>From: lizard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>A situation came up in last nights game. Our wizard had just cast
>'grease' on the floor of a room. My sorceror was in the doorway, and
>contemplated zapping the grease with Burning Hands, thus creating
>insta-conflagration. I decided against it because we didn't want to burn
>the building down, just take out two assassins in the room. However, the
>issue of whether the grease from a grease spell WOULD ignite remained
>undecided. (The DM ruled 'no', which we accepted, because it would be a
>VERY munchkin spell combo, but I wonder if there's an 'official' ruling,
>or just a statement of opinion from other D20-ers?)
Look in the DMG. The rule for "catching on fire" would apply here. The DM
has to decide if the grease is "very flammable" or just "flammable", and
then the rules fit. (It's not even that bad a spell combo... all that
happens is those in the grease take a few points of damage, and just have a
greater reason to get out.)
I wouldn't even call this a "munchkin combo." It sounds logical and
realistic--and inefficient, to boot. :)
>And this brings up a slighlty more on-topic point for game designers:No
>matter how much detail you put in your rulebooks, players will ALWAYS
>break the bounds.
:) Not really. All you have to do is have a simple system that anticpates
most of the questions you'll get, and incorporates all of the answers you
give to those questions.
DM
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
