Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6881013" data-attributes="member: 42582">These comments are very puzzling to me.You seem to be suggesting that the rules for the Fireball spell, Burning Hands, etc can all be read completely divorced from the rest of the rules - and even ignoring key sentences of those texts themselves.I will reprise some of that text (which I also cited in the OP):SRD pp 66, 68, 97 Alchemist’s Fire. This sticky, adhesive fluid ignites when exposed to air. . . . On a hit, the target takes 1d4 fire damage at the start of each of its turns. A creature can end this damage by using its action to make a DC 10 Dexterity check to extinguish the flames. . . . Oil. . . . you can splash the oil in this flask onto a creature . . . . If the target takes any fire damage before the oil dries (after 1 minute), the target takes an additional 5 fire damage from the burning oil. You can also pour a flask of oil on the ground . . . . If lit, the oil burns for 2 rounds and deals 5 fire damage to any creature that enters the area or ends its turn in the area. . . . Tinderbox. . . . Using it to light a torch - or anything else with abundant, exposed fuel - takes an action. Lighting any other fire takes 1 minute. Torch. A torch burns . . . If you make a melee attack with a burning torch and hit, it deals 1 fire damage. . . . Different attacks, damaging spells, and other harmful effects deal different types of damage. . . . Fire. Red dragons breathe fire, and many spells conjure flames to deal fire damage.I think this text makes it very clear that (i) fire damage can be a typical result of being burned by flames, and that (ii) the flames that burn people (thereby inflicting fire damage) can also set things alight.Now consider these spell descriptions:SRD pp 123, 142-43 Burning Hands As you hold your hands with thumbs touching and fingers spread, a thin sheet of flames shoots forth . . . A creature takes . . . fire damage . . . The fire ignites any flammable objects in the area that aren’t being worn or carried. Fireball A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame. Each creature in a 20-foot-radius . . .  takes . . . fire damage . . . The fire . . . ignites flammable objects in the area that aren’t being worn or carried.Both spells create flames. This is why they do fire damage (as we are told on p 97). Flames can set things alight (this is largely self-evident, and also exhibited by the rules for alchemist's fire, oil, tinderboxes and torches). The spells tell us that flammable objects that are neither worn nor carried will be set alight.But what about other objects? Can ice (not a flammable object) be melted by these spells? Does it make a difference whether or not the ice is worn or carried? Can clothes be singed or charred? Etc.This takes us to the final rules passage I wish to cite:SRD p 87 Characters can also damage objects with their weapons and spells. Objects . . . can be affected by physical and magical attacks much like creatures can. The GM determines an object’s Armor Class and hit points, and might decide that certain objects have resistance or immunity to certain kinds of attacks. (It’s hard to cut a rope with a club, for example.) Objects always fail Strength and Dexterity saving throws, and they are immune to effects that require other saves. When an object drops to 0 hit points, it breaks.This tells us that spells (like Burning Hands and Fireball) can inflict damage, that objects always fail their saves against those spells, but the GM is to determine the hit points and hence (in practical terms) the consequence. There is a reference to breaking but clearly it can't be intended literally - the passage also gives the example of a rope being cut, which is not really an instance of breaking, and I have also mentioned the possibility of ice melting (which, again, is not really an instance of breaking).  Plus the equipment descriptions and the spell descriptions give us the example of objects catching alight and burning.When this passage is read in conjunction with the others I have cited, I think it gives me a fairly clear answer to the question "What about non-flammable material like ice, or flammable objects that are held or carried?", namely, this is up to the GM.Whereas when it comes to tying shoelaces, or peanut butter allergies, or doing the laundry, there is nothing in the spell descriptions, nor anywhere else in the rules, that makes those even conceivable, yet alone highly salient, consequences of casting Burning Hands or Fireball.Right. I've tried to spell out the reasoning in detail above: the spells produce flames and therefore inflict fire damage; flames are capable of igniting things and fire damage is capable of damaging objects; when the object is worn or carried then there is nothing mechanically automatic about this, however, and the GM must adjudicate.But no one is asserting that what is meant is it ignites flammable objects in the area. What is being asserted is that the spell dictates that flammable items neither worn nor carried ignite, and leaves it open for the GM to determine (per p 87 of the SRD, and other relevant rules text) whether or not other objects are damaged (and perhaps also whether or not that damage takes the form of, or includes, ignition).You may not think agree that this is what is meant. But the mere possibility that it may be what is meant is sufficient to rebut your claim that "there is no reason for which someone would write this . . ." There is a reason: namely, in the context of a game which, by default, makes damage to objects a matter of GM discretion, they are removing that discretion for an important class of objects.Right. The fact that interpretations are non-binding (there is no authoritative hierarchy of D&D GMs), and that interpretations are contestable, does not mean that they are anything other than applications of the rules text.Of course there is. The spell description says that it creates flames; and this is confirmed by the fact that it inflicts fire damage. Fire burns; it does not freeze. Fire damage hurts; it does not heal.You seem to be insisting that it is illegitimate to read the Fireball text in the context of the rest of the rules, or the purpose for which it has been written (namely, rules for playing a fantasy RPG). Which is something I find odd, given that a general principle of interpretation is to have regard to the context (including the larger textual context) within which the text has been authored, as well as the purpose for which it has been produced.</blockquote>

Verification