Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="javcs" data-source="post: 3301344" data-attributes="member: 43677">What's unambiguous about the text? What does it not say that you feel needs to be said?As to your question, that depends on whether the fireball burns through the ice or not, and whether the creature makes it's reflex save or not and whether or not it has evasion or improved evasion (it is entirely possible that the adjudicating DM would rule that evasion, and thus improved evasion, would not work in such a situation, it is also possible that there would be large circumstance penalties applied to any reflex save made). It also depends on whether the creature has fire resistance or immunity, and whether or not there is some effect similar to blink on the creature (ie an effect causing some sort of miss chance due to being on a different plane of existence. And although that probably isn't what you wanted, like it or not, that is the rules as they are written.You are illustrating nothing. An instantaneous evocation spell is quite different from a noninstantaneous transmutation spell.A DM would be well within his rights and the realm of reason (looking back at the 3.0e version of haste) to houserule that a haste spell would negate the Single Actions Only for the extent of the duration, if I were to houserule in such a manner, I would also deny the miscellaneous bonuses from haste.However, there is nothing in the 3.5e rules to support such a ruling and a host of items that go against such a ruling.I do not see how you are pulling some sort of solidly rules-based support for your position. Could you please give us at least some of your reasoning from the rules so that your arguments can be better understood?</blockquote>

Verification