Horrid Wilting

[Trainz]

No, the DM can play it as written, which means it would work on fire elementals as well as orcs.

The judgement call is whether or not to make a judgement call. Don't you see how you are confounding yourself by calling into question the relative moisture content of creatures?

The spell removes moisture.

Physics or no physics, it doesn't make sense to have moisture inside a being made of pure fire.

That's all.

 

[werk]

The spell removes moisture.

Physics or no physics, it doesn't make sense to have moisture inside a being made of pure fire.

That's all.

Elementals are incarnations of the elements that they represent. Where do you see that they are made entirely of pure fire (and no moisture)?

It says it has a flaming body, but that doesn't mean 'made out of flame' to me...

You are thinking too much

 

[Voadam]

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.

If you assume the moisture part of the description of the spell as written has no effect or assume that all living creatures have moisture, then yes, as written it affects all living creatures without exception.

Those are not necessary assumptions under RAW though. Or necessarily desirable in running a flavorful RPG with magic and elementals. And saying a person reading the moisture part of the spell description as written has no reason to be confused on its application to a fire elemental is disingenuous.

 

[Voadam]

No, the DM can play it as written, which means it would work on fire elementals as well as orcs.

The judgement call is whether or not to make a judgement call. Don't you see how you are confounding yourself by calling into question the relative moisture content of creatures?

Yes, a DM must make a judgment call on whether or not the moisture part of the spell description can have a game effect and then decide whether in his judgment a fire elemental has any moisture in it.

No I don't see that I am confounding myself at all.

It appears to be an ambiguous rules situation with conflicting reasonable calls that a DM could make without conflicting with any RAW.

An unambiguous rules situation would be if there was only one explanation without conflicting with any RAW.

 

[Voadam]

@ 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.

You can reasonably say that moisture isn't a general game term and has no rule effect other than describing the spell effect.

However you can also reasonably argue that since it is in the spell description it is a game term that limits the effects of the spell and that can exist side by side with the spell's limitation to living creatures.

 

[werk]

You can reasonably say that moisture isn't a general game term and has no rule effect other than describing the spell effect.

yes

However you can also reasonably argue that since it is in the spell description it is a game term that limits the effects of the spell and that can exist side by side with the spell's limitation to living creatures.

No. The spell description does not say that moisture content of the target is limiting. You are inferring that because it lists water elms and plants you think the effectiveness of the spell is based on moisture level, which is not stated.

Bottom line, it's an 8th level spell, it's supposed to be powerful. If you are going to make the spell subjective to moisture content of the target, you're making a mess for yourself (and worse, for your caster). My friendly advice is to resist the urge to use logic. Using logic only leads to every decision being subjective to the decision maker...which is unpredictable at best.

Come from a different angle...I see your argument, it's very clear and sensible, but I think that it causes issues when applied.

Can you find a way to explain why it would work on fire elementals? Something that would be acceptable to you. If you can explain it to yourself, you'll probably decide that is a good enough explanation to avoid on-the-fly rulings about moisture level of targets in the future.

 

[Chacal]

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.
Cheers

I'd rule exactly this way, using the same assumptions about the game.



Chacal

 

[Nail]

However you can also reasonably argue that since it is in the spell description it is a game term that limits the effects of the spell and that can exist side by side with the spell's limitation to living creatures.

I agree.

Two points:
#1) The spell works fine as written. As written, the spell works on all living creatures, and does not require an evaluation of the being's moisture content.

#2) Should you change this in your game, allow a bit of wiggle room for your players. It sounds like most of us do that.


As a complete tangent off into real world chemistry: It is possible to extract water from something than has no water molecules in it. It's called a decomposition reaction, and my Intro. Chem. students just completed one such experiment this morning.

In other words, it's possible to remove moisture from a creature that has no moisture by decomposing it's constituent compounds. Just think of the damage that would cause!

 

[Voadam]

yes

No. The spell description does not say that moisture content of the target is limiting. You are inferring that because it lists water elms and plants you think the effectiveness of the spell is based on moisture level, which is not stated.

Actually you are incorrectly assuming that is the basis of my conclusion. I am not basing it off of the water elemental part but the first sentence of the spell "This spell evaporates moisture from the body of each subject living creature, dealing 1d6 points of damage per caster level (maximum 20d6)."

So it says explicitly that it is the evaporation of moisture from the body of the subject that deals the damage.

My inference is that if there is no moisture in the living body of the target for the spell to evaporate then there is nothing dealing damage from the spell.

Similarly I think it also looks like any living creature without a body is not affected (incorporeal comes to mind for bodiless creatures though no living incorporeals as examples do).

 

[Voadam]

As a complete tangent off into real world chemistry: It is possible to extract water from something than has no water molecules in it. It's called a decomposition reaction, and my Intro. Chem. students just completed one such experiment this morning.

In other words, it's possible to remove moisture from a creature that has no moisture by decomposing it's constituent compounds. Just think of the damage that would cause!

Is that extraction an evaporation process?