Horrid Wilting

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

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]

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]

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]

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

Prove this statement.

 

[Trainz]

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]

Prove this statement.

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

 

[Scion]

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]

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]

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.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

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