possible to extract water from something than has no water molecules in it.  It's called a decomposition reaction, and my Intro. Chem. students just completed one such experiment this morning.

In other words, it's possible to remove moisture from a creature that has no moisture by decomposing it's constituent compounds.  Just think of the damage that would cause!


----------



## Voadam (Jun 14, 2005)

werk said:
			
		

> yes
> 
> No.  The spell description does not say that moisture content of the target is limiting.  You are inferring that because it lists water elms and plants you think the effectiveness of the spell is based on moisture level, which is not stated.




Actually you are incorrectly assuming that is the basis of my conclusion. I am not basing it off of the water elemental part but the first sentence of the spell "*This spell evaporates moisture * from the body of each subject living creature, *dealing * 1d6 points of *damage* per caster level (maximum 20d6)." 

So it says explicitly that it is the evaporation of moisture from the body of the subject that deals the damage.

My inference is that if there is no moisture in the living body of the target for the spell to evaporate then there is nothing dealing damage from the spell.

Similarly I think it also looks like any living creature without a body is not affected (incorporeal comes to mind for bodiless creatures though no living incorporeals as examples do).


----------



## Voadam (Jun 14, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> As a complete tangent off into real world chemistry:  It is possible to extract water from something than has no water molecules in it.  It's called a decomposition reaction, and my Intro. Chem. students just completed one such experiment this morning.
> 
> In other words, it's possible to remove moisture from a creature that has no moisture by decomposing it's constituent compounds.  Just think of the damage that would cause!




Is that extraction an evaporation process?


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jun 14, 2005)

Maybe the spell should be revised:

Horrid Damage
Necromancy
Level: Sor/Wiz 8, Water 8
Components: V, S, M/DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
Targets: Living creatures, no two of which can be more than 60 ft. apart
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Fortitude half
Spell Resistance: Yes
This spell deals 1d6 points of damage per caster level (maximum 20d6). This spell is especially devastating to water elementals and plant creatures, which instead take 1d8 points of damage per caster level (maximum 20d8).
Arcane Material Component: A bit of sponge.


Maybe this would clarify things for everyone.   Who cares if there's no explanation why water elementals and plants are more greatly affected, since physics/chemistry/real-life don't apply anyway right?

Catsclaw


----------



## Trainz (Jun 14, 2005)

catsclaw227 said:
			
		

> Maybe this would clarify things for everyone.   Who cares if there's no explanation why water elementals and plants are more greatly affected, since physics/chemistry/real-life don't apply anyway right?




Who needs fluff, huh ? Why not just flip a coin to determine if the party wins or looses ?     

I personally think that the spell is quite fine as is. There is no doubt in my mind that it is not effective against critters with absolutely no water in them.

The idea of a spell that kills by dehydrating it's victim is quite horrendeous and delightful. Replace it by a spell with no description and you loose interest.

While we're at it, lets rewrite other spells:

1st level spell _Minor Damage_: This spell inflicts 1d4+1 damage per two levels, max 5d4+4.
3rd level spell _Medium Damage_: This spell inflicts 1d6/level damage on all critters in a 20' radius, ref save for half.
5th level spell _Improved Damage_: This spell inflicts 1d6/level damage in a cone, max 15d6, ref save for half.
8th level spell _Major Damage_: This spell inflicts 1d6/level damage, max 20d6, to all enemy critters.

Again, just kidding:


----------



## James Heard (Jun 14, 2005)

I wouldn't be - that would be a fine way to do the spells too.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 14, 2005)

Does it do more damage to camels?

Does it do less - or no - damage to warforged?

Does it do more damage to amphibians?

Are Galeb Duhr (rock people) immune to it?

Are aquatic beings more damaged by it?

Are Lantern Archons immune to it?


----------



## werk (Jun 14, 2005)

catsclaw227 said:
			
		

> Maybe the spell should be revised:
> Maybe this would clarify things for everyone.   Who cares if there's no explanation why water elementals and plants are more greatly affected, since physics/chemistry/real-life don't apply anyway right?
> 
> Catsclaw




Heh, I love you


----------



## Scion (Jun 14, 2005)

Trainz said:
			
		

> There is no doubt in my mind that it is not effective against critters with absolutely no water in them.




Note: the spell doesnt care if it is water or not, it only states 'moisture'.

So, yes, it is definately effective against some creatures who have absolutely no water in them, so long as they have some sort of substance which can somehow be considered 'moisture'.

Also note thirdwizards various examples that can cause further issues.


----------



## Nail (Jun 14, 2005)

Voadam said:
			
		

> Is that extraction an evaporation process?



Considering the lay-man's use of the term "evaporation", I'd say yes.  

In RL Chem?  Absolutely not; it's often an aqueous process.


----------



## Voadam (Jun 14, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Does it do more damage to camels?
> 
> Does it do less - or no - damage to warforged?
> 
> ...





Binary yes/no questions

Are they living creatures (warforged are constructs right?)

Do they have bodies (I'd have to look up lantern archons)

Do they have moisture in their bodies? (judgment call on galeb duhr after looking them up, don't know off the top of my head)

Are they water elementals or plants?

That is, of course, if you are sticking to the spell as written


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 14, 2005)

Voadam said:
			
		

> Are they living creatures (warforged are constructs right?)




Warforged are "living constructs." They're made out of various bits of things, in unspecified quantities.



> Do they have bodies (I'd have to look up lantern archons)




"Lantern archons appear as floating balls of light that glow about as brightly as a torch. Only their destruction can extinguish the glow, though they can try to hide it."



> Do they have moisture in their bodies? (judgment call on galeb duhr after looking them up, don't know off the top of my head)




Should the DM have to make use of knowlege of geology and biology to make a decision? Is the DM who doesn't have knowlege in there areas making a wrong call? Does it even matter since they don't exist in real life and all this knowlege is just confusing the actual issues?



> Are they water elementals or plants?




What about an invisible stalker? What about a salamander [fire subtype]?



> That is, of course, if you are sticking to the spell as written




Written is such a subjective term. I think we should define it. (I kid! I kid!)


----------



## werk (Jun 14, 2005)

> That is, of course, if you are sticking to the spell as written



Yeah, it makes a lot more sense to houserule how the spell works everytime.  That's obviously what the designers wanted!
</sarcasm>


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jun 14, 2005)

werk said:
			
		

> Heh, I love you




Love is such a subjective thing.... 

My opinion....  Let each DM decide for his/her own self, let the players know how they'd rule it when it comes up (assuming it's a unique situation like this one) maybe give 'em a konwledge check to determine if they would "know" how it works, and if successful, let them cast something else, otherwise, they learn a valuable lesson to apply at a later time. 

The game is supposed to flow.... like lava. 

Catsclaw


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jun 15, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Horrid Wilting lets you choose your targets, which is a huge benefit in a melee - you can repeatedly HW the bad guys & leave your fighters unaffected.  If HW were just a burst/spread like fireball that could hurt friends it maybe wouldn't be overpowered, although not being an energy damage spell makes it far far better than a equivalent fire or other energy spell in high level play.  Given these 2 advantages and how I've seen both spells work in play, I say HW is more powerful in a typical scenario.



Sounds more like "against multiple foes resistant to fire who are intermingled with my melee buddies, HW is more powerful".

Just like "against a single foe with the cold subtype who is 400ft away, meteor swarm is more powerful".

Furthermore, I don't see how the given extra restrictions (ie - HW doesn't work on fire elementals, and extends from the body of the caster) fix either imbalance.


----------



## Voadam (Jun 15, 2005)

catsclaw227 said:
			
		

> Maybe the spell should be revised:
> 
> Horrid Damage
> Necromancy
> ...





That would be a fine way for you to house rule the spell to eliminate ambiguities and remove DM judgment calls. But the original poster was asking about the RAW.


----------



## Scion (Jun 15, 2005)

Voadam said:
			
		

> But the original poster was asking about the RAW.




And he seems to have gotten his answer, the raw does not stipulate whether or not various creatures have something considered to be 'moisture'.

In most cases I would consider 'living' to be the stronger of the two necissary conditions while the other, having 'something' that could be considered 'moisture', to be the less important one. After all, if we go to some wacky form of sublimation or the like then with magic 'anything' might be 'moisture' on some level. Sortof like speaking some words and having fire erupt at the exact place you want it to 1000' away. Magic is a force to be reconned with, especially this high of a level magic.

A quote I like, 'when dealing with nuclear weapons the earth is treated as neither a solid nor even a liquid, but as a perfectly compressible gas'. In essence, given enough energy/force/what-have-you even things that seem impossible become true (another example, at conditions we are used to gravity is a very, very weak force.. with enough energy floating around it becomes equal in force to even the strongest force, shifting paradigm works in wonderous ways).

I am very tired right now, so if anything is mispelled or words dislexicised sorry


----------



## Trainz (Jun 15, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> I am very tired right now, so if anything is mispelled or words dislexicised sorry




No, no, what you just said is the first thing that actually makes me reconsider my stance...

... bastard.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jun 15, 2005)

Voadam said:
			
		

> That would be a fine way for you to house rule the spell to eliminate ambiguities and remove DM judgment calls. But the original poster was asking about the RAW.




Mostly I was being sarcastic, since I believe this whole thing is just about a DM judgement call and confidence that the party will understand.  If the DM is fair and good, then they shouldn't doubt his decision-making.

But actually, if I am not mistaken, this is another example why a product like EN Publishing's Elements of Magic is so good.

Catsclaw


----------



## Elephant (Jun 15, 2005)

Oryan77 said:
			
		

> I find that it mixes just fine when I'm DM'ing my games. The time it never seems to mix is when I'm in an online discussion about D&D with random gamers. Go figure




So things like average humans running 120 feet in 6 seconds, weakling humans that can barely hold up their own weight running at the same rate as those of Olympic fitness, people being able to dodge exploding fireballs for no harm, and high level characters being able to survive 1000 foot falls don't bother you when you stop to consider the physics?

Huh.  You must run an interesting game.


----------



## Oryan77 (Jun 15, 2005)

Elephant said:
			
		

> So things like average humans running 120 feet in 6 seconds, weakling humans that can barely hold up their own weight running at the same rate as those of Olympic fitness, people being able to dodge exploding fireballs for no harm, and high level characters being able to survive 1000 foot falls don't bother you when you stop to consider the physics?
> 
> Huh.  You must run an interesting game.




No, but what does bother me are the random gamers online that I'm in discussions with who don't know a joke when they see one, and instead reply with some snooty remark...happens much too often   

Huh. You must run a humorless game.


----------



## Staffan (Jun 15, 2005)

This thread has made me annoyed.

It has made me annoyed because it made me realize that now, even _horrid wilting_ has been nerfed down to the silly "1d6/level" standard.

It's friggin *eighth* level. It should do more damage than a wussy _fireball_. OK, higher damage cap. OK, pinpoint targeting (which is mostly good, but bad if you're dealing with invisible things). But it's still *five* levels higher, it should do more damage!


----------



## werk (Jun 15, 2005)

Oryan77 said:
			
		

> No, but what does bother me are the random gamers online ...reply with some snooty remark...happens much too often.



I agree with that.  Usually better in the rules forum, but seems to have been bad lately.

I think it's a wide-spread problem that I see more and more in America...people stating opinion as fact.  Instead of saying, 'I don't like that' they say 'that is stupid'.  

I had to leave a group because a guy did this all the time, and it was intolerable to be around.  Just because you don't like something, doesn't affect the thing at all.  And belittling something, usually doesn't influence my opinion at all.


Could you Flesh to Stone a fire elemental?  That seems like a better example of having to make a judgement call all the time.


----------



## Scion (Jun 15, 2005)

Staffan said:
			
		

> This thread has made me annoyed.
> 
> It has made me annoyed because it made me realize that now, even _horrid wilting_ has been nerfed down to the silly "1d6/level" standard.
> 
> It's friggin *eighth* level. It should do more damage than a wussy _fireball_. OK, higher damage cap. OK, pinpoint targeting (which is mostly good, but bad if you're dealing with invisible things). But it's still *five* levels higher, it should do more damage!




It also hits a much larger area and does nonelemental damage, does that help?  Oh, and it is a fort save, so no evasion (although more things have a high fort save than a high reflex save in my experience).


----------



## Scion (Jun 15, 2005)

werk said:
			
		

> I think it's a wide-spread problem that I see more and more in America...people stating opinion as fact.




I believe this is a human condition, rampant pretty much everywhere that humans are to one degree or another. I know that when I go traveling around the world I have seen it every place I have gone from degrees of barely noticeable to it being so common place to 'not' do it brings contempt 

A bit off topic of course, I just dont like the singleing out of any one people when most/all are to blame.

ahh well.. back to the rampant discussion of whether or not most every creature should be a tough call or an easy call..lol


----------



## Nail (Jun 15, 2005)

werk said:
			
		

> Could you Flesh to Stone a fire elemental?



Now that question, I like.  

I think it could be answered like this:

Do you need flesh to be alive?

No.  There are living things that don't have flesh, at least in the normal sense of the word.  Flesh is organic, has blood, tissue, and organs, etc.

Do Fire elementals have flesh?

No. Although they are alive (and hence subject to Horrid Wilting...  ), they are made of fire, not flesh.  Fire!=flesh.

......therefore _Flesh to Stone_ is ineffective on a fire elemental (or water, or earth....).


----------



## Oryan77 (Jun 15, 2005)

werk said:
			
		

> I agree with that.  Usually better in the rules forum, but seems to have been bad lately.
> 
> I think it's a wide-spread problem that I see more and more in America...people stating opinion as fact.  Instead of saying, 'I don't like that' they say 'that is stupid'.




I came into this thread thinking I had a logical answer to the posters question that I wasn't seeing being discussed. I gave RL facts to back up my opinion, but they may not be D&D facts. It doesn't mean mines the correct answer; as everyone has said, both answers are reasonable so it's the DM's decission which one he wants to go with. But 2 or 3 times I've had posters on this thread reply to me with snooty remarks basically telling me to shutup because I'm dead wrong. I have discussed D&D in RL with a dozen different gamers, even some I didn't know, and they always show me respect when we disagree. I've never had a person in RL tell me, "There goes your argument" because that's disrespectful. It's no big deal really, it's not as bad on Enworld, but it happens (like in this thread).



			
				werk said:
			
		

> Could you Flesh to Stone a fire elemental? That seems like a better example of having to make a judgement call all the time.




I was thinking about the same type of stuff. Only my example was about Withered Limbs from Book of Vile Darkness. If people are so lenient on the rules for Horrid Wilting, I wonder if they'd allow Withered Limbs to work on a Fire Elementals "arms".


----------



## Nail (Jun 15, 2005)

Post the relevant text from the sepll, and we'll see.


----------



## werk (Jun 15, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> ......therefore _Flesh to Stone_ is ineffective on a fire elemental (or water, or earth....).




How about an ethereal filcher?


----------



## Oryan77 (Jun 15, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> Post the relevant text from the sepll, and we'll see.




Eh, as I looked up the spell, it targets "Humanoid creatures". I take it a Fire Elemental isn't a humanoid creature


----------



## Oryan77 (Jun 15, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> Fire!=flesh.




And for those that don't know, != is a programming term meaning "does not"

Sorry, I had to do that


----------



## Nail (Jun 15, 2005)

Oryan77 said:
			
		

> Sorry, I had to do that



    touche!


----------



## Nail (Jun 15, 2005)

werk said:
			
		

> How about an ethereal filcher?



...which is really the question "Do extraplanar creatures have flesh" in disguise.

Angels, for example, have organs (and hence flesh), since they can be sneak attacks, etc.  Ethereal Flichers can be sneak attacked, so.....


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jun 15, 2005)

BTW, What does Darkness do to a Lantern Archon?


----------



## Nail (Jun 15, 2005)

Is this set-up for a joke?  Okay, I'll bite: "I dunno, what _does_ darkness do to a Lantern Archon?"


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jun 15, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> Is this set-up for a joke?  Okay, I'll bite: "I dunno, what _does_ darkness do to a Lantern Archon?"




Apparently, it really freaks them out.

http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/GiantITP/ootscript


----------



## Staffan (Jun 16, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> It also hits a much larger area and does nonelemental damage, does that help?  Oh, and it is a fort save, so no evasion (although more things have a high fort save than a high reflex save in my experience).



It helps a little, but not enough to make up for FIVE levels. It also has some disadvantages, such as not affecting non-living creatures.

A d6/level Horrid Wilting might make a good 5th or 6th level spell.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jun 16, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> Is this set-up for a joke?  Okay, I'll bite: "I dunno, what _does_ darkness do to a Lantern Archon?"




I wish it was a joke -- but this thread made me think about all the "unique situations" and DM judgement calls for spells.  Using common sense isn't always just a question of Physics, and yet we rely upon it as DMs to make appropriate calls during the game.

Oh.... and the Order of the Stick entry is hilarious.  Was that from today??? And if it was, dang that's coincidental!

Catsclaw


----------



## RigaMortus (Jun 16, 2005)

I think it should.  I think it is silly, but it should still work.  Here is my reasoning.  It specifically mentions that it affects water elementals differently.  If it affected fire elementals differently (as in, not at all) then I think it would have mentioned that as well.  I would play that HW works fine until some errata comes out that changes it.


----------



## TheGogmagog (Jun 16, 2005)

Here's my 2cents:

I don't think it would work.  I'm not convinced that they are living.  Even with the text scion posted on the first page 







> —Unlike most other living creatures, an elemental does not have a dual nature—its soul and body form one unit. When an elemental is slain, no soul is set loose. Spells that restore souls to their bodies, such as raise dead, reincarnate, and resurrection, don’t work on an elemental. It takes a different magical effect, such as limited wish, wish, miracle, or true resurrection, to restore it to life."



For the intent argument, I suspect that they meant living as acting thinking, not in the game term living.  
Actually there is no game term living, so that leaves it up to interpretation.  I would group living: aberration, animal, dragon, fey, giant, humonoid, magical beast, monstous humanoid, ooze, outsider, plant, vermin.  Not living: Construct, Elemental, Undead. Water elementals being the exception worth noting.  It's hard to believe with spells that have targer living creature it's not defined, I must be missing it while I fall asleep and write this.

The last argument is a bit of childish semantics, but they specify how it is different from other living creatures, but don't specify that it is a living creatures or suseptable to spells which affect living creatures.  Not really a good argument, if someone can find a game clarification of living creatures, I wouldn't try to defend this last point.


----------



## Elephant (Jun 16, 2005)

Oryan77 said:
			
		

> No, but what does bother me are the random gamers online that I'm in discussions with who don't know a joke when they see one, and instead reply with some snooty remark...happens much too often
> 
> Huh. You must run a humorless game.




Three things:

First, it wasn't a "snooty" remark.  Sorry if it seemed that way.
Second, your reply didn't strike me as a joke.  Your tone of thought didn't translate well to text.
Third, I don't appreciate the "snootiness" inherent in your remark.  I'm inclined to respond rather more strongly, but I'm restraining myself for the sake of Erik's Grandma.


----------



## Oryan77 (Jun 16, 2005)

Elephant said:
			
		

> I'm inclined to respond rather more strongly, but I'm restraining myself for the sake of Erik's Grandma.





Duly noted & no hard feelings.


----------



## Murazor (Jun 16, 2005)

While maybe not the most logical of things, I'd have a Horrid Wilting do damage to a Fire Elemental. My reasoning for this would be that not allowing a Horrid Wilting to do damage would be mostly equivalent to saying that the Fire Subtype is enough to prevent damage from a HW. Clearly this is not the case, and thus a Fire Elemental can be affected.

On a related note, I'm glad they *finally* introduced a damage type for Horrid Wilting, dessication damage, even though they put it in Sandstorm. By introducing some other spells (and appropriate defenses against) with dessication damage it no longer feels like such an awkward fit.


----------



## Voadam (Jun 16, 2005)

Staffan said:
			
		

> It helps a little, but not enough to make up for FIVE levels. It also has some disadvantages, such as not affecting non-living creatures.
> 
> A d6/level Horrid Wilting might make a good 5th or 6th level spell.




It is also a necromancy spell so you have that whole opposed school thing going on. Not many necromancy spells cause direct damage. Vampiric touch also does as a touch spell against one foe, but not that many others. At least in the core books.


----------



## Voadam (Jun 16, 2005)

TheGogmagog said:
			
		

> Here's my 2cents:
> 
> I don't think it would work.  I'm not convinced that they are living.  Even with the text scion posted on the first page For the intent argument, I suspect that they meant living as acting thinking, not in the game term living.
> Actually there is no game term living, so that leaves it up to interpretation.  I would group living: aberration, animal, dragon, fey, giant, humonoid, magical beast, monstous humanoid, ooze, outsider, plant, vermin.  Not living: Construct, Elemental, Undead. Water elementals being the exception worth noting.  It's hard to believe with spells that have targer living creature it's not defined, I must be missing it while I fall asleep and write this.
> ...




Read that again. They are different from other living creatures. Not from living creatures. If they are not living creatures then you cannot say they are different in these ways from "OTHER" living creatures. And thinking is definitely not a requirement for living, think oozes and normal or non-sentient monstrous plants. Even acting is not necessary, think of a stationary plant.


----------



## Voadam (Jun 16, 2005)

Murazor said:
			
		

> While maybe not the most logical of things, I'd have a Horrid Wilting do damage to a Fire Elemental. My reasoning for this would be that not allowing a Horrid Wilting to do damage would be mostly equivalent to saying that the Fire Subtype is enough to prevent damage from a HW. Clearly this is not the case, and thus a Fire Elemental can be affected.




Not if you are ruling that HW does not work because it is an elemental of fire without moisture in its body to be evaporated. Fire giants and dragons with the fire subtype are different matters because they have moisture in their bodies and can therefore be affected under the reasoning proposed above for excluding fire elementals.

You would have to make a leap that the fire subtype removes all moisture from your body as opposed to the elemental type definitions as applied to fire elementals.


----------



## Staffan (Jun 16, 2005)

Voadam said:
			
		

> It is also a necromancy spell so you have that whole opposed school thing going on. Not many necromancy spells cause direct damage. Vampiric touch also does as a touch spell against one foe, but not that many others. At least in the core books.



I can buy that argument. Though that means that there ought to be an 8th level evocation spell that did something like 1d10/level or 2d6/level damage.


----------



## werk (Jun 16, 2005)

Voadam said:
			
		

> You can reasonably say that moisture isn't a general game term and has no rule effect other than describing the spell effect.
> 
> However you can also reasonably argue that since it is in the spell description it is a game term that limits the effects of the spell and that can exist side by side with the spell's limitation to living creatures.




I found some text that suggests that living creatures is a defined term which includes elementals.

*SRD:  Many spells affect "living creatures," which means all creatures other than constructs and undead. *

Target of HW is:

*SRD:  Targets: Living creatures, no two of which can be more than 60 ft. apart. *


----------



## Voadam (Jun 16, 2005)

werk said:
			
		

> I found some text that suggests that living creatures is a defined term which includes elementals.
> 
> *SRD:  Many spells affect "living creatures," which means all creatures other than constructs and undead. *
> 
> ...




Did you mean to quote Gogamog who argues that elementals are not living creatures?

Or perhaps my response arguing that they are?


----------



## Voadam (Jun 16, 2005)

Staffan said:
			
		

> I can buy that argument. Though that means that there ought to be an 8th level evocation spell that did something like 1d10/level or 2d6/level damage.




That was just a side note, I think the actual spell to compare it to is delayed blast fireball which is only one level difference and also a multi target direct damage spell.

Delayed Blast Fireball
Evocation [Fire]
Level: Sor/Wiz 7
Duration: 5 rounds or less; see text
This spell functions like fireball, except that it is more powerful and can detonate up to 5 rounds after the spell is cast. The burst of flame deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 20d6).
The glowing bead created by delayed blast fireball can detonate immediately if you desire, or you can choose to delay the burst for as many as 5 rounds. You select the amount of delay upon completing the spell, and that time cannot change once it has been set unless someone touches the bead (see below). If you choose a delay, the glowing bead sits at its destination until it detonates. A creature can pick up and hurl the bead as a thrown weapon (range increment 10 feet). If a creature handles and moves the bead within 1 round of its detonation, there is a 25% chance that the bead detonates while being handled.


----------



## werk (Jun 16, 2005)

Voadam said:
			
		

> Did you mean to quote Gogamog who argues that elementals are not living creatures?
> 
> Or perhaps my response arguing that they are?




Just pointing out that moisture doesn't matter with regard to this spell.


----------



## Arkhandus (Jun 16, 2005)

Hrmm......  Elementals are living creatures, but do not have the normal needs of a living creature, i.e. a fire elemental does not need to ingest any material or fluid to fuel its flames, so it doesn't really seem like it has any napalm-like fuel within that could be removed by Horrid Wilting.  Also, the descriptions of elementals describe them as being composed of one of the basic elements, and their descriptions don't really imply that they're a mix of elements; a fire elemental is pure fire from the fabric of the Elemental Plane of Fire.  Like a Flaming Sphere spell, it has a spongy sort of consistency and can thus be stricken by solid weapons, probably because it's some super-dense coalescence of flame.  And it's D&D, not science class, there doesn't need to be any scientific explanation for how a fire elemental of pure flame could somehow be semi-solid, because scientifically, a living fire elemental couldn't exist anyway, so it'd be stupid to say it needs a scientific explanation for how it burns perpetually.  Whatever elemental will creates elemental creatures from the fabric of the Inner Planes simply wills a chunk of the plane to tear away, and coalesce into a physical, somehow-living mass capable of staying alive and intact on most other planes.

And not everything in the rules is going to be explained clear-cut for every possible situation; if a spell like Horrid Wilting says it removes moisture to harm the creature, then it quite obviously does not work on creatures with no moisture, such as Fire Elementals.  Just as a Vorpal sword does not work against all creatures, because not every living creature has a head, but the description of the Vorpal sword certainly doesn't contain a listing of every critter it won't affect, now does it?  No, it's implied by its very description.  Not every obscure possibility needs spelling out in full.

It seems pretty stupid to me anyway that a wizard who knows that his spell works by extracting moisture would somehow get the idea that it may affect creatures that appear to be made of pure flame, just because they're somehow alive.  Even if fire elementals did somehow possess fragments of other elements in them (which their description seems to deny), the mage would need a pretty high Knowledge (The Planes) check to somehow know this obscure and horribly improbable possibility.

In play, I'd have asked them why they were casting Horrid Wilting against fire elementals, and tell them their mage wouldn't really expect that to work, so they should reconsider their action.  I don't force players to accept a bad choice when it should have been obvious to their characters in-game that it would be a bad choice.  I'd have let the player change how he spent his action once he learned from the DM that Horrid Wilting doesn't affect fire elementals, because it would already seem like common sense to the wizard in-character.


----------



## Arkhandus (Jun 16, 2005)

That doesn't mean that it's all-encompassing, werk.  The spell may try to affect all living creatures in the area, but what about living creatures in the area who are affected by Spell Immunity (Horrid Wilting)?  Or living creatures in the area with Spell Resistance?  Obviously the spell can *try* to affect everything in the area that's alive, but that most certainly does not mean it *will* affect everything in the area.  Just like spells that have a Target of "one construct" or "constructs in a 20-foot sphere" for instance would not affect Golems, unless a golem's description says that spell works on them, because Golems are immune to most magic.

Just because the spell description mentions "all creatures of X type" in its Target line or something does not mean that it truly can affect every creature of that type.  Some creatures will inadvertantly or purposely be naturally immune, regardless of whatever the spell's description says.  The creature's description obviously takes precedence.

And a fire elemental's description says that it's an incarnation of elemental fire, and that it cannot enter water or other non-flammable liquids, because it's existence is defined by burning, so if it gets tossed into an ocean, for instance, it dies, because it is composed entirely of flames and cannot exist where it cannot burn.  It does not seem to me that it would be subject to Horrid Wilting.  The specifics of the spell's description say it works by removing moisture, and the fire elemental's description lead me to believe it has no moisture.  A fire elemental does not need fuel to burn, it just burns on its own.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jun 16, 2005)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> Hrmm......  Elementals are living creatures, but do not have the normal needs of a living creature, i.e. a fire elemental does not need to ingest any material or fluid to fuel its flames, so it doesn't really seem like it has any napalm-like fuel within that could be removed by Horrid Wilting.




Non-sequitor.  One does not flow from the other.


----------



## Staffan (Jun 17, 2005)

Voadam said:
			
		

> That was just a side note, I think the actual spell to compare it to is delayed blast fireball which is only one level difference and also a multi target direct damage spell.



That's assuming that a DBF is appropriately powerful for its level. I think it's not. I don't think Cone of Cold is appropriately powerful either.


----------



## anon (Jun 17, 2005)

My opinion is no damage to the fire elemental.

I do see the point of the target=living creature=fire elemental logic chain, but I personally believe the "moisture" text to be more than just "flavor" but an actual part of the spell.  This is supported by the explicit mention of plant and water elementals.  The lack of moisture in the fire elemental invalidates the target.

The imagined "liquid" which would exist within the fire elemental in order for it to have "moisture" and be damaged by the spell runs counter to the very basis of the fire elemental as a being composed entirely of FIRE (while requiring no fuel).


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jun 17, 2005)

anon said:
			
		

> The lack of moisture in the fire elemental invalidates the target.




Prove this statement.


----------



## Trainz (Jun 17, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Prove this statement.




Impossible.

It's just more probable that a fire elemental DOESN'T have moisture in it than it actually DOES. Moisture is just against the nature of fire. Fire destroys moisture. Fire and water are opposed elements.


----------



## Oryan77 (Jun 17, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Prove this statement.




On the other hand, prove to us that a fire elemental does have moisture.


----------



## Scion (Jun 17, 2005)

Trainz said:
			
		

> It's just more probable that a fire elemental DOESN'T have moisture in it than it actually DOES. Moisture is just against the nature of fire. Fire destroys moisture. Fire and water are opposed elements.




round and round it goes. same arguements over and over again, which lead back to the same thing. ahh well.. might as well keep the wheel turning.

In a land of magic where impossible things happen daily (as compared to our world) and dealing with creatures whose physical being is impossible (as compared to our world) and that we have no knowledge about what-so-ever it is entirely 'possible' that it has some sort of 'moisture' in its body. Just as possible as the opposite really. There is nothing to say either way definatively.

Also, Moisture != water. Who cares if fire and water are opposed elements or not, it has no bearing on the discussion. Might as well toss out that circling a creature a few times in a single round only provokes one aoo from that creature, just as relevant.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jun 17, 2005)

Ahah - but I'm not the one categorically saying they don't.

I remain open to the possibility that they might, and thererfore would have allowed the spell to function without further quibbling over details.

Others in this thread, however, have stated that it is impossible for the spell to work.  Since they have taken the affirmative stance, it is their point which must be proven, not mine.


----------



## Nail (Jun 17, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Others in this thread, however, have stated that it is impossible for the spell to work.  Since they have taken the affirmative stance, it is their point which must be proven, not mine.



Exactly.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Jun 17, 2005)

I think that you have every right to rule the way you want to in your game...and I agree with you that it makes no sense for this to work on a fire elemental (or air or earth for that matter).

That being said, however, if *I* was the wizard in your game and you hosed my spell with this call, you can bet your last dollar that I would be pouring over each and every spell entry.  I would be looking at the flavor text oh so carefully looking for every nook and cranny of advantage I could get and try to get all kinds of things to work that shouldn't using the RAW.

EXAMPLE:  I opened up the SRD to the very first spell, Acid Arrow.  Does 2D4 damage to the target for 3 rounds.  So, what makes sensewise, whenever I shoot someone with this spell it should be damaging their armor/sheild/weapon/whatever, not just them.  If I fire off a couple of rounds of Acid Arrow at a fighter in full plate does his plate armor take the damage instead of his hit points....chances are I shot his armor with the arrow, not his skin.  Thats what makes sense.

DS


----------



## werk (Jun 18, 2005)

Oryan77 said:
			
		

> On the other hand, prove to us that a fire elemental does have moisture.




We are the one's saying that the spell should work, you are the one with the unsupported moisture argument.  I've supplied text from the rules, which support that the spell will work on all living creatures (a lot more than fire elementals) and avoids ad-hoc moisture rulings during play.  So please try support your moisture argument with something other than 'it doesn't make sense' or 'fire doesn't have moisture' because those are assumtions, not d20 mechanics.


----------



## werk (Jun 18, 2005)

Sabathius42 said:
			
		

> So, what makes sensewise, whenever I shoot someone with this spell it should be damaging their armor/sheild/weapon/whatever, not just them.  If I fire off a couple of rounds of Acid Arrow at a fighter in full plate does his plate armor take the damage instead of his hit points....chances are I shot his armor with the arrow, not his skin.  Thats what makes sense.
> 
> DS




Acid Arrow doesn't specify a type of target, so you can ranged touch anything as a target (unlike horrid wilting or magic missle).  Because it's a game, you only get to hit one target to avoid abuse.  

I think my sig says something about how important it is for everything to make sense.  It makes the difference between a game and a simulation.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 18, 2005)

By the way, if they're made of fire then why do they do blugeoning damage to you when they hit you? Or is there some kind of "solid fire" involved (but no liquid fire of course...)?



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Slap or Slam: The creature batters opponents with an appendage, dealing bludgeoning damage.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jun 18, 2005)

Well done, ThirdWizard!


----------



## Shadowdweller (Jun 18, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> By the way, if they're made of fire then why do they do blugeoning damage to you when they hit you? Or is there some kind of "solid fire" involved (but no liquid fire of course...)?



 Not quite so fast: That would be the exact same way air elementals do slam attacks.

What we call 'fire' IRL generally being the air molecules around the actual combustion reaction releasing energy as light.  Air molecules most certainly can impact upon things (that being why wind is capable of blowing things about).


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 18, 2005)

So you're saying the fire elemental is hitting us with air and that's why its doing bludgeoning damage?

EDIT:
Is it really more plausable that fire elementals create a huge and concentrated gust of wind that hurts those that they strike than them being composed of something at least partly solid? Are we trying to figure out how the spell works here or are we trying to figure out how to make sure it doesn't affect fire elementals because of pre-concieved notions? Just askin'.


----------



## Voadam (Jun 18, 2005)

werk said:
			
		

> Just pointing out that moisture doesn't matter with regard to this spell.




Your quote shows that moisture is irrelevant to targeting a HW. It can validly target a fire elemental no question because an elemental is a living creature.

The question is whether it has any effect on the validly targeted living creature.

And I believe under the RAW it will matter if it targets a valid target that has no moisture in its body.


----------



## Voadam (Jun 18, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> So you're saying the fire elemental is hitting us with air and that's why its doing bludgeoning damage?
> 
> EDIT:
> Is it really more plausable that fire elementals create a huge and concentrated gust of wind that hurts those that they strike than them being composed of something at least partly solid? Are we trying to figure out how the spell works here or are we trying to figure out how to make sure it doesn't affect fire elementals because of pre-concieved notions? Just askin'.




Are you suggesting that because they do slam damage they must have moisture in their bodies? If so I'm not seeing how you come to that conclusion.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 18, 2005)

I'm saying they arn't composed purely of fire, but also have solid matter inside them.

Therefore you cannot use the interprietation that they are composed purely of fire to support a lack of moisture in their bodies. They also give cover, not concealment, to creatures/objects on the opposite side of them. They can perform bull rushes, etc. Something about them is, in fact, physical.

What this physical aspect actually is isn't covered by the RAW. Until the Book of Elementals* is released, the biology behind these elemental beings is at best ambiguous. Remember, I'm not saying that they _do_ have moisture, I am saying that noone can readily say that they _do not_ have moisture. Without some convincing evidence toward that fact, it is best to interpriet the spell to affect fire elementals.

*I know of no plans by WotC to release such a book ever, though it would be cool


----------



## Shadowdweller (Jun 18, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I'm saying they arn't composed purely of fire, but also have solid matter inside them.



 ...which doesn't work by the argument you're using because solid matter isn't required in order to bludgeon something.

And, while we're at it, is there anything in the RAW which states that incorporeal creatures (who lack bodies capable of ANY physical interaction) do not provide cover, or do not keep opponents from entering their square?


----------



## Voadam (Jun 18, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Without some convincing evidence toward that fact, it is best to interpriet the spell to affect fire elementals.




I disagree. I too find it ambiguous under the RAW but this leads me to conclude a DM would be justified in ruling either way for his campaign and remain within RAW.

Why would you then conclude it is best to interpret it to affect fire elementals?

One set of values towards including them would be ease of adjudication, just assume everything has moisture and this is a non issue for any living creature in the game.

Another set of values would be that it seems cooler to have a moisture draining spell not affect a fire elemental for flavor reasons. This brings descriptions into more relevance and requires thinking of the spell as more than just doing x dice of damage.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jun 19, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> What this physical aspect actually is isn't covered by the RAW. Until the Book of Elementals* ....
> 
> *I know of no plans by WotC to release such a book ever, though it would be cool




I have a copy of a book by FFG called Elemental Lore.  I'll look into it when I get home on Monday and se if ti has anything.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jun 19, 2005)

Voadam said:
			
		

> One set of values towards including them would be ease of adjudication, just assume everything has moisture and this is a non issue for any living creature in the game.
> 
> Another set of values would be that it seems cooler to have a moisture draining spell not affect a fire elemental for flavor reasons. This brings descriptions into more relevance and requires thinking of the spell as more than just doing x dice of damage.




As I have stated before, I feel this is a DM judgement call.  Why does ether side have to prove anything to anyone?  As Voadam states, there are two flavors of thought, and both are valid, just different.


----------



## Goolpsy (Jun 19, 2005)

As the spell states.. it is especially harmful to water... and as fire as the opposite element, they would acording to the describtion not take much damage or none at all.

You want to know how Fire deal bludgeoning damamge is...  MAGIC
its a magic world with magic creatures...
but remember. these elemental ideas are made from the early greeks theory of how the world was build. its PURELY made of that specific element (with earth being a slight execption here)
Water is WATER, Air is the air .. gasses. Fire is FIRE and Earth is Solid matter.
So....
once more
Water is WATER, Air is the air .. gasses. Fire is FIRE and Earth is Solid matter.

now someone started the argument fire has water.. that equal to Fire is water  Which doesn't make sense in any way, and it is certainly NOT the way Wotc made it to work.

the d&d system is made on counters.. there is a counter to everything.
Good - Evil, Law - Chaos, Devil - Celestial, Living - Dead, Fire - Water, Air - Earth
So with fire-water being a counter, a spell particularly good or directed at the particular thing, would be less effective or wouldn't work at all agaisnt the other.
Examples could be "holy damage" or "Unholy damamge" "Fire Damage" etc, Then there is describes in the book of vile darkness and book of Exalted deeds  are damage type each creatures or opposet types.
And in that way, the Horrid wilting works too, --> Godo vs Water.. Bad vs Fire
(How you handle this is a matter of Flavor) 

now thats the magic part of view...

now the physical and scientific way of explanation...

Fire is Warmth Energy, its a visionary to see release of energy. 
Release of energy is "noticed" in more than one way.. usually theres some sound too, thought fire is soundless.
Fire comes from release of Carbon, i.e. the stoff living matter is build of. 
so if you burn wood, you release its carbon you are able to see the flames, but it is only atoms moving at an exeptional rate that produce this light.
You could indeed state that fire in some way is the same as air, just air moving at a faster rate, - hence the heat. Its free Atoms moving around eachother without being bound together by anything,  water on the other hand is a Liquid, with its bound atoms forming molecules.
So the diffinition of Liquid and of Fire  are diffrend hence they are NOT the same.

And a spell working on Liquid would in that way nOT work on fire, as they contain no liquid at all.


----------



## Ferret (Jun 19, 2005)

werk said:
			
		

> We are the one's saying that the spell should work, you are the one with the unsupported moisture argument.  I've supplied text from the rules, which support that the spell will work on all living creatures (a lot more than fire elementals) and avoids ad-hoc moisture rulings during play.  So please try support your moisture argument with something other than 'it doesn't make sense' or 'fire doesn't have moisture' because those are assumtions, not d20 mechanics.





I would assume that the laws of physics apply, but then again those are d20 mechainics.....


----------



## Goolpsy (Jun 19, 2005)

Fire elementals would be poorly effected either way.. Physics say that nothing would happen.  And reading and understanding the whole d20 mechanism (Not jsut interpretate and twist it -  Like some Evil Curropting our world) the Fire elementals would be poorly affected.. if not affected at all


----------



## Trainz (Jun 19, 2005)

Well I've decided to let it work IMC.

Now all my instincts tell me it shouldn't, but I let it.

It SHOULDN'T work.


----------



## RigaMortus (Jun 19, 2005)

Goolpsy said:
			
		

> As the spell states.. it is especially harmful to water... and as fire as the opposite element, they would acording to the describtion not take much damage or none at all.
> 
> You want to know how Fire deal bludgeoning damamge is...  MAGIC
> its a magic world with magic creatures...




By the same logic, couldn't a Fire Elemental have moisture?  You know, since it is a magical world and everything...


----------



## Goolpsy (Jun 19, 2005)

by sticking to the d&d mechanics  it shouldn't take much or any damage  EVEN if it had some kind of moisture...

Fire, is light and Heat from particles moving at a fast rate, hence no moisture..

It might however work vs Lava or Magma monsters having the Fire subtype, and coming from the Elemental plane of fire... (as they have moiture)
But as with the game mechanics.. they shouldn't be affected much..


----------



## Nail (Jun 19, 2005)

Goolpsy said:
			
		

> Fire, is light and Heat from particles moving at a fast rate, hence no moisture.



....unless the particles are gaseous water molecules......    

You *really* don't wanna go down this "real world science" road.  You'll lose.


----------



## Trainz (Jun 19, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> ....unless the particles are gaseous water molecules......
> 
> You *really* don't wanna go down this "real world science" road.  You'll lose.




Stop being smug please.

This thread has been filled with smugness from left and right.

Enough.


----------



## Goolpsy (Jun 19, 2005)

Oh yes, trust I wont

definition of evaporate:
To pass off in vapor, as a fluid; to escape and be dissipated, either in visible vapor, or in practice too minute to be visible. 
To escape or pass off without effect; to be dissipated; to be wasted, as, the spirit of writer often evaporates in the process of translation. 
To convert from a liquid or solid state into vapor (usually) by the agency of heat; to dissipate in vapor or fumes. 
To expel moisture from (usually by means of artificial heat), leaving the solid portion; to subject to evaporation; as, to evaporate apples. 
To give vent to; to dissipate. 

with a good help from the first dictionary website available ^^

first of all as evaporate, it doesn't work from an Air form... (Nice discussion, Air elementals are Safe now)

So the spell Dehydrate the targets... (usually done by heat, but this time the element used is Magic)

So imagine u heat up water, and boil it, hence transferring it enought energy to get airborn.
U do know the  Solid - Liquid - Gas     scale right?  being through 2 heat points the molecule becomes a gas, there is no further ofrm of which the particel/molecule can be in (then it should be plasma, Hence the world would dry out by this spell leading to the death of all natural beings)
back to the Heating up water...
Heat up the water and it will  vaporize becoming a gas...  now while being a gas.. you're trying to make it more of a gas?
to counter the next statement of anyone :  "The spell evaporate moisture from the bodies" blablabla, so it leave the fire elemental, or well, MOVING the Fire elemental.. nice spell, are we maknig it a Bull rush against Fire elementals instead?

2 solutions to this problem (elements shouldn't be counted as living creatures, but anyway) give them a Save bonus against the spell (opposet of water elementals), or make them immune to it.


----------



## werk (Jun 19, 2005)

Ferret said:
			
		

> I would assume that the laws of physics apply, but then again those are d20 mechainics.....




no, the laws of physics do not need apply and are often contradicted.


----------



## Nail (Jun 19, 2005)

Trainz said:
			
		

> Enough.



Yessir!


----------



## Goolpsy (Jun 19, 2005)

Ye i guess people will enver agree on this topic

and i dont mind the spell affecting fire elementals

Suggestion... (showing the opposet element thingii)
just give them +2 to save it  (like the water gets -2 to save)


----------



## Trainz (Jun 19, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> Yessir!




Thank you  ! 

 

And that goes for all of you, you wankers !


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jun 20, 2005)

Trainz said:
			
		

> And that goes for all of you, you wankers !




You're Canadian, not British.

You aren't allowed to say "wanker."


----------



## Trainz (Jun 20, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> You're Canadian, not British.
> 
> You aren't allowed to say "wanker."






I use it in every day conversations.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jun 20, 2005)

Illegally.


----------



## ZuulMoG (Jun 20, 2005)

I simply can't wade through another 4 pages of this, so if someone already mentioned this, I apologize.

If we do assume some sort of flammable liquid (aka Moisture) for HW to affect is within a Fire Elemental (and I do not, Elemental Fire is pure fire that burns without fuel or air, read the EPoF description), then when HW evaporates it, it will become a powerful explosive, and turn any Fire El into a fuel-air bomb.  The detonation of an elemental in this manner would certainly kill it, and also anything within a range of HD x 10 feet, no save, unless it was immune to both fire and impact, or of divine status (and even then its avatar would be anhillated).  Out to 4x that distance (40xHD) a Reflex save for half of HDd100, and then drop it to d20s for double that, and d6s for double that.  (Double distance, quarter damage)  One last ring of d2 heat and wind subdual is the DM's option to exercise.

So, either we go by the rules' description of elementals, and leave science out of magic, or we add ALL the science, and not just what's convienent to the PCs.

I would suggest that we just stick with magic, okay?  Your DM made an excellent call, but yes, he should have given you a Spellcraft or Knowledge: The PLanes roll to avoid wasting the action.  Well, that or he could have agreed with you and made it a TPK.  That would have been fine too.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jun 20, 2005)

ZuulMoG said:
			
		

> If we do assume some sort of flammable liquid (aka Moisture) for HW to affect is within a Fire Elemental (and I do not, Elemental Fire is pure fire that burns without fuel or air, read the EPoF description), then when HW evaporates it, it will become a powerful explosive, and turn any Fire El into a fuel-air bomb.




Another non-sequitor.  The one does not flow from the other.

We aren't talking about the moisture in the Fire Elemental being fuel.

We are talking about a Fire Elemental being comprised of liquid, gaseous, and solid fire - just like the Elemental Plane of Fire.


----------



## ZuulMoG (Jun 21, 2005)

Except that fire is not solid, liquid, or gas.  It is plasma, the Other White (state of) Matter.

Let me ask you this:

Why are you so invested in the concept of a water-purging spell doing damage to a creature made of water's anathema?  The element's of fire and water are in opposition, as are earth and air.  What hurt's one help the other.  Horrid Wilting should act as a Mass Heal for Fire Elementals instead of damaging them.  THAT's a reasonable extrapolation from the fact that HW has an increased effect upon WE's.  Turning them into bombs is a reasonable extrapolation of the unreasonable assumption that because there's nothing that specifically denies that HW affects FE's, they must have some sort of liquid in them.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jun 21, 2005)

ZuulMoG said:
			
		

> Why are you so invested in the concept of a water-purging spell doing damage to a creature made of water's anathema?  The element's of fire and water are in opposition, as are earth and air.  What hurt's one help the other.  Horrid Wilting should act as a Mass Heal for Fire Elementals instead of damaging them.  THAT's a reasonable extrapolation from the fact that HW has an increased effect upon WE's.  Turning them into bombs is a reasonable extrapolation of the unreasonable assumption that because there's nothing that specifically denies that HW affects FE's, they must have some sort of liquid in them.



I think that the idea is to look at what happens within the rules and make a case to justify not changing that arbitrarily.

The other side of the case is to make what is defined within the rules ridiculous, and therefore necessitating change.

Personally I think the "stick with the rules" crowd is on the winning side of the argument.

The "turn wilted fire elementals into some sort of whacky weapon" camp is not really even in the running, nor is "mass heal for fire elementals".

Finally - in D&D, the anathema to a fire elemental is cold, not water. Water elementals have no additional effect vs a fire elemental, nor vice versa. Cold, otoh, does 50% more damage to a fire elemental.


----------



## Shadowdweller (Jun 21, 2005)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> Personally I think the "stick with the rules" crowd is on the winning side of the argument.




Except that following the RAW literally and without SOME regard for the big picture leads to all sorts of silliness.  Such as legions of warriors carrying around containers of rats to improve their fighting ability (3.0 and 3.5 variations thereof).  Notwithstanding that I've never, NEVER, met a play group that used 100% of the RAW anyhow...so it's not even an entirely reasonable thing to EXPECT either.  Particularly with respect to certain parts of the rules  (Diplomacy being a common one).

(However unpopular this might make me here)


----------



## werk (Jun 21, 2005)

Shadowdweller said:
			
		

> Except that following the RAW literally and without SOME regard for the big picture leads to all sorts of silliness.




I believe the silliness comes in when you try to simulate reality or to apply physics or science to the game.  If you follow RAW, it targets and damages living creatures, which they are, definitively. That's the only argument, all the moisture talk is assumtion and wild speculation.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 21, 2005)

ZuulMoG said:
			
		

> Except that fire is not solid, liquid, or gas.  It is plasma, the Other White (state of) Matter.




How does plasma do bludgeoning damage when it strikes you?


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jun 21, 2005)

ZuulMoG said:
			
		

> Except that fire is not solid, liquid, or gas.  It is plasma, the Other White (state of) Matter.




Plasma?  What the heck are you talking about?

There are *4* elements in the D&D world, not 200+.  Any assumptions based on the existence of electrons, DNA, or other real-world scientific phenomena are immediately off-base.

Fire isn't made of superheated, disassociated electons and atomic nuclei.  Fire is made of *fire*.  End of story.


----------



## werk (Jun 21, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Plasma?  Fire is made of *fire*.  End of story.




And fire tastes like burning...


----------



## Chacal (Jun 21, 2005)

Shadowdweller said:
			
		

> Except that following the RAW literally and without SOME regard for the big picture leads to all sorts of silliness.
> (However unpopular this might make me here)




Ditto. And it applies to much more than  just RPGs.


Chacal


----------



## dedicated (Jun 21, 2005)

two things, I think the reason people keep coming up with the whole water=moisture thing is because it's a water domain spell

and two, how would anyone know what pure fire is? It's always mixed with air in our world.


----------



## Trainz (Jun 21, 2005)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> Finally - in D&D, the anathema to a fire elemental is cold, not water. Water elementals have no additional effect vs a fire elemental, nor vice versa. Cold, otoh, does 50% more damage to a fire elemental.




Which is why firemen use fridges to extinguish fires, not water. 

I keed. No insult intended.

I think cold is a by-product of water in the D&D world. Since there isn't a lot of water based damage spells, that's why I think they allowed cold spells to affect fire creatures.

No, don't ask me to support all that with book quotes.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jun 22, 2005)

Shadowdweller said:
			
		

> Except that following the RAW literally and without SOME regard for the big picture leads to all sorts of silliness.  Such as legions of warriors carrying around containers of rats to improve their fighting ability (3.0 and 3.5 variations thereof).



Point out where I said that following the rules blindly was a great idea.

There's a major difference between your example and this. In your example, allowing the rules to override common sense has a great cost to the game - the game ceases to be believable in the slightest (there's no logical reason why a nearby bucket of snails should make a man combat effective) and it ceases to be fun (because every combat starts with "I dump out my bucket of snails" followed by "I hit him 300 times"). The advantages of the ruling are merely that it is simple.

In our case, the effects of the ruling are
1) The party members occasionally get screwed because a spell will not work when the DM claims that a target has insufficient moisture to be affected. The DM will basically never suffer from his ruling, because the party are flesh-and-blood and will almost always take full damage.
2) There will be arguments over whether a target has enough moisture, whether it needs that moisture to live etc etc. There will be arguments that targets that don't fall under the formal specification (ie - a blood golem, a flesh golem, zombies and even skeletons) should be affected by the spell.
3) There is a very slight increase in the believability of the game. Since there are logical arguments as to WHY the spell should work on fire elementals, this is not the only way to achieve this.

So - we've increase the rules complexity and screwed the players all for a slight and debatable increase in realism. Is it really worth it?


> Notwithstanding that I've never, NEVER, met a play group that used 100% of the RAW anyhow...so it's not even an entirely reasonable thing to EXPECT either.  Particularly with respect to certain parts of the rules  (Diplomacy being a common one).




Diplomacy needs no house rules. Except "the epic handbook can sod off". Which isn't really a house rule anyway. All you have to do is go "what would my best friend in the whole wide world do for me if he were in the situation of my target" and the skill has a very hard limit which can add to the game instead of destroying it.


----------



## Shadowdweller (Jun 22, 2005)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> Point out where I said that following the rules blindly was a great idea.



Seemingly implied in the line of reasoning.  But to be fair, despite my having quoted your previous post, my response was certainly not aimed solely at you.  And possibly even MOSTLY elsewhere...



> There's a major difference between your example and this. In your example, allowing the rules to override common sense has a great cost to the game - the game ceases to be believable in the slightest (there's no logical reason why a nearby bucket of snails should make a man combat effective) and it ceases to be fun (because every combat starts with "I dump out my bucket of snails" followed by "I hit him 300 times"). The advantages of the ruling are merely that it is simple.



Seems to ME common sense to think that fire elementals aren't generally subject to unpleasant effects from dehydration.  Then again, also seems like there's a lot of arguments here claiming believability SHOULD NOT be an issue.



> In our case, the effects of the ruling are
> 1) The party members occasionally get screwed because a spell will not work when the DM claims that a target has insufficient moisture to be affected. The DM will basically never suffer from his ruling, because the party are flesh-and-blood and will almost always take full damage.



There are relatively simple ways to keep from screwing a party over with such rulings.  Knowledge: Arcana almost seems tailor made...Not to mention that DMs are quite capable of screwing over a party anyhow.

(Segment Deleted: Bleh, wasn't reading part of that carefully.   )



> Diplomacy needs no house rules. Except "the epic handbook can sod off". Which isn't really a house rule anyway. All you have to do is go "what would my best friend in the whole wide world do for me if he were in the situation of my target" and the skill has a very hard limit which can add to the game instead of destroying it.



I didn't say that Diplomacy NEEDS house rules.  Merely that it frequently WAS/IS housruled (or more accurately the given mechanic is ignored altogether)...at least in my particular slice of the world.


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Jun 22, 2005)

I'd be happy with either ruling from my dm, after that all I'd ask is for consistancy. This is a bit of a debate because on one hand there is simply applying the rules & on the other there is an assault on our real world sensibility. I've come to terms with the awful mounted combat rules & armour spikes, I'd just take this on the chin.


----------



## ZuulMoG (Jun 23, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> How does plasma do bludgeoning damage when it strikes you?



How can you ask that question when doing so requires you to ignore the far greater question, how can plasma become sentient and animated?

It's MAGIC.

Ever hear the expression, 'Madder than a wet fire elemental'?  It was in one of the numerous books set in the D&D settings.  Dehydration can't hurt a fire elemental.  Why?  Because dry stuff burns better.  To even imply that a fire elemental could be harmed by a spell based on damaging a target by dehydrating it is to utterly ignore the spirit and tradition of D&D.

In the AD&D MotP, there were huge lists of spells indicating how usage on the various planes affected them.  The game designers back then realized that it enhanced the collective dreaming that is RPGs if it made more sense than less.  So on the fire elemental plane, or against fire elementals, cold and water spells did more damage, and fire spells did none or aided them.

There is not only no internally consistent explanation for why a wilting spell would hurt fire elementals, it is wrong to look for one or insist that one must exist.  Declaring that such a illogical condition exists is detrimental to the collective dream, because it makes it harder to suspend disbelief and immerse onesself within it.  If you're willing to damage it for the sake of a slight perceived advantage to your spellcaster, then buy Troika's excellent adaptation of ToEE and play that, by yourself, and stop inhibiting the enjoyment of others.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jun 23, 2005)

Shadowdweller said:
			
		

> Seems to ME common sense to think that fire elementals aren't generally subject to unpleasant effects from dehydration.  Then again, also seems like there's a lot of arguments here claiming believability SHOULD NOT be an issue.



I really think that you're making quite a stretch in saying that it's common sense that a creature which doesn't exist has a biology that doesn't include any form of moisture. That's kind of my point - on the one hand you have the rules, and on the other hand you have a dubious assumption.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 23, 2005)

ZuulMoG said:
			
		

> It's MAGIC.




So then why are you explaining _horrid wilting_, which is definately magic, using scientific evidence about a creature that's entire existance is impossible? 

And, it isn't magic because it still exists and does bludgeoning damage inside an anti-magic area.


----------



## Fieari (Jun 23, 2005)

It's just a matter of suspension of disbelief.  The flavor text seems to discribe a situation in which my sensibilities say that the fire elemental should be immune, or even helped by it (I'll stick with immune for now).  To not rule in this manner, whether or not it's a house rule, would destroy verisimilatude in my eyes, and I think that's important.  Sure, you could come up with an explanation in which a fire elemental has moisture, but I don't like those explanations.  I like a fire elemental that is simply fire, and nothing else... no moisture involved.  I'd also rule earth elementals as immune to the spell.  And wind elementals.  All for the same reason.  And I'd tell my players this, and I think they'd agree with me.

Your milage may vary.  That's okay.  But my group values verisimilatude over mechanical advantage.  And they even enjoy being screwed from time to time.  Lets them brag when they live through it anyway.


----------



## ZuulMoG (Jun 23, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> So then why are you explaining _horrid wilting_, which is definately magic, using scientific evidence about a creature that's entire existance is impossible?



See, it's okay when I do it, because I'm defending the shared dream.  When the people defending HW affecting Fire Els do it, it's because they want to make the dream less shareable to benefit their own part in it.  Remember that there are other players who want to enjoy the game and immerse themselves in suspended disbelief too, and Fire Elementals dying of thirst isn't going to help them.


			
				ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> And, it isn't magic because it still exists and does bludgeoning damage inside an anti-magic area.



Not if it's summoned it doesn't...  I did misspeak though, it's a kind of magic.

I've always viewed elementals as spirits animating an element.  As long as there is enough of the element in one piece for them to maintain cohesion, they're good to go (attacks that don't sever parts of them still damage them by weakening their hold on their 'body').  AS far as the element itself goes, the only ones that there's any question of foreign objects being part of are water and earth elementals, and I doubt anyone would seriously consider the loss of moisture from an earth elemental or dirt, plants, and flotsam from a water elemental to inconveience either one.

HW specifically states that it removes moisture from the bodies of its victims, implying blood, ichor, etc...  Elementals are immune to poison because they have no bloodstream.  That being the case, the only elementals affected by HW should be water elementals.  None of the others are going to be adversely affected by having their body purified of foreign elements.  It not only doesn't make sense for fire (or earth or air) elementals to be harmed by a spell that removes moisture, it's damagin to suspension of disbelief, because it's so anti-intuitive.

Wizards can release a whole line of supplements dedicated to explaining why HW slays Fire Elementals, and I'm not going to budge an inch.  If they say HW hurts FEs, _they're just plain wrong_.  Elementals came before D&D.  D&D can have elementals in it because they are a staple of the fantasy environment, but if D&D tries to change their properties in ways that violate the 'continuity' of elementals, then it's wrong to do so, *for the same reason it would be wrong for me, if I were placed in charge of writing the next story arc for Superman, to have him gunned down in a hail of normal lead bullets while stopping a bank robbery.*

I'm done discussing this.  If the bolded portion above doesn't explain my position on this, nothing will.


----------



## Scion (Jun 23, 2005)

ZuulMoG said:
			
		

> Fire Elementals dying of thirst




Since this isnt what the spell does you should be ok.

Sure, it causes 'humans' to die of thirst sometimes, or something similar at least by sucking water out of them, but to fire elementals it would just suck some other moisture-like-object out of them. Perhaps it would make their fire sputter out or something. Sounds cool to me  It sucked out something vital and it hurt them.


----------



## ZuulMoG (Jun 23, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> Since this isnt what the spell does you should be ok.
> 
> Sure, it causes 'humans' to die of thirst sometimes, or something similar at least by sucking water out of them, but to fire elementals it would just suck some other moisture-like-object out of them. Perhaps it would make their fire sputter out or something. Sounds cool to me  It sucked out something vital and it hurt them.



Ugh, ELEMENTALS DON'T HAVE METABOLISMS!!  GAAAAHHHHH!!!!


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 23, 2005)

ZuulMoG said:
			
		

> Ugh, ELEMENTALS DON'T HAVE METABOLISMS!!  GAAAAHHHHH!!!!




A friend of mine has a degree in biology, I"ll ask him. Oh wait, he doesn't know because they don't exist.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jun 23, 2005)

ZuulMoG said:
			
		

> See, it's okay when I do it, because I'm defending the shared dream.  When the people defending HW affecting Fire Els do it, it's because they want to make the dream less shareable to benefit their own part in it.  Remember that there are other players who want to enjoy the game and immerse themselves in suspended disbelief too, and Fire Elementals dying of thirst isn't going to help them.




Oh, right.

I guess it *was* time for the "Appeal to I'm Better Than You" defense.

Well, *I'm* better than *you*, and I say that Fire Elementals take damage.  What do you have to say to *that*?


----------



## Oryan77 (Jun 23, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Well, *I'm* better than *you*, and I say that Fire Elementals take damage.  What do you have to say to *that*?



The debate is still no different than it was on page 1.
This has gone on for 6 pages and you're still actively debating the issue...you're definately better than me, I gave up a few pages back


----------



## Nail (Jun 23, 2005)

ZuulMoG said:
			
		

> I'm done discussing this.




One post later:


			
				ZuulMoG said:
			
		

> Ugh, ELEMENTALS DON'T HAVE METABOLISMS!!  GAAAAHHHHH!!!!




Still "done"?


----------



## jndiii (Jun 23, 2005)

*Eesh ... Horrid Wilting vs Fire Elementals*

Note that debates about the composition of elementals is doing no more than comparing fictional universes.  The "physics" behind elementals doesn't exist, because they aren't real.  The RAW indicate that a Fire Elemental is affected, but the flavor text for describing how Horrid Wilting works suggests that Fire Elementals (and perhaps non-water elementals in general) shouldn't be.  The choice is yours, but it's just that: a choice.  The reasoning is irrelevent:  it is up to you to keep your world and your house rules consistent.

Me, I don't like having House Rules for things that are merely flavor-based, and I really don't want to come up with pseudo-scientific theories of magic that I must then adapt to weirder and weirder special cases.  So for me, it stays at the RAW level.

For those who want to have a house rule, we don't really have a theory about how Horrid Wilting works.  Maybe it superheats things, making a heat-immune fire elemental immune.  Maybe it removes non-solid matter (both liquid and gas), so it'd affect air and fire, but not earth elementals.  Maybe it partially disintegrates its targets, meaning all elementals are affected.  Maybe it only works on living creatures based on water (the most appealing interpretation of the flavor text, perhaps), in which case it only works on water-type elementals.  It doesn't matter.  Choose what it affects, and elaborate the flavor text of your house rule accordingly.


----------



## werk (Jun 23, 2005)

jndiii said:
			
		

> Choose what it affects, and elaborate the flavor text of your house rule accordingly.




Yessir, sir!

Welcome to the boards


----------



## hazmat (Jun 23, 2005)

Wow.  I can't believe this debate has gone on this long.

By the RAW the spell does not say that it wouldn't affect a fire elemental.   The spell assumes that living creatures need moisture to exist.  It even has rules for affecting two classes of creatures that need moisture more than other types of creatures.  



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Elementals are incarnations of the elements that compose existence.





			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Elemental Type: An elemental is a being composed of one of the four classical elements: air, earth, fire, or water.




To me this means that the body of these beings contains nothing but the element which they represent.  



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> evaporates moisture from the body of each subject living creature, dealing 1d6 points of damage per caster level




This implies that if moisture cannot be evaporated from the body then no damage is done.

If I cast a spell on you that removes your appendix and you don't have one would it work?  Did it have an effect on you?


----------



## frankthedm (Jun 23, 2005)

Here is what it boils down to.

The “M:tG” way of rules thought, says only the mechanical effects matter and that they take precedence over any description or ‘flavor text’. The only way to stop such an effect is by rules that specifically SAY they stop the effect. Thus heat metal & chill metal are two of the few examples in the ruleset of heat & cold negating one another, because the rules say they do, not because common sense says they do. 

Another way of thinking, which I’ll nickname “Storyteller”, says the description IS what the effect does and that the mechanics only show HOW the described effects work for the rule set. To negate an effect one only needs to find something that common sense indicates would negate an effect and the rules are used to find a way to represent that in game. Thus a weapon head wreathed in fire and cold at the same time finds its energies negating one another on a 1 for 1 basis.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jun 23, 2005)

hazmat said:
			
		

> To me this means that the body of these beings contains nothing but the element which they represent.
> 
> This implies that if moisture cannot be evaporated from the body then no damage is done.




Right.  So, how do you prove that there's no such thing as liquid fire?  I mean, there's such things as liquid and gaseous iron in the real world, so liquid fire doesn't seem quite as out there as some would have you believe.


----------



## hazmat (Jun 23, 2005)

Frank the DM:  Interesting point but the effect of the spell is evaporating moisture.  The crux of the debate is whether or not elemental fire is or can be "moist" or a liquid.   In either the M:tG way of thinking or the StoryTeller way of thinking the spell fizzles if a fire elemental does not contain moisture.

Just because something can be targeted by a spell does not mean that the spell works on the target.  

Patryn of Elvenshae:
Arguing about the state of Fire is silly.  Fire is not matter.  Fire is a chemical reaction.   So it is silly to say that liquid fire can exist.   Though, one could say that a liquid can be on fire.

So what is Elemental Fire?  Is it some matter in the Plasma state? Is it a solid, liquid or gas that is on fire?  Or is it the energy(heat and light) that would be released by a chemical reaction?  Or is it the flame (a burning gas or vapor)?

Really it could be any of these things.  Though I'd side with it being "energy"  as it doesn't need a fuel.


----------



## Starman (Jun 24, 2005)

This argument is all fine and dandy, but the real question is what happens when Juggernaut, the unstoppable force, meets the Blob, the unmoveable object? What then, huh?

Starman


----------



## anon (Jun 24, 2005)

To those who believe that the Fire Elemental *should* be affected, would this creature be affected as well?

*Vacuum*
Medium Elemental
Hit Dice: 4d8 (26 hp)
Initiative: +5
Speed: Fly 60 ft (perfect)
Armor Class: 15
Base Attack/Grapple: +3/+7
Attack: Slam +8 melee
Full Attack: +8 melee
Space/Reach: 5ft/5ft
Special Attacks: Air Mastery, Suffocate
Special Qualities: elemental traits
Saves: Fort +3, Ref +9, Will +1
Abilities: Str 1, Dex 20, Con 14, Int 4, Wis 11, Chr 11
Skills: blah blah
Feats: Flyby Attack, Improved Grapple, Weapon Finesse

Vacuum's are comprised of nothing.  They are the absense of all matter.

Suffocate (Ex): When engaged in a grapple vacuums have the ability to suck all of the air from around and within a creature.  A grappled creature must immediately start to make DC 10 Constitution checks (DC increases by +1 each round) or fall unconscious.  After which the normal rules for suffocation apply (see pg 304 DMG).


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jun 24, 2005)

hazmat said:
			
		

> Patryn of Elvenshae:
> Arguing about the state of Fire is silly.  Fire is not matter.  Fire is a chemical reaction.   So it is silly to say that liquid fire can exist.   Though, one could say that a liquid can be on fire.




Err, no.

Fire *in our world* is a particular expression of the release of chemical energy.

Fire *in D&D* is a fundamental building block of nature.  It may be considered roughly analogous to carbon, or oxygen, or hydrogen.

Fire *is matter* in D&D.

Any arguments based on assumptions to the contrary are based solely in real-world physics, and as such are not applicable to D&D physics.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jun 24, 2005)

anon said:
			
		

> To those who believe that the Fire Elemental *should* be affected, would this creature be affected as well?




No, but only because you're cheating and he's mistyped.  He's not an elemental.



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Elemental Type: An elemental is a being composed of one of the four classical elements: air, earth, fire, or water.






> Vacuum's are comprised of nothing. They are the absense of all matter.




He's probably some weird kind of undead..

You also missed the [Incorporeal] subtype, which gives him a 50% chance to ignore the damage anyway.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 24, 2005)

anon said:
			
		

> To those who believe that the Fire Elemental *should* be affected, would this creature be affected as well?




You realize the creature you created is harmed by a non-magic sword right? Explain how that's possible if it is composed of nothing.

Heck, explain how it slams opponents, if you really want logic!


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jun 24, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> You realize the creature you created is harmed by a non-magic sword right? Explain how that's possible if it is composed of nothing.
> 
> Heck, explain how it slams opponents, if you really want logic!




In other words, Horrid Wilting is a really strange place to draw a line.


----------



## dedicated (Jun 24, 2005)

Plus, once it sucked air in from a creature it would seize to be composed of nothing, defying it's exisitence.

Good luck trying to use that


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 24, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> In other words, Horrid Wilting is a really strange place to draw a line.




Prezactly.


----------



## Shadowdweller (Jun 24, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> No, but only because you're cheating and he's mistyped.  He's not an elemental.
> He's probably some weird kind of undead..





> Fire in our world is a particular expression of the release of chemical energy.  Fire in D&D is a fundamental building block of nature. It may be considered roughly analogous to carbon, or oxygen, or hydrogen.



So...let me get this straight.  You're using 'flavor text' as an argument AGAINST using 'flavor text'?


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jun 24, 2005)

Shadowdweller said:
			
		

> So...let me get this straight.  You're using 'flavor text' as an argument AGAINST using 'flavor text'?




No.  There are four elements on the D&D periodic table: Fire, Air, Earth, and Water.

Something that isn't made up [primarily] of those things isn't an elemental.

Therefore, to take something and make it an elemental when it doesn't fulfill the requirements of being an elemental is cheating, especially when you're doing so to prove a point.


----------



## anon (Jun 24, 2005)

You're evading the point of the posted (invented) Vacuum creature.

If you don't like the Elemental type, change it to Aberration.

Now there's a "living creature" (aberrations are living as far as I can tell) which explicitly has no moisture in it.

Is it effected or not?

The point of this, in my opinion, is to show that "living creature" is not only only limitation on the spell.  If it is clear that there is no moisture in a specific creature, even one that is living, then the spell should not be effective, IMHO.


----------



## Shadowdweller (Jun 24, 2005)

Deleted: Irrelevant tangent


----------



## glass (Jun 24, 2005)

I'd just like to point something out here:

Lots of people are making M:tG comparisions. In M:tG, flavour text is clearly denoted by a different type style. In D&D, there is no such differentiation: there is just text in the rule book. Therefore, there is no way to say for certain whether a given phrase is flavour text or rules, but given the fact that it's in a rules book, I'd say rules should be the default assumption.

In other words, the answer to the argument, 'that's just flavour text', is 'says who?'


glass.


----------



## hazmat (Jun 24, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Err, no.
> Fire in our world is a particular expression of the release of chemical energy.
> Fire in D&D is a fundamental building block of nature. It may be considered roughly analogous to carbon, or oxygen, or hydrogen.
> Fire is matter in D&D.
> Any arguments based on assumptions to the contrary are based solely in real-world physics, and as such are not applicable to D&D physics.




So to paraphrase:
Fire is an "element".  Elements in the real world are matter.  Thus Fire in D&D is matter.

Any argument made like mine using solely real-world physics that doesn't come to my conclusion is wrong.  (Sarcasm should be evident). 

From what book are you getting the rules of D&D physics?   How is your interpretation any more right than mine?


----------



## akbearfoot (Jun 24, 2005)

*Houserules*

If you changed HW to not affect fire elementals....did you also make air/earth/non-water elementals immune too?  How about other creatures that live in the EPoF?  Or the shadow plane, or wherever.  How about Warforged?

-Moisture- isn't a defined term in D&D, and thus any mention of it in flavor text should be ignored.

This thread very much reminds me of the Troll vs. Disentegrate argument.  It makes sense that it should work, but it doesen't because thats the rules.  House rule it if you want to, but your players should know before they waste an action.


----------



## Staffan (Jun 25, 2005)

akbearfoot said:
			
		

> If you changed HW to not affect fire elementals....did you also make air/earth/non-water elementals immune too?



If they're the Elemental monster, sure. If they're just of the Elemental type (e.g. Thoquaa), probably. (As an aside, it's bloody annoying to have Elemental mean both a specific monster and a whole category of them)


> How about other creatures that live in the EPoF?



Probably not, unless they're elementals and thus composed entirely of that element.


> Or the shadow plane, or wherever.



Again, probably not.


> How about Warforged?



Definitely not. There's a lot of wood and leather and alchemical fluids in a warforged.


----------



## Voadam (Jun 27, 2005)

akbearfoot said:
			
		

> -Moisture- isn't a defined term in D&D, and thus any mention of it in flavor text should be ignored.




Because the best way to run a roleplaying game is to stick solely to the explicitly defined terms and pretend all other descriptions in the rules and game do not matter.


----------



## werk (Jun 27, 2005)

dedicated said:
			
		

> Plus, once it sucked air in from a creature it would seize to be composed of nothing, defying it's exisitence.
> 
> Good luck trying to use that




Nature abhors your vacuum.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 27, 2005)

anon said:
			
		

> You're evading the point of the posted (invented) Vacuum creature.




You seem to be evading my counter-point. Your elemental has no mass or makeup yet it is vulnerable to a mundane everyday sword wielded by a 1st level commoner, and a _magic missile_ spell does full damage as well. If this is the case, why are you so worried about _horrid wilting_? Logic doesn't work too good in D&D; if you keep trying to make it work, you'll just end up with a migrane.


----------



## Asmo (Jun 27, 2005)

My hat of vacuum nows no limit!

Asmo


----------

