Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6877655" data-attributes="member: 42582">If the fireball spell said &quot;. . . and it damages nothing else&quot; that would be true. But it doesn't. As far as items that are neither worn nor carried are concerned, fireball establishes a definite consequence (which trumps the general rule making it a matter of GM adjudication in various ways). For other objects, the GM's discretion is left undisturbed.You are inferring that the particular list in the fireball spell description is exhaustive. The rules nowhere tell us that those sorts of lists are exhaustive, though. So you are extrapolating. I favour a different extrapolation, which I think does a better job of integrating all the salient rules text.But fireball says nothing about its description being exhaustive, or about the general rules being displaced.That word &quot;only&quot; is your interpolation, just as it is [MENTION=61529]seebs[/MENTION]' interpolation. It does not appear in any of the spell descriptions were are discussing. By your own lights, therefore, it is a house rule!(Also, [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] is quite correct to point out that, in natural language, there is no general rule that lists and descriptions are exhaustive.)They damage by burning. That text takes the effect of those spells out of the GM's adjudication, as I already stated in my earlier post.The bottom line, for, me, is this: the game does not mandate that a NPC can be burned to death by Burning Hands or Fireball, and yet it is a house rule for the GM to describe his/her clothes as charred or damaged.No. The text applies to you, but not my interpretation of it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6877655, member: 42582"] If the fireball spell said ". . . and it damages nothing else" that would be true. But it doesn't. As far as items that are neither worn nor carried are concerned, fireball establishes a definite consequence (which trumps the general rule making it a matter of GM adjudication in various ways). For other objects, the GM's discretion is left undisturbed. You are inferring that the particular list in the fireball spell description is exhaustive. The rules nowhere tell us that those sorts of lists are exhaustive, though. So you are extrapolating. I favour a different extrapolation, which I think does a better job of integrating all the salient rules text. But fireball says nothing about its description being exhaustive, or about the general rules being displaced. That word "only" is your interpolation, just as it is [MENTION=61529]seebs[/MENTION]' interpolation. It does not appear in any of the spell descriptions were are discussing. By your own lights, therefore, it is a house rule! (Also, [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] is quite correct to point out that, in natural language, there is no general rule that lists and descriptions are exhaustive.) They damage by burning. That text takes the effect of those spells out of the GM's adjudication, as I already stated in my earlier post. The bottom line, for, me, is this: the game does not mandate that a NPC can be burned to death by Burning Hands or Fireball, and yet it is a house rule for the GM to describe his/her clothes as charred or damaged. No. The text applies to you, but not my interpretation of it. [/QUOTE]

Verification