Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="D'karr" data-source="post: 5757865" data-attributes="member: 336">That might be true because there is a decision to be made, a simple one btw. However by using the more restrictive reading of a spell, then only the things that the spells "spells out" (no pun intended) can happen.If there is another spell that doesn't say that it sets things ablaze, then it never can, except with a DM decision, as that is always an option.I don't see the more restrictive reading as a desired feature, exactly because of the opposite effect it engenders.I made an comment before of a torch.  Does the description of the torch ever mention that it can set things ablaze?  If it doesn't then the DM has one of several options, he can decide that because the torch does not mention it sets things ablaze, it can't.  Or he can use some common sense and make a rules adjudication that makes sense for that table at that moment.The DM is not an computer game AI that can't think outside the written word.A rules lawyer has no leg to stand on if the DM decides that a torch sets a curtain on fire if the description of the torch is totally mute about it.  The decision is entirely on the hands of the DM.I prefer the design that leaves the door open for the DM rather than the one that boxes him to the rules as written.More rules is not the solution for poor DMing.</blockquote>