D&D 5E Can a fireball melt ice?

[pemerton]

Next time you sear some steak, put an ice cube in the frying pan. Compare to how long your hand could stay in there.

Ice takes way more than 6 seconds to melt significantly.

But it won't take 6 seconds for some of the ice to melt.

Can fireball melt ice at all? Or does it lack the ability to affect non-flammable objects.

 

[pemerton]

In principle: Yes. A fireball can melt ice.

What if the ice is being carried by someone? Or if the ice pendant is being worn (and it may not be necessary to melt much of that for the ice "stone" to fall out of its setting)?

 

[Xeviat]

Ice is an object and has HP, so I'd say that a fireball would damage it. Like others say, real world water has a huge capacity to store heat. But ice is weak to fire in fantasy: whether that means ice is vulnerable to fire or that ice is immune to other damage is up to you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dausuul]

What if the ice is being carried by someone? Or if the ice pendant is being worn (and it may not be necessary to melt much of that for the ice "stone" to fall out of its setting)?

I would say fireball can melt worn or carried ice to the same extent that it can ignite worn or carried objects. Under most circumstances, that would mean "not at all," but I might consider exceptions if someone is carrying something extremely flammable or meltable. In that case, I would have the effect be conditional on the target failing its save.

In general, fireball doesn't need to be any more powerful than it already is, so I would be leery of significantly expanding its ability to cause havoc.

 

[Hriston]

I didn't have a particular quantity in mind.

Let's say an ice pendant worn by a frost giant chieftain. And the thin sheet of ice serving as "glass" in the chieftain's house.

Yes, I believe you'd see some melting of those objects, or any other objects made of ice, caught within the blast of fireball.

 

[S'mon]

Given the high Specific Heat Capacity of water, the fireball flash will only melt a small surface layer of water IMC (& it doesn't work underwater, sorry 5e).

Edit: I don't genrerally have worn/carried objects destroyed by fireball in 5e if the wearer/carrier
still has hp left after the attack.

 

[pemerton]

I don't genrerally have worn/carried objects destroyed by fireball in 5e if the wearer/carrier still has hp left after the attack.

This seems right to me, for reasons of Gygaxian hit points (ie if there are still hp left, the bulk of the attack was dodged or otherwise avoided - hence, as Gygax puts it, hit location is not germane to such hp loss). Is that your reasoning?

 

[JonnyP71]

Last night, as DM, I adjudicated that the 2 globes the party used from a Necklace of Missiles to kill a Frost Salamander melted the pile of snow it was resting on, therefore revealing its treasure.

Seemed fair to me.


(not exactly solid ice though - that would depend on how thick the ice was, and whether it was natural or magically created)

 

[CapnZapp]

Like the thread topic says.

Sorry but your poll is way WAY too inflexible.

You need to have at least a third option "it depends" or "sometimes".

The idea that it ALWAYS melts ice is broken, because then you open the door for Fireball to "sculpt" the environment in other, possibly unintended, ways: "if it can melt ice it must be able to burn away wood; we should easily be able to burn ourselves through that wooden castle gate"

The idea that it NEVER melts ice is also broken. Why should be obvious. It completely wrecks verisimilitude and belivability if you can't melt even a small icecream with the same Fireball that can burn a dozen Goblins to a crisp. It leads to videogame environments.

So the real solution is to allow spells to "sculpt" the environment at least in non-significant ways. The real trick as a DM is to judge when you can allow it without setting precedent for later abusive uses.

In the end, any discussion about real-world effects lead nowhere. The only true solution is to discuss with your players and reach a consensus that, yes, it's a game.

Sometimes verisimilitude ranks highest and your spells can sculpt the environment.

Sometimes such use would short-circuit a challenge in a way that makes the game less exciting and fun, and then it can't.

Myself, I also judge the intent behind the casting of the spell. If the sculpting attempt is inspired and clever, and is likely to be an one-off thing, I will allow it. If I notice the player is trying to gain advantages beyond what the PHB spell description allows, and repeats the same trick over and over, I will deny it.

So the answer MUST be "it depends".

Otherwise you as the DM have handed away an important DM:ing tool, and you shouldn't do that. If need be, talk to the players and explain the above, and gain their out-of-game acceptance of these facts.

 

[S'mon]

This seems right to me, for reasons of Gygaxian hit points (ie if there are still hp left, the bulk of the attack was dodged or otherwise avoided - hence, as Gygax puts it, hit location is not germane to such hp loss). Is that your reasoning?

That's right. If I rolled a '1' on the save, in some games I treat that as a critical fail, in which case may have gear destroyed. But it generally seems silly to have eg metal gear melted while the
wearer survives. I will describe clothing as being scorched & damaged by fire & acid
attacks. In pre-3e I might have a character reduced to -3 hp or lower suffer burn scars.
In default 5e a PC reduced to 0 hp may recover quite fast so although I generally would
describe some gear damage it probably would not be as serious.