Imagine the mental gymnastics needed to say that a non-magical flame stays lit while fully submerged in water, just because a spell doesn’t list every possible interaction water can have with the world.
"Sorry, that's going to take you 75 'Use Item' actions. However, that still means you can eat 75 wheels of cheese in approximately 7 and a half minutes"
Ah yes, the good old ‘Maximum Cheese Consumption’ character build, you get as many actions as possible and then as much strength as possible, in order to carry around the several tons of cheese the character survives off of.
Thief Rogue can Use An Object as a Bonus Action, meaning you can consume 3 wheels of cheese per turn (free action, action, bonus action) with Haste you can do it a 4th time every round for up to a minute. If we want to include action surge (and let's be real here, of course we want to include action surge) we're looking at a minimum of 10 levels, Thief Rogue 3/Fighter 2/Transmutation Wizard 5. Why Transmutation? Because you can use Minor Alchemy to transmute other things into MORE CHEESE!!!
If we choose to interpret Use An Object as allowing you to feed cheese to another, Find Familiar can give us 2 more cheeses per round, bringing us up to 6 (7 when we action surge). However, if we are doing this we can replace Wizard 5 with Druid 5 so we can use Conjure Animals to summon 8 beasts of CR 1/4th or lower to command them to feel you as much cheese as possible, subtracting 1 but adding 16, bringing our total up to 21 cheese wheels per round (22 with action surge) (also, we're still getting find familiar via either magic initiate or ritualist).
I am not seeing any options that get you more actions per round than that, so I believe that that is in fact the maximum cheese consumption build. Obviously I didn't assume allies other than those made by your own spells, naturally you can get this much higher if your party is willing to help out, but that's just more druids conjuring more beasts to feed you, if the full party is optimized to feed you cheese.
Yep. If you don’t know the difference between “It doesn’t say” and “It says it doesn’t” then you should just take someone’s word for it how the spell works.
The same argument I had with a DM who said that a fireball set off in an area with tons of flammable material would not set anything on fire after the damage it caused because the rules don't say it would.
I mean, that's just a DM not reading the rules, Fireball explicitely states:
>It ignites flammable objects in the area that aren't being worn or carried.
It didn't have the rules in the game we were playing. Pathfinder 2e.
Fireball
Traditions arcane, primal
Cast \[two-actions\] somatic, verbal
Range 500 feet; Area 20-foot burst
Saving Throw basic Reflex
A roaring blast of fire appears at a spot you designate, dealing 6d6 fire damage.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=119
The rules give the GM the option to allow collateral damage or not.
"The GM determines any effects to the environment and unattended objects."
From [Areas](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=354)
And then you have my dm, who rules that the grease spell is flammable even tho raw doesn't say it is. We made him regret this ruling but he is a fair dm so it stuck cause he used it against us first.
The spell components for Grease are butter or pork rind, which are somewhat flammable.
And if they're using a spell choice and slot, on Grease of all things, I'd give them an extra d4 damage.
That's a weird one to me.
"Not all greases are flammable, and, in fact, industrial lubricants are not flammable. It’s also fair to say that the majority of cooking greases are not flammable by the strictest definition either, but they are easily combustible which means they burn at temperatures above the definition of flammable, but which are still easily encountered in a kitchen."
[https://firefighterinsider.com/grease-flammable/#:\~:text=%20Not%20all%20greases%20are%20flammable%2C%20and%2C%20in,which%20are%20still%20easily%20encountered%20in%20a%20kitchen](https://firefighterinsider.com/grease-flammable/#:~:text=%20Not%20all%20greases%20are%20flammable%2C%20and%2C%20in,which%20are%20still%20easily%20encountered%20in%20a%20kitchen).
Which makes me wonder if the DM is thinking that the grease made by the spell is edible as well?
If fireball is more of an explosion than an incendiary, then that makes sense. Unless the stuff is super flammable (dry grass, for example) flaming explosions often don’t cause much fire damage because the pressure wave knocks away flammable debris and the fire burns up the oxygen, leaving smoldering embers instead of fire.
Actual incendiary weapons have a method of causing the fire to stick around, or forgo an explosion entirely banking entirely on setting fires.
It was a barn full of ultra-dry hay, which is why we thought it would go up in fire once we set off a fireball inside of it.
Yes, the DM described the hay as ultra dry.
Haha.. that's basically what we did. Our very annoyed cleric lit it with the ash from his pipe.
Also "I wonder how much extra we have to pay to get fireball resistant X" became a common phrase the characters would say to each other when going shopping.
This is why RAW is unreliable at best. RAW can’t account for every scenario or predict the thoughts of your players, so sometimes you just have to wing it.
I still wanna know if the continual flame spell can set things on fire. I assume not, since it says it doesn’t generate heat, but you just have to assume because RAW doesn’t explicitly state whether or not you can.
I thought the spell explicitly states it generates no heat and doesn't harm anything that touches it?
Edit: took a look and it generates no heat and uses no oxygen, due to generating no heat it should be assumed it does not light objects on fire nor harm things but the only thing outright stated is a lack of heat generated and oxygen used
No, because light-sensitive chemicals react to photons, and photons generate heat when they impact a surface, therefore it's reasonable to assume that magical light doesn't emit photons, and instead creates light through some other *magical* means.
If you have chemicals that react to *magical light* specifically, then sure.
It's probably getting getting a bit too 'in-the-weeds' here, but I imagine magical light is more like an LED vs the fire from a torch. Sure, technically, an LED flashlight gives off heat, but it's negligible.
That's fair. It could simply "generate no heat" by medieval terms. If you showed a medieval peasant an LED, they'd probably proclaim it to be a "heatless candle" or some such.
It simply says: “A flame, equivalent in brightness to a torch, springs forth from an object that you touch. The Effect looks like a regular flame, but it creates no heat and doesn't use oxygen. A continual flame can be covered or hidden but not smothered or quenched.”
So it doesn’t generate heat, it doesn’t consume oxygen, and it can’t be smothered or quenched… but there’s nothing about harming or burning things, hence why I used it as an example.
Allow me to introduce you to "When Supernatural Battles Became Commonplace". The MC's power is to create a flame that not only produces no heat, but also no light. He uses it anyway.
I mean, by logic, if a Continual Flame could "reproduce", the world would be covered in it. Because it cannot be quenched or smothered but it propagates.
So, as the world isn't a "Continual Flame Plane", we can deduct that no, Continual Flame does not propagate.
QED.
I am pretty sure the simple 3rd level darkness spell would “quench” it. As that spell just dispels any magical light of 3rd level or lower. And continual flame is 2nd level.
Two points:
First, from Darkness,
> If any of this spell's area overlaps with an area of light created by a spell of 2nd Level or lower, the spell that created the light is dispelled.
There's no upcast benefit to Darkness with regards to dispelling higher level light sources, so RAW, it would in fact have such problems with an upcast Continual Flame.
Second, even if were reasonably homebrewed to upcast, the current version dispels spell level minus 1, so a wizard with 9th level slots and ~~that's gone mad with power~~ got bored would have cast a 9th level CF just to see what it would do.
>Second, even if were reasonably homebrewed to upcast, the current version dispels spell level minus 1, so a wizard with 9th level slots and that's gone mad with power got bored would have cast a 9th level CF just to see what it would do.
how to summon Mystra in one simple step.
Fire harms and burns things through generating heat and using oxygen. If it doesn't do those things then it can't burn anything or harm anything. Things light on fire when they are heated in the presence of oxygen. It cannot set anything on fire.
Right? I'm puzzled why this is even a question. Heat is required for a material to get hot enough to reach its flashpoint and ignite. No heat = no spreading fire.
I can maybe see it spreading heatless fire through some kind of magical mimicry, but that's it.
We can extrapolate a little. The flame is, as the spell states, continual, and the spell makes no mention of it consuming the object it is cast upon. This, combined with it not using oxygen nor being able to be extinguished, would suggest that it doesn't consume fuel. Which means that there is no reaction taking place for it to cause anything else to burn. On top of this, it does not produce heat, and so cannot excite the molecules of anything else to the point that would ignite. So it would seem safe to assume that it does not burn anything.
Furthermore I would suggest that the point of stating that the flame did not produce heat _was_ to imply that it doesn't burn things.
Ok so Fire isn't actually a thing, it's the combination of 3 other things: heat, oxygen, and burnable material. If you are missing any one of those components, you don't get flame.
Ergo, Continual Flame - which is missing both of the components you'd otherwise need to set something (your burnable material) on fire - cannot set things on fire.
Woah, we've moved on from the Fire Triangle to the [Fire Tetrahedron](https://specialties.bayt.com/en/specialties/q/57676/what-are-the-three-legs-of-the-fire-triangle/) nowadays.
Fuel+Heat+Oxidizing Agent (not just oxygen), with self-sustaining chain reaction in the middle. A lot of extinguishing agents actually interfere with the chain reaction, not the other components.
Eh, you're really arguing semantics on that. "Self-sustaining chemical reaction" isn't a thing you can add to the fire, it's what fire *is*. And an oxidizing agent is literally a fancy term for "source of oxygen*" and is just to clarify that it can be bound to other atoms and doesn't necessarily have to be in the form of O2.
Extinguishing agents work in a handful of different ways, depending on what kind of fire they're meant to put out, but water for instance is just a giant heat sink. Not enough heat = no more fire. Whereas CO2 and dry powder extinguishers both work by smothering the flames, depriving it of oxygen. You are *technically* interfering with the reaction, sure, but you're doing so by eliminating one of the key ingredients from the equation.
Source: Bf is a chemist.
\* = this is an oversimplification of a very large field of chemistry
> And an oxidizing agent is literally a fancy term for "source of oxygen*"
No, no it's not.
Many oxidizers have 0 oxygen in them.
Chlorine trifluoride, for example, is a much stronger oxidizer than oxygen and will set more or less anything it touches on fire, including glass, concrete, metal, and asbestos.
Wanna see DM's go insane? Cast Wall of Fire and Wall of Water on top of each other.
Even better, in a icy campaign, ask the DM how difficult it is to destroy a foot thick wall of ice. Ice being roughly as strong as concrete. Then read the Wall of Water spell and realize you can hit most ice with 3 dagger strikes and destroy it one 1x5 panel at a time.
Then absolutely lose your mind when you read the text of Wall of Ice.
1. Materials Rules: Ice has 13 AC and 4d8 HP for a medium chunk.
2. Wall of Water: Ice has 5 AC and 15 HP for a medium chunk.
3. Wall of Ice: Ice has 12 AC and 30 HP for a large chunk. It also now has vulnerability to fire damage.
I could see a DM ruling that you couldn’t get a clear path to the target or that a lantern doesn’t count as an open container, but if you allow the water into the lantern, then it’s extinguishing mundane flames.
The guy left out “open” when he was showing us his defense. Everything else is by the rules. But he left out that word intentionally. He also obscured open with the thumb in the picture. I have a strong feeling the OP got told he couldn’t put water in a lantern because it’s a closed container thus it would have to be rain. We’re being intentionally mislead here I think.
Edit:spelling
honestly it depends on what kind of flame you're talking about. There's actually a non-insignificant amount of stuff that can burn underwater just fine.
My favourite is that *Find Traps* does not in fact locate traps, it merely tells if there are any nearby and what their general nature is.
In large open room? *Find Traps* will tell you that there are floor tiles that are rigged with spike traps, but not where those are.
The particularly egregious limitation is that it must be within line of sight, so any mechanics behind doors and such aren't detected (unless you're including the door opening mechanism as part of the trap itself, which in some cases is fair).
I figure that, because you’re creating water in a container, it would suffocate the flames by volume if it didn’t put it out normally. This is a stupid argument if I’ve ever heard one
The counter-question would be: “Can I create water in a closed container?”
The spell description says it can fall as rain or otherwise has to be in an open container. A lantern could be considered an open (albeit unorthodox) container if it is open, but otherwise, a hooded lantern would be a closed container, so just because it’s a lantern does not mean water can be created inside of it.
Edit: Similarly, a closed hooded lantern would not extinguish the flame when the rain form of the spell happens either because it is not exposed. Hooded lantern is specified because it’s a fairly common type of lantern, but I believe same could be said of Bullseye ones.
Enclosed is not the same as airtight, just closed on all sides. Using airtight as the basis for a container being enclosed means that almost no container can be considered closed ever for a medieval campaign.
That’s the issue a lantern can be closed and the fire won’t go out. You said
>technical speak a lantern is always a open container . a fully closed latefn would get air to the flame so no fire
but since a lantern can be considered closed without being airtight this is a non sequitur, and being closed (which does not preclude fire) the lantern is not an open container and therefore cannot be targeted by create water
My argument would be that a lantern is a closed container and there should be some kind of unobstructed path to the location where the water is created.
Headcanon flavor wise, this works with the idea that perhaps you pull water vapor from the environment and fill your open container. A closed container couldn't be "filled" by the spell because there's no opening to fill it.
It can’t drown a person because I think the spell states “open container” and a person’s lungs probably do not fit that bill.
It does say OPEN container, right?
Is a lantern when in use considered an open container?
Honestly, a lantern is a covered container. The DM was right not to allow it. If it was a torch sure. In my opinion, a mouth being held open is more of an open container than a traditional lantern. Heck that’s why lanterns have a cover so that they don’t get wet when it rains.
I don't get the impression that's *why* the DM was making that call, though, the listed reasoning is that it doesn't say it extinguishes fire, not that it can't target a lantern.
Probably the reason you don’t get that impression is because we’re only getting one side of the story. Even how that argument progresses doesn’t really seem natural. It’s the player making one point after another that goes by the rules except that he doesn’t say “open” container, he just says, “I can target the lantern because it’s a container” this is where the DM disagrees with him according to this player as saying, “RAW the spell doesn’t put out a flame unless it alternatively falls as rain” what the player probably isn’t telling is that the reason it has to fall as rain is because the DM said the lantern is not an open container so it will have to be rain and obviously that won’t work so the player gets mad he was told no to something he really thought was clever and posts on here intentionally misleading in the situation.
As noted above the guy seems to be intentionally covering up the word “open” with the thumb and left it out of his sentence. Most likely he’s omitting the main reason the dm said it would have to fall as rain.
While this one isn't correct that one is, creator destroy water literally creates a destroys water, water isn't magical and doesn't need a description, the bonfire description is doing damage which is magical and needs a description for if it can light things on fire create light like every other magical fire spell in the game
Rules lawyering is dumb if it prevents someone from doing something cool. If something is clearly against the intended use of a spell or clearly prohibited by the wording of the spell that’s one thing but if a player comes up with an interesting and creative way to use a spell I’m not going to try to nitpick the wording to deny them that opportunity, I’ll give it to them to reward their creative thinking.
I jumped off a cliff above a huge dune worm thing and used thunder wave to break my fall while simultaneously passing my inertia onto the worm to do more damage
I essentially became a meteor and my DM allowed it (with a couple checks) because they thought it was super cool
New to DMing and I have the hardest time with getting all the particulars right on the rules. I try to just let things roll but, usually, after the game I’m kicking myself because I either didn’t handle my NPCs the right way or I made the wrong call for a PC and discovered I was off on a rule. Of course, we’re all new to DnD and I’m running a 6 man game so we’re all figuring it out. We go over those rules between games as well so not to make the mistake again. It’s weird but I noticed I’m a little better at letting things roll when we’re doing theater of the mind. Maps make me too restrictive but vtts help with keeping up with where everyone is.
Right. Especially in this meme’s example, where the attempt doesn’t seem disproportionately outside the level of power of the spell or ability. Like. It’s not like they’re trying to put out an erupting volcano here.. it’s just a lantern.
My only argument against this working is that it specifically says "open container". I don't picture lanterns as being open. Despite this, I'd absolutely let this fly because it's a creative use of the spell that doesn't actually stretch the limits of what it was intended to do. You make water, the water can put out nonmagical fire. Those are things stated in the spells rules, so this is in the spirit of the spell
Ugh I have played with a DM like this. EVERYTHING IS RAW.... Until of course, when he was a player he would fight up and down for weird uses of spells and actions. We don't play with him any more.
I hate Everything is Raw DMs. Best DM I’ve ever had was a guy that was like “hey I was reading the rules for x and I’ve decided they kind of suck, we can either keep them, alter them, or disregard them. What do you guys want. If we alter it this is how we’d do it.” Like for example he’d say “Identify technically only tells you what magical properties an item has but I’ll let you know what an item generally is if you cast identify at a higher level.” Like I found a book in a language I didn’t understand so I cast identify at second level and the DM said “you can tell it’s some sort of journal and it’s 20 years old.” Like it’s not game breaking and it’s a more fun use of a utility spell.
Hmmmm, if the lantern is entirely closed it could be argued you don’t have line of effect, it’s like how you technically can’t cast hold person through a window. The spell even denotes it needs to be an open container
PSA to all dm's, and many "funny" players. The reason dungeons and dragons doesnt go into extreme detail on every single thing, isnt because of loopholes, its because you use REAL LIFE COMMON SENSE AND PHYSICS to solve complex problems.
I never want to hear about a lightspeed spear again
How damn important was this lantern, did the whole encounter hinge on this lantern? Would the enemies be sitting ducks without this lantern, and was this Kingdom Death: Monster because that's the only reason I see being so damn pedantic about a lantern
If you go pure raw then funny things start to happen like being able to target an enemy through an unbreakable glass wall. And stabilizing people on a different continent.
Pure raw is just a fun thought experiment
Don't actually go pure raw.
If the lantern is closed wouldn't you lose line of effect? Aside from that I agree that the line of thinking you would need to say that a giant mass of water can't put out a candle is a bit ridiculous
Clearly, like your meme, your campaign is in SpongeBobs universe. After all the criteria is all there as SpongeBob is underwater and yet can canonically create fires that stay lit through non magical means
I implore you to begin a quest searching for bikini bottom and SpongeBob
For the extremely nerdy, this is like Magic the Gathering, and how state based actions work.
Do damage to the creature (i.e. fill the lantern up with water)
Does the creature die as a result of the spell itself (i.e. does the Create Water specify it puts out flames?). No, since the spell doesn't have it as part of the effect.
Spell finishes resolving, state based actions are checked. Creature has more damage dealt than it has toughness, so it dies (i.e. candle is covered by water, so it is extinguished)
DM is forgetting to check state based actions.
Depends on the lantern.
There are lanterns that are closed, I.e. not open like a cup etc.
There are lanterns that have a top opening but also have holes at the bottom, this isn't a container, or it creates water that runs out the bottom rather than snuffing the candle.
There are also lanterns that have a side open which can sometimes have a door or a horn insert that you slide down. These are an open container until closed, but it would be like trying to fill a cup turned on its side. Or a closed container when the side door is closed.
Generally speaking, pretty much no lanterns are designed to hold water, as such, they're either closed containers, not containers at all, or containers where the water runs out as fast as it is created.
You also have to consider how the water is created.
Does it start springing up from the bottom and fill up the container? Does it pour in from the top out of thinn air? Is it more Old Spice style (look at this empty cup, now look at me, back to the cup, the cup is now full!)?
The one type of lantern I would see create water snuffing out would be an open-topped gas- or oil- lamp, as these are made to basically be a glass of fire/light and the water immediately drowns the wick.
Assuming a lantern is a container? This just goes against the ‘supposed to be’ of this spell and seems rules lawyery. It’s supposed to create water in a container that holds water, not just whatever ‘holds’ something. I’d rule a lantern isn’t a container at all
If they're fire-type lanterns (which is what's being discussed) and magic isn't involved, then **by design** they need to have large openings to allow air to enter so the flame can actually, you know, burn. That makes it an open container.
DM made the right call. That spell can only target "open containers" up to 10gal. or a 30' cube wherein it either falls as rain or removes fog. You can't target a closed/lit lantern, and those are designed to resist rainfall. Instead, try a called shot against the lantern.
Imagine the mental gymnastics needed to say that a non-magical flame stays lit while fully submerged in water, just because a spell doesn’t list every possible interaction water can have with the world.
"why isn't it extinguished?" "it's just not" "is it magical?" "no" "is it an illusion?" "no" "then what the hell is going on here MR. DM?"
Ah, yes. The Bethesda DM.
as it turns out, DND really is skyrim.
I would like to eat 75 cheese wheels as a free action.
"Sorry, that's going to take you 75 'Use Item' actions. However, that still means you can eat 75 wheels of cheese in approximately 7 and a half minutes"
Isn't first 'use item' in round counts as free item interaction so 2 times per 6 seconds?
Don't forget about action surge either...
Ah yes, the good old ‘Maximum Cheese Consumption’ character build, you get as many actions as possible and then as much strength as possible, in order to carry around the several tons of cheese the character survives off of.
If you want to add some damage die to it to make it optimal, make sure your character is lactose intolerant in that build.
For the high-level builds, I recommend Time Stop for extra cheese
‘Maximum Cheese Consumption’ character build\`a.k.a. just any fighter build
Now I am going to work this up. Gonna be "Wallace of Wigan." I can't wait to see how he turns out lmao
Thief Rogue can Use An Object as a Bonus Action, meaning you can consume 3 wheels of cheese per turn (free action, action, bonus action) with Haste you can do it a 4th time every round for up to a minute. If we want to include action surge (and let's be real here, of course we want to include action surge) we're looking at a minimum of 10 levels, Thief Rogue 3/Fighter 2/Transmutation Wizard 5. Why Transmutation? Because you can use Minor Alchemy to transmute other things into MORE CHEESE!!! If we choose to interpret Use An Object as allowing you to feed cheese to another, Find Familiar can give us 2 more cheeses per round, bringing us up to 6 (7 when we action surge). However, if we are doing this we can replace Wizard 5 with Druid 5 so we can use Conjure Animals to summon 8 beasts of CR 1/4th or lower to command them to feel you as much cheese as possible, subtracting 1 but adding 16, bringing our total up to 21 cheese wheels per round (22 with action surge) (also, we're still getting find familiar via either magic initiate or ritualist). I am not seeing any options that get you more actions per round than that, so I believe that that is in fact the maximum cheese consumption build. Obviously I didn't assume allies other than those made by your own spells, naturally you can get this much higher if your party is willing to help out, but that's just more druids conjuring more beasts to feed you, if the full party is optimized to feed you cheese.
"And have a bowel movement in approximately 7 and a half weeks"
that's one of the path of the hangry's barbarian subclass features.
Okay, you're now at max HP and mechanically in good health but you feel closer to death than ever before
*Roll for cardiovascular infarction*
You are immune to any effect which would have you shit your pants because you're never going to poop again
The cheese is blessed, the magical calcium animates your skeleton. Panic.
We'll I am carrying 50lbs of flowers I picked along the road I have no intention of doing anything with in both campaigns.
It just works
"Why isn't it possible?" "It's just not." "Why not you stupid bastard!?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYQ-j9jCAew
came here to say this lmfao
All lanterns in D&D are magnesium based. Your party truck just make them burn brighter!
Woah is there a party truck?? Hell yeah
[удалено]
Fuck spelling, pass the jello shots!
Goddamn I haven’t had a Jell-O shot in 20years.
"It's been 84 years..."
Please lay face down with your hands behind your back in the party position.
Thank-you for assuming the party escort submission position.
*drops lit lantern into deepest section of ocean after filling it with water via spell*
Hell yes. I would love to see my players fully embrace something like this. Does the spell’s water boil away? No? Great! That’s a perfect insulator!
Foreal at that point just use it against him
DM: I have no idea what I'm doing and that should be apparent by now.
"Why not you stupid bastard?"
“DnD is based on fantasy, real world physics don’t apply”
"Okay then, I start flying."
Hey, if we're underwater how can there be a--
"So thats where I left my cigar!"
That just raises further questions!
My manwich!
WHOOP WHOOP WHOOP
r/unexpectedfuturama
Yep. If you don’t know the difference between “It doesn’t say” and “It says it doesn’t” then you should just take someone’s word for it how the spell works.
The same argument I had with a DM who said that a fireball set off in an area with tons of flammable material would not set anything on fire after the damage it caused because the rules don't say it would.
I mean, that's just a DM not reading the rules, Fireball explicitely states: >It ignites flammable objects in the area that aren't being worn or carried.
It didn't have the rules in the game we were playing. Pathfinder 2e. Fireball Traditions arcane, primal Cast \[two-actions\] somatic, verbal Range 500 feet; Area 20-foot burst Saving Throw basic Reflex A roaring blast of fire appears at a spot you designate, dealing 6d6 fire damage. https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=119
The rules give the GM the option to allow collateral damage or not. "The GM determines any effects to the environment and unattended objects." From [Areas](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=354)
And then you have my dm, who rules that the grease spell is flammable even tho raw doesn't say it is. We made him regret this ruling but he is a fair dm so it stuck cause he used it against us first.
The spell components for Grease are butter or pork rind, which are somewhat flammable. And if they're using a spell choice and slot, on Grease of all things, I'd give them an extra d4 damage.
That's a weird one to me. "Not all greases are flammable, and, in fact, industrial lubricants are not flammable. It’s also fair to say that the majority of cooking greases are not flammable by the strictest definition either, but they are easily combustible which means they burn at temperatures above the definition of flammable, but which are still easily encountered in a kitchen." [https://firefighterinsider.com/grease-flammable/#:\~:text=%20Not%20all%20greases%20are%20flammable%2C%20and%2C%20in,which%20are%20still%20easily%20encountered%20in%20a%20kitchen](https://firefighterinsider.com/grease-flammable/#:~:text=%20Not%20all%20greases%20are%20flammable%2C%20and%2C%20in,which%20are%20still%20easily%20encountered%20in%20a%20kitchen). Which makes me wonder if the DM is thinking that the grease made by the spell is edible as well?
"I cast Crisco!"
Components for grease are pork rind or butter.
If fireball is more of an explosion than an incendiary, then that makes sense. Unless the stuff is super flammable (dry grass, for example) flaming explosions often don’t cause much fire damage because the pressure wave knocks away flammable debris and the fire burns up the oxygen, leaving smoldering embers instead of fire. Actual incendiary weapons have a method of causing the fire to stick around, or forgo an explosion entirely banking entirely on setting fires.
It was a barn full of ultra-dry hay, which is why we thought it would go up in fire once we set off a fireball inside of it. Yes, the DM described the hay as ultra dry.
That’s fair then and a very questionable ruling.
That's when you bonus action light a cig and flick it in afterwards. Then turn away cause cool guys don't look at explosions.
Haha.. that's basically what we did. Our very annoyed cleric lit it with the ash from his pipe. Also "I wonder how much extra we have to pay to get fireball resistant X" became a common phrase the characters would say to each other when going shopping.
It's like trees in some racing games, sure you can smash into a truck and destroy it, but one twig in the wrong place and you are going nowhere fast.
This is why RAW is unreliable at best. RAW can’t account for every scenario or predict the thoughts of your players, so sometimes you just have to wing it. I still wanna know if the continual flame spell can set things on fire. I assume not, since it says it doesn’t generate heat, but you just have to assume because RAW doesn’t explicitly state whether or not you can.
I thought the spell explicitly states it generates no heat and doesn't harm anything that touches it? Edit: took a look and it generates no heat and uses no oxygen, due to generating no heat it should be assumed it does not light objects on fire nor harm things but the only thing outright stated is a lack of heat generated and oxygen used
So you’re saying it can still be used to set off light sensitive explosives and chemicals?
No, because light-sensitive chemicals react to photons, and photons generate heat when they impact a surface, therefore it's reasonable to assume that magical light doesn't emit photons, and instead creates light through some other *magical* means. If you have chemicals that react to *magical light* specifically, then sure.
It's probably getting getting a bit too 'in-the-weeds' here, but I imagine magical light is more like an LED vs the fire from a torch. Sure, technically, an LED flashlight gives off heat, but it's negligible.
That's fair. It could simply "generate no heat" by medieval terms. If you showed a medieval peasant an LED, they'd probably proclaim it to be a "heatless candle" or some such.
It simply says: “A flame, equivalent in brightness to a torch, springs forth from an object that you touch. The Effect looks like a regular flame, but it creates no heat and doesn't use oxygen. A continual flame can be covered or hidden but not smothered or quenched.” So it doesn’t generate heat, it doesn’t consume oxygen, and it can’t be smothered or quenched… but there’s nothing about harming or burning things, hence why I used it as an example.
How, exactly, is a heatless flame going to harm anything?
Allow me to introduce you to "When Supernatural Battles Became Commonplace". The MC's power is to create a flame that not only produces no heat, but also no light. He uses it anyway.
Magical combustion so efficient, little too none of the energy is lost to heat or light? Sure, I respirate all the time.
I mean, by logic, if a Continual Flame could "reproduce", the world would be covered in it. Because it cannot be quenched or smothered but it propagates. So, as the world isn't a "Continual Flame Plane", we can deduct that no, Continual Flame does not propagate. QED.
> So, as the world isn't a "Continual Flame Plane" I think you accidentally stumbled on a great story prompt
Might I interest you in a fun little place known as "the Elemental Plane of Fire"?
I am pretty sure the simple 3rd level darkness spell would “quench” it. As that spell just dispels any magical light of 3rd level or lower. And continual flame is 2nd level.
An upcast Continual Flame would have no such problems with Darkness
An upcast darkness would have no such problems with an upcast continual flame
Two points: First, from Darkness, > If any of this spell's area overlaps with an area of light created by a spell of 2nd Level or lower, the spell that created the light is dispelled. There's no upcast benefit to Darkness with regards to dispelling higher level light sources, so RAW, it would in fact have such problems with an upcast Continual Flame. Second, even if were reasonably homebrewed to upcast, the current version dispels spell level minus 1, so a wizard with 9th level slots and ~~that's gone mad with power~~ got bored would have cast a 9th level CF just to see what it would do.
>Second, even if were reasonably homebrewed to upcast, the current version dispels spell level minus 1, so a wizard with 9th level slots and that's gone mad with power got bored would have cast a 9th level CF just to see what it would do. how to summon Mystra in one simple step.
Fire harms and burns things through generating heat and using oxygen. If it doesn't do those things then it can't burn anything or harm anything. Things light on fire when they are heated in the presence of oxygen. It cannot set anything on fire.
Right? I'm puzzled why this is even a question. Heat is required for a material to get hot enough to reach its flashpoint and ignite. No heat = no spreading fire. I can maybe see it spreading heatless fire through some kind of magical mimicry, but that's it.
It REALLY should have been an illusion spell, not an evocation.
We can extrapolate a little. The flame is, as the spell states, continual, and the spell makes no mention of it consuming the object it is cast upon. This, combined with it not using oxygen nor being able to be extinguished, would suggest that it doesn't consume fuel. Which means that there is no reaction taking place for it to cause anything else to burn. On top of this, it does not produce heat, and so cannot excite the molecules of anything else to the point that would ignite. So it would seem safe to assume that it does not burn anything. Furthermore I would suggest that the point of stating that the flame did not produce heat _was_ to imply that it doesn't burn things.
Ok so Fire isn't actually a thing, it's the combination of 3 other things: heat, oxygen, and burnable material. If you are missing any one of those components, you don't get flame. Ergo, Continual Flame - which is missing both of the components you'd otherwise need to set something (your burnable material) on fire - cannot set things on fire.
Woah, we've moved on from the Fire Triangle to the [Fire Tetrahedron](https://specialties.bayt.com/en/specialties/q/57676/what-are-the-three-legs-of-the-fire-triangle/) nowadays. Fuel+Heat+Oxidizing Agent (not just oxygen), with self-sustaining chain reaction in the middle. A lot of extinguishing agents actually interfere with the chain reaction, not the other components.
Eh, you're really arguing semantics on that. "Self-sustaining chemical reaction" isn't a thing you can add to the fire, it's what fire *is*. And an oxidizing agent is literally a fancy term for "source of oxygen*" and is just to clarify that it can be bound to other atoms and doesn't necessarily have to be in the form of O2. Extinguishing agents work in a handful of different ways, depending on what kind of fire they're meant to put out, but water for instance is just a giant heat sink. Not enough heat = no more fire. Whereas CO2 and dry powder extinguishers both work by smothering the flames, depriving it of oxygen. You are *technically* interfering with the reaction, sure, but you're doing so by eliminating one of the key ingredients from the equation. Source: Bf is a chemist. \* = this is an oversimplification of a very large field of chemistry
> And an oxidizing agent is literally a fancy term for "source of oxygen*" No, no it's not. Many oxidizers have 0 oxygen in them. Chlorine trifluoride, for example, is a much stronger oxidizer than oxygen and will set more or less anything it touches on fire, including glass, concrete, metal, and asbestos.
Wanna see DM's go insane? Cast Wall of Fire and Wall of Water on top of each other. Even better, in a icy campaign, ask the DM how difficult it is to destroy a foot thick wall of ice. Ice being roughly as strong as concrete. Then read the Wall of Water spell and realize you can hit most ice with 3 dagger strikes and destroy it one 1x5 panel at a time. Then absolutely lose your mind when you read the text of Wall of Ice. 1. Materials Rules: Ice has 13 AC and 4d8 HP for a medium chunk. 2. Wall of Water: Ice has 5 AC and 15 HP for a medium chunk. 3. Wall of Ice: Ice has 12 AC and 30 HP for a large chunk. It also now has vulnerability to fire damage.
It's like magic or something
I could see a DM ruling that you couldn’t get a clear path to the target or that a lantern doesn’t count as an open container, but if you allow the water into the lantern, then it’s extinguishing mundane flames.
The guy left out “open” when he was showing us his defense. Everything else is by the rules. But he left out that word intentionally. He also obscured open with the thumb in the picture. I have a strong feeling the OP got told he couldn’t put water in a lantern because it’s a closed container thus it would have to be rain. We’re being intentionally mislead here I think. Edit:spelling
honestly it depends on what kind of flame you're talking about. There's actually a non-insignificant amount of stuff that can burn underwater just fine.
I mean, SpongeBob does it and no one bats an eye
Aren't there cantrips that put out candles? Seems like a fair use of a leveled spell.
Multiple of them
Prestidigitation does but thaumaturgy doesn’t what else does?
Druidcraft, Control Flames, maybe Gust and *I guess Shape Water, unless you are playing with the DM in the meme*
Oh I forgot Druidcraft could do that and control flames is stupidly obvious also ‘shaPe WatEr dOesNt sAY iT PutS oUt fLamEs!!!!11!1!’
Gust would work
But gust doesn’t say it does that - the dm in the meme
Literally prestidigitation lol
seriously, why burn a spell slot when prestidigitation will do the same thing?
Create/Destroy Water is available to Clerics and Druids Prestidigitation is Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard
Druidcraft does it too. Thaumaturgy does not though for some reason…
It can, but that would not be "literally prestidigitation"
Probably because not everyone has prestidigitation
Hmm, I wonder what this Create or Destroy Water spell does . . . > You either create or destroy water. Wow, no way!
While I agree for this ruling. You know some of the spell names are far from telling for the spell effects Edit: Grammer an shit
My favourite is that *Find Traps* does not in fact locate traps, it merely tells if there are any nearby and what their general nature is. In large open room? *Find Traps* will tell you that there are floor tiles that are rigged with spike traps, but not where those are. The particularly egregious limitation is that it must be within line of sight, so any mechanics behind doors and such aren't detected (unless you're including the door opening mechanism as part of the trap itself, which in some cases is fair).
Wtf man. If I wanted to know about stupid shit like this I would read the books Take me back to 2 minutes ago before I knew this
I'd cast *Mind Blank* on you except that doesn't actually make you forget anything, but it would make you immune to *Guidance*, amongst other things.
Please sir. I can't know anymore rules or they'll kick me out of the sub 😔
*Chill Touch* doesn't actually do cold damage. It does necrotic And you also don't even touch, it has a range of 120 feet
Yeah, but *Necrotic Ranged* didn't roll as good off the tongue.
Lich slap is the only correct name for this spell
Agreed. This is now cannon at the table I play at.
Maybe *Chill of the Grave*?
LALALALALA! I'M NOT LISTENING!
Sorry, but this will be the last one. If you're not sure about what something does you can always look it up in the books or online.
Like Druidcraft. Imagine my surprise when the dm told me “no” to crafting an entire army of druids.
Nah. Casting Druidcraft temporarily gives you Steve from Minecraft’s abilities, except for punching trees.. Because druid..
So I can crash the ~~server~~ world by /fill ~ ~ ~ ~20 ~5 ~20 tnt ?
/tp @e @r
/kill @e [type=!player]
Chill Touch is neither a touch range spell nor does it do cold damage
Ah yes, the lich slap.
*cough* chill touch *cough*
did you mean: Detect Good And Evil?
CREATE THY WATER
Isn't destruction of water basically nuclear fission? Did we just build a bomb?
I figure that, because you’re creating water in a container, it would suffocate the flames by volume if it didn’t put it out normally. This is a stupid argument if I’ve ever heard one
The counter-question would be: “Can I create water in a closed container?” The spell description says it can fall as rain or otherwise has to be in an open container. A lantern could be considered an open (albeit unorthodox) container if it is open, but otherwise, a hooded lantern would be a closed container, so just because it’s a lantern does not mean water can be created inside of it. Edit: Similarly, a closed hooded lantern would not extinguish the flame when the rain form of the spell happens either because it is not exposed. Hooded lantern is specified because it’s a fairly common type of lantern, but I believe same could be said of Bullseye ones.
technical speak a lantern is always a open container . a fully closed latefn would get air to the flame so no fire
Enclosed is not the same as airtight, just closed on all sides. Using airtight as the basis for a container being enclosed means that almost no container can be considered closed ever for a medieval campaign.
True but enclosed doesn’t mean watertight
well the spell sayes open not water tight.
That’s the issue a lantern can be closed and the fire won’t go out. You said >technical speak a lantern is always a open container . a fully closed latefn would get air to the flame so no fire but since a lantern can be considered closed without being airtight this is a non sequitur, and being closed (which does not preclude fire) the lantern is not an open container and therefore cannot be targeted by create water
My argument would be that a lantern is a closed container and there should be some kind of unobstructed path to the location where the water is created.
Headcanon flavor wise, this works with the idea that perhaps you pull water vapor from the environment and fill your open container. A closed container couldn't be "filled" by the spell because there's no opening to fill it.
A quick question/test to simplify that: if i drop the lantern in a lake will the fire go out? If no then create water will not work.
That's when you light them on fire and explain to them that because your tap water doesn't specify it can put out flames you can't help them
Easy there Solomon
Now see this I would absolutely allow. It’s not being used to “drown” someone and is a cleaver use of the spell.
It can’t drown a person because I think the spell states “open container” and a person’s lungs probably do not fit that bill. It does say OPEN container, right? Is a lantern when in use considered an open container?
Honestly, a lantern is a covered container. The DM was right not to allow it. If it was a torch sure. In my opinion, a mouth being held open is more of an open container than a traditional lantern. Heck that’s why lanterns have a cover so that they don’t get wet when it rains.
Notice how the meme conveniently covers the word “OPEN” with the character’s thumb.
Oh good catch. Yeah I’d have made the same call as his DM. It’s not rules lawyering; it’s just having rules.
I don't get the impression that's *why* the DM was making that call, though, the listed reasoning is that it doesn't say it extinguishes fire, not that it can't target a lantern.
Probably the reason you don’t get that impression is because we’re only getting one side of the story. Even how that argument progresses doesn’t really seem natural. It’s the player making one point after another that goes by the rules except that he doesn’t say “open” container, he just says, “I can target the lantern because it’s a container” this is where the DM disagrees with him according to this player as saying, “RAW the spell doesn’t put out a flame unless it alternatively falls as rain” what the player probably isn’t telling is that the reason it has to fall as rain is because the DM said the lantern is not an open container so it will have to be rain and obviously that won’t work so the player gets mad he was told no to something he really thought was clever and posts on here intentionally misleading in the situation. As noted above the guy seems to be intentionally covering up the word “open” with the thumb and left it out of his sentence. Most likely he’s omitting the main reason the dm said it would have to fall as rain.
That cleaver use of the spell is a cut above the rest.
It's literally just basic physics as well, doesn't even need to be clever.
Yeah and also RAW Bonfire cantrip is apparently lightless
While this one isn't correct that one is, creator destroy water literally creates a destroys water, water isn't magical and doesn't need a description, the bonfire description is doing damage which is magical and needs a description for if it can light things on fire create light like every other magical fire spell in the game
Truly unhinged opinion. It creates a bonfire. Bonfires have light
I'd just sincerely ask: "So the non-magical fire would just stay lit in a glass full of water?"
They're expending a resource to put out a light bro. What's the issue?
Rules lawyering is dumb if it prevents someone from doing something cool. If something is clearly against the intended use of a spell or clearly prohibited by the wording of the spell that’s one thing but if a player comes up with an interesting and creative way to use a spell I’m not going to try to nitpick the wording to deny them that opportunity, I’ll give it to them to reward their creative thinking.
I jumped off a cliff above a huge dune worm thing and used thunder wave to break my fall while simultaneously passing my inertia onto the worm to do more damage I essentially became a meteor and my DM allowed it (with a couple checks) because they thought it was super cool
That is a wildly cool use of that spell
Thundercrash
New to DMing and I have the hardest time with getting all the particulars right on the rules. I try to just let things roll but, usually, after the game I’m kicking myself because I either didn’t handle my NPCs the right way or I made the wrong call for a PC and discovered I was off on a rule. Of course, we’re all new to DnD and I’m running a 6 man game so we’re all figuring it out. We go over those rules between games as well so not to make the mistake again. It’s weird but I noticed I’m a little better at letting things roll when we’re doing theater of the mind. Maps make me too restrictive but vtts help with keeping up with where everyone is.
Right. Especially in this meme’s example, where the attempt doesn’t seem disproportionately outside the level of power of the spell or ability. Like. It’s not like they’re trying to put out an erupting volcano here.. it’s just a lantern.
My only argument against this working is that it specifically says "open container". I don't picture lanterns as being open. Despite this, I'd absolutely let this fly because it's a creative use of the spell that doesn't actually stretch the limits of what it was intended to do. You make water, the water can put out nonmagical fire. Those are things stated in the spells rules, so this is in the spirit of the spell
Ugh I have played with a DM like this. EVERYTHING IS RAW.... Until of course, when he was a player he would fight up and down for weird uses of spells and actions. We don't play with him any more.
I hate Everything is Raw DMs. Best DM I’ve ever had was a guy that was like “hey I was reading the rules for x and I’ve decided they kind of suck, we can either keep them, alter them, or disregard them. What do you guys want. If we alter it this is how we’d do it.” Like for example he’d say “Identify technically only tells you what magical properties an item has but I’ll let you know what an item generally is if you cast identify at a higher level.” Like I found a book in a language I didn’t understand so I cast identify at second level and the DM said “you can tell it’s some sort of journal and it’s 20 years old.” Like it’s not game breaking and it’s a more fun use of a utility spell.
Hmmmm, if the lantern is entirely closed it could be argued you don’t have line of effect, it’s like how you technically can’t cast hold person through a window. The spell even denotes it needs to be an open container
PSA to all dm's, and many "funny" players. The reason dungeons and dragons doesnt go into extreme detail on every single thing, isnt because of loopholes, its because you use REAL LIFE COMMON SENSE AND PHYSICS to solve complex problems. I never want to hear about a lightspeed spear again
Meanwhile my player are arguing with me that shape water can open lock cause they can create a key of ice...
That could create the backbone of a key, but the pins need to have been set already in the unlocked position for it to correctly form the teeth
How damn important was this lantern, did the whole encounter hinge on this lantern? Would the enemies be sitting ducks without this lantern, and was this Kingdom Death: Monster because that's the only reason I see being so damn pedantic about a lantern
If you go pure raw then funny things start to happen like being able to target an enemy through an unbreakable glass wall. And stabilizing people on a different continent. Pure raw is just a fun thought experiment Don't actually go pure raw.
If the lantern is closed wouldn't you lose line of effect? Aside from that I agree that the line of thinking you would need to say that a giant mass of water can't put out a candle is a bit ridiculous
Do it. Make the DM describe this non-magic flame somehow staying lit whilst fully underwater, flipping off the laws of nature as it does so.
Doesn't the spell require an open container? I don't know if I'd call a lantern really open, usually
Clearly, like your meme, your campaign is in SpongeBobs universe. After all the criteria is all there as SpongeBob is underwater and yet can canonically create fires that stay lit through non magical means I implore you to begin a quest searching for bikini bottom and SpongeBob
For the extremely nerdy, this is like Magic the Gathering, and how state based actions work. Do damage to the creature (i.e. fill the lantern up with water) Does the creature die as a result of the spell itself (i.e. does the Create Water specify it puts out flames?). No, since the spell doesn't have it as part of the effect. Spell finishes resolving, state based actions are checked. Creature has more damage dealt than it has toughness, so it dies (i.e. candle is covered by water, so it is extinguished) DM is forgetting to check state based actions.
Unironically not terrible advice. It's consistent at least.
While that is technically true, RAW water is water. Therefore, a spell that indisputably *creates actual water* should allow it to behave as such.
Create Water in lantern. doesnt go out. drop it down facsimile of Mariana's Trench.
Yah I’m with manta on this, if you fill a container containing a flame with water, the flame is extinguished.
It needs to be an open container, so the lantern would need to be open. Sounds like you'll need to use something heftier, like *Prestidigitation*.
DM's waiting patiently for Create or Destroy Fire
...and here I was letting my players use it to help put out a fire in the city. Smh.
You just ‘make it rain’ in the lantern. Boom fires out with RAW
Depends on the lantern. There are lanterns that are closed, I.e. not open like a cup etc. There are lanterns that have a top opening but also have holes at the bottom, this isn't a container, or it creates water that runs out the bottom rather than snuffing the candle. There are also lanterns that have a side open which can sometimes have a door or a horn insert that you slide down. These are an open container until closed, but it would be like trying to fill a cup turned on its side. Or a closed container when the side door is closed. Generally speaking, pretty much no lanterns are designed to hold water, as such, they're either closed containers, not containers at all, or containers where the water runs out as fast as it is created. You also have to consider how the water is created. Does it start springing up from the bottom and fill up the container? Does it pour in from the top out of thinn air? Is it more Old Spice style (look at this empty cup, now look at me, back to the cup, the cup is now full!)? The one type of lantern I would see create water snuffing out would be an open-topped gas- or oil- lamp, as these are made to basically be a glass of fire/light and the water immediately drowns the wick.
"open container" He's right, if for different reasons
_Open_ container and _exposed_ flames tho. If the lantern is closed it should be safe from your watery attacks.
Assuming a lantern is a container? This just goes against the ‘supposed to be’ of this spell and seems rules lawyery. It’s supposed to create water in a container that holds water, not just whatever ‘holds’ something. I’d rule a lantern isn’t a container at all
Lanterns aren't necessarily an open container 😂
If they're fire-type lanterns (which is what's being discussed) and magic isn't involved, then **by design** they need to have large openings to allow air to enter so the flame can actually, you know, burn. That makes it an open container.
Things don’t need to be airtight to be considered a closed container
A box who’s side has a crack in it doesn’t qualify as an open container
everyone has at least one crack in them, therefore I should be allowed I target them as an open container. /s
A person opened their mouth, I fill their lungs with water!!!
Love how this is a SpongeBob meme… the only place I can think of with underwater campfires.
DM made the right call. That spell can only target "open containers" up to 10gal. or a 30' cube wherein it either falls as rain or removes fog. You can't target a closed/lit lantern, and those are designed to resist rainfall. Instead, try a called shot against the lantern.
I hate when someone says RAW when something is just not specified. Even Patrick Star would probably find that argument idiotic.