No, that is incorrect. The player is making a ranged attack. The player is not distracted by a nearby enemy. Thus,, no disadvantage. The hand is just being used to make an attack, it is not itself a character that can get spooked by nearby enemies.
If you insist that a hostile creature be next to your player, that rule will never come up ☺
The player always makes the attack roll. The attacks are not always done by the PC themselves though, they can be by other sources. Here it is specifically done by a hand you create in the distance which attack in it's own space. So Its possible cover or disadvantage depending how you interpret it
No, that is incorrect. The player is making a ranged attack. The player is not distracted by a nearby enemy. Thus,, no disadvantage. The hand is just being used to make an attack, it is not itself a character that can get spooked by nearby enemies.
Where exactly does it specify any requirement about being distracted by the target?
Aiming a ranged Attack is more difficult when a foe is next to you. When you make a ranged Attack with a weapon, a spell, or some other means, you have disadvantage on the Attack roll if you are within 5 feet of a Hostile creature who can see you and who isn’t Incapacitated.
If the attack is deemed coming from the hand, the hand is attacking a foe next to it. This disadvantage applies. If that ruling is deemed not to apply because the caster is not adjacent to the enemy, then cover applies. Pick one.
At first I would have disagreed with you but I’m coming around to this perspective. The caster is not next to the creature so no disadvantage on that point. But, although the hand is in the same space of the creature , it is an attack from the caster, who is basically directing the hand from a distance. So if the caster cannot fully see the target, they have disadvantage from cover as they might direct the hand to attack at a point behind cover, which they can’t see so are not as accurate. The hand itself has no sentience or ability to perceive the target.
So the caster is making the attack, not the hand. Unlike a familiar that can deliver a spell attack but uses the casters spell attack modifier.
Cover (1) doesn’t impose disadvantage, and (2) is drawn based on line of effect from origin to target, not based on line of sight of some third point.
Y’all are just endlessly making things up that aren’t found in the PHB at this point. Please constrain yourself to textual arguments, or be open about the fact that you’re houseruling new systems that the PHB doesn’t contain.
The way that I interpret the spell, the hand is the attack itself, not the source of the attack (like an arrow, not like a bow).
If the hand was making the attack, it would have been a melee attack (like spiritual weapon).
That is the logic behind my interpretation, there isn't anything that says it ignores cover. If you think differently, run it differently, but I don't think there is good enough wording in the rules to settle this one way or another.
The way that I interpret the spell, the hand is the attack itself, not the source of the attack (like an arrow, not like a bow).
If the hand was making the attack, it would have been a melee attack (like spiritual weapon).
That is the logic behind my interpretation, there isn't anything that says it ignores cover. If you think differently, run it differently, but I don't think there is good enough wording in the rules to settle this one way or another.
Im convinced that RAI, Chill Touch isn't meant to avoid cover. Maybe it was left vague to see what people would come up with, but not with a specific end I can discern.
RAW, it gets into a bunch of assumptions about flavor text, spell effects, etc. So probably still not kosher.
If I run a game, I might bring out Chill Touch through the wall as a goofy gimmick to surprise players. Or I might try it as a creative play in a specific situation as a player.
But its not really some broken strat, or something Im married to.
The origin of the attack is not “i.e. the attacker.” The origin of a Fireball is the point it spreads from to effect it’s radius. That doesn’t mean a space on the battlefield that a fireball lands in is now casting a spell or “i.e. the caster”. An origin is a point in space, not a character, so what are you even talking about???
Also, what is “soft cover”??? And how is that remotely relevant???
Like Dx, I’m willing to let this rest with there being good arguments on both sides and some ambiguous language, but the free form jazz you’re spouting is hard to swallow. Just give it a rest.
"You create a ghostly, skeletal hand in the space of a creature within range. Make a ranged spell attack against the creature to assail it with the chill of the grave."
The spell's text makes clear that the attack comes through the hand, not from the caster. Nothing is going on in the space between the caster and the target anymore. Like with Spiritual Weapon, the spell attack is made from the spell's earlier effect rather than the caster. Which means there is no cover.
No. It’s just descriptive fluff. The spell writers were just trying to make it interesting, they didn’t consider how some people might try to get pedantic with word meanings. The caster castes the spell and makes a ranged spell attack, not a melee spell attack if the effect originated from the spectral hand. It’s purely a cool visual. Nothing more.
Yeah, I read this as the hand being the attack, not making it. This is not Bigby's Hand and does not work in the same way, descriptively or mechanically.
This hits on an issue I see raised here a lot in these debates. Some posters here seem to ascribe mechanical functions to descriptive elements in spell effects, a lot. While I do agree that the entirety of the spell description is it's effect, there is a difference between descriptive effects, which help you visualize how the spell looks (and what a lot of people call "fluff"), and mechanical effects, which list actual activities/actions/results as they pertain to the game. I would argue that the descriptive effects do not hold any bearing over mechanics (otherwise they would say so, and become mechanical effects themselves). Looking at chill touch, lets break it down:
Necromancy cantrip
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 120 feet
Components: V, S
Duration: 1 round
All of these are Mechanical Effects detailing the school, casting time, etc.
You create a ghostly, skeletal hand in the space of a creature within range.
This is descriptive. No known game mechanics are used except the reference to range, which is stated elsewhere.
Make a ranged spell attack against the creature to assail it with the chill of the grave.
This sentence has both a mechanical effect (make a ranged spell attack) and descriptive effect (assail it with the chill of the grave). The mechanical effect is a ranged spell attack, which tells us 1) cover rules apply, and 2) the source of the attack is the caster. Only if the spell specifically tells us otherwise do these standards get overridden.
On a hit, the target takes 1d8 necrotic damage, and it can’t regain hit points until the start of your next turn.
Mechanical Effect describing damage and the secondary effect
Until then, the hand clings to the target.
Descriptive Effect continuing the visual described in the first sentence
If you hit an undead target, it also has disadvantage on attack rolls against you until the end of your next turn.
This spell’s damage increases by 1d8 when you reach 5th level (2d8), 11th level (3d8), and 17th level (4d8).
Mechanical Effects describing rules regarding undead targets and casting at higher class levels.
Descriptive Effects occur throughout the spell list. If they were all mechanical, then spells like burning hands would require two free hands to cast, among other oddities.
^ none of any of this, ANY OF IT, has one shred of support in the PHB. There is no such thing as “fluff” of “descriptive effect” in a spell description, period. Read Chapter 10 top to bottom, and what you’ll find about spell descriptions is:
“Some spells, such as magic missile and cure wounds, have more powerful effects when cast at a higher level, as detailed in a spell's description.”
“Each spell description in Chapter 11 begins with a block of information, including the spell's name, level, school of magic, casting time, range, components, and duration. The rest of a spell entry describes the spell's effect.”
“If a spell can be cast as a reaction, the spell description tells you exactly when you can do so.”
“Each spell's description indicates whether it requires verbal (V), somatic (S), or material (M) components.”
“A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect (described below).”
”A spell's description specifies its area of effect, which typically has one of five different shapes: cone, cube, cylinder, line, or sphere.”
...and other stuff as well, described in sections that don’t spefically use the phrase “spell description.” But the common thread here? Spell Description text IS RULE TEXT, it DOES something and MATTERS. Nowhere, not once, not EVER, is spell description described as “fluff” or “descriptive effect” or anything of the sort.
If your understanding of a spell requires disregarding language in the spell description as meaningless, then you are wrong. End of story.
^ none of any of this, ANY OF IT, has one shred of support in the PHB. There is no such thing as “fluff” of “descriptive effect” in a spell description, period. Read Chapter 10 top to bottom, and what you’ll find about spell descriptions is:
“Some spells, such as magic missile and cure wounds, have more powerful effects when cast at a higher level, as detailed in a spell's description.”
“Each spell description in Chapter 11 begins with a block of information, including the spell's name, level, school of magic, casting time, range, components, and duration. The rest of a spell entry describes the spell's effect.”
“If a spell can be cast as a reaction, the spell description tells you exactly when you can do so.”
“Each spell's description indicates whether it requires verbal (V), somatic (S), or material (M) components.”
“A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect (described below).”
”A spell's description specifies its area of effect, which typically has one of five different shapes: cone, cube, cylinder, line, or sphere.”
...and other stuff as well, described in sections that don’t spefically use the phrase “spell description.” But the common thread here? Spell Description text IS RULE TEXT, it DOES something and MATTERS. Nowhere, not once, not EVER, is spell description described as “fluff” or “descriptive effect” or anything of the sort.
If your understanding of a spell requires disregarding language in the spell description as meaningless, then you are wrong. End of story.
It's not meaningless, its just not mechanically important. Do you rule that Burning Hands requires 2 free hands instead of 1 due to its description? Do you rule that Abi-Dalzim's Horrid Wilting doesn't affect Fire Elementals because they contain no water? Not every spell has descriptive text, but several do, and inferring mechanical effects from them where none are explicitly stated is just as incorrect, spells only do what they say they do. Chill touch doesn't ignore cover, and the hand doesn't make the attack, because the spell does not say either of those is true. It is descriptive to give you an idea of the visual accompanying the mechanics, but it is not implying a mechanic (and certainly is not implying an exception to one).
^ none of any of this, ANY OF IT, has one shred of support in the PHB. There is no such thing as “fluff” of “descriptive effect” in a spell description, period. Read Chapter 10 top to bottom, and what you’ll find about spell descriptions is:
“Some spells, such as magic missile and cure wounds, have more powerful effects when cast at a higher level, as detailed in a spell's description.”
“Each spell description in Chapter 11 begins with a block of information, including the spell's name, level, school of magic, casting time, range, components, and duration. The rest of a spell entry describes the spell's effect.”
“If a spell can be cast as a reaction, the spell description tells you exactly when you can do so.”
“Each spell's description indicates whether it requires verbal (V), somatic (S), or material (M) components.”
“A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect (described below).”
”A spell's description specifies its area of effect, which typically has one of five different shapes: cone, cube, cylinder, line, or sphere.”
...and other stuff as well, described in sections that don’t spefically use the phrase “spell description.” But the common thread here? Spell Description text IS RULE TEXT, it DOES something and MATTERS. Nowhere, not once, not EVER, is spell description described as “fluff” or “descriptive effect” or anything of the sort.
If your understanding of a spell requires disregarding language in the spell description as meaningless, then you are wrong. End of story.
It's not meaningless, its just not mechanically important. Do you rule that Burning Hands requires 2 free hands instead of 1 due to its description? Do you rule that Abi-Dalzim's Horrid Wilting doesn't affect Fire Elementals because they contain no water? Not every spell has descriptive text, but several do, and inferring mechanical effects from them where none are explicitly stated is just as incorrect, spells only do what they say they do. Chill touch doesn't ignore cover, and the hand doesn't make the attack, because the spell does not say either of those is true. It is descriptive to give you an idea of the visual accompanying the mechanics, but it is not implying a mechanic (and certainly is not implying an exception to one).
Burning hands isn't a great example since it actually does specify a somatic component requiring two hands, unless you get around that with metamagic or a feat like warcaster.
Abi-Dalzim's Horrid Wilting not affecting fire elementals seems more like an oversight. Although to be super technical: water is a by product of combustion, so there is super-heated moisture in flame.
Im not sure why we would ever declare something in a spell description fluff unless the spell itself gives us choice over it, like the form some effect takes. To compare DnD to MTG, there is a clear distinction between effects and fluff, and anything directly mixed in with the actual effect description is gospel truth that the mechanics conform to from there. An MTG card does what the card says even if it breaks a basic rule like only having one turn, so Im tempted to see spell descriptions in dnd the same way.
Of COURSE I require two hands be used to cast burning hands, because it specifically requires you to bring your hands together in its spell description, and that is not fluff. I honestly cannot think of a better example to demonstrate precisely why what you’re doing is so reckless and arbitrary, thank you!
Of COURSE I require two hands be used to cast burning hands, because it specifically requires you to bring your hands together in its spell description, and that is not fluff. I honestly cannot think of a better example to demonstrate precisely why what you’re doing is so reckless and arbitrary, thank you!
Have I offended you somehow? There's no need for the level of snark you are throwing around here. Honestly I'm going to just agree to disagree with you. Nothing in Burning Hands somatic requirement (the "S") does it indicate it operates differently from other somatics (ie only needing one hand). I also personally am not calling these "descriptive texts" fluff (if you would read my post, I said a lot of other people do).
Furthermore, I stand by my interpretation that some effects are only for visual understanding/descriptive intent, and not everything is a game mechanic, especially when considering something as one requires convoluted interpretation of unreferenced rules to correctly adjudicate (5e is just not precise enough with language to prove this with any degree of certainty or accuracy). Chill Touch requires a ranged spell attack, and ranged spell attacks are affected by cover. Nothing in the spell description specifically overrides the cover rules (compared to something like Sacred Flame, which does). Therefore the remaining text describing the hand must be describing a visual effect that is part of the spell but that imparts no special mechanical effect other than what is explicitly stated.
^ none of any of this, ANY OF IT, has one shred of support in the PHB. There is no such thing as “fluff” of “descriptive effect” in a spell description, period. Read Chapter 10 top to bottom, and what you’ll find about spell descriptions is:
“Some spells, such as magic missile and cure wounds, have more powerful effects when cast at a higher level, as detailed in a spell's description.”
“Each spell description in Chapter 11 begins with a block of information, including the spell's name, level, school of magic, casting time, range, components, and duration. The rest of a spell entry describes the spell's effect.”
“If a spell can be cast as a reaction, the spell description tells you exactly when you can do so.”
“Each spell's description indicates whether it requires verbal (V), somatic (S), or material (M) components.”
“A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect (described below).”
”A spell's description specifies its area of effect, which typically has one of five different shapes: cone, cube, cylinder, line, or sphere.”
...and other stuff as well, described in sections that don’t spefically use the phrase “spell description.” But the common thread here? Spell Description text IS RULE TEXT, it DOES something and MATTERS. Nowhere, not once, not EVER, is spell description described as “fluff” or “descriptive effect” or anything of the sort.
If your understanding of a spell requires disregarding language in the spell description as meaningless, then you are wrong. End of story.
It's not meaningless, its just not mechanically important. Do you rule that Burning Hands requires 2 free hands instead of 1 due to its description? Do you rule that Abi-Dalzim's Horrid Wilting doesn't affect Fire Elementals because they contain no water? Not every spell has descriptive text, but several do, and inferring mechanical effects from them where none are explicitly stated is just as incorrect, spells only do what they say they do. Chill touch doesn't ignore cover, and the hand doesn't make the attack, because the spell does not say either of those is true. It is descriptive to give you an idea of the visual accompanying the mechanics, but it is not implying a mechanic (and certainly is not implying an exception to one).
Burning hands isn't a great example since it actually does specify a somatic component requiring two hands, unless you get around that with metamagic or a feat like warcaster.
burning hands describes the position of hands, but never describes that positioning as the Somatic Component. If it did override the normal rules for somatic components, it should say so in the spell description in a more explicit manner
Abi-Dalzim's Horrid Wilting not affecting fire elementals seems more like an oversight. Although to be super technical: water is a by product of combustion, so there is super-heated moisture in flame.
A Fire Elemental is a being entirely made of sentient fire and is not the result of combustion (since it isn't really "burning" anything to exist). Any moisture in it would not be part of its body anymore than the moisture in the air you breathe is part of your body. The spell specifically addresses certain creature types as immune (constructs and undead) or vulnerable (including water elementals), so exempting a fire elemental should seem obvious if that was the intent.
Im not sure why we would ever declare something in a spell description fluff unless the spell itself gives us choice over it, like the form some effect takes. To compare DnD to MTG, there is a clear distinction between effects and fluff, and anything directly mixed in with the actual effect description is gospel truth that the mechanics conform to from there. An MTG card does what the card says even if it breaks a basic rule like only having one turn, so Im tempted to see spell descriptions in dnd the same way.
I wouldn't read into equating the two systems. MtG is a completely rigid system (it has to be; the actual ruleset is small, so each and every card has to communicate exactly what it does). D&D is not that rigid a system (it has to be, otherwise there would be no room for custom storylines, characters, homebrew, etc). D&D is also weighted with historical versions of the same stuff, so it is more likely in these instances that these descriptive elements are held over from prior editions where the description may have indeed been a mechanical component, but with rules changes, they never updated the spell description.
I wouldn’t call it snark so much as exasperation, but I do apologize for being rude.
Deciding that you can ignore the two hand requirement of burning hands because nothing says that the somatic component operates differently, when the spell description of burning hands does in fact describe how the somatic component works differently, is about the most circular reasoning that I can imagine.
There are good reasons to disagree about how chill touch works, like the point that keeps coming up about it not RAW saying that it ignores cover, or by arguing RAI that it probably is not intended for it to be so complicated as to need to check for cover twice from two different steps of the spell for effect placement and then attack. But arguments in the rules and mechanics forum that come down to “I don’t think this section of the rule matters mechanically, it’s just descriptive” ... You seem unwilling or unable to cite where you got the impression it was ok to do that, and that’s telling.
the rules for somatic components: "Spellcasting gestures might include a forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures. If a spell requires a somatic component, the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures."
Taken with the spell description, its pretty clear it demands 2 hands be used. The rule still calls for the PC to "perform these gestures."
I think debating the moisture content of a fire elemental is a fun rabbit hole to go down, but a bit of a tangent here I shouldn't have taken us on lol
I agree that dnd isn't as rigid as MtG, but Im still not comfortable with just unilaterally declaring something fluff.
When you read fire bolts description "You hurl a mote of fire at a creature or object within range. Make a ranged spell attack against the target. On a hit, the target takes 1d10 fire damage. A flammable object hit by this spell ignites if it isn't being worn or carried."
Do you assume the mote of fire is totally disconnected from the actual attack? Like, can you throw it at your friend and then make the actual attack against the intended target, because its just fluff?
I doubt it. The text is describing the actual attack. Its not just some disconnected thing that dropped into the brief description.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If you insist that a hostile creature be next to your player, that rule will never come up ☺
The player always makes the attack roll. The attacks are not always done by the PC themselves though, they can be by other sources. Here it is specifically done by a hand you create in the distance which attack in it's own space. So Its possible cover or disadvantage depending how you interpret it
No, it literally isn’t. We have enough to analyze about Chill Touch without needing to waste any more space on this foolishness.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
At first I would have disagreed with you but I’m coming around to this perspective. The caster is not next to the creature so no disadvantage on that point. But, although the hand is in the same space of the creature , it is an attack from the caster, who is basically directing the hand from a distance. So if the caster cannot fully see the target, they have disadvantage from cover as they might direct the hand to attack at a point behind cover, which they can’t see so are not as accurate. The hand itself has no sentience or ability to perceive the target.
So the caster is making the attack, not the hand. Unlike a familiar that can deliver a spell attack but uses the casters spell attack modifier.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Cover (1) doesn’t impose disadvantage, and (2) is drawn based on line of effect from origin to target, not based on line of sight of some third point.
Y’all are just endlessly making things up that aren’t found in the PHB at this point. Please constrain yourself to textual arguments, or be open about the fact that you’re houseruling new systems that the PHB doesn’t contain.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
JC specifically states its affected by cover:
https://www.sageadvice.eu/chill-touch-cover/
RAW is that any ranged spell attack is subject to cover unless otherwise stated. This does not explicitly state you ignore cover so you do not.
The way that I interpret the spell, the hand is the attack itself, not the source of the attack (like an arrow, not like a bow).
If the hand was making the attack, it would have been a melee attack (like spiritual weapon).
That is the logic behind my interpretation, there isn't anything that says it ignores cover. If you think differently, run it differently, but I don't think there is good enough wording in the rules to settle this one way or another.
That's also fair as the wording is pretty bad.
Its been good conversation.
Im convinced that RAI, Chill Touch isn't meant to avoid cover. Maybe it was left vague to see what people would come up with, but not with a specific end I can discern.
RAW, it gets into a bunch of assumptions about flavor text, spell effects, etc. So probably still not kosher.
If I run a game, I might bring out Chill Touch through the wall as a goofy gimmick to surprise players. Or I might try it as a creative play in a specific situation as a player.
But its not really some broken strat, or something Im married to.
The origin of the attack is not “i.e. the attacker.” The origin of a Fireball is the point it spreads from to effect it’s radius. That doesn’t mean a space on the battlefield that a fireball lands in is now casting a spell or “i.e. the caster”. An origin is a point in space, not a character, so what are you even talking about???
Also, what is “soft cover”??? And how is that remotely relevant???
Like Dx, I’m willing to let this rest with there being good arguments on both sides and some ambiguous language, but the free form jazz you’re spouting is hard to swallow. Just give it a rest.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
No. It’s just descriptive fluff. The spell writers were just trying to make it interesting, they didn’t consider how some people might try to get pedantic with word meanings. The caster castes the spell and makes a ranged spell attack, not a melee spell attack if the effect originated from the spectral hand. It’s purely a cool visual. Nothing more.
Yeah, I read this as the hand being the attack, not making it. This is not Bigby's Hand and does not work in the same way, descriptively or mechanically.
This hits on an issue I see raised here a lot in these debates. Some posters here seem to ascribe mechanical functions to descriptive elements in spell effects, a lot. While I do agree that the entirety of the spell description is it's effect, there is a difference between descriptive effects, which help you visualize how the spell looks (and what a lot of people call "fluff"), and mechanical effects, which list actual activities/actions/results as they pertain to the game. I would argue that the descriptive effects do not hold any bearing over mechanics (otherwise they would say so, and become mechanical effects themselves). Looking at chill touch, lets break it down:
All of these are Mechanical Effects detailing the school, casting time, etc.
This is descriptive. No known game mechanics are used except the reference to range, which is stated elsewhere.
This sentence has both a mechanical effect (make a ranged spell attack) and descriptive effect (assail it with the chill of the grave). The mechanical effect is a ranged spell attack, which tells us 1) cover rules apply, and 2) the source of the attack is the caster. Only if the spell specifically tells us otherwise do these standards get overridden.
Mechanical Effect describing damage and the secondary effect
Descriptive Effect continuing the visual described in the first sentence
Mechanical Effects describing rules regarding undead targets and casting at higher class levels.
Descriptive Effects occur throughout the spell list. If they were all mechanical, then spells like burning hands would require two free hands to cast, among other oddities.
^ none of any of this, ANY OF IT, has one shred of support in the PHB. There is no such thing as “fluff” of “descriptive effect” in a spell description, period. Read Chapter 10 top to bottom, and what you’ll find about spell descriptions is:
“Some spells, such as magic missile and cure wounds, have more powerful effects when cast at a higher level, as detailed in a spell's description.”
“Each spell description in Chapter 11 begins with a block of information, including the spell's name, level, school of magic, casting time, range, components, and duration. The rest of a spell entry describes the spell's effect.”
“If a spell can be cast as a reaction, the spell description tells you exactly when you can do so.”
“Each spell's description indicates whether it requires verbal (V), somatic (S), or material (M) components.”
“A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect (described below).”
”A spell's description specifies its area of effect, which typically has one of five different shapes: cone, cube, cylinder, line, or sphere.”
...and other stuff as well, described in sections that don’t spefically use the phrase “spell description.” But the common thread here? Spell Description text IS RULE TEXT, it DOES something and MATTERS. Nowhere, not once, not EVER, is spell description described as “fluff” or “descriptive effect” or anything of the sort.
If your understanding of a spell requires disregarding language in the spell description as meaningless, then you are wrong. End of story.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
It's not meaningless, its just not mechanically important. Do you rule that Burning Hands requires 2 free hands instead of 1 due to its description? Do you rule that Abi-Dalzim's Horrid Wilting doesn't affect Fire Elementals because they contain no water? Not every spell has descriptive text, but several do, and inferring mechanical effects from them where none are explicitly stated is just as incorrect, spells only do what they say they do. Chill touch doesn't ignore cover, and the hand doesn't make the attack, because the spell does not say either of those is true. It is descriptive to give you an idea of the visual accompanying the mechanics, but it is not implying a mechanic (and certainly is not implying an exception to one).
Burning hands isn't a great example since it actually does specify a somatic component requiring two hands, unless you get around that with metamagic or a feat like warcaster.
Abi-Dalzim's Horrid Wilting not affecting fire elementals seems more like an oversight. Although to be super technical: water is a by product of combustion, so there is super-heated moisture in flame.
Im not sure why we would ever declare something in a spell description fluff unless the spell itself gives us choice over it, like the form some effect takes. To compare DnD to MTG, there is a clear distinction between effects and fluff, and anything directly mixed in with the actual effect description is gospel truth that the mechanics conform to from there. An MTG card does what the card says even if it breaks a basic rule like only having one turn, so Im tempted to see spell descriptions in dnd the same way.
Of COURSE I require two hands be used to cast burning hands, because it specifically requires you to bring your hands together in its spell description, and that is not fluff. I honestly cannot think of a better example to demonstrate precisely why what you’re doing is so reckless and arbitrary, thank you!
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Have I offended you somehow? There's no need for the level of snark you are throwing around here. Honestly I'm going to just agree to disagree with you. Nothing in Burning Hands somatic requirement (the "S") does it indicate it operates differently from other somatics (ie only needing one hand). I also personally am not calling these "descriptive texts" fluff (if you would read my post, I said a lot of other people do).
Furthermore, I stand by my interpretation that some effects are only for visual understanding/descriptive intent, and not everything is a game mechanic, especially when considering something as one requires convoluted interpretation of unreferenced rules to correctly adjudicate (5e is just not precise enough with language to prove this with any degree of certainty or accuracy). Chill Touch requires a ranged spell attack, and ranged spell attacks are affected by cover. Nothing in the spell description specifically overrides the cover rules (compared to something like Sacred Flame, which does). Therefore the remaining text describing the hand must be describing a visual effect that is part of the spell but that imparts no special mechanical effect other than what is explicitly stated.
Best of luck to you and your games.
burning hands describes the position of hands, but never describes that positioning as the Somatic Component. If it did override the normal rules for somatic components, it should say so in the spell description in a more explicit manner
A Fire Elemental is a being entirely made of sentient fire and is not the result of combustion (since it isn't really "burning" anything to exist). Any moisture in it would not be part of its body anymore than the moisture in the air you breathe is part of your body. The spell specifically addresses certain creature types as immune (constructs and undead) or vulnerable (including water elementals), so exempting a fire elemental should seem obvious if that was the intent.
I wouldn't read into equating the two systems. MtG is a completely rigid system (it has to be; the actual ruleset is small, so each and every card has to communicate exactly what it does). D&D is not that rigid a system (it has to be, otherwise there would be no room for custom storylines, characters, homebrew, etc). D&D is also weighted with historical versions of the same stuff, so it is more likely in these instances that these descriptive elements are held over from prior editions where the description may have indeed been a mechanical component, but with rules changes, they never updated the spell description.
I wouldn’t call it snark so much as exasperation, but I do apologize for being rude.
Deciding that you can ignore the two hand requirement of burning hands because nothing says that the somatic component operates differently, when the spell description of burning hands does in fact describe how the somatic component works differently, is about the most circular reasoning that I can imagine.
There are good reasons to disagree about how chill touch works, like the point that keeps coming up about it not RAW saying that it ignores cover, or by arguing RAI that it probably is not intended for it to be so complicated as to need to check for cover twice from two different steps of the spell for effect placement and then attack. But arguments in the rules and mechanics forum that come down to “I don’t think this section of the rule matters mechanically, it’s just descriptive” ... You seem unwilling or unable to cite where you got the impression it was ok to do that, and that’s telling.
As you said, best of luck to you and your games.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
the rules for somatic components: "Spellcasting gestures might include a forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures. If a spell requires a somatic component, the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures."
Taken with the spell description, its pretty clear it demands 2 hands be used. The rule still calls for the PC to "perform these gestures."
I think debating the moisture content of a fire elemental is a fun rabbit hole to go down, but a bit of a tangent here I shouldn't have taken us on lol
I agree that dnd isn't as rigid as MtG, but Im still not comfortable with just unilaterally declaring something fluff.
When you read fire bolts description "You hurl a mote of fire at a creature or object within range. Make a ranged spell attack against the target. On a hit, the target takes 1d10 fire damage. A flammable object hit by this spell ignites if it isn't being worn or carried."
Do you assume the mote of fire is totally disconnected from the actual attack? Like, can you throw it at your friend and then make the actual attack against the intended target, because its just fluff?
I doubt it. The text is describing the actual attack. Its not just some disconnected thing that dropped into the brief description.