Collateral damage

[Scribble]

For this reason, my next BBEG will be an animated structure.

YOU WILL NEVER DEFEAT ME! FOR I AM THE 300' CUBIC SQUARE OF CONCRETE DOOM!

 

[Darklone]

I'd have given the PC XPs if he would have refrained by himself to throw the fireball... but I wouldn't necessarily have punished him if he did.

 

[Lanefan]

IMCs the spell hits the target and nothing else, therby only making collateral damage happen if the spell is supposed to strike a structural target.

???

So if I chuck a fireball at a guy standing next to a bush, he'll be hit and the bush will not suffer a thing???

For my part, if there's something relevant (treasure, forest, books-papers, etc.) that might suffer if caught in a fireball or other area-damage effect, I'll give it a save. Also, when people cast lightning bolt in snow-covered mountain passes (which happens surprisingly often), I'll roll to see if an avalanche results...

Lanefan

 

[Angel Tarragon]

So if I chuck a fireball at a guy standing next to a bush, he'll be hit and the bush will not suffer a thing???

Thats correct. The only way the bush would be set a light is if the target ran into while still on fire.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Thats correct. The only way the bush would be set a light is if the target ran into while still on fire.

So, I take it that the spell is no longer an area effect. And Lightning Bolt could no longer be a line, because everything in the line would be subject to it.

Any particular reason for changes like this? Are they across the board, so that most evocation spells (and quite a few others) are totally altered? Have their spell levels changed? Anything else?

 

[Falkus]

Thats correct. The only way the bush would be set a light is if the target ran into while still on fire.

How does that make any sense? It's like saying that in a d20 Modern game, you can throw a grenade into a crowd of people, and it'll only hurt the bad guy with a gun.

 

[BSF]

By the RAW, fireball and lightning bolt, arguably the two most common "utility-destruction" spells in the game, set flammable objects on fire. In your game as DM, how strictly do you concern yourself with the collateral damage of these spells (especially in a situation like a forest vs. a stone dungeon corridor)?

I generally assume that a fireball will kill all mundane, non-sentient plantlife in the AOE. But I also treat it like a flashfire that crisps everything rather than lighting it on fire. If the forest is particularly dry, or the environment is otherwise something that is notably flammable, I will worry about a secondary fire being started. And under those circumstances, I will likely note it to the PCs. (Of course, I tend to have at least one PC that is well versed in nature skills.) So the players will know it is a possibility.

 

[Angel Tarragon]

It's like saying that in a d20 Modern game, you can throw a grenade into a crowd of people, and it'll only hurt the bad guy with a gun.

Different game, different rules.

 

[shilsen]

How does that make any sense? It's like saying that in a d20 Modern game, you can throw a grenade into a crowd of people, and it'll only hurt the bad guy with a gun.

Grenades are not magical.

 

[Nightchilde-2]

Grenades are not magical.

Well, except the holy hand grenade of Antioch...

"One..two....five.."