Ugh, ELEMENTALS DON'T HAVE METABOLISMS!! GAAAAHHHHH!!!!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 meIt sucked out something vital and it hurt them.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Horrid Wilting
- Thread starter Trainz
- Start date
ThirdWizard
First Post
ZuulMoG said:
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
First Post
ZuulMoG said:
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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:
SRD said:
To me this means that the body of these beings contains nothing but the element which they represent.
SRD said:
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
First Post
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.
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
First Post
hazmat said:
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.
Similar Threads
