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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Man in the Funny Hat" data-source="post: 2864005" data-attributes="member: 32740">Let's just start by saying that those who aver that the RAW always stands regardless of circumstances are not playing the same game that I am and I wonder if they are reading the same rulebooks and discussion forums.  The fact that errata, faqs and "rules" forums exist at all are pretty much QED that interpretation or at least clarification of rules is vitally necessary on a continuing basis.  Rules for an RPG, however comprehensive, CANNOT cover all eventualities.  Part of the reason for HAVING a DM is to make those judgements when they become necessary - and is why DMing is less science than art.Concealment.  The description is highly indicative of having no solidity - it cannot push, batter, or cause any damage but by its flames.  An arrow meeting it's "spongy, YIELDING, consistency" would not be physically deflected in any way as hard cover would do.  But being a 5' diameter sphere of flame there is every reason to consider it to provide viable concealment.There is absolutely no description of the physical appearance of the spell effect.  There is no basis for assuming that it is visible in the dark any more than any arrow or flying dagger would be.  However, this could stand as an example of where a DM is not just allowed but might even be encouraged to provide unique details to his campaign by declaring that it DOES provide a minimal light effect sufficient for it to be visible in darkness but not for it to illuminate any area around it.Yes, ANY flame effect should be considered to provide illumination equal to its area/intensity/etc.  This could be considered to expand the uses of the spell but only if you had failed to consider previously that flame generally consists of heat and LIGHT.Depends on the illusion, but as a default rule of thumb - yes.  Illusion is, after all, all about visual misdirection and confusion.Either is acceptible.  Neither one is assumed.  Personally, without the spell description indicating that there is ANY residual effect of any kind upon the spell effect expiring I would say that at the end of the spell duration all creatures affected return to their former conditions without any further effect.Rays are ranged touch attacks.  The DMG indicates that an invisible creature with reach greater than 5 feet that strikes someone enables the struck character to know the general location but not pinpont the attackers exact location.  That should apply to ranged touch attacks as well as "reach" attacks.  Even if the striking character WERE pinpointed he would still retain total concealment and thus a 50% miss chance on being attacked.  All pinpointing means is that you don't have to pick the square that you think the invisible enemy is in when you try to attack him.IMO, anyone insisting on that kind of attitude is not clear on either the "roleplaying" or "game" aspects of a roleplaying game as I have understood them to be for the last 20+ years.</blockquote>

Verification