AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

Looking for DM ruling on this spells effect.

Okay so the NwN version works a little different then the PnP version. If you could pull out your PHB 3.5 and turn to page 242 we can see here that it says..
"Targets: Living Creatures, no two of which can be more then 60ft apart"
On down into the general description it states;
"This spell evaporates moisture from the body of each subject living creature, dealing 1d6 points of damage per caster level (max 20d6). This spell is especially devastating to water elementals and plant creatures, which instead take 1d8 points of damage per caster level (max 20d8)."

Now i put the points of interest in bold there. The debate, mostly with myself, is that this spell would not in fact effect a forest area. It appears to work much like Lightning Bolt, or Chain Lightning in that it only effects CREATURES, not trees, not bushes, not pools of water. Rabbits are SoL. Now to get an idea of a spell that does effect everything turn to page 231 and look at the classical Fireball. I wont type that out here, far to lazy for that. But reading it it makes it rather clear that this spell effects everything hit, even making it a point to detail that it lights combustibles on fire. So if Horrid Wilting effected trees, could we not assume the same treatment would have been given to its description?

Then we have the NwN version of the spell that just does an AoE damage graphic effect like our Fireballs. So the question has risen.. Is this spell akin to Chain Lightning, jumping from living creature to living creature 'effectively' even though we only see the one blob of graphical effect? Or does this spell utterly destroy each and everything caught in its AoE?

Tree is a living creature, ergo it would be affected.

Yes, of course not a DM, but trees, vegetation, plants, all living creatures. Horrid Wilting removes moisture from any living thing that has moisture in it. Which is why its supposed to be so damn effective against water elementals. That's all they are is moisture. I imagine it practically makes them sublimate or something.

So if you casted it in the middle of the forest, the trees and plant life around it would of course, well, wilt horridly. You're sucking all the moisture out of them. You can do no long-term damage without a DM present, but it'd be safe to assume the spot where someone casted it would be noticeable for a short time.

The descriptor seems to imply it affects all creatures that the caster targets and ignores that which is not targeted.

Well, such is the case with Fireball or any other AoE spell too.

It actually only -damages-, mechanically, the things you are hostile towards, IE, then things you are targeting. But that's not to say just because you're aiming your scintillating sphere at the goblin, the area immediately around him doesn't get zapped too.

I'm not saying it couldn't be the other way, the VFX is completely NWN-made, the spell's definition never says how or in what process the moisture is removed. So it's really anyone's guess. And I'm not sure if making a concrete ruling on speculation is something our DM's are keen on, without it being necessary.

I'm thinking that since the moisture is removed from inside out, there is a concious effort involved in choosing what gets their moisture removed. Which differs from other indiscriminate AOE spells.

The context of the question is whether the spell inflicts "collateral damage" on the plants surrounding the intended target(s) of the spell, and therefore whether a druid or ranger would find its use in their forest to be inherently objectionable. That's a question worthy of a DM's attention, I think.

Lizzie wrote:

The context of the question is whether the spell inflicts "collateral damage" on the plants surrounding the intended target(s) of the spell, and therefore whether a druid or ranger would find its use in their forest to be inherently objectionable.

So it's a question on whether is a valid excuse for pvp?

Dramatic_Prince wrote:

Lizzie wrote:

The context of the question is whether the spell inflicts "collateral damage" on the plants surrounding the intended target(s) of the spell, and therefore whether a druid or ranger would find its use in their forest to be inherently objectionable.

So it's a question on whether is a valid excuse for pvp?

No. It's a question about whether a sorcerer/ranger would choose to cast the spell.

Lizzie wrote:

No. It's a question about whether a sorcerer/ranger would choose to cast the spell.

Assuming it is ruled to do collateral damage, does said ranger/sorc have a valid excuse to turn aggressive on the caster?

Dramatic_Prince wrote:

Lizzie wrote:

No. It's a question about whether a sorcerer/ranger would choose to cast the spell.

Assuming it is ruled to do collateral damage, does said ranger/sorc have a valid excuse to turn aggressive on the caster?

On himself or herself?

The question is perfectly valid.

Silvarus wrote:

On himself or herself?

On some other player character who is not himself, herself, or his or her split personality.

Fireball explodes in an area, hitting everything within.
Area: 20-ft.-radius spread

Lightning bolt hits everything in a line.
Area: 120-ft. line

Horrid Wilting hits LIVING CREATURES, which would not include collateral damage like the above spells simply because as stated the spell only targets LIVING creatures. This would not include trees, but would include a Treant for instance.
Targets: Living creatures, no two of which can be more than 60 ft. apart

And this is why local fauna would not be affected:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typessubtypes.htm wrote:

Plant Type: This type comprises vegetable creatures. Note that regular plants, such as one finds growing in gardens and fields, lack Wisdom and Charisma scores (see Nonabilities) and are not creatures, but objects, even though they are alive.

Gravemaskin wrote:

Fireball explodes in an area, hitting everything within.
Area: 20-ft.-radius spread

Lightning bolt hits everything in a line.
Area: 120-ft. line

Horrid Wilting hits LIVING CREATURES, which would not include collateral damage like the above spells simply because as stated the spell only targets LIVING creatures. This would not include trees, but would include a Treant for instance.
Targets: Living creatures, no two of which can be more than 60 ft. apart

And this is why local fauna would not be affected:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typessubtypes.htm wrote:

Plant Type: This type comprises vegetable creatures. Note that regular plants, such as one finds growing in gardens and fields, lack Wisdom and Charisma scores (see Nonabilities) and are not creatures, but objects, even though they are alive.

Case closed.

Sounds good to me. Now just need the DMs to wake up and give their 2c

Edit: And when i said wake up, i meant as in getting out of bed! >_<

I would rather spend 2c to keep more pennies out of my pocket.

Gravemaskin wrote:

Fireball explodes in an area, hitting everything within.
Area: 20-ft.-radius spread

Lightning bolt hits everything in a line.
Area: 120-ft. line

Horrid Wilting hits LIVING CREATURES, which would not include collateral damage like the above spells simply because as stated the spell only targets LIVING creatures. This would not include trees, but would include a Treant for instance.
Targets: Living creatures, no two of which can be more than 60 ft. apart

And this is why local fauna would not be affected:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typessubtypes.htm wrote:

Plant Type: This type comprises vegetable creatures. Note that regular plants, such as one finds growing in gardens and fields, lack Wisdom and Charisma scores (see Nonabilities) and are not creatures, but objects, even though they are alive.

Yes, correct.

Grave strikes again!

Also.. for future reference, this place usually has the answers for such questions beyond reasonable doubt.

http://www.d20srd.org/

It's where I retrieved the info for my post.

About as i had thought. Thanks a lot guys.

And now, for you're listening pleasure, Xeno will sing Barry Manilow's hit single "Copacabana!" Take it away!

Thanks GuNz! And here we go!

*sings it baby*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKsVhyiISY8

Her name was Lola, she was a showgirl
With yellow feathers in her hair and a dress cut down to there
She would merengue and do the cha-cha
And while she tried to be a star, Tony always tended bar
Across a crowded floor, they worked from 8 till 4
They were young and they had each other
Who could ask for more?

At the Copa (CO!), Copacabana (Copacabana)
The hottest spot north of Havana (here)
At the Copa (CO!), Copacabana
Music and passion were always the fashion
At the Copa....they fell in love

(Copa Copacabana)

His name was Rico, he wore a diamond
He was escorted to his chair, he saw Lola dancin' there
And when she finished, he called her over
But Rico went a bit too far, Tony sailed across the bar
And then the punches flew and chairs were smashed in two
There was blood and a single gun shot
But just who shot who?

At the Copa (CO!), Copacabana (Copacabana)
The hottest spot north of Havana (here)
At the Copa (CO!), Copacabana
Music and passion were always the fashion
At the Copa....she lost her love

(Copa. . Copacabana)
(Copa Copacabana) (Copacabana, ahh ahh ahh ahh)
(Ahh ahh ahh ahh Copa Copacabana)
(Talking Havana have a banana)
(Music and passion...always the fash--shun)

Her name is Lola, she was a showgirl
But that was 30 years ago, when they used to have a show
Now it's a disco, but not for Lola
Still in the dress she used to wear, faded feathers in her hair
She sits there so refined, and drinks herself half-blind
She lost her youth and she lost her Tony
Now she's lost her mind!

At the Copa (CO!), Copacabana (Copacabana)
The hottest spot north of Havana (here)
At the Copa (CO!), Copacabana
Music and passion were always the fashion
At the Copa....don't fall in love

(Copa) don't fall in love
Copacabana
Copacabana

Spam.

Horrid Wilting Mechanics

Who is online