Horrid Wilting

[Voadam]

I, likewise, see no rule that says there is no moisture. Prove me wrong.

In the absence of a rule to the contrary play it as written. So allow it.

As written it says it drains moisture. So what happens if the living creature target has no moisture? As written I would have to say no damage.

So the DM must make a judgment call on whether fire elementals have moisture in their bodies. No rules cover this judgment call. Either way seems a valid call. So allowing it or not, either is a valid choice.

 

[Nail]

@ Voadam: Yep.

'Cept some might argue that since "moisture" isn't a game term, it's flavor text. Being a living creature is a game term, and therefore takes precedence.

 

[werk]

So what happens if the living creature target has no moisture?

That is the issue.
Assume all living creatures have moisture, since nothing says otherwise.
HW is especially devastating to water elementals and plants (note that it doesn't say why). Maybe it is not because they have more or less moisture, but rather that they can't regulate moisture level as well and non-water-based creatures. It doesn't say, so it's not important, and you should not draw further conclusions. You (figurative you) are hung up on how the spell works mechanically (sensibly) on the moisture of different creatures, which is not explained at all, really. It just works, and has the described effect.

This can go around and around, but if you just play it as written, there is no confusion.

 

[catsclaw227]

OK -- so I just read through this whole thread and wonder if this is much ado about nothing. My personal interpretation may (and likely will) differ from others on this board, but doesn't negate the fact that as a DM, I would choose to adjudicate that use of horid wilting to be inefective. Again, this is my personal interpretation. My point here is that if I rule on this during combat, this is not generating a new "house rule", but simply judging a situation to work a certain way because not EVERYTHING can be determined by RAW. Why do I need to "house rule" this? Does this mean that every single personal decision I make as a DM, like fudging dice in favor of the players, needs to be documented and made law?

I am glad I don't have any rules lawyers in my game...

I like what Plane Sailing said....

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.)

This is a reasonable and understandable decision that -- as the DM -- I would make. My players would understand since I don't just kill them for no reason and I act fairly in their favor most of the time anyway.

catsclaw

 

[James Heard]

Fire elementals have firewater in their sooty, fiery veins of course. That's why all my goblin injuns seek them out and slay them in such great numbers.

If you dismissed the flavor text or reduced the text to its essentials the RAW allow for the spell to be used against elementals, I'd rule that you could sweat something out of an elemental and just hope my Spellcraft/Knowledge(Planes) 30+ players didn't start asking specific questions. Basically I think it's just common sense that if they're living creatures, and you look at the way Shadow creatures are set up, that elementals of all types operate basically like pigs, sheep, goats, & bears would if they too were formed on planes where the only essential qualifier involved was some magical variant of the regular stuff of life with the [element] descriptor involved.

 

[Oryan77]

I wonder if Salt Elementals have anything to say about dying from a Horrid Wilting spell evaporating "moisture" from their body. Afterall, it's a living creature also.

 

[Kilroy]

This thread has given me a really stupid idea, which means that it will most likely show up in my campaign soon knowing my players A new spell against fire elementals Abi Dazim's Horrid soaking......fills the subjects body with fluids.....fire elementals beware

Piratecat beat you to it. ;-)

 

[Nail]

My players would understand since I don't just kill them for no reason and I act fairly in their favor most of the time anyway.

Sounds like you've got good players. Good job!

 

[Nail]

I wonder if Salt Elementals have anything to say about dying from a Horrid Wilting spell evaporating "moisture" from their body. Afterall, it's a living creature also.

Not much.....cause they'd be dead. Since they have no souls, they simply cease to be, so no moaning on and on in the afterlife either.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Exactly my point.

How do you (the DM) know? You might not.

Might not, to be sure, but IMG we have a good deal of table talk, and in any case I trust my players well enough that I can reasonably expect one to say "But I prepared that spell specifically to use against fire elementals!" and know it's not a bald-faced lie. I might suggest as an alternative in games in which this is NOT the case that the player be allowed to swap out the HW spell and pick another spell of his choosing.