Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5092112" data-attributes="member: 22779">So, just so I got this straight.DM makes a call that is 100% legal by the rules, is actually pretty in keeping with the spirit of the rules and he's a bad DM because he's not letting his players abuse the rules.Would that sum it up?Darkfire doesn't do any damage.  There's nothing in the description to denote that it is actually warm at all.  It's just a 4e version of a Faerie Fire spell.  So, I think we'd all agree that we wouldn't let anyone melt ice with Faerie Fire, so, why would we suddenly let them do it with this spell?So, it's not the actual ruling, but perhaps that he said that you cannot use abilities on objects.  But, again, this is kosher by the rules and it completely forestalls having to explain to someone that while the spell has the word "fire" in the name, it isn't actually hot and would not cause ice to melt.Having played with the guy who would then proceed to tell me for the next half an hour that the name is stupid/confusing/unrealistic and how he watched some show on Discovery about how you could totally melt ice with St Elmo's Fire, I can totally see that ignoring the flavour explanation in favour of a mechanical explanation could be the right way to go with that player.So, where's the problem here?  He made a call that fit the mechanics, fit the flavour of the ability.  It's a 100% justifiable call.</blockquote>