Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="NoWayJose" data-source="post: 5538879" data-attributes="member: 84810">I agree that this feels like a cop-out, at least for people like me... which is the probably the target audience that one needs to convince. Because the people that are OK with spell-as-a-specific-effect don't prioritize the versimilitude of fiction-first and don't feel the need to fully justify the mechanics in the first place.&nbsp;Going back to the OP, which is how warrior and wizards are handled in literature, I would venture to say that something like sentient magical fire that purposefully decides not to burn non-living matter is simply non-existent. Same goes for fantasy movies. That kind of spell would be completely uncinematic.&nbsp;For the sake of consistency and consensus, if magic creates &quot;fire&quot;, then one by default one assumes it behaves like fire. If magic creates Zeenox Energy, then it can be whatever the game defines that to be.&nbsp;I agree there are some odd cases, like why in 3E are there no rules for lightning bolt being conducted by water, which is why (on the previous page) I suggested that D&amp;D defines what is magical cold (and fire and electricity), how does it mechanically interacts in the game world, including how is it different (if any) from natural cold, fire, electricity. This is not a solution for 4E, which really doesn't care about that kind of thing as Kamikaze so eloquently articulated on previous pages, but would be great to have for a 5E.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="NoWayJose, post: 5538879, member: 84810"] I agree that this feels like a cop-out, at least for people like me... which is the probably the target audience that one needs to convince. Because the people that are OK with spell-as-a-specific-effect don't prioritize the versimilitude of fiction-first and don't feel the need to fully justify the mechanics in the first place. Going back to the OP, which is how warrior and wizards are handled in literature, I would venture to say that something like sentient magical fire that purposefully decides not to burn non-living matter is simply non-existent. Same goes for fantasy movies. That kind of spell would be completely uncinematic. For the sake of consistency and consensus, if magic creates "fire", then one by default one assumes it behaves like fire. If magic creates Zeenox Energy, then it can be whatever the game defines that to be. I agree there are some odd cases, like why in 3E are there no rules for lightning bolt being conducted by water, which is why (on the previous page) I suggested that D&D defines what is magical cold (and fire and electricity), how does it mechanically interacts in the game world, including how is it different (if any) from natural cold, fire, electricity. This is not a solution for 4E, which really doesn't care about that kind of thing as Kamikaze so eloquently articulated on previous pages, but would be great to have for a 5E. [/QUOTE]

Verification