Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5434396" data-attributes="member: 42582">Are you really suggesting that the typical 4e player would never think of using a fire attack to destroy a timber structure simply because the power description doesn't canvass this option?Fireball in Rolemaster is presented purely as an attack spell - it is classed as an Elemental Ball Attack Spell, it is resolved by making an Elemental Attack Roll, the description in Spell Law Classic is "A 1' ball of fire is shot from the palm of the caster; it explodes to affect a 10'R area; results are determined on the Fire Ball Table," and the Fire Ball Table to which one is referred is described as an attack table. The results on the table are hits of damage, and criticals, and in early editions of the game there were no core rules for applying these results to inanimate objects (later editions have tended to incorproate the rules from Rolemaster Companion V).Nevertheless, the player of the firemage in my first RM campaign never hesitated to use fireball to burn down ships, warehouses, ordinary houses, just about anything really  . . .I really think this is a red herring. I've never heard an issue of it made in relation to Rolemaster. Why is 4e (or its players) any different? The 4e DMG has rules for attacking objects, for object defences and hit points, for object immunity, resistance and vulnerability to various damage types, etc. These rules are replicated in the DMG kit and the Rules Compendium.I just don't feel the force of what you're saying here.</blockquote>

Verification