Blue Dragon: Desert Thirst Damage?

A blue dragon can cast create water at will (CL equals its HD). Alternatively, it can destroy an equal amount of liquid in a 10-foot burst. Unattended liquids are instantly reduced to sand. Liquid-based magic items (such as potions) and items in a creature's possession must succeed on a Will save or be destroyed. The save DC is Charisma-based.

So, say a Blue Dragon uses his 10 foot burst against a wildshaped druid attacking him. What is the effect on the druid?

Nothing in there says it doesn't effect creatures; however it doesn't spell out the mechanical effect that happens to creatures, but it reads as a save or die effect for most creatures. RAW, I am reading that a creature has a Will or all of the fluids in his body are destroyed. Is that correct?

Am I missing an errata or something, or is that actually how that works? Because Save or die effects aren't usually AoEs, and they usually don't also force saves or destroy a ton of the character's magic items as well.

Nothing in there says it doesn't effect creatures; however it doesn't spell out the mechanical effect that happens to creatures, but it reads as a save or die effect for most creatures. RAW, I am reading that a creature has a Will or all of the fluids in his body are destroyed. Is that correct?

That's not the way the rules work. The rules tell you what you can do, not what you can't do.

Unattended liquids are instantly reduced to sand. Liquid-based magic items (such as potions) and items in a creature's possession must succeed on a Will save or be destroyed.

I'd say bodily fluids are neither unattended, magical nor in anyone's possession, and are therefore exempt from destruction.

... Is this for real? Like a real question you are asking as a DM about to inflict dickery upon his players?

In which case, I would sincerely and seriously counsel against rapidly expanding the capability of Supernatural ability outside what has been spelled out by RAW (and golly, your use of the term "RAW" shames me, a staunch adherent of it).

I know the DM is king of his own campaign, but you'll just end up no/masochistic players if you head down this dark path.

The ability will, RAW,:

1: Destroy liquids (unless you are a water elemental, creatures aren't regarded usually as liquids. Are you considered a liquid perchance? A water elemental striding, hidden, amongst us mere mortals?)

2: Destroy potions if a will save is failed.

I wish I had the link to the Penny Arcade comic where Tycho tried this on his group and lost all his players. But the comic site search function is utter rust-monster leavings, so alas.

prototype00

@VRMH: I would say bodily fluids are obviously attended and in possession of the creatures to whom they belong, and I see no reason to think they would not be a valid attended nonmagical liquid target.(From what the rules say - as a DM I definitely think the effect is too powerful as an at will ability on a CR 5.)

@prototype00: This is for real in that I do see this as taking RAW without filters. As a Player I would be pissed if a GM actually used said ability RAW, and as a GM I would probably remove the ability entirely and give the blue dragon something else, or would simly not use the blue dragon.

Do I think the broad consequences of this ability are fun? I'm sure players would enjoy having such an ability, but I doubt they would enjoy being subject to it.

1. Characters are not themselves liquids, but most are largely comprised of liquids, and most of them could not live without their liquids.
2. Yep, it destroys potions, and cripples alchemists by destroying their mutagens and bombs. I am familiar with that.

I am certain that players would not be fond of being on the receiving end of this. That doesn't mean than I see any reason it wouldn't work RAW, only that I as a GM would avoid using such an ability against the players; I also don't use the massive damage rule (and didn't even pre-Pathfinder, before it was optional), and I try to avoid using enemies that have save or die effects (or attacks powerful to 1-hit kill - incapacitate is fine, kill not so much), unless the party is capable of resurrecting their friends easily (like if one of them has blood money and a means of resurrection/negative level removal on their list somehow, arranged so that they don't expend any permanent resources to cast such expensive spells).

The rules tell you what you can do, not what you can't do.

You seem to be ignoring this. Everything else is fluff text, unless it says it does something mechanical. No damage or no save or die effect? It doesn't do these things.

RAW means taking the rules as written, not extrapolating some kind of "logical extreme" based on the flavor text.

prototype00

Desert Thirst (Su) wrote:

A blue dragon can cast create water at will (CL equals its HD). Alternatively, it can destroy an equal amount of liquid in a 10-foot burst.

So, say a Blue Dragon uses his 10 foot burst against a wildshaped druid attacking him. What is the effect on the druid?

Not a god damn thing, because the Druid is a creature, not a liquid. Do you lie awake at night worrying about PCs Mage Handing the eyeballs out of your monsters?

He might have been referring to a druid wildshaped into a Water Elemental. In which case, this spell should do something.

... Is this for real? Like a real question you are asking as a DM about to inflict dickery upon his players?

In which case, I would sincerely and seriously counsel against rapidly expanding the capability of Supernatural ability outside what has been spelled out by RAW (and golly, your use of the term "RAW" shames me, a staunch adherent of it).

I know the DM is king of his own campaign, but you'll just end up no/masochistic players if you head down this dark path.

The ability will, RAW,:

1: Destroy liquids (unless you are a water elemental, creatures aren't regarded usually as liquids. Are you considered a liquid perchance? A water elemental striding, hidden, amongst us mere mortals?)

2: Destroy potions if a will save is failed.

I wish I had the link to the Penny Arcade comic where Tycho tried this on his group and lost all his players. But the comic site search function is utter rust-monster leavings, so alas.

prototype00

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2011/12/02/the-conflux-part-five

;)

Quote:

The rules tell you what you can do, not what you can't do.

You seem to be ignoring this. Everything else is fluff text, unless it says it does something mechanical. No damage or no save or die effect? It doesn't do these things.

RAW means taking the rules as written, not extrapolating some kind of "logical extreme" based on the flavor text.

prototype00

Actually, the rules explicitly state that the PC's attended nonmagical liquids (bodily fluids are nonmagical liquid) make a save or are destroyed.

What they don't do is state what the effect of having no bodily fluids would have on a creature. If you want to argue that the lack of damage or explicitly stating death means those things can't happen, I suppose that's a possible (albeit weird) interpretation. But it does explicitly state save or fluid is destroyed. In that scenario, you would have a bunch of liquid-less creatures miraculously still functioning the same without bile or blood or spinal fluid or gastric fluid or brain fluids; but you are right, it doesn't say what the effect of having no liquids is on a creature - and if you take an absence of listed effects as meaning no effects, then under this ability, creatures who have had all of their internal liquids destroyed suffer no ill effects from that, but if someone checked them out medically, they would notice that they have no bodily fluids.

It's far from the only time they published an ability that was incomplete, or left open weird corner cases they just don't explain in detail. For instance, the Convincing Lie talent for the rogue, which RAW only does something if the person you lied to is informed about it and then chooses to cooperate (telling what you believe to be the truth does not involve Bluff Checks, and it says: "uses the rogue’s Bluff skill modifier to convince the questioner, rather than his own. If his Bluff skill modifier is better than the rogue’s, the individual can use his own modifier and gain a +2 bonus on any check to convince others of the lie." - they have to be intentionally bluffing for it to do anything; and there's not much reason he would ever do that unless you tell him you lied to him and then still manage to convince him to go spread that lie.). Do I think that is what the RAI was? not at all. Does the RAW even remotely accomplish what I think was the RAI? No it does not, it does something else entirely. Would I as a GM houserule it to make it work the way I think it was intended to, and allow the rogue to have his Bluff replace the target's Diplomacy mod to convince people of something they believe to be true? Sure. Would that be a houserule? Absolutely.

Darkholme wrote:

Desert Thirst (Su) wrote:

A blue dragon can cast create water at will (CL equals its HD). Alternatively, it can destroy an equal amount of liquid in a 10-foot burst.

So, say a Blue Dragon uses his 10 foot burst against a wildshaped druid attacking him. What is the effect on the druid?

Not a g#& d%*n thing, because the Druid is a creature, not a liquid. Do you lie awake at night worrying about PCs Mage Handing the eyeballs out of your monsters?

The monster's eyeballs are most certainly attended, and therefore not a valid target, they are also, as part of a creature, arguably not under the category of "object". A large portion of the Druid is however various kinds of attended liquids, and the ability says nothing about not affecting creatures.

He might have been referring to a druid wildshaped into a Water Elemental. In which case, this spell should do something.

I actually just meant wildshaped in general, to take equipment out of the picture.

@Ashram, yeah, that's what made me go look at the Pathfinde Blue Dragon. I was thinking: "No way does it actually do that" so I went and checked. It doesn't turn it "TO SAAAND" but it does explicitly say it destroys the liquids, which in turn prompted me to look and see if anyone had responded to it, or if said ability had been errata'ed to exclude creatures, or anything like that, only to find nothing of the sort.

By the same reasoning a rust monster should also be able to kill any living creature because we all have iron in our blood. There is a big difference between containing liquid and being liquid. Besides liquid is a state of being not a substance. Water like any substance can and does exist in all three forms (Solid, Liquid, and Gas).

By the same reasoning a rust monster should also be able to kill any living creature because we all have iron in our blood. There is a big difference between containing liquid and being liquid. Besides liquid is a state of being not a substance. Water like any substance can and does exist in all three forms (Solid, Liquid, and Gas).

In the case of the rust monster, living creatures may have iron inside of them, but they cannot be said to be a "metal object" which the rust monster can "touch". The Blue Dragon, on the other hand "destroy an equal amount of liquid [to what they could create with create water] in a 10-foot burst. Unattended liquids are instantly reduced to sand. Liquid-based magic items (such as potions) and items in a creature's possession must succeed on a Will save or be destroyed."

Ah. I do see a reason creatures could be excluded, that I missed before. Internal Fluids are not unattended liquids, they are certainly attended. However, they are not items (I originally misread it as liquid based magic items and liquids in a creature's possession); and it doesn't call out attended liquids that are not items as a valid target. If that is the argument taken, then an attended swimming pool should also not be a valid target (a swimming pool is an object, but it is not an item).

IMO, poor phrasing results in things that can be read multiple ways, and often many of them don't match the intent of the text - which GMs can only guess at.

Since bodily fluids are definitely attended, nonmagical, and not items (unless you want a sleight of hand DC to steal someone's blood), the ability doesn't say what it does to them. So it does nothing.

If we want to continue down the rabbit hole of what it "should" do, then it should also do nothing. You don't have line of effect to the bodily fluids (minus you turning them inside out or something) so you can't affect their bodily fluids. It's a burst.

A burst spell affects whatever it catches in its area, including creatures that you can't see. It can't affect creatures with total cover from its point of origin (in other words, its effects don't extend around corners). The default shape for a burst effect is a sphere, but some burst spells are specifically described as cone-shaped. a burst's area defines how far from the point of origin the spell's effect extends.

You might dry out their sinuses, give them dry mouth, maybe turn their stomach acid to sand if they're actively swallowing? Maybe it has some combo with bleed effects? Except blood still provides total cover after a certain point, protecting the rest of your bloodstream. But you're still not turning someone into a shriveled husk unless they already have enough holes in their body they're probably already dead. Same for wildshaped druids, regardless of form. They don't change creature type, so they're not so much a "water elemental" as a "person in a water elemental suit".

Now, if we want to argue its effect on water elementals, fine. A gallon of water is ~8 pounds, and water elementals have weights here: Water elemental stats. Looks like it would kill a small elemental at even low levels, require a fairly high level for a medium, and not do diddly again a large+ elemental.

Ninja'ed by Bob. Line of effect breaks at the skin if you want to get picky.... Or just read the text...

"Unattended liquids are instantly reduced to sand. Liquid-based magic items (such as potions) and items in a creature's possession must succeed on a Will save (DC X) or be destroyed."

Is a creature an un-attended liquid? No.
Is a creature a liquid based magic item (such as a potion)? No.
Is a creature 'item in a creature's posession'. No. It's not an item.

Therefore it does nothing.

If you allow me to target 'parts of creatures' with effects that specify item and object, then suddenly you have Save or Die as a level 1 spell as I target Break on their C1 vertebra.

Mysterious Stranger wrote:

By the same reasoning a rust monster should also be able to kill any living creature because we all have iron in our blood. There is a big difference between containing liquid and being liquid. Besides liquid is a state of being not a substance. Water like any substance can and does exist in all three forms (Solid, Liquid, and Gas).

In the case of the rust monster, living creatures may have iron inside of them, but they cannot be said to be a "metal object" which the rust monster can "touch". The Blue Dragon, on the other hand "destroy an equal amount of liquid [to what they could create with create water] in a 10-foot burst. Unattended liquids are instantly reduced to sand. Liquid-based magic items (such as potions) and items in a creature's possession must succeed on a Will save or be destroyed."

If you want to pursue that line of thought:

A burst spell affects whatever it catches in its area, including creatures that you can't see. It can't affect creatures with total cover from its point of origin (in other words, its effects don't extend around corners). The default shape for a burst effect is a sphere, but some burst spells are specifically described as cone-shaped. A burst's area defines how far from the point of origin the spell's effect extends.

Your bodily fluids have total cover against the dragon, like your blood cells have total cover against the rust monster.

More simply, the ability say:
- "Unattended liquids are instantly reduced to sand." - your bodily fluids aren't unattended liquids;
- "Liquid-based magic items (such as potions)" - not liquid magic items
- "Liquid-based" "items in a creature's possession" - not a item, you are a person.

None of those descriptions apply to a person bodily fluids.

Edit: Ninja'ed by Bob.

All very good points, Bob Bob Bob.

I came to the item conclusion as well.

I hadn't considered the burst/line of effect. I was actually thinking a burst went around corners and line of effect was irrelevant. That's good to remember for in the future.

If not for the item thing, you would dry out their eyes, give them cotton mouth, and possibly dry out their sinuses, as well as destroy any blood currently in an open wound.

Vs Water Elementals, also good points: vs a lage or bigger elemental, it wouldnt do much. ~1/30 of the water elemental would be destroyed. Of course, the water elemental is likely not a valid target, as a nonitem, which is likely attending to itself.

A creature maybe mostly liquid, but destroy liquid does nothing to creatures. Logic to the contrary, it doesn't even do anything to a water elemental. Why? because it doesn't affect creatures. If it affected creatures it would explain the effects. It would probably have damage attached like horrid wilting.

@DragonHunterQ
As I realized a few hours ago, creatures are immune because the ability specifically mentions unattended liquids and items, and I originally misread it.
Additionally, your skin gives your internal liquids full cover against a burst, so you don't have line of effect, as was pointed out by Bob, Ecaterina, and Diego.

While I agree that it doesn't work on creatures the Point about line of effect is strange because by that logic potions would be save (the flask blocks it) and drinking water would be save (the waterskin protects it). In the end it would only work on liquids poured out on the ground.

Hmm.

That's a good point Umbranus. Why exactly CAN it affect things it doesn't have line of effect to?

Liquids in containers should be protected, because of how bursts work...

I guess that normally a flask and its contents count as the same object. In this special case it can not harm (or even target) the flask but the contents, which still destroys the object (the potion of whatever) even if the flask part remains.

So completely RAW it should not work on stuff in containers but I see the intend clear enough to use it that way. A potion in a backpack on the other hand should really be save.

As this is the rules board I bolded the RAW part. The rest is, in a way, a house rule.

Mysterious Stranger wrote:

By the same reasoning a rust monster should also be able to kill any living creature because we all have iron in our blood. There is a big difference between containing liquid and being liquid. Besides liquid is a state of being not a substance. Water like any substance can and does exist in all three forms (Solid, Liquid, and Gas).

In the case of the rust monster, living creatures may have iron inside of them, but they cannot be said to be a "metal object" which the rust monster can "touch". The Blue Dragon, on the other hand "destroy an equal amount of liquid [to what they could create with create water] in a 10-foot burst. Unattended liquids are instantly reduced to sand. Liquid-based magic items (such as potions) and items in a creature's possession must succeed on a Will save or be destroyed."

Ah. I do see a reason creatures could be excluded, that I missed before. Internal Fluids are not unattended liquids, they are certainly attended. However, they are not items (I originally misread it as liquid based magic items and liquids in a creature's possession); and it doesn't call out attended liquids that are not items as a valid target. If that is the argument taken, then an attended swimming pool should also not be a valid target (a swimming pool is an object, but it is not an item).

IMO, poor phrasing results in things that can be read multiple ways, and often many of them don't match the intent of the text - which GMs can only guess at.

You appear to be the only one who thinks it was poor wording. Seems everyone else is able to figure it out. It has nothing to do with line of sight, line of effect, attended, not attended, etc. It doesn't work because the rules don't say it does.

BTW, you're looking for Horrid Wilting. If the ability was supposed to be as powerful as an 8th level spell, I'm sure it would have said so.

Well, technically, your PCs' skin will need a lot of moisturizer after they get hit with Desert Thirst.

You appear to be the only one who thinks it was poor wording. Seems everyone else is able to figure it out. It has nothing to do with line of sight, line of effect, attended, not attended, etc. It doesn't work because the rules don't say it does.

BTW, you're looking for Horrid Wilting. If the ability was supposed to be as powerful as an 8th level spell, I'm sure it would have said so.

Thus far the only reasons that have been pointed out as to why creatures are not valid targets is the fact that it only calls out items and unattended liquids as valid liquid targets, and then fact that the user's skin would remove line of effect from their internal fluids.

So far I've gathered that it has everything to do with those two things. As I pointed out before those things were shown to me, without those two things the ability can target creatures, who would have to save vs having internal fluids destroyed like any other attended liquid, that part was rather clear with the rest of the ability - even if the consequences of having that happen were not spelled out.

Before those things were pointed out, the argument was mostly that that was too powerful an ability for a CR5 monster, and some argument that vagueness of the rules text itself is a form of proof, which I still don't follow as an argument.

It's great that when you guys find a rule that doesn't make sense, you're able to compensate (I would also make a house rule on the fly if something came up at the table while I was running the game that seemed crazy unbalanced), but the first person to actually use the applicable rules to examine the situation other than myself was Bob.

If you would like to provide a different explanation for my now solved musing that a drastically overpowered monster ability might have slipped in quite a while ago and not been dealt with, feel free, but do actually provide the reason rather than just getting irate that it was brought up. If you've got another point that hasn't been mentioned that is founded on the Rules as Written, post a rules quote and make your point; I would be happy to further expand/clarify my rules knowledge with new information to keep in mind in future situations.

As for Horrid Wilting, I'm not looking for that at all - I'm not looking for an ability that does something, I was commenting on an ability which I read as being overly powerful for an at will ability on a CR5 Creature, and looking for an explanation as to what I must have missed.

you didn't miss anything - you read something into it that isn't there. something completely different.

prototype00 wrote:

... Is this for real? Like a real question you are asking as a DM about to inflict dickery upon his players?

In which case, I would sincerely and seriously counsel against rapidly expanding the capability of Supernatural ability outside what has been spelled out by RAW (and golly, your use of the term "RAW" shames me, a staunch adherent of it).

I know the DM is king of his own campaign, but you'll just end up no/masochistic players if you head down this dark path.

The ability will, RAW,:

1: Destroy liquids (unless you are a water elemental, creatures aren't regarded usually as liquids. Are you considered a liquid perchance? A water elemental striding, hidden, amongst us mere mortals?)

2: Destroy potions if a will save is failed.

I wish I had the link to the Penny Arcade comic where Tycho tried this on his group and lost all his players. But the comic site search function is utter rust-monster leavings, so alas.

prototype00

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2011/12/02/the-conflux-part-five

;)

TO SAAAAND!

Oh! Oh! I recall this from Star Trek, where people were reduced to a tiny dehydrated cube. IIRC some of them were also reconstituted, with no ill effects. Hilarious!

As noted above, this power, as stated, only affects free-standing water, liquid based magic items (potions, etc) and liquid-based items (presumably water and wine flasks, and the like).

I don't think it would be an unreasonable DM call to say it made PCs and other creatures in the target zones extremely thirsty, as per the thirst rules and put them, say, 12 hours into the thirst countdown (24+con hours). But that would be a house rule, unsupported by RAW.

Was it in DD3.0 or DD3.5 that water elementals had a save-or-die drown effect? They certainly did in the NWN computer version. IMHO you wouldn't want to re-intriduce such extreme measures - definitely un-fun. But putting the PCs (or at least some of the PCs) on the thirst track might be a worthwhile mechanic to support, *if* the situation was environmentally challenging to begin with.

My group rarely keeps track of rations and water, or even encumbrance for gear. Unless the DM forces players to keep track of stuff like that, it would be fairly pointless to use the environment rules, however.

Thus far the only reasons that have been pointed out as to why creatures are not valid targets is the fact that it only calls out items and unattended liquids as valid liquid targets, and then fact that the user's skin would remove line of effect from their internal fluids.

Line of effect doesn't enter into it, ever. Creatures aren't affected because it doesn't say creatures are affected. Period. End of story.

So far I've gathered that it has everything to do with those two things. As I pointed out before those things were shown to me, without those two things the ability can target creatures, who would have to save vs having internal fluids destroyed like any other attended liquid, that part was rather clear with the rest of the ability - even if the consequences of having that happen were not spelled out.

That is because you are dead set on reading something into the rules that doesn't exist. The rules don't work that way.

Before those things were pointed out, the argument was mostly that that was too powerful an ability for a CR5 monster, and some argument that vagueness of the rules text itself is a form of proof, which I still don't follow as an argument.

The rule is not in any way ambiguous or vague. It is startling that anyone who understands how rules systems work would think it is.

It's great that when you guys find a rule that doesn't make sense, you're able to compensate (I would also make a house rule on the fly if something came up at the table while I was running the game that seemed crazy unbalanced), but the first person to actually use the applicable rules to examine the situation other than myself was Bob.

I think you'll find my first post, which was directly below your OP, sums up the solution to your problem. There is no need to go further than "the rules say what you can do, not what you can't do".

If you would like to provide a different explanation for my now solved musing that a drastically overpowered monster ability might have slipped in quite a while ago and not been dealt with, feel free, but do actually provide the reason rather than just getting irate that it was brought up. If you've got another point that hasn't been mentioned that is founded on the Rules as Written, post a rules quote and make your point; I would be happy to further expand/clarify my rules knowledge with new information to keep in mind in future situations.

Here's a solution, take the rules at face value. That's how they're meant to be used. I don't need to post any rules quote because you did in your OP. You posted the entirety of the rule and nowhere in it does it say "any creatures in the area take ..."

Can you imagine how much higher Paizo's production costs would be if they had to put "and nothing else" at the end of every rule?

Well Simon, I don't know what to tell you. I am sorry you are so irate about all of this.

I know at least 4 GMs I have gamed with in the past 5 years, who (barring the specific mention that it only affects items and unattended liquids which I missed) would have made the same reading I did; things like this have come up in the past in games I was a Player. Hell, in some games (like Rolemaster) many of your spells are a one-sentence statement of what happens, and the consequences of that statement are often not spelled out, but instead left for the DM to figure out based on how the player is applying it.

If something targets all liquids within 10 feet, that includes *all* liquids, unless the thing says it only works on a specific kind of target or there is another rule that makes a target invalid (such as line of effect or the like).

As an example of another broadly applicable and powerful effect, for instance, back in 3e, when Called Shots were still a thing, a somewhat expensive tactic (850/attack) I saw used was to Called-Shot a 100 Gallon dust of dryness pellet *INTO* a creature (down his throat, ideally). Do the rules (in 3e) spell out exactly what happens when a pellet a marble was suddenly replaced with 100 Gallons of water, inside of you? No, they don't. I've never seen a GM rule it doesn't do damage, either. I've seen some just pick something large to speed up play, and I've seen some do math to find out how they would handle it, and I've seen some say it instantly kills the thing (it was only a medium creature though).

Sometimes a rule gets applied in unexpected ways, or has side effects the writer didn't realize when it was published. It happens.

Late to the party I know, but there really does seem little area for confusion if you read the ability.

Unattended liquids are instantly reduced to sand. Liquid-based magic items (such as potions) and items in a creature's possession must succeed on a Will save or be destroyed.

Is your blood, etc unattended? No, obviously not.

Thus the spell clearly does nothing to a creatures internal bodily fluids, a GM can choose to allow the spell to do whatever they like from inflicting thirst, to horrid wilting, to save or die... but RAW it does nothing, because that's exactly what the rules say. That's what RAW means for Pathfinder, not presuming what you think should happen or what it seems they logically infer might happen, but what is written down in the rules as happening. Anything else is house rules, which might well make more sense in some cases and GMs (other than for Society) always have the choice to make changes to better their game for themself and the players :)

Well Simon, I don't know what to tell you. I am sorry you are so irate about all of this.

What makes you think I'm irate? You posted this question in the rules forum and I explained how the rules work. I can't figure out why you're trying to make a written rule do something that isn't written is all.

I know at least 4 GMs I have gamed with in the past 5 years, who (barring the specific mention that it only affects items and unattended liquids which I missed) would have made the same reading I did; things like this have come up in the past in games I was a Player.

All that means is you know other people who read the rules wrong. I'm not sure why, only you would know.

Hell, in some games (like Rolemaster) many of your spells are a one-sentence statement of what happens, and the consequences of that statement are often not spelled out, but instead left for the DM to figure out based on how the player is applying it.

But this isn't Rolemaster.

If something targets all liquids within 10 feet, that includes *all* liquids, unless the thing says it only works on a specific kind of target or there is another rule that makes a target invalid (such as line of effect or the like).

Since the ability says nothing about affecting creatures, it doesn't affect creatures. It really is that simple.

As an example of another broadly applicable and powerful effect, for instance, back in 3e, when Called Shots were still a thing, a somewhat expensive tactic (850/attack) I saw used was to Called-Shot a 100 Gallon dust of dryness pellet *INTO* a creature (down his throat, ideally). Do the rules (in 3e) spell out exactly what happens when a pellet a marble was suddenly replaced with 100 Gallons of water, inside of you? No, they don't. I've never seen a GM rule it doesn't do damage, either. I've seen some just pick something large to speed up play, and I've seen some do math to find out how they would handle it, and I've seen some say it instantly kills the thing (it was only a medium creature though).

I don't even know what any of this means, but I can see that it doesn't apply to Pathfinder. Looks like an irrelevant anecdote about house rules.

Sometimes a rule gets applied in unexpected ways,

Sure, I agree with this.

or has side effects the writer didn't realize when it was published. It happens.

Maybe, but not in this case. If you read the rules and do what they say there is no way to run into any side effects. When reading the rules, the default understanding should be this is the only thing the rule does and nothing beyond that.

Why not just give the dragon a spell that can do that? Seriously Dragons are spellcasters and you don't have to take the "default" sorcerer load out you see in the bestiary, it's just to give you an idea.

Late to the party I know, but there really does seem little area for confusion if you read the ability.

Quote:

Unattended liquids are instantly reduced to sand. Liquid-based magic items (such as potions) and items in a creature's possession must succeed on a Will save or be destroyed.

Is your blood, etc unattended? No, obviously not.

Is your blood a liquid based magical litem? No, it's just blood.
Is your blood an item? No, again obviously.

Thus the spell clearly does nothing to a creatures internal bodily fluids

Thanks Suthainn.

I reached that conclusion a ways up-thread.

The discussion continued when Simon posited that unless creatures are called out as valid targets using the word "creature", they can't be affected, which was an assertion I disagree with. Apparently Simon and a few other posters follow the paradigm of "The rules tell you what you can do, not what you can't do", and I disagree both with that premise as they seem to be posing it (I think it is an oversimplification, and that if you were to provide a general case (such as targetting *ALL* liquids in an area), then you need to call out any exceptions specifically, rather than expecting people to infer said exceptions by your lack of specific inclusion), and with the conclusion they reached while applying that premise (from my perspective, even if I take that as true, if the ability affected all liquids in a 10 foot burst, rather than just unattended liquids and items, that to me would explicitly include *ALL* liquids).

In this case, I do see that it doesn't affect all liquids in a 10ft burst; only unattended liquids and items.

I am not arguing that the ability does or should affect creatures (I simply posed a question over something that was initially unclear to me, and eventually came up with an answer myself, which was then repeated and expanded on by Bob and a couple other posters);

Likewise, I am also not trying to make a dragon who has such an ability in game, as some posters seem to think. If that was what I wanted to do, I could easily alter the monster and give it whatever ability I wanted to.

We are all in agreement that Desert Thirst does not affect creatures.

The only part of the discussion that remains is me and Simon disagreeing over his original premise (which he thinks is correct and I think is incorrect) and his conclusion he drew from that premise (which I think, even given his premise, would also be incorrect).

RAW it does nothing, because that's exactly what the rules say. That's what RAW means for Pathfinder, not presuming what you think should happen or what it seems they logically infer might happen, but what is written down in the rules as happening. Anything else is house rules, which might well make more sense in some cases and GMs (other than for Society) always have the choice to make changes to better their game for themself and the players :)

I agree with part of that statement, that RAW it does nothing because the rules say so; but I disagree with the rest, and your inference that if a GM has to decide how to handle a situation that is inherently changing the rules.

Here is the point I am making.

Let's say that there is a spell/ability that calls out that it turns *ALL* liquids in an area into drinkable water. It says attended liquids and magical items get a save, but does not specify that it only affects unattended liquids and items. It also does not specify using the word "Creature" that creatures are a valid target, nor does it call out specific effects for how that would effect a creature. It is also not a burst, and is therefore unaffected by line of effect. For argument's sake, lets say it explicitly states that it ignores line of effect.

Duration: Instantaneous; All liquids in a 30ft area become normal, nonmagical, drinkable water. This area ignores any obstructions, or cover, such as walls. Unattended liquids get no save. Attended liquids and magic items get a DC 15 save.

Simon's position is that this situation would not affect creatures, because it doesn't explicitly mention creatures. My position is that if says it affects all liquids, that actually means all liquids, not some liquids, since All!=Some, therefore including those inside creatures, (unless it says it only affects liquids in certain circumstances, or calls attention to it not affecting creatures) because the rules text says *ALL* liquids and doesn't call out any exceptions.

Simon's position is that this situation would not affect creatures, because it doesn't explicitly mention creatures. My position is that if says it affects all liquids, that actually means all liquids, not some liquids, since All!=Some, therefore including those inside creatures, (unless it says it only affects liquids in certain circumstances, or calls attention to it not affecting creatures) because the rules text says *ALL* liquids and doesn't call out any exceptions.

The Paizo devs have an oft mentioned comment on rules, something like, "Does your reading of the rule result in something that seems wildly more powerful than you would expect or such, if so, you're reading it wrong."

If we read an ability as literally as possible, applying effects we presume are intended but not specifically called out as being so we can start to stray beyond the intended rules. For example, blood is a fluid combination of living tissue and plasma, which is composed of proteins, salt and water. If we assume the spell affects it it starts to become incredibly hard to see where does the power of the spell start and end and what exactly will it effect, it clearly can't turn tissue into water so how does that interact with the tissue and proteins in plasma? Is a fluid with 50% water a liquid? More, less?

I guess that normally a flask and its contents count as the same object. In this special case it can not harm (or even target) the flask but the contents, which still destroys the object (the potion of whatever) even if the flask part remains.

So completely RAW it should not work on stuff in containers but I see the intend clear enough to use it that way. A potion in a backpack on the other hand should really be save.

As this is the rules board I bolded the RAW part. The rest is, in a way, a house rule.

Yes, container and content and people and their clothes count as a single target. Without that assumption the best defense against a large number of spell would be head to toes robes, with gloves and a gossamer veil on the face. Cover 100% of your skin and no spell can target you :P

Let's say that there is a spell/ability that calls out that it turns *ALL* liquids in an area into drinkable water. It says attended liquids and magical items get a save, but does not specify that it only affects unattended liquids and items. It also does not specify using the word "Creature" that creatures are a valid target, nor does it call out specific effects for how that would effect a creature. It is also not a burst, and is therefore unaffected by line of effect. For argument's sake, lets say it explicitly states that it ignores line of effect.

It dosn't affect creatures, end of story.

Also you really should apologize to simon, he's been putting up with your shit and explaining everything as clear as day to you. Admitting that you are wrong would just be the best things to do.

If you want to go RAW, you cant extrapolate rules beyond a very specific subset of clearly defined situation. What your example seems to try to mix is the intent of the rule, and the rule as written. The rule as written for the blue dragon is very clear, there is no ambiguity. The rule example you gave is the same, very clear: creatures are not affected, point, end of story.

Probably one of the simplest ways to see if you're reading a spell or ability correctly is to ask yourself, "Do I have to make up new rules or such to account for the effect I believe the spell/ability has." If so, you're reading it wrong, whatever you need (be it damage, conditions applied, etc) should be defined within the spell/ability or else direct you to where those rules are.

If the game doesn't have rules for what you think the spell does... the spell doesn't do what you think.

@Zapbib;
I'm still not convinced that my logic was wrong; However, a few people have said that the Devs go along with the premise that Simon has mentioned.

I'm still looking for a quote on that, but with so many people saying that this is something the Devs have stated *Somewhere* it does now appear to me that Simon's premise and interpretation may be the official one, and not just a different basic assumption to read the rules under.

I disagreed with Simon because I couldn't find anything in the book (or with a google search) to suggest that his premise was correct, and therefore read his posts as him approaching RAW with a basic premise that was incorrect, and therefore reaching incorrect conclusions.

I still can't find anything in an official published source to suggest his premise is at all correct, but I've heard a couple times now that the Devs have officially stated this position *Somewhere*, so I probably have been reading it wrong.

@Suthainn;
I will keep that in mind in the future when it comes to Pathfinder.

It would have been helpful to me if that assumption/baseline rule/whatever was actually stated somewhere in the rules themselves, since that is the opposite premise of how a other games work (lots of games simply wouldn't run at all if that premise was applied), and apparently most of the people I have gamed with in the past 15 years have been reading RAW under the opposite baseline assumption (if the rules logically state that something would happen but don't spell out how, the GM needs to make a decision on *How* -Not If- it works), and therefore reaching different conclusions.

Its frustrating to me that this seems to be an unwritten rule that can drastically change how a good portion of the game functions, which you would have to actually ask the developers about to get an official answer for because its not in the book anywhere (you could easily read the rules under either assumption). (It is *possible* that I have just missed it every time I looked at the book, but it seems unlikely).

You could not find the stated rule because it is a rule inherent to the attempt of making a rulebook.

You cannot attempt to make an inclusive rulebook and at the same time make the baseline assumption that there is a throng of uncalled exception. It would be unreadable and useless. Some ruleset make the explicit choice to leave some leeway to the DM on most of the rule. Such an explicit mention is not given in pathfinder. Rule make sense if they explain what a character can or cannot do. If every rule must be extrapolated with a bunch of subjective decision they are useless and you are better with a game system that gives very little rule and tell the dm to com up with DC and abilities on the fly.

The reason I hope the developer don't bother to gives you an answer is because while you seem to be quite articulate, this is a fairly stupid question. There can really not be that much arguments to show it to you, because their can be no rule if we take your premise as true. Since there are rule, and most people want to use them.... I let you draw your conclusion.

As for your "friend", perhaps you might want to educate them a little, its crazy what stuff can propagate if no one takes the time to counter even the most absurd notion. After all there are people who believe all kinds of ridiculous unlogical things outside, I will not accept that they are right simply because they exist.

It's definitely interesting to hear your perspective on it Darkholme, of pretty much all the games (far too many) I've played over my decades (and now I feel old =/) of gaming I can't think of many that I've encountered outside of the Storytelling genre (Amber for example) that ask a GM to make up on the spot rules for how an ability works, in most every system that springs to mind the ability states what it does or where to find those rules or at least gives suggestions on how to deal with it (if not then I usually find I've read it wrong and am missing what it actually is meant to do, in my personal experience).

As Zapbib notes, a comprehensive book covering every what if and spelling everything out in legal language that cannot in any way be misinterpreted would take up thousands of pages (and probably be the most boring game system to read ever!).

There's an excellent note in the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game that sums this up I think, "Cards do what they say. Cards don't do something they don't say." Perhaps a little too simple to cover every situation but I feel it applies quite strongly to most RPG rule systems, if it doesn't say "X does Y" and give you rules for this, then it probably doesn't do it. As with everything, we have to apply some common sense to the readings of rules if we hope to avoid the 2000 page legal script game system (which I'm sure someone, somewhere is working on!)

You could not find the stated rule because it is a rule inherent to the attempt of making a rulebook.

This is untrue, as could be demonstrated by showing you several RPGs with situations where it is actually required. RuneQuest, Rolemaster, etc. Rather than go through the rules of other RPGs to give you quotes of things in them that require the GM to determine how something applies in different situations, I am simply going to state that it is not an inherent requirement of making a rulebook.

You cannot attempt to make an inclusive rulebook and at the same time make the baseline assumption that there is a throng of uncalled exception. It would be unreadable and useless.

You can, and it would not be. Though I would seriously hesitate to call it "a throng of uncalled exception", since it's explicitly not not adding in extra exceptions, and just reading the rules text literally and figuring out the consequences of a literal reading of the rules text, without adding any implied exceptions based on rules text that is not explained in detail. In fact, it makes your game more playable in many cases, because if you as a developer forgot to cover something, the GM is able to apply other rules in the system and/or logically read the rule you printed in order to determine the correct outcome of the rule, even if you didn't spell out every consequence for them. Will that mean sometimes GMs make the wrong call? Probably; but otherwise you increase your chances of running into situations where your rules simply do not function at all because you were not explicit enough.

Some ruleset make the explicit choice to leave some leeway to the DM on most of the rule. Such an explicit mention is not given in pathfinder.

Sure, some do. Others don't. And of those that don't, it can still be a requirement to make some of the rules function.

I'm not going to go search through the core book for every RPG I've ever played right now, but I can't think of a single non D&D based RPG where the premise that apparently is true but never stated in pathfinder, is at all likely to be true in those other systems, and I can think of several where such an assumption would break many things in the system and possibly render it unplayable.

As something fundamental that is different from all or at least many competing products (all the ones I can think of at the moment, and I have played/watched/read many different RPGs) you might think it could be worth defining its state, rather than assuming people will assume that no definition means the particular thing you had in mind. IE: The lack of defining a rule in the book does not tell you one way or another how it works when it comes up.

Rule make sense if they explain what a character can or cannot do. If every rule must be extrapolated with a bunch of subjective decision they are useless and you are better with a game system that gives very little rule and tell the dm to com up with DC and abilities on the fly.

Not every rule would have to be extrapolated; in fact I would argue that it's probably only 2%-10% of the rules, which have the unexplained situations which could merit extrapolation (IE, could theoretically be applied in unexplained ways).

The example I gave earlier was not a rules-light RPG with few rules and lots of GM leeway as you suggest it would have to be; Rolemaster is far from a rules-light RPG. It's about as dense as Pathfinder, with character creation and levelup taking much longer to accomplish due to having to do a large number of calculations (I would argue it takes too much math to build and advance characters in that system). Which is to say, it's entirely possible to have a detailed ruleset that still expects GMs to use logic and existing rules to fill in any gaps that come up.

As for the rest of your post, well; you use a great deal of hyperbole, and assert that expecting the GM to use logic and existing rules to extrapolate how to handle corner cases or gaps the rules don't fill in in detail makes all rules useless, and say that if the GM has to fill in any gaps in the rules then there can be no rules, and therefore this premise (that a GM needs to use logic built on existing rules to fill in gaps which arise when a rule suggests that something should happen but don't give the details as to how) is a stupid and absurd notion that doesn't warrant a response.

I believe it is obvious that those other exaggerated assertions are false. The ability/expectation to fill in gaps in the rules as they come up in no way invalidates all rules nor does it make it so that there an be no rules, and therefore the premise that a GM could or even should be expected to fill in such gaps (at least until such a time as that rule is errata'ed or filled in by a dev) is in no way a stupid or absurd notion that does not warrant consideration or a response. (though to be clear, I'm not asking for a response directly from a dev - but I would still appreciate that quote or a link to where they said what people say they did, if anyone has it handy).

The premise that if the rules don't explicitly explain the consequences rule x has on situation y then they do not affect situation y is a premise that is commonplace in boardgames and card games, but quite unusual in tabletop roleplaying games, and rather counterintuitive (since RPGs are designed with the idea of a consistent story as part of the design goal), as well.

I think it's entirely probably that Simon, and Suthainn, and a few others in the thread who shared their perspective, are correct (given that a couple people have mentioned that this is the official stance of the devs, that dev post would be like a FAQ).

It's definitely interesting to hear your perspective on it Darkholme, of pretty much all the games (far too many) I've played over my decades (and now I feel old =/) of gaming I can't think of many that I've encountered outside of the Storytelling genre (Amber for example) that ask a GM to make up on the spot rules for how an ability works, in most every system that springs to mind the ability states what it does or where to find those rules or at least gives suggestions on how to deal with it (if not then I usually find I've read it wrong and am missing what it actually is meant to do, in my personal experience).

Sure. Abilities tell you what they do, but they don't always cover all the cases or all of the details. I remember a spell in Rolemaster that set things on fire, but didn't tell you what the damage was or anything like that; you had to extrapolate its effects from the rules about fire. And I believe there is also a monster whose venom turns your eyes to honey when you are stung and on a failed save, (I'm going from memory, I don't own RM, I read that in a friend's book when I was in a Rolemaster campaign a few years back), and doesn't elaborate beyond that. I'm pretty sure it didn't tell you that you would be blind if you had no eyes, for instance. And in Mongoose Runequest II/Legend, there is a spell that fuses things together much like glue, based on line of sight, and didn't precisely spell out what was and was not a valid target. The end result: Can you use it to fuse someone's sword to their scabbard? yes. Can you fuse someone's shoes to the ground so they can't continue to chase you? Also yes. Can you use it to fuse someone's eyes and mouth closed while they are sleeping? Yes again. Can you use it to affix your grappling hook to the roof so you're much harder to dislodge while you're climbing? So long as you have line of sight. (I'm going from memory here, but I think my point is clear either way).

As Zapbib notes, a comprehensive book covering every what if and spelling everything out in legal language that cannot in any way be misinterpreted would take up thousands of pages (and probably be the most boring game system to read ever!).

Sure. And nobody is suggesting that that should be a requirement. But something explicit in the book that tells you how to handle rules uncertainty, such as how to handle the situation where an ability has something that as per its phrasing would be a valid target but does not tell you mechanically how it would affect that valid target, would have been nice. In Pathfinder, apparently the answer is "the ability does not affect that target", in other games it would be "apply what's there logically based on what makes sense".

There's an excellent note in the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game that sums this up I think, "Cards do what they say. Cards don't do something they don't say."

A single sentence to that effect but applied for pathfinder in the core book would have made this stance much more clear to me (I'm sure I'm not the only one).

Perhaps a little too simple to cover every situation but I feel it applies quite strongly to most RPG rule systems, if it doesn't say "X does Y" and give you rules for this, then it probably doesn't do it.

The and is the crucial part here - if the two interpretations were listed in the book as an actual rule, the (apparently correct, at least as far as Pathfinder is concerned) interpretation would list it with an and whereas my interpretation was based on it being or.

And I now think you are right, at least concerning Pathfinder. Sometimes in other systems, if it says "X does Y" but does not give you rules for it, then as you said: "As with everything, we have to apply some common sense to the readings of rules if we hope to avoid the 2000 page legal script game system". In the intro to pathfinder section, explicitly stating "When reading game mechanics, abilities, and rules for Pathfinder, if it doesn't say "Rule X does Effect Y" AND provide you with the game mechanics for how to handle it, then it doesn't do it." would not have been a difficult catch-all to include.And therefore I don't think it's crazy for me to have not made the leap that the and was a requirement.

As a personal note, I think it's much more enjoyable as a player when I'm able to apply my capabilities in new and creative ways; and the baseline assumption of only requiring "Rule X does Effect Y" results in more situations where that can happen.

An example of what I am describing as more fun that exists in RAW: Fabricate is a spell that lets you instantaneously transform something made of a material into something else made of that material, though craft checks are be needed for things like masterwork equipment. Can you use it in town to create equipment quickly? Obviously yes. However, you can do many other interesting things with it:
Create a stone door in a stone wall, or turn a stone door into a stone wall.
Turn the floor you're standing on into a trap door you can use to leave a room.
Turn the steel door on your prison cell into a weapon and armor that the fighter can use while you guys search for the rest of your gear.
and a wide variety of other transformative effects based on the situation you find yourself in, your creativity, and the materials on hand.

Maybe you need a bridge. Or maybe you need some rope, and you have scissors with which to shear Mr. Druid's Wooly Mammoth companion to get as much mammoth wool as you need. Perhaps you wish there were rafters you could use to infiltrate a large fortress with high ceilings, but no rafters. Maybe you want to use some of Mr. Mammoth's fur to make cold environment gear for the party, without feeling a need to keep the gear later because you paid for it. You can always just make more environmental gear if you need it. You can turn a pile of lumber into dozens of spears, or bows and arrows to equip a village on short notice, for instance; or turn it into city defenses and traps.

Tremendously useful ability in many many situations, not all of which are helpful for combat.

Stone shape is a less useful but still fun spell that has similar application in some circumstances.

I tend to look for multi-utility which might also be useful in combat, spells, and try to use many of them, over the damage dealing spells if possible. I may not do the best damage or give the best buffs, but if I can get us out of there in a pinch, or make it so Joe fighter is facing his enemies single file through a chokepoint, I can still be very useful.

Some people don't like these sorts of effects. Most of them flat-out didn't exist in 4e, and some people were happy about that. For me, it was a major detractor of the system.

Fabricate state that it can do what you want it to do, all your doing is showing that your mastery of rule reading is limited. Of course people like to use their ability in novel way. Some abilities gives such leeway, others, like the dragon breath, don't. You seem to always want to read things literally and yet always refuse to do so.

I will leave you to think about that again, and simply hope with time, experience or age you come to a more logical position.

Fabricate state that it can do what you want it to do, all your doing is showing that your mastery of rule reading is limited. Of course people like to use their ability in novel way. Some abilities gives such leeway, others, like the dragon breath, don't. You seem to always want to read things literally and yet always refuse to do so.

I will leave you to think about that again, and simply hope with time, experience or age you come to a more logical position.

All I can conclude from this is that you either pick and choose what to pay attention to from my posts, or that you have poor reading comprehension, because you seem to consistently ignore a good portion of the things I have said throughout this thread, and substitute in statements of things you are claiming are my position which I have never stated to be such. And you respond in this mostly uninformed and therefore not-useful way in as insulting a manner as you can manage; congratulations, you're capable of being rude without actually adding anything of value to the discussion.

Yes. And yes, we have already established that an assumption of Pathfinder which is never stated anywhere in the book is not an assumption I was aware of before last week (though at this point the only evidence I have found of this is the widespread opinion of other forum goers). We have also already established (long before you started to actively "participate" in the conversation), that even without that assumption taken into account, I had misread the ability, and there was specific phrasing that made creatures not valid targets anyways. And yes, Fabricate is a fun and useful ability - my most recent post was me pointing out that it was a good ability, and stating that I think the game would be more enjoyable if more abilities were like it; and that even less abilities are like it than I thought, now that I know of this unstated system assumption. You have also made it very clear that you believe such an assumption is both obvious and a requirement for making a game function at all, despite me both providing examples of other games where that is not the case, and giving an explanation of what is gained by not having such an assumption.

I acknowledge that I have read all of your posts that were responding to mine, even though it is highly evident you did not actually read the posts you are responding to. Your posts are unjustifiably insulting, hostile and inflammatory, even though I have been making a great deal of effort to not do the same back to you, and I haven't the slightest idea why me not agreeing with you makes you feel the need to behave in this way.

The question I started this thread for, and the subsequent questions it generated have been mostly answered.

I think we're done here.

sorry to necro.

>>Liquid-based magic items (such as potions) and items in a creature's possession must succeed on a Will save or be destroyed.

How do we calculate each potion's saving throw "bonus" against this ? ex: Is a first level potion's save bonus the same as a 3rd level potion?

If it's attended, you use the attending character's saving throw, otherwise 1/3CL, so +0 for a level 1 potion, +1 for a level 2 or 3, +3 for a 4th level (unless they were intentionally made at a boosted caster level).

Where in the rule book does it say say characters contain liquid?

Where in the rule book does it say say characters contain liquid?

Well, at least Half-Orcs or Sorcerers, we know for sure they have blood^^

"Liquid", so it can destroy liquid mercury but not ice?