Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6877916" data-attributes="member: 42582">At best it generates a prima facie assumption in some contexts - for instance, if there is no further statutory text to suggest otherwise. To give a concrete example: section 51 of the Australian Constitution states that "The Parliament shall . . . have power to make laws . . . with respect to" a whole host of enumerated items. This is followed by section 52 which "The Parliament shall . . . have exclusive power to make laws . . . with respect to" a small number of further matters. Section 122 identifies a further power of Parliament to make law "for the government of any territory" that ends up under federal authority. Section 128 identifies another power, to enact laws that would alter the Constitution (which only take effect if then affirmed at referendum).You can't tell whether the list in section 51 is exhaustive until you read the whole document and see what else is said. In this case, it is obviously not exhaustive because other stuff is mentioned. Some people, including very eminent members of the judiciary, have even thought that the Parliament also has powers to make laws in respect of certain matters that are not mentioned anywhere in the text, but are inherent in its constitution as the supreme law making body of a sovereign nation.In the context of the D&D rules, there is further text which makes it clear that the list in Fireball, Burning Hands etc is probably not exhaustive - namely, the general rule stated on p 87 of the SRD. That's ample to displace any presumption of exhaustiveness.There are clearly contexts in which "Dairy produce is outside of the fridge" conveys the same meaning as "All dairy produce is outside of the fridge". But as you note, it depends upon context and what assumptions are in play.In relation to the Fireball spell, I think the most salient context is that p 87 of the SRD establishes an approach to damaging items which is (i) extremely dependent upon GM discretion, and (ii) is completely silent on any notion of ignition as a consequence of fire damage. The text stating that flammable objects which are neither worn nor carried will ignite makes it clear that, in this context, the GM has no discretion (other than over what counts as flammable, worn or carried) and makes it clear that the damage takes the form of catching fire.I don't think it does anything more than that.I've also been trying to work out the consequences of  [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]'s view for the melting of ice. If he takes it that the list is only an exhaustive treatment of the ignition of flammable materials, then it is not houseruling to hold that the spell melts (partially or completely) some piece of ice being held by the NPC who is in its AoE. Which is odd: by the RAW you can melt the wizard's ice but not burn the wizard's scroll.Or if we take the list as utterly exhaustive of all consequences for objects, then by RAW no ice is ever melted by fireball. Which is as absurd as the suggestion that it would be houseruling to describe the NPC who was burned to death by a fireball as having had his/her clothes charred.I do! In winter it will be cold either way; in summer it reduces separation/sloppiness due to heat and keeps out ants.</blockquote>

Verification