Fireball vs. Wind Wall

[shilsen]

I disagree with you. A spell do not need to a conjuration to be a physical thing. Look at fireball's material component -- this is the bead. A bit of sulfur and bat guano rolled into a tiny bead, and when you cast the spell, you throw that bead.

That's a possible interpretation, but that is not what the spell description explicitly says. The material component is a "tiny ball of bat guano and sulfur". And the preceding description says that you "point your finger" and a "glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit". Could the two be the same? Yes. Could they not be the same? Also yes.

 

[TheBaron]

This is a poor assumption on your part.

The bead of a fireball can be intangible and detonates on impact because of magic, we don't know.

The bead of a fireball could be magic and not physical at all and detonates on impact because of magic, we don't know.

But, to say that it is definitely "physically tangible" is an assumption not based in the rules.

I don't make it a practice to assume. My opinion is based on rationalization and deductive reasoning. We don't know how magic works as it's a fantasy concept, but with the above stated reasoning tools we can make a determination and Opinion.

I think your opinion is in poor taste. Primarily due to the fact that they are argumentative as they are stated with no rationalization, facts or reasoning. Nor is anything stated to support your own claims. This is not to flame you for stating your opinion, but to illustrate that your attempt to eviscerate my post is not being part of a solution, but perpetuance of ignorance by stating opinion without fact or reasoning.

I stand by my assumptions supported by my original post.

A. the spell has a material component of bat guano. It is not far fetched to believe that the magic uses this tiny resin ball as the a material component to fuel the fire burst.

B. Even to concede the bead was pure magic. The magic in terms of fireball is still has physical qualities as it is an Energy form (magical) otherwise it would not be hampered by physical objects and affect solely the prime material plane.


Because it is magic there is always the potential for it to ignore laws of physics and it being "magic" a fantasy concept one could Assume the bead is somehow magically non physical till a "rule mechanic" (physical barrier) affects the spell or it reaches it's destination, but I think that is Poor assumption as it is only supported by conjecture.

 

[Vexed]

I would have to say a wind wall would have the percentage chance to stop the bead. If solid objects can cause the bead to detonate prematurely, then I would say its possible a wind wall could prove to have enough resistance to either A) cause it to erupt or b) deflect it from its intended target. Regardless if it’s a physical bead or a bead of "energy", as physical objects can stop it from its intended target.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

If solid objects can cause the bead to detonate prematurely [...] Regardless if it’s a physical bead or a bead of energy", as physical objects can stop it from its intended target.

(1) Solid objects can also block any spell's line of effect. That says nothing about whether the effect blocked is physical, energistic, or magical. All the "premature detonation" of a fireball amounts to is a narrow exception to line of effect rules.

(2) A wall of wind (or a wind wall) is not a solid object.

(3) The spell is explicit in what it stops and deflects, and fireball just doesn't qualify.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

There's nothing wrong with deciding that a wind wall can stop or deflect a fireball ... in fact, I think it's not bad, since it weakens an overused spell, and strengthens an underused spell. But that decision is definitely a house rule; it relies on several major assumptions about fireball (and wind wall) that just aren't supported in those spells' descriptions.


Jeff

 

[KarinsDad]

I don't make it a practice to assume. My opinion is based on rationalization and deductive reasoning. We don't know how magic works as it's a fantasy concept, but with the above stated reasoning tools we can make a determination and Opinion.

If you don't make it a practice to assume, why are you doing so in this case?

I think your opinion is in poor taste. Primarily due to the fact that they are argumentative as they are stated with no rationalization, facts or reasoning. Nor is anything stated to support your own claims. This is not to flame you for stating your opinion, but to illustrate that your attempt to eviscerate my post is not being part of a solution, but perpetuance of ignorance by stating opinion without fact or reasoning.

First off, you do not know what you are talking about here. I did state a lot of facts and reasoning. You will find them on page 2 of this thread. Please go read them in detail before you (again) make assumptions not based in fact.

My answer is based on the rules as stated, not based on assumptions about the two spells that are never listed in the rules.

I stand by my assumptions supported by my original post.

Fine, but they are still assumptions and still not supported by the rules as written.

You want those in your game, fine.

A. the spell has a material component of bat guano. It is not far fetched to believe that the magic uses this tiny resin ball as the a material component to fuel the fire burst.

The bead "streaks from the pointing digit" of the caster. It might be that the bat guano is accumulated on the end of his finger and then fired, but the spell does not tell us that explicitly.

Strike one.

B. Even to concede the bead was pure magic. The magic in terms of fireball is still has physical qualities as it is an Energy form (magical) otherwise it would not be hampered by physical objects and affect solely the prime material plane.

It is NOT hampered by physical objects. It detonates prematurely when it comes in contact with physical objects.

That is a property of the spell and says NOTHING about the physical properties of the bead.

Since we are NOT told the physical properties of the bead, we cannot assume that it is a "normal missile". To do so is the height of hubris when you are strictly discussing rules.

Strike two.

Because it is magic there is always the potential for it to ignore laws of physics and it being "magic" a fantasy concept one could Assume the bead is somehow magically non physical till a "rule mechanic" (physical barrier) affects the spell or it reaches it's destination, but I think that is Poor assumption as it is only supported by conjecture.

The only conjecture here is that anyone who thinks that Wind Wall affects the bead of a Fireball is assigning properties to that bead which we have not been given.

In a rules forum, this is assumption and speculation and not supported by the rules.

Strike three.


The only way a Wind Wall can deflect a Fireball is if the bead is both a physical object AND it is a "normal missile".

The only way a Wind Wall can prematurely detonate a Fireball is if the Wind Wall is a "material body" that interupts line of effect for spells.

Since none of these are stated in the spell description of Fireball or Wind Wall (or anywhere else in the rules), you cannot ASSUME that this is what happens in a rules forum.

It is wishful thinking and not directly supported by the rules.

 

[TheBaron]

(1) Solid objects can also block any spell's line of effect. That says nothing about whether the effect blocked is physical, energistic, or magical. All the "premature detonation" of a fireball amounts to is a narrow exception to line of effect rules.

(2) A wall of wind (or a wind wall) is not a solid object.

(3) The spell is explicit in what it stops and deflects, and fireball just doesn't qualify.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

There's nothing wrong with deciding that a wind wall can stop or deflect a fireball ... in fact, I think it's not bad, since it weakens an overused spell, and strengthens an underused spell. But that decision is definitely a house rule; it relies on several major assumptions about fireball (and wind wall) that just aren't supported in those spells' descriptions.


Jeff

Very well put Jeff. I like what you said about the weakening and strengthening of the repsective spells. I however don't think the assumptions made are Major and I don't feel they unfairly stretch the mechanics or effects of either spell.

I can concede the point on it not being within core rules only in the strictest interpretation of the text.

I think the fundamental issue that determines the difference of legal or house rule is another matter of debate.

I feel that a reasonable amount of interpretation needs to be allowed as no text can fully cover all possible scenario's. I also don't think it's in spirit of Magic. I feel it shuns creativity & ingenuity to confine a spells use to text only.

Naturally there is a fine line and one needs to balance interpretaion with game mechanics, Spirit of the spell and precendence it sets on both those levels, But I guess I digress into that matter of another debate that everyone experiences when they play a roleplaying game. Vision vs. rules and how to balance them.
The Baron~

 

[TheBaron]

I'm not going to sully this board with argumentative diatribes. Feel free to contact me privatly if you truly wish to continue such exchanges. I will attempt to comment constructively on most of your statments.

My answer is based on the rules as stated, not based on assumptions about the two spells that are never listed in the rules.

Fine, but they are still assumptions and still not supported by the rules as written.

You want those in your game, fine.

In a rules forum, this is assumption and speculation and not supported by the rules.

Since we are NOT told the physical properties of the bead, we cannot assume that it is a "normal missile". To do so is the height of hubris when you are strictly discussing rules.

This is not your full text and out of context. Not to show you in poor light, but illustrates the points of my next comments. From what the general vibe of what I've read unless it's in black and white text specifically outlining it there is no challenging a rule. I think that is true hubris when discussing rules as this leaves no room for interpretation.

I think there is a difference between being presumptious and being rational when interpreting rules. To believe something is the sole truth simply because it is stated or not stated in a limited text description and not allow interpretation of the text unless further text is provided is in my opinion breeding ignorant conformity.
The Baron

 

[Lord Pendragon]

To believe something is the sole truth simply because it is stated or not stated in a limited text description and not allow interpretation of the text unless further text is provided is in my opinion breeding ignorant conformity.
The Baron

Conformity is the ultimate goal of any ruleset.

 

[KarinsDad]

This is not your full text and out of context. Not to show you in poor light, but illustrates the points of my next comments. From what the general vibe of what I've read unless it's in black and white text specifically outlining it there is no challenging a rule. I think that is true hubris when discussing rules as this leaves no room for interpretation.

Your slant here is amusing.

This is a rules forum. Someone asked a question on the rules. It is fairly clear what the rule is if you do not throw a bunch of "extraneous interpretive stuff" which is not written in the rules into the mix.

Nobody is saying to not be creative and do what you want in your game.

We are merely stating what the rule is based on what is written.

I think there is a difference between being presumptious and being rational when interpreting rules. To believe something is the sole truth simply because it is stated or not stated in a limited text description and not allow interpretation of the text unless further text is provided is in my opinion breeding ignorant conformity.

You do not want conformity in rules??? What?

Again, you miss the point completely in your sidestep attempt here (i.e. not a discussion of the rules, but merely a side conversation) to justify your weakening position here.

The rules are fairly specific about how spells interact with each other. There is a reason for why game mechanics such as "line of effect" are carefully specified.

There is no possible way to list every way in which spells interact, so the designers listed a general set of rules. The rule on line of effect is that it goes until stopped by something that stops it. Fireball explicitly states what stops its line of effect: "material body or solid barrier".

We know that a Wind Wall is not a solid barrier. It is made of gas. It cannot be solid unless the spell states that it is solid.

So, we have to determine if it is a material body. Typically, the word material means something composed of matter (i.e. corporeal). Well, air is composed of matter and it obviously does not stop a Fireball. A Wind Wall is composed of air, so it too would appear on the surface to not stop a Fireball.

Now, there are specific rules about Fire spells and water which would indicate that even liquids would not be a "material body" EXCEPT for the fact that there are specific rules about Fire spells and water. In other words, they had to add in special rules about water and fire because the phrase "material body" was not sufficient.

From this, is becomes apparent that "material body" means something with some minimum amount of solidity. For example: a creature, an ooze, a sheet of paper, Solid Fog, etc.

Liquids by themselves and gases by themselves do not quality as a "material body" unless there is another rule (like the fire spells in water rules) to indicate otherwise.

Hence, Wind Wall is ruled out.


Likewise, there is nothing to indicate that a bead from a Fireball is a normal missile in any way shape or form. In fact, the opposite is indicated.


Finally, we have several examples of spells that ARE affected by Wind spells such as Fog Cloud and Gaseous Form. If a gas-like spell states that it is affected by Wind, it is. If it does not, it is not.

A Gust of Wind will pass right through a Wall of Fire. Neither the Gust of Wind nor the Wall of Fire will be significantly affected (i.e. games mechanics-wise) by the other spell. The air moved by the Gust of Wind might be warmed up by the Wall of Fire (GM dependent), but not enough to cause damage. The Wall of Fire may or may not be fanned (GM dependent on what "fan large fires" in Gust of Wind means), but the Wall of Fire spell explicitly specifies that it is affected by Cold, not Wind (there are no fire spells affected by wind rules like there is a fire spells affected by water rules). You cannot blow out a Wall of Fire with a Gust of Wind, nor can you stop a Gust of Wind with a Wall of Fire, because the rules concerning the magic of these two spells do not specifically affect each other. It is irrelevant that a strong normal wind can blow out a normal fire.


So, you have little beyond "interpretive license" and each GM is free to rule as he pleases to support your position. That is fine for a given game, but that is not the rule. That is a house rule.

"GMs should be free to do what they want" doesn't mean jack in a rules forum. It is a side discussion, not a rules discussion.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Everybody remember to play nice and be civil, won't you?

Many thanks