Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 6680524" data-attributes="member: 22424">Yes, but you have chosen to tie the &quot;melts metal&quot; effect of the fireball to the fire damage. That link is not made in the rules - the spell description places them in different paragraphs* and there are many other sources of fire damage that don't have this same effect, including spells of higher level and/or doing more damage.It's also worth noting that you cannot meaningfully damage D&amp;D gold coins by melting them, since a 1lb mis-shapen lump of gold is worth the same 50gp as, well, 50gp.* Edit: It would, of course, be entirely sensible to point out that the fireball description didn't take into account the effect of Non-lethal Substitution when it was written, since the feat didn't exist, and so it could be argued that it didn't need to make the link explicit since it was obvious. So I'm certainly not saying your ruling is wrong - just re-stating that there is room for different rulings. (Which, in turn was obvious from your &quot;YMMV&quot;, so by now I'm wasting electrons. I think I'll stop now. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> )</blockquote>

[QUOTE="delericho, post: 6680524, member: 22424"] Yes, but [i]you[/i] have chosen to tie the "melts metal" effect of the [i]fireball[/i] to the fire damage. That link is not made in the rules - the spell description places them in different paragraphs* and there are many other sources of fire damage that don't have this same effect, including spells of higher level and/or doing more damage. It's also worth noting that you cannot meaningfully damage D&D gold coins by melting them, since a 1lb mis-shapen lump of gold is worth the same 50gp as, well, 50gp. * Edit: It would, of course, be entirely sensible to point out that the [i]fireball[/i] description didn't take into account the effect of Non-lethal Substitution when it was written, since the feat didn't exist, and so it could be argued that it didn't need to make the link explicit since it was obvious. So I'm certainly not saying your ruling is wrong - just re-stating that there is room for different rulings. (Which, in turn was obvious from your "YMMV", so by now I'm wasting electrons. I think I'll stop now. :) ) [/QUOTE]

Verification