>spell targets: 1 creature>"hey GM can I use this spell to burn down the whole building and kill all the bad guys inside"
>>98742357why do people act like this is such an insurmountable problem?just ask the player if he is aiming for something specific in the building to set fire to because burn the whole building down is a vague requestspells like fireball explicitly say if it will set fire to the surroundings or not, in which case setting something on fire is an expected use of the spellor tell the players that setting the building on fire could hurt the players or whatever they are looking foror the building is set on fire and it will collapse in 1d4 hours, which is too long to matter for a 5-minute combat encounter but will add aura to their battle and you can use this is a plothook for a different adventure like being hounded by insurance agentsif the players are outsider the building and the bad guys are inside the building, then setting it on fire could just cause the bad guys to rush out and meet the playersand grant your players guaranteed surprise so it doesnt radically alter the encounter but still rewards the player for using fire on something else
>>98742357This should be your list of priorities, in descending order:>Will the players enjoy this working?>Does it make in-fiction sense for this to work?>Do the rules say it will work?It is the essential privilege of the GM to suspend or uphold any rule at any time. The game is you performing for the benefit of your friends first and foremost, and the rules exist to support that function. If you really are so autismal you can't think outside the rules when that would make for a better time for everyone, go play an MMORPG instead.
>>98742357Depends on the sort of game you are running whether or not that is unreasonable. Some Game Masters are more flexible in their interpretations than others.If you want to help prevent this behavior in the future, indicate to your players that you are running the game RAW/RAI, and unorthodox/technically inaccurate interpretations of the rules are generally going to be denied.
>>98742387>>98742408>spell targets: 1 CREATURE
>>98742466/thread
>>98742483give an example?99% of spells that could set an object on fire just say generically a target, which includes non-creatures, or are an area attack which will explicitly say whether or not it can be used to set things on fire explicitlypathfinder says burning hands only damages creatures but it sets any objects in the area on fire, rendering your imaginary scenario mooti had to look for an example of a spell that creates flame but does not set objects on fire, which is flaming sneeze, which seems more like a genuine oversight rather than an inability to set things on fireand, as DM, use your common sense why would a spell that creates fire not set things on fire?
>player: I should be able to burn down this building with this fireball>gm: OKLater>player: What do you mean all the dry hay in the stables attached caught fire and killed all of our mounts? I didnt want to do that! It dosnt say it spreads!Consistency: The enemy of shit players. Good players take the hand they are dealt and overcome odds. A good gm admits defeat when appropriately presented with a clever solution. A shit head player who wants a score board can accept no defeat and a shit head gm will change the story to avoid it. Simple as.
>>98742553>why would a spell that creates fire not set things on fire?because the spell targets creatures you disingenuous fucktard
>>98742578the entire reason why a DM exists is to arbitrate cases like this
>>98742586the entire reason the rules exist is to say the spell targets creatures, therefore can only be used to target creatures
>>98742578The spell targets a creature, yes. There's still interaction. Like beating a goblin unconscious and covering him in fuses or oil or gunpowder. That need to be accounted for. Crafting this spell into Soviet Anti-Tank Dogs isn't farfetched.
>>98742586>>98742613Can you two fags just skip right to >I win >nope I win and whatever? Make a general for it like>/asshurtg/ and be tsuntsun for eachother there.
>>98742613This is the retarded shit that makes having a gm a necessity. Are you saying that only the creaturw can light on fire? So if I hold a wooden door infront of the lvl 20 wizard casting fireball, im good because it cant hurt the door? No force, no flames? What counts as a creature? Definition has a caveat of "real or imaginary". Does that mean i just have to imagine the building is a creature? This is what I meant by shit head players will twist logic up until it dosnt benefit them.
>>98742670>Are you saying that only the creaturw can light on fire?only if the spell says it lights the creature on fire>So if I hold a wooden door infront of the lvl 20 wizard casting fireball, im good because it cant hurt the door?that's right>What counts as a creature?reductio ad absurdum
>>98742670also, the reason why spells explicitly mention that you can target non-creatures in the first place, as well as what does and doesnt catch fire, was a result of how how DM spells handled them in the first placewhen basic editions just said that fireball only dealt damage to creatures, its obvious that it was intended to set things on fire since gygax said cone of cold was a higher level because it didnt set things on fire and every DM would have it set things on fire anyways, so ADnD onwards explicitly said that fireball set things on firebasic only saying damage to creatures was always ignored and later editions were changed to fit the reality of play
>>98742678>what nu-dnd does to a man
Hast thou attempted to cease playing D&D?
>>98742357I don't see the problem. Tell them no, they can't. If they start yapping about it, then add fluff to the description and hide the rest behind narrative fog. I don't know what system you're using, but you could easily say something like this:"No, you can't target the house. In order for this spell to work, your character's soul essence has to connect to the soul essence of the target. Because a house doesn't have that kind of essence, it cannot be targeted with the spell UNLESS the house is somehow animated and given soul essence. But this is just a regular house. I know your character wants to have a clear idea of what a soul essence is and isn't, but that isn't something the wizarding world is entirely clear on. Your own order has spent the better part of 200 years trying to figure it out. But so far, no clear definition exists."
>>98742408My favorite part of basketball is when you kick it into the pool and everyone gets to go diving for the rings at the bottom.
>>98743430Good for you. After you had your fun watching competitive sports, you can spend some time thinking how they are not a tabletop rpg you play around a table with a few select players and no one else.
>>98742357>set fire to the whole building>all enemies exit the building and aggro the party all at once>party wiped>tresture lost
>>98743443Games.
>>98742357Mostly it happens in one offs or pick up games, in which a player has been thrown a character sheet and set of rulebooks they havn't bothered to memorise every single detail from. Many do rpgs as a way to unwind with friends from a week doing tax returns and other complicated shit, so dont apply themselves with the same vigour. Chill dude and try not to let it bother you, the Games Police arnt going to fine you because a player couldnt remember something in a game of make believe.
>>98742408>The game is you performing for the benefit of your friends first and foremostFuck no. The game is them performing for the benefit of me. That's why I'm doing all the work and they just have to show up.
>>98742357>character can light things in fire with their mind>anon can't handle player wanting to light things on fireMaybe get a new hobby.
OP is obviously a troll (the mask slipped off at 98742483) and people replying obviously have a point pointing out how it's not really a problem and even if it was one, there's a way to curtail such behaviour, such as applying consequences.But I do agree that this type of player who constantly asks the GM to bend rules to squeeze out advantage instead of just using his options can be "tiresome".Adjudicating is what GMs do, but if you have to do it all the time because of one guy, it is tempting to start going "100% RAW fuck you".
>>98742357It is a no games spam thread created for very cheap baiting.
>98742678cringe
>>98744552meant for >>98742678
>>98742670Why do you keep mentioning fireball? That's not a targeted spell, and the book is very specific about what happens if it strikes an obstruction. Why are you using examples that don't aid your argument?
>>98742357What game system, and what spell OP?
>>98753549you have it backwardsfireball mentions that it affects objects and sets things on fire because players kept having fireball set things on firethe basic DnD fireball spell only strictly dealt damage to creatures, but it was retconned to affect objects because players kept using fireball to set things on fireso DMs ruling that common sense overrides the rulings would lead to ruling changes to accommodate common sense
>>98754346No. I don't. Answer my question.
>>98742357>>"hey GM can I use this spell to burn down the whole building and kill all the bad guys inside"what spell?
>>98754476A spell that only targets 1 creature, apparently
I just searched the entirety of the PHB1 spell section for the word "fire" and examined every instance. There is not a single spell in the book which both deals fire damage and has a Target line that says "one creature".
>>98754758OP is a fag as usual, and won't specify the system
>dm: you meet a grouo of wise elders in the cave>pc1: let me ask them if they will reveal the hidden spell>dm: they will, for 26 gold>pc2: alas. We are poor might we trade you a baby dragon egg>dm: no, dragons are cursed they say>me: ima light ya'll motha fuckers on fire ya' dont tell me that shit
Who are you quoting?
what system?
>>98754815But what did your PC say?
>>98742408>The game is you performing for the benefit of your friends first and foremost, and the rules exist to support that function.Not sure, if bait, since I've met enough people who were genuinly this retarded. None of them ever ran a game themselves, few of them played at all.You're looking for a prostitute not a GM. A game master acts as a referee, the rules create a common ground and everyone including the players is responsible for creating a fun experience for everyone (including the GM).
>>98755990and as referee, if a spell that should logically based on its description set things on fire even if the rules say it only hits creatures then it would be in everyones best interests to contextually allow it if the situation calls for it
>>98754669Can a spell that targets only one creature target a prenant spider monster? What about a blood kangaroo with a joey? A two headed ogre? If it hits a pregnant woman will it leave a pile of ashes with a fetus in it like dionysus?
>>98743969The spell only works on creatures. Not "things."
>>98756035Can it target a robot?
>>98756091Is the robot classed as a creature in the monster splat?
>>98756098What game?
>>98756104is there a bot designed to just spam out these single phrase reponses?but if we are talking DnD, then has been explained in this thread, if a spell sounds like it should set things on fire but the rules only mention targetting creatures, the DM is encouraged to allow it to target non-creatures if its contextually relevantbut its a moot point because just about every spell in the PHB that can set things on fire explicitly says it can set things on fire because years of players asking if they can use a spell to set things on fire has resulted in all the most common spells in the game being given obvious rules patches to allow italongside other stuff like summoning creatures being limited to being on the ground and within line of sight because players kept dropping whales on people
>>98756104How should I know? I'm not OP.
>>98756163>encouragedI shan't be giving casters any more freebies. They've had decades' worth. If they can't leverage all of that to figure out a solution, they're just going to have to live with it. Or go ask a chatbot to DM for them, they make superb yes-men.
>>98756218>I shan't be giving casters any more freebies.this applies to everyone, casters are just the most obvious beneficiary because they have magic that produces fireyou do not need explicit rules for a torch to set things on firethis is explicitly the case in early DnD where torches only deal 1d3 fire damage but no inherent ability to set things on fire and yet the description says it is effective at setting flammable targets on firethe game is clearly nudging you to set enemies made of paper and tar on fire even if 1d3 fire damage would just be a tickle, because the book assumes that the DM will create an appropriate effect for the action should it actually happen
>>98756021Yes, but that wasn't what I quoted.
>>98754346>discussion about spell targeting one(1) creature>"but if you look at this AREA OF EFFECT spell, it doesn't have to target a creature, crazy isn't it?"I wish I could play a game with you just to watch GM have enough and kill himself
>>98756355>being this disengeniousfireball RAW in basic DnD explicitly only dealt damage to creaturesbut everyone ignored this and allowed it to set things on fire because it was described as a large ball of fire that explodesthis was RAI for a long time with gary gygax even explicitly stating that cone of cold was a higher level than fireball because it did not cause as much collateral damageergo: everyone and their mom knew fireball could set things on fire even if the rules did not say that it could explicitlymodern fireball outright says it sets the surroundings on fire because thats how players always treated fireball regardless of what the rules say>discussion about spell targeting one(1) creaturethe point is that, if the spell in question sounds like it logically could set things on fire, then the DM can make an on-the-spot ruling allowing it to do sothis is what the DM is for, handling cases like this where something sounds like it makes sense but isnt outright written in the rulestheres also the context, why would a player ask if he can set things on fire with a spell if the spell did not describe an effect that sounds like it could set things on fire?it would be understandable to deny his request if the spell in question raised someones body temperature to a high enough degree to deal heat damagebut in this case, the player would be unlikely to ask it to set a building on fire in the first place
>>98742408When you just make shit up, you set a precedent. Players need the game to behave in a consistent, predictable manner in order for their choices to have any meaning or validity. Don't set the precedent that nothing matters but your whimsy.
>>98756031That's such a ridiculous non sequitur in bad faith.Unless you're gonna seriously tell us that a house is fundamentally exactly the same category of thing as a pregnant woman.
>>98756031>can a spell that targets only one creature target only one creatureyes
>>98756383>When you just make shit up, you set a precedentand it is standard practice to tell players that you made something up and that it only applies to this session until you find out what the actual rules areeveryone at the table is an adult who recognizes that its boring to sit at a table for 40 minutes while people check every single rulebook for a specific ruling but also that if the rule exists somewhere than that should be used if its knownno one will complain if a precedent is only followed for a single session before the actual ruling is used thereafter, it is in fact expected
>>98756382>fireball RAW in basic DnD explicitly only dealt damage to creaturesit does not target 1 creature thoughbeit, meaning he's right and you're retarded
>>98756412>, meaning he's right and you're retardedOP says that if a spell only targets creatures, then it shouldnt be able to target objects because objects are not creaturesbut this has never been the case, with spells that are rulled as only targetting creatures nonetheless expected to be able to contextually damage objects if it makes sense toso if we take take the hypothetical spell in question to be generic-fire attack that deals X damage to one creature, but is described as a gout of flamethen it would make sense for the player to ask if it can set things on fire and we know from the example of fireball that the DM is encouraged to allow it to set things on fire because this has been the case for yearsbut again, this is a moot point because 99% of all spells in DnD were rules-lawyers proofed already with just about every flame-producing spell having already been ruled as to whether it can set things on fire or notso OPs hypothethical situation would never come up in the course of normal play anyways, its just an argument for arguments sake
>>98756163So is the grease caused by the Grease spell flammable?
>>98742357OP, post the description of the spell, copypasted right from the rulebook in this thread, or forever bear the Mark of a Faggot.
>>98742357"Okay mate, your turn.">sighs>"pfffft">silence for a while>"ehmmm...">more silence>"I...">2 minutes of excruciating quiet>"I hit this guy">repeat ad nauseam forever
>>98756021No. A spell does what it says and nothing else.>>98756031A two-headed ogre is a single creature. Pregnancy doesn't exist in the rulebook, thus, there are no pregnant creatures.
What about shit DMs?>target vulnerable to Sleep>cast Sleep>DM rolls low, target incapacitated>next turn, DM rolls low again, target per rules as written is now asleep>"He nods off but then wakes back up again.">"Why?">"He just does."
>>98755885Literally that
>>98742483>target ant on floor>shit's on fire
>>98759311That's basically how the GURPS Sleep spell actually works and it's fucking annoying
>>98759311cope playoid BITCH :)
>>98742586And his arbitration is it targets one CREATURE.
>>98742408>>98743430>>98743443>>98743767Basketball is a game. It can also be a professional sport.How strictly you want to enforce the rules when playing a casual game with friends will be different from how strictly enforced they are in the NBA. This is because the casual game is usually for fun, instead of being a job with millions of dollars on the line.Your group of friends gathering for a game of choice is intended to be fun. The GM is meant to be the final arbiter of any rules that govern that fun. Rules should still exist, else there is no tension and everyone is just Superman without Kryptonite or tension. But if a rule will get in the way of fun, the GM may at his discretion ignore a strict reading of a rule in favor of fun.It is all about achieving a proper balance at the end of the day.
>>98743430>>98760279Also, basketball has previously had different rulesets created. If you want to make a variant that involves collecting rings from a pool, you absolutely have the freedom to.
>>98760154if the spell is described in a manner that it could feasibly set things on fire then you can make an on-the-spot ruling that in this case it can
>>98759253>>98760154Provide the spell description, you double nigger.
>>98760322How? The OP never mentioned a spell, and there isn't any spell I could find in the PHB that matches the mentioned characteristics, like I already said, previously, in this thread, which you didn't read.
>>98760327its been mentioned earlier but fireball didnt explicitly mention melting or burning objects until ADnD came outthe initial release and basic DnD both only mentioned dealing damage to creatures and nothing about objectsbut everyone houseruled that firerball set things on fire and gygax clarified that setting things on fire was always RAI and the rules were balanced around setting things on fireso the rulechange was simply reflecting how everyone actually used fireball so we do have an example of a spell that only specifically mentions creatures but was used to burn objects so often that the rules were changed to reflect its actual use and setting the precedent for the DM to use his job as referee to allow objects to do things not explicitly stated in its rules when the use case is obvious
>>98760354Fireball doesn't say "Target : One creature", so it's not relevant to the discussion.
>>98760358we have clearly set a precedent that a spell does not need to have objects listed in its description to target objectsit only needs to make sense to target objects to do so
>>98760374No, we clearly haven't.
>>98760375using the power of inference, we can deduce that fireball did not need to have objects written in its description to damage objectsthe change in the wording was a result of its real world use ignoring that it only hit creatures RAWtherefore a hypothethical spell that only targets creatures but nonetheless is described as a flaming attack, would follow fireballs example and be able to be used against objects if it makes contextual sensebut you are clearly just trolling, since no spell in the PHB would run into the issue you are describing
>>98760391No you can't.
>>98760391How long will you entertain an obvious troll?
>>98742357>Anon when he has to say an easily pronounced two letter word.
>>98742387It's not insurmountable it's just cancer
Ask yourself what Gygax would do
>>98763730A lot of coke and hookers?
>>98763730Go to Hollywood to waste millions on failed business ideas and drugs?
>>98763969No. The Gygaxian OSR method of "rulings over rules". Make sensible, logical decisions using the GMs best judgement instead of needing a billion rules for edge cases. In this case, if the fire spell that "targets a creature" also happens to splash onto some dry hay, you don't need a rulebook to tell you that now the entire barn is at risk of burning down. This is the Gygaxian OSR method and the correct way to play D&D. The "rules as law" method is typically associated with 5e nu-GMs that need a book to handhold them
Oh, no response to >>98756577?Shocker.
>>98742357should met my playersthey constantly try to jew out any iota of advantage from their skills, equipment or abilities
>>98763995Which fire spell targets one creature and also affects an area?
>>98756163How is anyone supposed to discuss a rule system if they don't know which rule system is being discussed? Fucking retard.
>>98764637That's good.
>>98742357>"ok">"All the enemies come rushing out. You've alerted all the enemies at once and now have given yourself a 4v31 encounter, roll for initiative."
>>98742408>This should be your list of priorities, in descending order:>>Will the players enjoy this working?>>Does it make in-fiction sense for this to work?>>Do the rules say it will work?Literally the oppositely-wrong order lmao
>>987650595e gooner brain'd GM
>>98765064Nope.
>>98742578Hey DM I'm going to use this at-will spell, that EXPLICITLY targets CREATURES, on every treasure chest, armor stand, pile of bones, and corpse that I see just in case it's a mimic, an animated armor, a skeleton, or a zombie.
>>98764785https://www.5esrd.com/database/spell/orb-of-flame/
>no target lineWow, you're not even trying! lol
>>987652885e doesn't use target lines, the target rules are in the description text.
>"Hey GM, can I cast this spell, but instead of the designated effect I do something else instead?">"And because there is no RAW for this alternate effect, it should 100d100 of damage that can't be ignored, and they insta die anyway?">"No? Fuck you gm you're not fun and you're shit go kys Imma release a podcast and be bigger than Matt Mercer"If I had a nickel, man...Maybe about 60 cents total, bit that's still way too many assholes who think like that
>>98765262Ok. It doesn't work, since none of them are creatures. To your party and the people around you, you look like a fucking idiot. You're also an annoying obnoxious faggot.
>>98765311 Good! That means none of them are monsters!
>>98742357>OP presents a disingenuous complaint about "a spell">refuses to elaborate on what the spell isThis entire fucking thread could be solved if OP provided the system, the spell, the page number and an apology for being a cunt.
>>98764016grease is not meant to be flammable RAI and has never been meant to be set on fireunlike a giant fireball setting things on fire, there is plenty of room for interpretation as to why you cant set set the grease on fire, ie. there isnt enough grease to start a fire, the grease is just glorified bacon grease and not enough to cause a dangerous fire, etc.whereas a fireball not setting things on fire would be much harder to excuseif the player has a very good contextual reason why this particular casting of grease should be flammable, i will hear them out
