Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 6881716" data-attributes="member: 12731">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.</blockquote>

Verification