Flaming Sphere area of effect

[Conaill]

The spell description also states that the sphere causes damage by its flame, and that it stays at rest and burns if not actively directed. I take that to mean that it keeps doing burning damage.

Face it, the spell isn't written 100% unambiguously. You and I obviously interpret the intent differently. It would have to be in several pages of incomprehensible legalise otherwise. And then there still would have to be a Supreme Court or Rules Adjudication to clarify the authors intent.

 

[Camarath]

I would say that the most logical reason that the spell states the the sphere continues burning is not for the pourposes of damage calculation but to clarify the fact that the spell does not end when you stop focusing on the sphere as it would were the spell a concetration spell. Also the sphere can not push a creature aside thus can not occupy the majority of the creature's space who does not leave that space thus can not be asumed to be in contact with the creature unless under active direction. I agree that the spell is slightly ambiguous but using metagame rationalization to break a spell and twist it is wrong. With out rules the game degenerates into a worthless mess. IRL could you stand between squares, yes can. Can you in-game, no. Multiple things can occupy the same space and they are not necessarily asumed to be in contact. The spell description does not specify weather contact occures when the sphere is at rest within a space but it does specify that contact is nessecary for damage and provies a means of striking (making contact) with a creature and that means is limted to one creature. Thus to avoid abuse and confusion I think one should interpret spells and rules literally. In this case since the spell provides one means of dealing damage I think other means should not be rationalized into the spell especially in a low level spell such as this one.

 

[Conaill]

Camarath, please stop accusing me of "using metagame rationalization". I am merely interpreting the spell description differently. For me, the sphere has a "yielding consistency" and "enters a space with a creature". I understand that to mean that it engulfs the creature. You obviously interpret it as being a lot more solid, only brushing up against the creature. BIG DEAL!

Anyway, this thread is closed as far as I'm concerned. I got the question to my original answer. Thank you Nail and Destil. Those of you who want to continue debating the finer points of literalism and metagame rationalization can do it elsewhere.

 

[Camarath]

Sorry if I irritated you Conaill. I was not accusing you of metagame rationalization but your players who wanted to traget more than one square with the flaming sphere. That, I feel is breaking the spell. I realize I did a very poor job of structuring my last post. These lines were meant to refere to your players not you. But I have an unfortunate tendency to ramble and placed them in the middle of my interpretation of the spell reather than as a separate statement.

I agree that the spell is slightly ambiguous but using metagame rationalization to break a spell and twist it is wrong. With out rules the game degenerates into a worthless mess. IRL could you stand between squares, yes can. Can you in-game, no.

Dealing damage to someone in the space in which the sphere rests does not break the spell. I don't think it is the right interpretation but it is a viable one. Targeting mulitiple squares with Flaming Sphere is not a viable interpretation of the spell.