Fireball vs. Wind Wall

[Lord Pendragon]

Hmm, actually, here's a thought. If a Wind Wall CAN effect a Fireball, it wouldn't actually deflect it at all. Instead, by the description of Fireball, it would simply explode.

I could see that as a possible ruling as well. You'd be ruling that the Wind Wall is "solid" enough to trigger the fireball, as if it had struck a solid wall.

I hadn't considered that the Wind Wall might be solid enough for that. What if you fired a Fireball at the surface of a lake? Would it explode upon hitting the surface of the water, or penetrate and explode underwater when it hits the bottom?

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Since any other sling stone or thrown pebble would be deflected

Actually, a sling stone or a thrown pebble would only be deflected if by "deflected" you mean "suffer a 30% miss chance."

If your argument is thus based on a fireball pellet being similar to a sling stone, your own argument fails, because a 30% miss chance is irrelevant to a fireball pellet.


Jeff

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

I could see that as a possible ruling as well. You'd be ruling that the Wind Wall is "solid" enough to trigger the fireball, as if it had struck a solid wall.

I hadn't considered that the Wind Wall might be solid enough for that. What if you fired a Fireball at the surface of a lake? Would it explode upon hitting the surface of the water, or penetrate and explode underwater when it hits the bottom?

Well, I'd only rule that the Fireball would explode on impacting the Wind Wall if I ALSO ruled that the Wind Wall could effect the Fireball. If the Fireball isn't effected at all by Wind Wall, then there's no reason to think it would explode.

As for water, that's arguably a "material body"(as the spell description mentions) so yes, a Fireball would on the surface.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

It sounds as if you've already made up your mind to make a house rule and are seeking validation by making spurious arguments designed specifically to fit the conclusion you've already decided to reach.

It sounds as if you've decided to make a lot of assumptions and express them snidely in an effort to feel superior.

You really don't need validation.

I suppose it's a good thing that I didn't ask for any, then.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

It sounds as if you've decided to make a lot of assumptions and express them snidely in an effort to feel superior.I suppose it's a good thing that I didn't ask for any, then.

Ah. Somebody's a little defensive. I'll just be over here.


Jeff

 

[Lord Pendragon]

As for water, that's arguably a "material body"(as the spell description mentions) so yes, a Fireball would on the surface.

I was merely curious how you'd rule in this case, since the two scenarios are similar. Ruling that the fireball explodes on the surface means that you're interpreting "material body" as something that is not necessarily solid. In the case of the lake, you're allowing that the "material body" can be a liquid. Thus, there's a logical progression to ruling that a Wind Wall can also serve as a "material body" even though it, too, is not a solid object.

 

[Scion]

the boards are very testy tonight.. I have been feeling it for awhile and been a bit snappy too.. very unfortunate..

Just that time of year? Many here are probably in the throes of finals and such.. and last minute holiday shopping

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

I was merely curious how you'd rule in this case, since the two scenarios are similar. Ruling that the fireball explodes on the surface means that you're interpreting "material body" as something that is not necessarily solid. In the case of the lake, you're allowing that the "material body" can be a liquid. Thus, there's a logical progression to ruling that a Wind Wall can also serve as a "material body" even though it, too, is not a solid object.

Its probably not completely accurate, but then again, its really all based off the the What If of Fireballs interacting with Wind Wall. More me thinking out loud.

But I think Jeff Wilder's got a point. Even IF the bead is like a pebble, there wouldn't be any effect on the Fireball as a 30% miss chance doesn't in any way effect the Fireball.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Actually, a sling stone or a thrown pebble would only be deflected if by "deflected" you mean "suffer a 30% miss chance."

If your argument is thus based on a fireball pellet being similar to a sling stone, your own argument fails, because a 30% miss chance is irrelevant to a fireball pellet.

You make a good point that a Fireball pellet is neither an arrow nor a crossbow bolt, which are the only objects which are completely negated by a Wind Wall. Other normal projectiles suffer a 30% miss chance, not complete negation.

I'm not sure your follow-up assertion is as definite as you make it out to be, though. The question then becomes, what does a 30% miss chance mean to an AoE spell?

 

[Jeff Wilder]

The question then becomes, what does a 30% miss chance mean to an AoE spell?

I'm almost afraid to answer, but what the hell. I just picked up my comics, so I'm feeling optimistic.

According to the rules, as I've said, a miss chance is irrelevant to an area of effect spell. A miss chance is relevant only when there is an attack roll, which despite its own outcome, might still miss the target.

The only way a miss chance can affect a fireball would be, for example, a situation in which an arrow slit was in the area of a darkness spell, because you have to roll an attack roll to hit the arrow slit.

In any event, I still maintain it doesn't matter. A rules-based argument doesn't get so far as to ask the "miss chance/AoE" question, because wind wall is specific about what it affects. And a fireball pellet isn't one of those things.

If the question were about acid arrow, it'd be a closer call.