I'm pretty sure I mentioned that. Yes, when I said its a DMs call on if and what is resistant or immune. They did not create a rules list. Its a DMs call. And heat does melt stone and metal. So immunity would be a hard sell. Maybe resistant, but I'm not sure why a DM would make that call as the game world is set up in a way that lesser damaging fires forge metal and molten stone is about the same heat as a high level firebolt and that's for falling into it not a directed bolt, so I'd assume a 4d10 firebolt is actually hotter than magma. Though I guess you could argue its all shock damage(not electricity shock)
Metal and stone can melt, but the heat required to do it is huge, and needs to be applied consistently for a time, not just in a single burst; the temperature required to melt metal of stone immediately is enormous. To use magic as an excuse you'd have to have some magic that actually gives a real justification for being able to do this; you want to destroy castle walls, that's Meteor Swarm level stuff, not the My First Fire spell cantrip any 1st level mage can take fresh out of mages pre-school.
You cannot use the damage rolls as justification because a) many forms of environmental damage are actually way too weak (fall damage isn't that bad, lava damage is definitely too low since in reality the heat would kill you before you could even fall into it and so-on) but also b) you could argue that almost literally anything can melt stone on that basis. A fighter with a longbow for example can do the same (actually better) damage than a fire bolt in a single turn, but they still shouldn't be able to destroy a castle wall using only arrows.
It's also worth noting that the lava damage isn't the degree of energy required to create lava, it's the amount of damage you take for touching it, but again, it's far too low. Unless the player fell into the lava through some misunderstanding (in which case a DM should always show leniency), it really shouldn't be survivable without fire resistance at the very least.
Anyway, this is way off topic.
Large objects have a damage threshold and would likely stop a fire bolt cold. I mean in theory maybe eventually if you used it round after round like using a pick axe against a wall. But smaller objects are meant to be destroyed if targeted by the PCs, the AC and hit points would vary based on material. You don't need more than that. The rules aren't meant for taking down walls, but for melting a lock off a chest like a warrior might break it with their axe. Or breaking a cart, destroying the chain supporting a chandelier etc.
If a GM wants to effectively house rule firebolts attack objects away by making almost everything immune to fire thats on them.
Yet another reason to give Acid Splash more love. It is my preferable cantrip for damage. I have to force myself to try other lesser damaging cantrips so that all my characters won't seem like their from a cookie cutter.
I get the cookie cutter argument, but in general I think more damage to one target is usually better than less to two.
Completely agree, but Sword Burst is too situational, how many times will 8 enemies surround you in melee.
That leaves Acid Splash as you will easily find 2 enemies within 5 feet... or they will move to within 5 feet when they close to melee with the front line of your group.
If two enemies aren't within 5 feet just do something else with your turn.
Actually here's a challenge to everyone who's posted here and whoever is reading this in the future... make Acid Splash your damaging cantrip for your next spellcaster character and report back here how you found it in practice, we can argue theory until the cows come home, but actually putting it to the test is another matter entirely.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"A rightful place awaits you in the Realms Above, in the Land of the Great Light. Come in peace, and live beneath the sun again, where trees and flowers grow."
— The message of Eilistraee to all decent drow.
"Run thy sword across my chains, Silver Lady, that I may join your dance.”
I might give it a shot next time i play instead of run. But, I suspect I wont like it, without a rider cantrips in general don't do enough damage for me to feel like it was really worth the action. Fire bolt and Toll the dead have some swingy rolls that might feel okay every once in a while, but over a campaign not really. On average at level 7 you are doing like 11 points of damage to one target with firebolt, 7 to 2 would feel pretty insignificant as well. Thats like level 1 damage for most people and you wont see a boost until level 11. I guess its better than nothing but a help action for your fighter might be more worthwhile. Its really the riders that make cantrips worth the action.
I know this is off topic but a couple of quick notes on lava damage. Basalt lava is generally around 1100 Celsius which is damned hot I grant you. However it is not instant death by any means. I have personallyReached into for sample collection and stepped in to shallow (4-6” deep) tongues without harm to me or damage to my cowboy boots. Further I actually met a geologist who had the misfortune to be dropped into a lava river up to his mid thigh and not only survived but kept his legs (we were both out on Kilauea when I met him).was he seriously injured you bet! But he wasn’t killed and while his legs are badly scared they are still present and working. His nonexistent jumpsuit and the full story are on display at the summit museum on Kilauea.
I know this is off topic but a couple of quick notes on lava damage. Basalt lava is generally around 1100 Celsius which is damned hot I grant you. However it is not instant death by any means. I have personallyReached into for sample collection and stepped in to shallow (4-6” deep) tongues without harm to me or damage to my cowboy boots. Further I actually met a geologist who had the misfortune to be dropped into a lava river up to his mid thigh and not only survived but kept his legs (we were both out on Kilauea when I met him).was he seriously injured you bet! But he wasn’t killed and while his legs are badly scared they are still present and working. His nonexistent jumpsuit and the full story are on display at the summit museum on Kilauea.
Lava flows can also be defelcted by things like large boulders and running into the sides of old flows...
But I didn't say real lava was supposed to be instant death. Just life threatening. I just said that the damage for life threatening changes by level of the material it shows up in at times. Because while 4d10 is hard to walk off in say tier 2. Tier 4 characters can walk through as at least few turns before that much damage can be considered life threatening.
This is part of the reason why the general damage that things cause at different levels actually increases as the level goes up. To keep a certain level of life threatening for the sake of storytelling and tension.
ok that didn’t work, anyway it wasn’t you saying it it was dudeicus I’ll see if I can load up the picks of stepping in lava and sampling lava later.
I don't think I said it was instant death or anything, I was using 4d10 as an example from adventures showing what heat level in the D&D world molten rock could be at. And that given fire bolt does comparable damage having it capable of damaging rocks isn't a stretch. DMs are free to rule however they want, but it seems a bit heavy handed to make almost all objects a wizard would choose outside of wood immune or resistant to fire.
My personal take is in most cases the AC and HP reflect their fire durability enough, just like how they show durability to bludgeoning damage etc. Wood wouldn't be inherently vulnerable in the takes x2 damage sense but something like kindling would. Though all wood may catch fire. Stone and metals wouldn't be resistant, like I said AC and HP show its durability already,. Maybe something like gemstones that are basically created by high heat and pressure would be resistant or immune.
… You cannot use the damage rolls as justification because a) many forms of environmental damage are actually way too weak (fall damage isn't that bad, lava damage is definitely too low since in reality the heat would kill you before you could even fall into it and so-on) but also b) you could argue that almost literally anything can melt stone on that basis. A fighter with a longbow for example can do the same (actually better) damage than a fire bolt in a single turn, but they still shouldn't be able to destroy a castle wall using only arrows.
It's also worth noting that the lava damage isn't the degree of energy required to create lava, it's the amount of damage you take for touching it, but again, it's far too low. Unless the player fell into the lava through some misunderstanding (in which case a DM should always show leniency), it really shouldn't be survivable without fire resistance at the very least.
Sorry you are right this was the line I was reacting to and it was Harravikk not you. And in at least one sense he is right you need some sort of fire resistance to survive going into lava. In the geologist’s case it was the Nomex fire retardant jump suit we all wore when flying out to work on the flows. In my case it was the 2 liters of ice water in my boot heating up n the boot and turning to steam as it soaked thru the leather of the boot that kept me safe.
ok that didn’t work, anyway it wasn’t you saying it it was dudeicus I’ll see if I can load up the picks of stepping in lava and sampling lava later.
I don't think I said it was instant death or anything, I was using 4d10 as an example from adventures showing what heat level in the D&D world molten rock could be at. And that given fire bolt does comparable damage having it capable of damaging rocks isn't a stretch. DMs are free to rule however they want, but it seems a bit heavy handed to make almost all objects a wizard would choose outside of wood immune or resistant to fire.
My personal take is in most cases the AC and HP reflect their fire durability enough, just like how they show durability to bludgeoning damage etc. Wood wouldn't be inherently vulnerable in the takes x2 damage sense but something like kindling would. Though all wood may catch fire. Stone and metals wouldn't be resistant, like I said AC and HP show its durability already,. Maybe something like gemstones that are basically created by high heat and pressure would be resistant or immune.
Your using false equivalence. The amount of damage isn't necessarily because of the heat. Just because some book gives Lava a similar damage because it's a low level campaign to what is the highest level of Firebolt 2 tiers higher does not make a similar level of heat and capability, nor does it make the similar level of continued exposure between the two of them.
Also. As I have told you. If you find lava in a high level campaign. It doesn't do just 4d10 of damage. I've seen it actually closer to 10d10 of damage for high level campaign stuff which is vastly more than what damage at 2 1/2 times more average damage from the lava.
Your using false equivalence. The amount of damage isn't necessarily because of the heat. Just because some book gives Lava a similar damage because it's a low level campaign to what is the highest level of Firebolt 2 tiers higher does not make a similar level of heat and capability, nor does it make the similar level of continued exposure between the two of them.
Also. As I have told you. If you find lava in a high level campaign. It doesn't do just 4d10 of damage. I've seen it actually closer to 10d10 of damage for high level campaign stuff which is vastly more than what damage at 2 1/2 times more average damage from the lava.
The damage is also nothing to do with how the lava was created; it's the damage done to other objects as a result of contact, but as others have pointed out lava doesn't melt rock (it can, but mostly it just covers it or goes around it) because lava is the stuff that escaped the furnace that created it, so it's actually rapidly cooling semi-liquid rock, as opposed to the still semi-liquid, and much hotter, magma.
Anyway, this is all very off topic and not at all to do with Acid Splash is definitely the best cantrip (except for Guidance and Prestidigitation) 😉
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I think Acid Splash is one of the better damaging cantrips.
Acid is resisted way less than fire.
And 60 feet range should suffice to hit fleeing enemies.
But for non-damage cantrips, how do you compete with the versatility of the Minor Illusion spell?
(Of course you need a DM who knows how to adjudicate illusions.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"A rightful place awaits you in the Realms Above, in the Land of the Great Light. Come in peace, and live beneath the sun again, where trees and flowers grow."
— The message of Eilistraee to all decent drow.
"Run thy sword across my chains, Silver Lady, that I may join your dance.”
ok that didn’t work, anyway it wasn’t you saying it it was dudeicus I’ll see if I can load up the picks of stepping in lava and sampling lava later.
I don't think I said it was instant death or anything, I was using 4d10 as an example from adventures showing what heat level in the D&D world molten rock could be at. And that given fire bolt does comparable damage having it capable of damaging rocks isn't a stretch. DMs are free to rule however they want, but it seems a bit heavy handed to make almost all objects a wizard would choose outside of wood immune or resistant to fire.
My personal take is in most cases the AC and HP reflect their fire durability enough, just like how they show durability to bludgeoning damage etc. Wood wouldn't be inherently vulnerable in the takes x2 damage sense but something like kindling would. Though all wood may catch fire. Stone and metals wouldn't be resistant, like I said AC and HP show its durability already,. Maybe something like gemstones that are basically created by high heat and pressure would be resistant or immune.
Your using false equivalence. The amount of damage isn't necessarily because of the heat. Just because some book gives Lava a similar damage because it's a low level campaign to what is the highest level of Firebolt 2 tiers higher does not make a similar level of heat and capability, nor does it make the similar level of continued exposure between the two of them.
Also. As I have told you. If you find lava in a high level campaign. It doesn't do just 4d10 of damage. I've seen it actually closer to 10d10 of damage for high level campaign stuff which is vastly more than what damage at 2 1/2 times more average damage from the lava.
And I have seen it still around 4d10 in high level campaigns.
Your using false equivalence. The amount of damage isn't necessarily because of the heat. Just because some book gives Lava a similar damage because it's a low level campaign to what is the highest level of Firebolt 2 tiers higher does not make a similar level of heat and capability, nor does it make the similar level of continued exposure between the two of them.
Also. As I have told you. If you find lava in a high level campaign. It doesn't do just 4d10 of damage. I've seen it actually closer to 10d10 of damage for high level campaign stuff which is vastly more than what damage at 2 1/2 times more average damage from the lava.
The damage is also nothing to do with how the lava was created; it's the damage done to other objects as a result of contact, but as others have pointed out lava doesn't melt rock (it can, but mostly it just covers it or goes around it) because lava is the stuff that escaped the furnace that created it, so it's actually rapidly cooling semi-liquid rock, as opposed to the still semi-liquid, and much hotter, magma.
Anyway, this is all very off topic and not at all to do with Acid Splash is definitely the best cantrip (except for Guidance and Prestidigitation) 😉
No its not how it was created but it is still molten at those levels even if it is cooling down. Hey if you want to say no to your players over something like this have at it. I wont, and I don't think its a good call as the only reason to take firebolt is it effects objects and if you shut it down by making everything immune to fire you are screwing it over. The riders in other cantrips are far better than 1 more point of damage.
No its not how it was created but it is still molten at those levels even if it is cooling down.
The damage it's doing is the heat that's able to transfer out in that moment, but it still contains (and was created from) significantly more than that. To use a more mundane example; if you touch a hot pan and it burns you, it does so using only a fraction of the energy still contained within that pan, because the energy required to heat it enough to burn someone is higher than the amount of "burn damage" it deals per "turn" (touch).
This is why they aren't comparable; the fire damage lava does might be 4d10, but to actually create lava (melt stone) might required 40d10 or more, applied every turn for an hour; you're not going to get that out of a cantrip unless you use it to ignite a specialised furnace.
Hey if you want to say no to your players over something like this have at it. I wont, and I don't think its a good call as the only reason to take firebolt is it effects objects and if you shut it down by making everything immune to fire you are screwing it over. The riders in other cantrips are far better than 1 more point of damage.
I have never said that it should not effect objects; it should absolutely scorch things, break delicate objects and set things on fire, but you're talking about a completely different scale of damage when it comes to melting solid stone or metal with a cantrip.
Stone is one of the most resilient substances that occurs in nature, but it's also a good example of how different types of damage affect things differently; the easiest way to break a rock is to strike it with something harder than it (a stronger rock, a metal etc.) or use a focused point, drill etc., but it's very difficult to damage a rock with fire. You can also break rock with an explosion, but only if contained within the rock (the energy has nowhere else to go). But what fire is very good at is burning things that are combustible; if you stab a pool of oil it's unlikely to do anything, but throw fire at it and you're much more likely to get a reaction. Meanwhile some objects are equally susceptible to most damage; a painting can be damaged by nearly anything, a door might not ignite immediately, but it won't fare well for long against either fire or being struck etc.
And once again, this is off topic, I'm going to stop responding at this point.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Also consider that the duration of some cantrips and spells is... instantaneous. The heat doesn't affect things like stone or metal because it isn't exposed to it for long enough.
But I would always let it set wood, cloth, and paper on fire.
Each DM has to use their own judgement but if real-life campers can use flint and steel to set wood on fire, then using a cantrip should be no problem.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"A rightful place awaits you in the Realms Above, in the Land of the Great Light. Come in peace, and live beneath the sun again, where trees and flowers grow."
— The message of Eilistraee to all decent drow.
"Run thy sword across my chains, Silver Lady, that I may join your dance.”
I think a very important reason is that the 3 cantrips that a wizard start with Minor Illusion is pretty much a auto pick, your 2nd pick will most likely be another utility cantrip like Message or Mage Hand which leaves only 1 slot for a damage cantrip. At early levels I feel a attack roll cantrip is more likely to hit compared to a saving throw cantrip therefore spells like Firebolt and Chill Touch gets more love than Acid Splash. By the time level 4 rolls around and you get another cantrip you will most likely have access to a spell that can target and damage multiple enemies therefore you may be more interested in a saving throw cantrip that has a good rider effect or higher single target damage which again results in Acid Splash getting less love.
I think a very important reason is that the 3 cantrips that a wizard start with Minor Illusion is pretty much a auto pick, your 2nd pick will most likely be another utility cantrip like Message or Mage Hand which leaves only 1 slot for a damage cantrip. At early levels I feel a attack roll cantrip is more likely to hit compared to a saving throw cantrip therefore spells like Firebolt and Chill Touch gets more love than Acid Splash. By the time level 4 rolls around and you get another cantrip you will most likely have access to a spell that can target and damage multiple enemies therefore you may be more interested in a saving throw cantrip that has a good rider effect or higher single target damage which again results in Acid Splash getting less love.
To put it in perspective, if your Spell Attack Modifier is +5, you hit AC 14 12 times out of 20 (you miss on 1-8), and since your save DC is 13, a target with +0 to their saves is hit on 1-12, meaning you miss 8 ways as well. In other words, +0 to a save is about as good as AC 14, against a given caster. That ignores crits - with crits, provided all of your damage is in dice, not constants, rolling a 20 is as good as hitting twice, which means +0 to a save is more like AC 15 (since AC 15 gets hit 12 times after rolling 20 dice, on average, same as +0 to the save).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Large objects have a damage threshold and would likely stop a fire bolt cold. I mean in theory maybe eventually if you used it round after round like using a pick axe against a wall. But smaller objects are meant to be destroyed if targeted by the PCs, the AC and hit points would vary based on material. You don't need more than that. The rules aren't meant for taking down walls, but for melting a lock off a chest like a warrior might break it with their axe. Or breaking a cart, destroying the chain supporting a chandelier etc.
If a GM wants to effectively house rule firebolts attack objects away by making almost everything immune to fire thats on them.
I get the cookie cutter argument, but in general I think more damage to one target is usually better than less to two.
Completely agree, but Sword Burst is too situational, how many times will 8 enemies surround you in melee.
That leaves Acid Splash as you will easily find 2 enemies within 5 feet... or they will move to within 5 feet when they close to melee with the front line of your group.
If two enemies aren't within 5 feet just do something else with your turn.
Actually here's a challenge to everyone who's posted here and whoever is reading this in the future... make Acid Splash your damaging cantrip for your next spellcaster character and report back here how you found it in practice, we can argue theory until the cows come home, but actually putting it to the test is another matter entirely.
I might give it a shot next time i play instead of run. But, I suspect I wont like it, without a rider cantrips in general don't do enough damage for me to feel like it was really worth the action. Fire bolt and Toll the dead have some swingy rolls that might feel okay every once in a while, but over a campaign not really. On average at level 7 you are doing like 11 points of damage to one target with firebolt, 7 to 2 would feel pretty insignificant as well. Thats like level 1 damage for most people and you wont see a boost until level 11. I guess its better than nothing but a help action for your fighter might be more worthwhile. Its really the riders that make cantrips worth the action.
I know this is off topic but a couple of quick notes on lava damage. Basalt lava is generally around 1100 Celsius which is damned hot I grant you. However it is not instant death by any means. I have personallyReached into for sample collection and stepped in to shallow (4-6” deep) tongues without harm to me or damage to my cowboy boots. Further I actually met a geologist who had the misfortune to be dropped into a lava river up to his mid thigh and not only survived but kept his legs (we were both out on Kilauea when I met him).was he seriously injured you bet! But he wasn’t killed and while his legs are badly scared they are still present and working. His nonexistent jumpsuit and the full story are on display at the summit museum on Kilauea.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Lava flows can also be defelcted by things like large boulders and running into the sides of old flows...
But I didn't say real lava was supposed to be instant death. Just life threatening. I just said that the damage for life threatening changes by level of the material it shows up in at times. Because while 4d10 is hard to walk off in say tier 2. Tier 4 characters can walk through as at least few turns before that much damage can be considered life threatening.
This is part of the reason why the general damage that things cause at different levels actually increases as the level goes up. To keep a certain level of life threatening for the sake of storytelling and tension.
Fair enough
ok that didn’t work, anyway it wasn’t you saying it it was dudeicus I’ll see if I can load up the picks of stepping in lava and sampling lava later.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I don't think I said it was instant death or anything, I was using 4d10 as an example from adventures showing what heat level in the D&D world molten rock could be at. And that given fire bolt does comparable damage having it capable of damaging rocks isn't a stretch. DMs are free to rule however they want, but it seems a bit heavy handed to make almost all objects a wizard would choose outside of wood immune or resistant to fire.
My personal take is in most cases the AC and HP reflect their fire durability enough, just like how they show durability to bludgeoning damage etc. Wood wouldn't be inherently vulnerable in the takes x2 damage sense but something like kindling would. Though all wood may catch fire. Stone and metals wouldn't be resistant, like I said AC and HP show its durability already,. Maybe something like gemstones that are basically created by high heat and pressure would be resistant or immune.
Sorry you are right this was the line I was reacting to and it was Harravikk not you. And in at least one sense he is right you need some sort of fire resistance to survive going into lava. In the geologist’s case it was the Nomex fire retardant jump suit we all wore when flying out to work on the flows. In my case it was the 2 liters of ice water in my boot heating up n the boot and turning to steam as it soaked thru the leather of the boot that kept me safe.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Your using false equivalence. The amount of damage isn't necessarily because of the heat. Just because some book gives Lava a similar damage because it's a low level campaign to what is the highest level of Firebolt 2 tiers higher does not make a similar level of heat and capability, nor does it make the similar level of continued exposure between the two of them.
Also. As I have told you. If you find lava in a high level campaign. It doesn't do just 4d10 of damage. I've seen it actually closer to 10d10 of damage for high level campaign stuff which is vastly more than what damage at 2 1/2 times more average damage from the lava.
The damage is also nothing to do with how the lava was created; it's the damage done to other objects as a result of contact, but as others have pointed out lava doesn't melt rock (it can, but mostly it just covers it or goes around it) because lava is the stuff that escaped the furnace that created it, so it's actually rapidly cooling semi-liquid rock, as opposed to the still semi-liquid, and much hotter, magma.
Anyway, this is all very off topic and not at all to do with Acid Splash is definitely the best cantrip (except for Guidance and Prestidigitation) 😉
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Oh I forgot another reason I prefer Firebolt is because of its range, which makes it useful to pick off near dead enemies that are attempting to flee.
I think Acid Splash is one of the better damaging cantrips.
Acid is resisted way less than fire.
And 60 feet range should suffice to hit fleeing enemies.
But for non-damage cantrips, how do you compete with the versatility of the Minor Illusion spell?
(Of course you need a DM who knows how to adjudicate illusions.)
And I have seen it still around 4d10 in high level campaigns.
No its not how it was created but it is still molten at those levels even if it is cooling down. Hey if you want to say no to your players over something like this have at it. I wont, and I don't think its a good call as the only reason to take firebolt is it effects objects and if you shut it down by making everything immune to fire you are screwing it over. The riders in other cantrips are far better than 1 more point of damage.
The damage it's doing is the heat that's able to transfer out in that moment, but it still contains (and was created from) significantly more than that. To use a more mundane example; if you touch a hot pan and it burns you, it does so using only a fraction of the energy still contained within that pan, because the energy required to heat it enough to burn someone is higher than the amount of "burn damage" it deals per "turn" (touch).
This is why they aren't comparable; the fire damage lava does might be 4d10, but to actually create lava (melt stone) might required 40d10 or more, applied every turn for an hour; you're not going to get that out of a cantrip unless you use it to ignite a specialised furnace.
I have never said that it should not effect objects; it should absolutely scorch things, break delicate objects and set things on fire, but you're talking about a completely different scale of damage when it comes to melting solid stone or metal with a cantrip.
Stone is one of the most resilient substances that occurs in nature, but it's also a good example of how different types of damage affect things differently; the easiest way to break a rock is to strike it with something harder than it (a stronger rock, a metal etc.) or use a focused point, drill etc., but it's very difficult to damage a rock with fire. You can also break rock with an explosion, but only if contained within the rock (the energy has nowhere else to go). But what fire is very good at is burning things that are combustible; if you stab a pool of oil it's unlikely to do anything, but throw fire at it and you're much more likely to get a reaction. Meanwhile some objects are equally susceptible to most damage; a painting can be damaged by nearly anything, a door might not ignite immediately, but it won't fare well for long against either fire or being struck etc.
And once again, this is off topic, I'm going to stop responding at this point.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Also consider that the duration of some cantrips and spells is... instantaneous. The heat doesn't affect things like stone or metal because it isn't exposed to it for long enough.
But I would always let it set wood, cloth, and paper on fire.
Each DM has to use their own judgement but if real-life campers can use flint and steel to set wood on fire, then using a cantrip should be no problem.
I think a very important reason is that the 3 cantrips that a wizard start with Minor Illusion is pretty much a auto pick, your 2nd pick will most likely be another utility cantrip like Message or Mage Hand which leaves only 1 slot for a damage cantrip. At early levels I feel a attack roll cantrip is more likely to hit compared to a saving throw cantrip therefore spells like Firebolt and Chill Touch gets more love than Acid Splash. By the time level 4 rolls around and you get another cantrip you will most likely have access to a spell that can target and damage multiple enemies therefore you may be more interested in a saving throw cantrip that has a good rider effect or higher single target damage which again results in Acid Splash getting less love.
To put it in perspective, if your Spell Attack Modifier is +5, you hit AC 14 12 times out of 20 (you miss on 1-8), and since your save DC is 13, a target with +0 to their saves is hit on 1-12, meaning you miss 8 ways as well. In other words, +0 to a save is about as good as AC 14, against a given caster. That ignores crits - with crits, provided all of your damage is in dice, not constants, rolling a 20 is as good as hitting twice, which means +0 to a save is more like AC 15 (since AC 15 gets hit 12 times after rolling 20 dice, on average, same as +0 to the save).