But according to the definition you show here, wood would not be considered 'flammable,' because the flashpoint is far higher than 100 degrees.
I think the rules for solid materials are different, but it's true that applying a spark to a solid wooden object will not generally ignite it, unless it's tinder. I suspect giving a damage threshold for ignition is the easiest.
At the very least the wood would have to be very dry with a large surface area (like kindling, sawdust, or brush wood) to qualify as flammable. Honestly, that is probably a better definition to use in game since a healthy tree or treated furniture are not likely to be ignited by the likes of a firebolt.
True. All wood is not the same.
But I can't even really say that a Firebolt wouldn't be powerful enough to light a tree on fire. We tend to think of cantrips as weak, and damage is so abstract. But a firebolt can definitely kill any normal commoner in one hit. It might be a thousand degrees for all we know. Or completely engulf the target in flames.
I mean, all of this is just totally up to our imaginations at this point. DnD combat is supposed to be abstract and simple. Even the most complicated editions pale in comparison to games like Rolemaster. It's completely up to the DMs and players I guess. But it is still fun to consider.
But according to the definition you show here, wood would not be considered 'flammable,' because the flashpoint is far higher than 100 degrees.
I think the rules for solid materials are different, but it's true that applying a spark to a solid wooden object will not generally ignite it, unless it's tinder. I suspect giving a damage threshold for ignition is the easiest.
At the very least the wood would have to be very dry with a large surface area (like kindling, sawdust, or brush wood) to qualify as flammable. Honestly, that is probably a better definition to use in game since a healthy tree or treated furniture are not likely to be ignited by the likes of a firebolt.
True. All wood is not the same.
But I can't even really say that a Firebolt wouldn't be powerful enough to light a tree on fire. We tend to think of cantrips as weak, and damage is so abstract. But a firebolt can definitely kill any normal commoner in one hit. It might be a thousand degrees for all we know. Or completely engulf the target in flames.
I mean, all of this is just totally up to our imaginations at this point. DnD combat is supposed to be abstract and simple. Even the most complicated editions pale in comparison to games like Rolemaster. It's completely up to the DMs and players I guess. But it is still fun to consider.
Yeah, but in fairness 1 bite from a dog or a 10 foot fall could kill a commoner so I don't think that is a great comparison.
But I can't even really say that a Firebolt wouldn't be powerful enough to light a tree on fire.
And of course it would depend on the tree. For a living tree with green leaves, heat sufficient to set it on fire with a single hit will probably also completely destroy the tree. For something like a dead pine tree with still attached needles, it's not going to take much, though getting it to do anything combat relevant probably requires some sort of area attack.
I'm still on the side of "If the spell doesn't say so, it doesn't" for this spell. Not all lubricants are the same, it could be silicone but the fantasy mind of your PC only knows grease as a slippery substance. If you're talking spell components, what does sand have to do with sleep?
Regarding the Control Weather comment, the spell is affecting the weather not creating rain.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
The sand for Sleep is a reference to the folktale of the sandman, who comes at night to put magic sand over your eyes to make you fall asleep (the crusty stuff you rub away in the morning).
It doesn't change whether Grease should catch on fire or not, but it at least tells us that the grease might smell like breakfast. :D
The grease which is a component of the grease spell is very irrelevant as its not necessarily used if you have a focus and is not consumed meaning matter would need to be getting created from nothing. Ultimately if matter is being created from nothing why should we assume it necessarily has the same properties of the grease especially when its optional.
Like in the case of the sand it may not physically be relevant to the spell but be symbolic. Grease represents slipperiness and to create a spell of slipping. The best argument for the grease spell igniting is actually that most people think it does and it has in the past like a kind of DnD common law.
Of course spells often get used out of their context in the players hand book to represent different things and players are also highly encouraged to flavor and recontextualise spells which may change this intuitive meaning.
Fiction also often relies on this realm of intuition, myth and meaning to make things feel magical in the first place so its a perfectly good approach to go by the feeling.
Hello non-beliebers! The material component for the spell is a bit of pork rind or butter. The Grease spell is made with flammable Grease. end of story
The grease spell is not a matter of "realism" or "logic". The only reason this comes up is that the spell Grease was by the rules never flammable in any edition of the game going back to 1st edition, which includes all sub-editions and even Pathfinder, but it was by gaming tradition, often ruled to be flammable. So nothing has really changed, it's never been flammable but we are still having the same conversation since 1st edition Unearthed Arcana. This discussion is as old as the game itself, I haven't seen any new insight since the 70's...
The grease spell is not a matter of "realism" or "logic". The only reason this comes up is that the spell Grease was by the rules never flammable in any edition of the game going back to 1st edition, which includes all sub-editions and even Pathfinder, but it was by gaming tradition, often ruled to be flammable. So nothing has really changed, it's never been flammable but we are still having the same conversation since 1st edition Unearthed Arcana. This discussion is as old as the game itself, I haven't seen any new insight since the 70's...
I honestly think it's a matter of convention at tables. Grease in PF1e didn't state that the grease was not flammable. I can't say I recall ever seeing it in the aD&D PHB or the 3rd Edition Rulebook.
That I think it the key though. For those of us that only ever had the core books like PHB and DMG, if it wasn't explicitly stated then it was always a GM's ruling. That's the point, it's never explicitly said (as far as I can recall) that the grease was non-flammable. Now, I agree, that in it's wording it perhaps seems like its sole purpose was to to just make stuff slippery. However, I honestly feel like if the writers really wanted to close this up and make it clear there have been half a dozen different descriptions for the spell in a few editions now where that has been an option. That the writers haven't bothered to do so then to me feels as though the real intention was for it to be adjudicated table by table.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but that's always been my opinion anyhow.
The grease spell is not a matter of "realism" or "logic". The only reason this comes up is that the spell Grease was by the rules never flammable in any edition of the game going back to 1st edition, which includes all sub-editions and even Pathfinder, but it was by gaming tradition, often ruled to be flammable. So nothing has really changed, it's never been flammable but we are still having the same conversation since 1st edition Unearthed Arcana. This discussion is as old as the game itself, I haven't seen any new insight since the 70's...
We played Wednesday. Fireballs were cast often. No one complained that the fireball did not light up all flammable objects. Like you said, it is D&D. Logic and realism long ago went out the window for "magic". And players should be fine with that.
The grease spell is not a matter of "realism" or "logic". The only reason this comes up is that the spell Grease was by the rules never flammable in any edition of the game going back to 1st edition, which includes all sub-editions and even Pathfinder, but it was by gaming tradition, often ruled to be flammable. So nothing has really changed, it's never been flammable but we are still having the same conversation since 1st edition Unearthed Arcana. This discussion is as old as the game itself, I haven't seen any new insight since the 70's...
That I think it the key though. For those of us that only ever had the core books like PHB and DMG, if it wasn't explicitly stated then it was always a GM's ruling. That's the point, it's never explicitly said (as far as I can recall) that the grease was non-flammable.
Nonflammable grease covers the ground in a 10-foot square centered on a point within range and turns it into Difficult Terrain for the duration.
What part of that is not clear?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
True. All wood is not the same.
But I can't even really say that a Firebolt wouldn't be powerful enough to light a tree on fire. We tend to think of cantrips as weak, and damage is so abstract. But a firebolt can definitely kill any normal commoner in one hit. It might be a thousand degrees for all we know. Or completely engulf the target in flames.
I mean, all of this is just totally up to our imaginations at this point. DnD combat is supposed to be abstract and simple. Even the most complicated editions pale in comparison to games like Rolemaster. It's completely up to the DMs and players I guess. But it is still fun to consider.
Yeah, but in fairness 1 bite from a dog or a 10 foot fall could kill a commoner so I don't think that is a great comparison.
But yeah, it is almost entirely up to DMs.
And of course it would depend on the tree. For a living tree with green leaves, heat sufficient to set it on fire with a single hit will probably also completely destroy the tree. For something like a dead pine tree with still attached needles, it's not going to take much, though getting it to do anything combat relevant probably requires some sort of area attack.
I'm still on the side of "If the spell doesn't say so, it doesn't" for this spell. Not all lubricants are the same, it could be silicone but the fantasy mind of your PC only knows grease as a slippery substance. If you're talking spell components, what does sand have to do with sleep?
Regarding the Control Weather comment, the spell is affecting the weather not creating rain.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
The sand for Sleep is a reference to the folktale of the sandman, who comes at night to put magic sand over your eyes to make you fall asleep (the crusty stuff you rub away in the morning).
It doesn't change whether Grease should catch on fire or not, but it at least tells us that the grease might smell like breakfast. :D
What is a Jeremy Crawford?
Vaseline, which is a slick grease, is not flammable (and I was a cook)
However, all grease derived from animal fats are flammable.
The material components are pork rind or butter.
I highly doubt that there would be an availability of synthetic butter in a DND setting.
So I would say it goes without saying that the grease created from pork rind or butter is flammable
Vaseline is actually about as combustible as lard, it's just that people rarely put it on the stove and heat it to 400 degrees.
The grease which is a component of the grease spell is very irrelevant as its not necessarily used if you have a focus and is not consumed meaning matter would need to be getting created from nothing. Ultimately if matter is being created from nothing why should we assume it necessarily has the same properties of the grease especially when its optional.
Like in the case of the sand it may not physically be relevant to the spell but be symbolic. Grease represents slipperiness and to create a spell of slipping. The best argument for the grease spell igniting is actually that most people think it does and it has in the past like a kind of DnD common law.
Of course spells often get used out of their context in the players hand book to represent different things and players are also highly encouraged to flavor and recontextualise spells which may change this intuitive meaning.
Fiction also often relies on this realm of intuition, myth and meaning to make things feel magical in the first place so its a perfectly good approach to go by the feeling.
Hello non-beliebers! The material component for the spell is a bit of pork rind or butter. The Grease spell is made with flammable Grease. end of story
The spell specifies that it is NOT.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Like how mage armor covers you with "(a piece of cured leather)".
The grease spell is not a matter of "realism" or "logic". The only reason this comes up is that the spell Grease was by the rules never flammable in any edition of the game going back to 1st edition, which includes all sub-editions and even Pathfinder, but it was by gaming tradition, often ruled to be flammable. So nothing has really changed, it's never been flammable but we are still having the same conversation since 1st edition Unearthed Arcana. This discussion is as old as the game itself, I haven't seen any new insight since the 70's...
I honestly think it's a matter of convention at tables. Grease in PF1e didn't state that the grease was not flammable. I can't say I recall ever seeing it in the aD&D PHB or the 3rd Edition Rulebook.
That I think it the key though. For those of us that only ever had the core books like PHB and DMG, if it wasn't explicitly stated then it was always a GM's ruling. That's the point, it's never explicitly said (as far as I can recall) that the grease was non-flammable. Now, I agree, that in it's wording it perhaps seems like its sole purpose was to to just make stuff slippery. However, I honestly feel like if the writers really wanted to close this up and make it clear there have been half a dozen different descriptions for the spell in a few editions now where that has been an option. That the writers haven't bothered to do so then to me feels as though the real intention was for it to be adjudicated table by table.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but that's always been my opinion anyhow.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
We played Wednesday. Fireballs were cast often. No one complained that the fireball did not light up all flammable objects. Like you said, it is D&D. Logic and realism long ago went out the window for "magic". And players should be fine with that.
What part of that is not clear?
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
The part where that word was only added in the 2024 PHB? Yes, it's clear in 2024 that it's not flammable, not everyone has switched to 2024.