Horrid Wilting

[ThirdWizard]

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]

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]

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]

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]

.......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]

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]

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]

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

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.

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]

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]

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."