Burning hands is both a “a thin sheet” and a cone. Which is correct? Is there an easy way to know how to resolve such contradictions? Burning hands is a 15-foot cone. To reconcile the words "sheet" and "cone" in the spell's text, one solution is imagining a waffle cone: a sheet shaped into a cone.
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) February 28, 2021
I also like a triangular sheet that rotates around the center line. Et voila, cone.
— Dan Dillon (@Dan_Dillon_1) February 28, 2021
That is the fantasy equivalent of a gangster rotating their hand to hold their gun sideways. Except it would actually increase effectiveness, but sure. 😂
— Dan Dillon (@Dan_Dillon_1) February 28, 2021
“To reconcile the words “sheet” and “cone” in the spell’s text, one solution is imagining a waffle cone: a sheet shaped into a cone.”
~~~
Once again, Crawford opens his mouth and something nonsensical spills out.
His proposed “waffle cone” explanation for the area of the spell’s effect would mean that targets in the center of the cone, where the “ice cream” would normally go, would be wholly unaffected. Clearly that is not how the spell works.
Dillon’s alteration is silly to imagine, but actually would accurately describe the appropriate geometry involved, at least.
I just don’t understand why someone like Crawford who so routinely and frequently makes utterly baffling, nonsensical judgements and decisions is in the position he is in. His rules are almost never sufficiently clear as written, and his frequent “clarifications” almost always just muddy the matter and make things worse. The inconsistencies and failures to examine the full range of logical implications within his rulings are infuriating and absurd. I don’t understand how someone who so inept and incompetent can retain their position.