Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="seebs" data-source="post: 6878978" data-attributes="member: 61529">Ice which is not a worn or carried object would be taking fire damage, same as everything else. Melted or turned to steam, depending on the amount of damage done. Seems straightforward.Depending on how you apply the effect, you might conclude that the clothes get burned if and only if the thing which used to be wearing them dies, because at that point they are no longer worn or carried.They tell us that the person who wrote the text for fireball clearly envisioned it as not damaging items which are worn or carried, and spent extra effort to specifically communicate that. That is the intent of the fireball spell. You could argue that the page 87 ruling has other intent, but the spell's intent is unambiguous. If it meant something else, it wouldn't have those words.Hmm. Interesting question. How about if goblins were hacked up by someone with a sword; should their armor be damaged? Because the D&D rules answer is of course that armor is not damaged by melee attacks against the wearer. At all. But that's ridiculous. So... Pointing out that the rules produce outcomes which make no sense is, I think, unpersuasive.</blockquote>