Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6879548" data-attributes="member: 42582">It's not unambiguous!Here's one way it could have been made unambiguous: The spell ignites flammable objects that are in the area of effect and are neither worn nor carried by a creature. It does no damage to any other objects. I'm sure there are other variations that would have the same consequence (eg judicious use of &quot;only&quot;).But no such wording occurs. You are extrapolating an intent and a message which is not the only plausible thing being communicated. As [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] has just pointed out, for instance, and as I am inclined to think, the significance of calling out these things specifically is to take the question of their ignition outside the realm of GM discretion. Which would still leave other objects within GM discretion (as per SRD p 87).But there are any number of reasons why those rules might not be approriate: for instance, if they invoke GM discretion and - when it comes to fireball's effect upon non-worn, non-carried items you don't want the GM to have discretion.I could equally say: had s/he wanted to state and nothing else is affected, s/he would have said so. But s/he didn't.Which means it is a matter of interpretation. Your reading is no more &quot;automatic&quot; than mine. And I think mine has the virtue of reconciling the spell description with p 87, and of reducing absurdities in the fiction, like goblins being burned to death yet their clothing being completely unsinged.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6879548, member: 42582"] It's not unambiguous! Here's one way it could have been made unambiguous: [I]The spell ignites flammable objects that are in the area of effect and are neither worn nor carried by a creature. It does no damage to any other objects.[/I] I'm sure there are other variations that would have the same consequence (eg judicious use of "only"). But no such wording occurs. You are extrapolating an intent and a message which is not the only plausible thing being communicated. As [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] has just pointed out, for instance, and as I am inclined to think, the significance of calling out these things specifically is [I]to take the question of their ignition outside the realm of GM discretion[/I]. Which would still leave other objects within GM discretion (as per SRD p 87). But there are any number of reasons why those rules might not be approriate: for instance, if they invoke GM discretion and - when it comes to fireball's effect upon non-worn, non-carried items you don't want the GM to have discretion. I could equally say: had s/he wanted to state [I]and nothing else is affected[/I], s/he would have said so. But s/he didn't. Which means it is a matter of interpretation. Your reading is no more "automatic" than mine. And I think mine has the virtue of reconciling the spell description with p 87, [I]and[/I] of reducing absurdities in the fiction, like goblins being burned to death yet their clothing being completely unsinged. [/QUOTE]

Verification