Horrid Wilting

[Trainz]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.