Horrid Wilting

[catsclaw227]

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]

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]

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

 

[ThirdWizard]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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>