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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mark CMG" data-source="post: 5757827" data-attributes="member: 10479">Seems like a waste of effort.  Under what circumstance when stuff would have burned before would stuff not burn now?  This is a bit of a trick question because it relies on you not trying to ignore the first part where it says, "Under what circumstance when stuff would have burned before," while answering the part where it asks, "would stuff not burn now?"  I stress this because anyone reading the last few pages of posts would note a lot of people saying half-things and only partially addressing questions asked.You see the point of all this seems to be that if the DM can decide if stuff burns or not in both situations (as one always could), why would anyone write a rule where stuff that should burn doesn't unless the DM says it has to burn while at the same time advocating that what is happening is definitely fire and acts just like fire against the actual target?  The default logically would be that stuff would burn (as in the ten by ten by ten room scenario above) so why do I as DM need to be empowered to adjudicate that stuf would burn in those circumstances rather than that being the default?  There must be something else in play that caused the default to be for stuff not to burn.  This is a case where designers determined that logic and thirty-five years of rules be damned, we need to put the question of paper caught in a fireball but not specifically targetted going up in flame in the hands of the DM.Can you see how this would be a questionable design choice?</blockquote>

Verification