Horrid Wilting

[Voadam]

Without some convincing evidence toward that fact, it is best to interpriet the spell to affect fire elementals.

I disagree. I too find it ambiguous under the RAW but this leads me to conclude a DM would be justified in ruling either way for his campaign and remain within RAW.

Why would you then conclude it is best to interpret it to affect fire elementals?

One set of values towards including them would be ease of adjudication, just assume everything has moisture and this is a non issue for any living creature in the game.

Another set of values would be that it seems cooler to have a moisture draining spell not affect a fire elemental for flavor reasons. This brings descriptions into more relevance and requires thinking of the spell as more than just doing x dice of damage.

 

[catsclaw227]

What this physical aspect actually is isn't covered by the RAW. Until the Book of Elementals* ....

*I know of no plans by WotC to release such a book ever, though it would be cool

I have a copy of a book by FFG called Elemental Lore. I'll look into it when I get home on Monday and se if ti has anything.

 

[catsclaw227]

One set of values towards including them would be ease of adjudication, just assume everything has moisture and this is a non issue for any living creature in the game.

Another set of values would be that it seems cooler to have a moisture draining spell not affect a fire elemental for flavor reasons. This brings descriptions into more relevance and requires thinking of the spell as more than just doing x dice of damage.

As I have stated before, I feel this is a DM judgement call. Why does ether side have to prove anything to anyone? As Voadam states, there are two flavors of thought, and both are valid, just different.

 

[Goolpsy]

As the spell states.. it is especially harmful to water... and as fire as the opposite element, they would acording to the describtion not take much damage or none at all.

You want to know how Fire deal bludgeoning damamge is... MAGIC
its a magic world with magic creatures...
but remember. these elemental ideas are made from the early greeks theory of how the world was build. its PURELY made of that specific element (with earth being a slight execption here)
Water is WATER, Air is the air .. gasses. Fire is FIRE and Earth is Solid matter.
So....
once more
Water is WATER, Air is the air .. gasses. Fire is FIRE and Earth is Solid matter.

now someone started the argument fire has water.. that equal to Fire is water Which doesn't make sense in any way, and it is certainly NOT the way Wotc made it to work.

the d&d system is made on counters.. there is a counter to everything.
Good - Evil, Law - Chaos, Devil - Celestial, Living - Dead, Fire - Water, Air - Earth
So with fire-water being a counter, a spell particularly good or directed at the particular thing, would be less effective or wouldn't work at all agaisnt the other.
Examples could be "holy damage" or "Unholy damamge" "Fire Damage" etc, Then there is describes in the book of vile darkness and book of Exalted deeds are damage type each creatures or opposet types.
And in that way, the Horrid wilting works too, --> Godo vs Water.. Bad vs Fire
(How you handle this is a matter of Flavor)

now thats the magic part of view...

now the physical and scientific way of explanation...

Fire is Warmth Energy, its a visionary to see release of energy.
Release of energy is "noticed" in more than one way.. usually theres some sound too, thought fire is soundless.
Fire comes from release of Carbon, i.e. the stoff living matter is build of.
so if you burn wood, you release its carbon you are able to see the flames, but it is only atoms moving at an exeptional rate that produce this light.
You could indeed state that fire in some way is the same as air, just air moving at a faster rate, - hence the heat. Its free Atoms moving around eachother without being bound together by anything, water on the other hand is a Liquid, with its bound atoms forming molecules.
So the diffinition of Liquid and of Fire are diffrend hence they are NOT the same.

And a spell working on Liquid would in that way nOT work on fire, as they contain no liquid at all.

 

[Ferret]

We are the one's saying that the spell should work, you are the one with the unsupported moisture argument. I've supplied text from the rules, which support that the spell will work on all living creatures (a lot more than fire elementals) and avoids ad-hoc moisture rulings during play. So please try support your moisture argument with something other than 'it doesn't make sense' or 'fire doesn't have moisture' because those are assumtions, not d20 mechanics.

I would assume that the laws of physics apply, but then again those are d20 mechainics.....

 

[Goolpsy]

Fire elementals would be poorly effected either way.. Physics say that nothing would happen. And reading and understanding the whole d20 mechanism (Not jsut interpretate and twist it - Like some Evil Curropting our world) the Fire elementals would be poorly affected.. if not affected at all

 

[Trainz]

Well I've decided to let it work IMC.

Now all my instincts tell me it shouldn't, but I let it.

It SHOULDN'T work.

 

[RigaMortus]

As the spell states.. it is especially harmful to water... and as fire as the opposite element, they would acording to the describtion not take much damage or none at all.

You want to know how Fire deal bludgeoning damamge is... MAGIC
its a magic world with magic creatures...

By the same logic, couldn't a Fire Elemental have moisture? You know, since it is a magical world and everything...

 

[Goolpsy]

by sticking to the d&d mechanics it shouldn't take much or any damage EVEN if it had some kind of moisture...

Fire, is light and Heat from particles moving at a fast rate, hence no moisture..

It might however work vs Lava or Magma monsters having the Fire subtype, and coming from the Elemental plane of fire... (as they have moiture)
But as with the game mechanics.. they shouldn't be affected much..

 

[Nail]

Fire, is light and Heat from particles moving at a fast rate, hence no moisture.

....unless the particles are gaseous water molecules......

You *really* don't wanna go down this "real world science" road. You'll lose.