Wait what? This really doesn’t say that fire create light in a specific radius? I’m confused are we reading the same sentence?
Bright light lets most creatures see normally. Even gloomy days provide bright light, as do torches, lanterns, fires, and other sources of illumination within a specific radius.
You are asking a general rule to be specific. I think that is a bit silly. The radius of light depends on the intensity of the source. A torch is a small fire. A bonfire, by definition, is a large fire.
Wait what? This really doesn’t say that fire create light in a specific radius? I’m confused are we reading the same sentence?
Bright light lets most creatures see normally. Even gloomy days provide bright light, as do torches, lanterns, fires, and other sources of illumination within a specific radius.
You are asking a general rule to be specific. I think that is a bit silly. The radius of light depends on the intensity of the source. A torch is a small fire. A bonfire, by definition, is a large fire.
A bonfire is by definition "large", but a torch is not by definition "small". Furthermore, we have rules for fires that emit light all the way down to only dim (hooded lantern), as well as ones for which the "radius" isn't a sphere/cube (bullseye lantern), and that's mundane fires, which Create Bonfire isn't, as the fire goes out when the caster stops concentrating.
Point is, Create Bonfire's bonfire can't be backsolved to 1 "correct" amount of light for it to shed.
Wait what? This really doesn’t say that fire create light in a specific radius? I’m confused are we reading the same sentence?
Bright light lets most creatures see normally. Even gloomy days provide bright light, as do torches, lanterns, fires, and other sources of illumination within a specific radius.
You are asking a general rule to be specific. I think that is a bit silly. The radius of light depends on the intensity of the source. A torch is a small fire. A bonfire, by definition, is a large fire.
A bonfire is by definition "large", but a torch is not by definition "small". Furthermore, we have rules for fires that emit light all the way down to only dim ([Tooltip Not Found]), as well as ones for which the "radius" isn't a sphere/cube ([Tooltip Not Found]), and that's mundane fires, which Create Bonfire isn't, as the fire goes out when the caster stops concentrating.
Point is, Create Bonfire's bonfire can't be backsolved to 1 "correct" amount of light for it to shed.
And by analogy with other spells including other fire spells, if it were meant to shed, the spell should tell us.
The problem seems to be that if you have Spell#1 and it only creates Effect A. And you have Spell#2 that only affects Effect Z. Some are saying Spell#2 affects Spell#1 because it sounds similar to another thing that creates Effect Z.
A wall of fire may shed light. But since the spell does not describe it at shedding light, it is not influenced by something that affects light.
Edit: also, Fire gives off heat stick your hand in a fire you will get burned yet wall of fire only produces heat on one side so you only feel heat, enough to damage you if you are the one and only one side that is producing heat the other side is nice and cool and you can stand right next to it with no problem. Expressly described in the description
Similar to how a Monk’s martial arts gives unarmed strikes and monk weapons the ability to use DEX, similar to the finesse property, but since they don’t expressly give the finesse property to monk weapons, they are not affected by things involving finesse like sneak attack.
wall of fire and create bonfire do not expressly give a light radius so, for mechanical game rules reasons, they are not affected by something that affects a light radius.
I just keep wondering why we would take a solved problem (how does a spell tell us it creates light?) that has examples on all sides (spells that create light, spells that don’t particularly create light, and spells that can’t) and throw out the answer in favor of an invention that doesn’t even fit the rules that we’re left with. It just doesn’t compute.
Wait what? This really doesn’t say that fire create light in a specific radius? I’m confused are we reading the same sentence?
Bright light lets most creatures see normally. Even gloomy days provide bright light, as do torches, lanterns, fires, and other sources of illumination within a specific radius.
You are asking a general rule to be specific. I think that is a bit silly. The radius of light depends on the intensity of the source. A torch is a small fire. A bonfire, by definition, is a large fire.
A bonfire is by definition "large", but a torch is not by definition "small". Furthermore, we have rules for fires that emit light all the way down to only dim ([Tooltip Not Found]), as well as ones for which the "radius" isn't a sphere/cube ([Tooltip Not Found]), and that's mundane fires, which Create Bonfire isn't, as the fire goes out when the caster stops concentrating.
Point is, Create Bonfire's bonfire can't be backsolved to 1 "correct" amount of light for it to shed.
That is fair to say. I was perhaps being a bit lazy by saying a torch is a small fire. The light of the bonfire may go out once the spell ends, but not necessarily so, as it is a spell that states it can ignite combustible objects. It is a fire, that unlike many other fire spells, creates more fire.
In terms of how much light create bonfire sheds, I believe that is a separate discussion from the question of whether it does shed light. We know that it does because it is a fire and fire is defined as creating light in the rules of this game. The amount of light seems to be up for discussion, but I do believe it is a fair assumption that the torches in D&D are a fair bit smaller than the size of the fire defined in the create bonfire spell.
No, I didn’t ask for it. Read the rule I quoted. It asks for specifics. Right in the rule.
It states that the amount of bright light cast allows creatures to see normally within a specific radius. The radius of light depends on the intensity and focus of the fire. Determining the range of bright light is a little bit different than determining whether a source emits light. Are you really this uncomfortable making a judgement call, as a DM, on how much light a fire makes?
I guess the best compromise is to state that because the spell explicitly states that the entire bonfire and its effects are limited to that 5ft cube, that any light emitted from it is kept to that locale, and because it doesn't explicitly have a "area of light", i.e there's no area specified, therefore it's not effected by the darkness spell or other effects requiring light.
In other words it only emits light for the purpose of being visible and nothing more. It's like a glow in the dark shirt, you can clearly see it in complete darkness, but it's not exactly emitting a 30ft or even 5ft radius of bright light.
Is that a good compromise?
Note that the bonfire still wouldn't be visible in the darkness spell because that spell states it makes creatures "unable to see", what I mean is that it wouldn't get dispelled.
Edit: clarified what i meant by darkness and added "or other effects requiring light."
I guess the best compromise is to state that because the spell explicitly states that the entire bonfire and its effects are limited to that 5ft cube, that any light emitted from it is kept to that locale, and because it doesn't explicitly have a "area of light", i.e there's no area specified, therefore it's not effected by the darkness spell.
In other words it only emits light for the purpose of being visible and nothing more. It's like a glow in the dark shirt, you can clearly see it in complete darkness, but it's not exactly emitting a 30ft or even 5ft radius of bright light.
Is that a good compromise?
Note that the bonfire wouldn't be visible in the darkness spell because that spell states it makes creatures "unable to see".
I believe that it should produce light appropriate to the size of a fire. A 5ft cube is a rather large fire. However, I would not be opposed to my DM wanting limit the light to only be a glow that makes the fire visible. I could play at that table without any issue, even though I personally would not rule it this way.
I also agree that create bonfire would not be visible in magical darkness. That seems perfectly reasonable to me.
If we follow JC's common refrain that spells/abilities do what they say they do then RAW create bonfire doesn't emit light because it doesn't mention emitting light. Seems like this is probably even the RAI since they clearly know how to write spells that specifically emit light and from a game design perspective it's part of why players are making a meaningful choice when they pick between create bonfire, produce flame, firebolt, light, dancing lights, etc.
However, in my own game based on RAF I ruled that the bonfire provides light within the 5ft cube of the spell. At the time the party was fighting shadows and getting pretty beaten up because they didn't have ready means of creating light to keep the shadows from hiding every round. The party was starting to feel down and I wanted to reward them for thinking strategically and trying to fight the enemy's weakness. It also felt right because it's a bit weird to think of a 5ft flame that doesn't make any light. I think it turned out well with that particular group and producing light in a very limited area that's also filled with flame didn't end up breaking anything. That being said I'd certainly understand any DM that decided to stick with RAW.
If we follow JC's common refrain that spells/abilities do what they say they do then RAW create bonfire doesn't emit light because it doesn't mention emitting light. Seems like this is probably even the RAI since they clearly know how to write spells that specifically emit light and from a game design perspective it's part of why players are making a meaningful choice when they pick between create bonfire, produce flame, firebolt, light, dancing lights, etc.
However, in my own game based on RAF I ruled that the bonfire provides light within the 5ft cube of the spell. At the time the party was fighting shadows and getting pretty beaten up because they didn't have ready means of creating light to keep the shadows from hiding every round. The party was starting to feel down and I wanted to reward them for thinking strategically and trying to fight the enemy's weakness. It also felt right because it's a bit weird to think of a 5ft flame that doesn't make any light. I think it turned out well with that particular group and producing light in a very limited area that's also filled with flame didn't end up breaking anything. That being said I'd certainly understand any DM that decided to stick with RAW.
The spell does only what it says it does. What it does is create a large fire. Fires emit bright light per RAW. The specific light radius is given in others spells as a specific limiter. The cantrip light, for example, needs that limiter because you can choose objects of varying sizes. The light radius produced by the cantrip used on a shield is the same as the light radius produced by a button. Create bonfire does not need this because its size is clearly defined and the bright light produced should be proportional to the fire created, which is stated to produce bright light.
However, I do think your solution is acceptable as a solution for your table and seems well-received by those at your table, which is exactly what the goal should be for a DM.
The spell does only what it says it does. What it does is create a large fire. Fires emit bright light per RAW. The specific light radius is given in others spells as a specific limiter. The cantrip light, for example, needs that limiter because you can choose objects of varying sizes. The light radius produced by the cantrip used on a shield is the same as the light radius produced by a button. Create bonfire does not need this because its size is clearly defined and the bright light produced should be proportional to the fire created, which is stated to produce bright light.
However, I do think your solution is acceptable as a solution for your table and seems well-received by those at your table, which is exactly what the goal should be for a DM.
Worth noting it's arguable that RAI that statement could be referring to nonmagical fire, and that the idea of this being a "limiter" is iffy because by that logic Create Bonfire could have any radius of bright light, including infinity.
In addition, nothing states bright light is proportional to fire created except common sense, which has been preestablished to not exist in D&D lore nor rulesets. Reminder, D&D does not abide by English definitions, and several names & descriptions are metaphorical or (for lack of a better word) imagery rather than to be taken literally, such as Chill Touch or Sneak Attack (referring to both the description's flavor text and name for reference).
I think it's fine if you allow it to have light, but just note it's not described in the spell, and this is the same type of logic that powers things like using Create or Destroy Water to instakill people (i.e, the spell states that it can do _ and through a literal realistic interpretation that includes _), except admittingly this is far less extreme of course.
Okay I could probably have made that bit a tad more sarcastic-sounding.
The rest of it stands though, and the point of that one quip was to point out that Erik_Soong bases their argument on RAW saying fire makes bright light, but then later on says that it's proportional to size. This is weak because that part's not included anywhere in the RAW mentioned.
Edit: If they then go back and state that common sense applies to this point, then there's the argument that this now falls into RAF or that common sense might dictate that bonfire in this instance does not literally refer to a bonfire but rather the image of one (hence why it doesn't burn itself out instantly despite not stating the the bonfire does not require fuel. Burning fuel is a property of fires most people expect akin to making light).
Speaking of going back and applying common sense, the below post. My stance is the same as in my other post. I don't think allowing create bonfire to make light should be considered RAW or RAI. RAF is different, and obviously this all doesn't apply to a nonmagical bonfire which has more freedom for the DM to do what want with it than a magical bonfire because it's not restricted to the specifics of this spell or the rules.
The spell does only what it says it does. What it does is create a large fire. Fires emit bright light per RAW. The specific light radius is given in others spells as a specific limiter. The cantrip light, for example, needs that limiter because you can choose objects of varying sizes. The light radius produced by the cantrip used on a shield is the same as the light radius produced by a button. Create bonfire does not need this because its size is clearly defined and the bright light produced should be proportional to the fire created, which is stated to produce bright light.
However, I do think your solution is acceptable as a solution for your table and seems well-received by those at your table, which is exactly what the goal should be for a DM.
Worth noting it's arguable that RAI that statement could be referring to nonmagical fire, and that the idea of this being a "limiter" is iffy because by that logic Create Bonfire could have any radius of bright light, including infinity.
In addition, nothing states bright light is proportional to fire created except common sense, which has been preestablished to not exist in D&D lore nor rulesets. Reminder, D&D does not abide by English definitions, and several names & descriptions are metaphorical or imagery rather than to be taken literally, such as Chill Touch or Sneak Attack (referring to both the description's flavor text and name for reference).
I think it's fine if you allow it to have light, but just note it's not described in the spell, and this is the same type of logic that powers things like using Create or Destroy Water to instakill people (i.e, the spell states that it can do _ and through a literal realistic interpretation that includes _), except admittingly far less extreme of course.
The fire can be assumed to do what a fire does. Is it logical that a 5ft cube of fire has a light radius of infinity in your opinion? Arguing that RAI only includes non-magical fire is not supported by any evidence that I can see. Nowhere in the rules does it state that bright light conditions only apply to non-magical sources. At least none that I have been able to find.
Is common sense not enough for you? There are many things in the rules of D&D that are not defined to the atom. Some logical burden must be shouldered by the players at the table, unfortunately. Equating the names of spells to the effects of the spells is logically fallacious. The descriptions can be used as a reliable source for what the spells do. The spell description states that it creates a large fire of measurable size.
The radius of light is not defined in the spell, but it is illogical to assume the fire operates in a way other than what fire does when no description is provided to direct you to this conclusion. It seems more like motivated reasoning, which brings me to a question: what is your goal here? Create or destroy water could not do what you suggest, as a creature is not an open container.
I understand what you are saying but no one is saying that you cannot sit in a chair because there are no rules for it. When there are no rules, use common sense, or ask your DM. But there are rules for create bonfire, which is a magical fire, not a real fire, so may not act in accordance with how real fires act. Real, or even Fantasy, bonfires will burn until it’s fuel (wood, for example) is gone. Create Bonfire lasts exactly 60 seconds or until the caster stops thinking about it (concentration). And then poof it’s gone. And I would have no problem if someone wants to house rule how it works. But, again, this is the Rules As Written forum so sometimes common sense and the rules don’t align.
Personally, I don't care care if create bonfire sheds light 5’, 30’, or 0’. But the spell Darkness will not dispel it, but will make it not visible in the Darknesses sphere.
Is it logical that a 5ft cube of fire has a light radius of infinity in your opinion? Arguing that RAI only includes non-magical fire is not supported by any evidence that I can see. Nowhere in the rules does it state that bright light conditions only apply to non-magical sources. At least none that I have been able to find.
No, but they do say that fires shed light in a specific radius. That specific radius is nowhere to be found in the spell or a generic description of a bonfire. So what is the specific radius?
Is common sense not enough for you?
If there are rules that state something differently, then of course not. We use the rules where the rules exist.
There are many things in the rules of D&D that are not defined to the atom.
And there are things that ARE defined, like that sources of illumination tell you how much light they shed.
Some logical burden must be shouldered by the players at the table, unfortunately. Equating the names of spells to the effects of the spells is logically fallacious. The descriptions can be used as a reliable source for what the spells do. The spell description states that it creates a large fire of measurable size.
Right. And the descriptions of spells that shed light tell you that they do. See light or flaming sphere for examples. This spell tells you that it creates a bonfire, and nowhere in the spell or the rules is it mentioned how much light that bonfire should create, only that if it did it'd tell you how much it did.
The radius of light is not defined in the spell, but it is illogical to assume the fire operates in a way other than what fire does when no description is provided to direct you to this conclusion.
The obvious counter examples of fire spells that do create light is what brings us to the conclusion that spells that generate light tell you how they generate light. Certainly, it isn't a realistic conclusion that a fire doesn't create light, but that doesn't mean it is counter to any rules. In fact, it is perfectly in line with each rule that you can produce on the subject. It is also in line with other examples of spells that do and don't create light.
It seems more like motivated reasoning, which brings me to a question: what is your goal here? Create or destroy water could not do what you suggest, as a creature is not an open container.
The motivation of the reasoning here is simply that this is a rules discussion, and rules tell us how light behaves, how spells that produce light are written, and how darkness interacts with them, and yet there are still people who don't understand it and keep writing weird conclusions based on what they know about fire from anything but the rules of the game.
Is it logical that a 5ft cube of fire has a light radius of infinity in your opinion? Arguing that RAI only includes non-magical fire is not supported by any evidence that I can see. Nowhere in the rules does it state that bright light conditions only apply to non-magical sources. At least none that I have been able to find.
No, but they do say that fires shed light in a specific radius. That specific radius is nowhere to be found in the spell or a generic description of a bonfire. So what is the specific radius?
Is common sense not enough for you?
If there are rules that state something differently, then of course not. We use the rules where the rules exist.
There are many things in the rules of D&D that are not defined to the atom.
And there are things that ARE defined, like that sources of illumination tell you how much light they shed.
Some logical burden must be shouldered by the players at the table, unfortunately. Equating the names of spells to the effects of the spells is logically fallacious. The descriptions can be used as a reliable source for what the spells do. The spell description states that it creates a large fire of measurable size.
Right. And the descriptions of spells that shed light tell you that they do. See light or flaming sphere for examples. This spell tells you that it creates a bonfire, and nowhere in the spell or the rules is it mentioned how much light that bonfire should create, only that if it did it'd tell you how much it did.
The radius of light is not defined in the spell, but it is illogical to assume the fire operates in a way other than what fire does when no description is provided to direct you to this conclusion.
The obvious counter examples of fire spells that do create light is what brings us to the conclusion that spells that generate light tell you how they generate light. Certainly, it isn't a realistic conclusion that a fire doesn't create light, but that doesn't mean it is counter to any rules. In fact, it is perfectly in line with each rule that you can produce on the subject. It is also in line with other examples of spells that do and don't create light.
It seems more like motivated reasoning, which brings me to a question: what is your goal here? Create or destroy water could not do what you suggest, as a creature is not an open container.
The motivation of the reasoning here is simply that this is a rules discussion, and rules tell us how light behaves, how spells that produce light are written, and how darkness interacts with them, and yet there are still people who don't understand it and keep writing weird conclusions based on what they know about fire from anything but the rules of the game.
Flaming sphere is your example of fire not operating as it should when it gives you a description of it not operating as it should. This is not the silver bullet you think it is.
The specific radius of light depends on the source providing the light. What is the light radius given of a gloomy day?
And we use common sense where they don’t. The rules give us information that fires create bright light. The create bonfire spell creates a fire of specific size.
Not all light sources are defined. See gloomy day, or a campfire.
Again, the light spell needs a limiter because the spell can be used on objects of varying size. The flaming sphere behaves unlike normal fire and thus requires a light definition as well.
If you are saying that fire does not create light, it is counter to the rules that fire creates bright light. Unfortunately, you are incorrect.
There are two sets of rules in D&D; specific and general. Specific rules apply over general, such as in the examples you are citing. General rules apply when there are no specific rules, such as in the case of a fire.
There is no ‘weird conclusion’ being submitted here. The arguments that people have presented are rational arguments. You may find that the assumption that you are an unappreciated genius and that everyone who disagrees with you are gibbering morons is not an overly productive mindset to enter a debate with. What is your goal here? Are you trying to win or is your goal to arrive at the most correct conclusion, even if it is not your own? If you are after the former, I would like to skip over the next 5 pages of bad faith arguments with you and just bow out now. I find little value in having the final word, so if you need it, you can have it.
Flaming sphere is my example of a spell that tells you how much light it sheds.
The specific radius is mentioned for torches, lanterns, fires, and other sources of illumination, according to the syntax of the sentence. By the way, torches, lanterns, and other sources of illumination all do have listed specific radii which they shed light. So do many fires created by spells, like my example. The sentence says that even a gloomy day produces bright light, but a separate clause tells us about those other sources producing light in a specific radius.
When the rules contradict common sense, common sense doesn't win. If that were the case, then we wouldn't need rules, because common sense would always win.
Spells are sources of illumination that do tell you the radius that they shed light in. See countless examples, including the one I keep trying to get you to look at.
You are making excuses why some spells that create light tell you how much because you need one to explain why a spell that doesn't tell you it creates light would in your world view.
There is no rule that says fires must create any light, or how much. All we do know is that if a fire does create light, something has to tell us how much, that is what that specific radius phrase is all about: more information is required.
This is a misunderstanding of specific beats general. That section describes when there is a general rule and an exception to it, which isn't the case here. We have a general rule that sources of illumination tell us how much light they create, and another rule that doesn't conflict with that, but does not tell us how much light it creates. Those combine not to make an exception, but to tell us that the thing that doesn't mention how much light it creates therefore doesn't create light.
People have a real hangup on that idea of specific v. general and don't really get exceptions. You showed that you might be in that group with your last post. Exceptions exist when rules contradict. No rules here contradict. Fires create light in a specific radius, none is given in the spell; so it creates no light.
Rational arguments that throw out rules will always lead to weird rules conclusions.
Oh, and by the way, of course I'm trying to come to the correct conclusion, that's why I'm basing my arguments on rules, examples of other spells, and what we know about the game, not what I think I understand about fire from my real life experiences. Bad faith is ignoring rules in a rules argument, or intentionally misrepresenting other peoples' arguments, or just calling an argument that you don't understand or agree with bad faith.
Arguing that RAI only includes non-magical fire is not supported by any evidence that I can see. Nowhere in the rules does it state that bright light conditions only apply to non-magical sources. At least none that I have been able to find.
There are examples of spells using limiters to demonstrate they emit light in a aura. I think it's RAI that this spell does not because of prior precedence. There is no reason why this spell has no limiter except if the writers never saw the possibility of it making light. While yes, it would make sense for light to change depending on size, but that is not a factor here. The Create Bonfire spell always creates a bonfire in a 5 ft cube, so there's no reason why they would not have provided a limiter had they wished the spell to include light.
Nor is there any particular why, say if create bonfire allowed you to create varying sizes of bonfires (again this is a hypothetical), why they would not have included a limiter anyways (something like, emits bright light in a radius equal to twice the size of the effect).
Is common sense not enough for you? There are many things in the rules of D&D that are not defined to the atom. Some logical burden must be shouldered by the players at the table, unfortunately. Equating the names of spells to the effects of the spells is logically fallacious. The descriptions can be used as a reliable source for what the spells do. The spell description states that it creates a large fire of measurable size.
In my post I stated that equating the non-mechanical text of spells to their effects is illogical, note that I was including the description of Sneak Attack, not just the name. However I think Action Surge is a better example here (Trust me this will be relevant in the next paragraph). It states "you can push yourself beyond your normal limits", however nobody will argue that a Fighter could say, fly, despite the fact that the text clearly states that it allows you to bypass your normal limits.
The first line of this description is not describing a mechanical effect, but rather imagery (flavor text if you will), which is followed up with you taking a second action, the actual source for what it does. A similar thing can be seen in Create Bonfire, the spell describes creating a bonfire, then goes to describe the actual mechanic effect the bonfire does. Essentially, creating a bonfire is imagery or "flavor text", and the mechanical effect is described afterwards with light having no mention.
The reason I believe it as flavor text is that just like how magical bonfires may not emit light, magical bonfires also do not instantly extinguish themselves due to a lack of fuel. Both of these things are "common sense" things for fire to do that are not outright stated in the text. In addition, "creating a bonfire" is extremely vague, there's no defined bonfire, and I hate to think that there should exist a rules discussion where "does this produce infinite light" has to actually be a discussion point.
I already see a counterargument incoming, so I'll try to address them here. A bonfire are technically less mechanically defined as "your normal limits". The normal limits of creatures are quite defined extensively in vision, movement, combat in general, etc. Meanwhile bonfire's extent of definition is purely "common sense" which in reality seems more "ask your DM". As for what is flavor text and what isn't? 5E makes a point on not defining that because of rulings not rules, so that's harder to answer. I personally conclude that "bonfire" is flavor text because the rest of the spell is devoted specifically to defining it, and it burning itself out instantly due to lack of fuel source is not exactly desirable.
The radius of light is not defined in the spell, but it is illogical to assume the fire operates in a way other than what fire does when no description is provided to direct you to this conclusion. It seems more like motivated reasoning, which brings me to a question: what is your goal here? Create or destroy water could not do what you suggest, as a creature is not an open container.
An open container is not defined similarly to how fire isn't defined in D&D 5E. Both relate solely to this "common sense", and one by your logic can argue that a open container operates as a thing that allows passage through it to transport something (all definitions taken from google), and thus it is illogical to assume a throat - provided it's within view and considered accessible, such as when a target is talking - is not a open container because no description is provided to direct you to any other conclusion.
I did say it was a extreme example of why applying realistic "logical" ideas to magical spells was a bad idea, and that if you ever do so, it should be considered as RAF and judged accordingly. The above is indeed defined in the rules as well, known as drowning (not going to pull up the rules for drowning as it's not really relevant to this conversation, this is a small part of my argument).
My main argument is that I believe Create Bonfire creating light should not be considered RAW or RAI (unless there's some errata or sage advice that happens in the future ofc), even if I do believe allowing it to create limited light would be RAF and pretty reasonable.
On another completely unrelated note, I am legally obligated to tell you I have nothing to do or any interaction with any possible secret organizations that may possibly devote their existence towards the weakening of the weave in order to hypothetically overthrow who some call - not me of course - the dreaded tyrants commonly referred to as the Wizards of the Coast.
Used blue in my comments, no reason why I picked blue it just came to me first.
Also as for the other post, Flaming Sphere technically has more grounds to emit light than Create Bonfire does, cause it actually calls out the ball as "fire" as opposed to "bonfire" which yeah includes fire but isn't as much of a key word if you will (esp. since those rules on light go on to describe torches and lanterns, which... also contain fire).
Actually reading that rule for bright light though, (none of these are my main arguments just random other tidbits)
Technically the rules for bright light doesn't even state that the torches/lanterns even need to be lit, so already if we want to argue common sense exceptions have to made to that rule regardless. I mean, this doesn't mean a whole lot though and obviously we know that the intent is for it to refer to lit lanterns and torches, so not included in my main argument.
You could probably make a decent argument just out of the fact that it states "Even gloomy days provide bright light, as do torches, lanterns, fires, and othersources of illumination within a specific radius" implies that all the above have "a specific radius" and that without it - provided by a DM or description - they do not produce bright light. Not my main argument though because I think any argument based solely on word choice is a little weak considering it's 5E D&D, and the whole without a specific radius they don't produce bright light is a bit iffy.
I think I might side with you on not wanting to continue this argument much further. I don't think this is even relevant to the actual thread anymore either, because it having light isn't exactly overpowered nor is even mentioned in the OP.
You are asking a general rule to be specific. I think that is a bit silly. The radius of light depends on the intensity of the source. A torch is a small fire. A bonfire, by definition, is a large fire.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
No, I didn’t ask for it. Read the rule I quoted. It asks for specifics. Right in the rule.
A bonfire is by definition "large", but a torch is not by definition "small". Furthermore, we have rules for fires that emit light all the way down to only dim (hooded lantern), as well as ones for which the "radius" isn't a sphere/cube (bullseye lantern), and that's mundane fires, which Create Bonfire isn't, as the fire goes out when the caster stops concentrating.
Point is, Create Bonfire's bonfire can't be backsolved to 1 "correct" amount of light for it to shed.
And by analogy with other spells including other fire spells, if it were meant to shed, the spell should tell us.
The problem seems to be that if you have Spell#1 and it only creates Effect A. And you have Spell#2 that only affects Effect Z. Some are saying Spell#2 affects Spell#1 because it sounds similar to another thing that creates Effect Z.
A wall of fire may shed light. But since the spell does not describe it at shedding light, it is not influenced by something that affects light.
Edit: also, Fire gives off heat stick your hand in a fire you will get burned yet wall of fire only produces heat on one side so you only feel heat, enough to damage you if you are the one and only one side that is producing heat the other side is nice and cool and you can stand right next to it with no problem. Expressly described in the description
Similar to how a Monk’s martial arts gives unarmed strikes and monk weapons the ability to use DEX, similar to the finesse property, but since they don’t expressly give the finesse property to monk weapons, they are not affected by things involving finesse like sneak attack.
wall of fire and create bonfire do not expressly give a light radius so, for mechanical game rules reasons, they are not affected by something that affects a light radius.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I just keep wondering why we would take a solved problem (how does a spell tell us it creates light?) that has examples on all sides (spells that create light, spells that don’t particularly create light, and spells that can’t) and throw out the answer in favor of an invention that doesn’t even fit the rules that we’re left with. It just doesn’t compute.
That is fair to say. I was perhaps being a bit lazy by saying a torch is a small fire. The light of the bonfire may go out once the spell ends, but not necessarily so, as it is a spell that states it can ignite combustible objects. It is a fire, that unlike many other fire spells, creates more fire.
In terms of how much light create bonfire sheds, I believe that is a separate discussion from the question of whether it does shed light. We know that it does because it is a fire and fire is defined as creating light in the rules of this game. The amount of light seems to be up for discussion, but I do believe it is a fair assumption that the torches in D&D are a fair bit smaller than the size of the fire defined in the create bonfire spell.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
It states that the amount of bright light cast allows creatures to see normally within a specific radius. The radius of light depends on the intensity and focus of the fire. Determining the range of bright light is a little bit different than determining whether a source emits light. Are you really this uncomfortable making a judgement call, as a DM, on how much light a fire makes?
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
I guess the best compromise is to state that because the spell explicitly states that the entire bonfire and its effects are limited to that 5ft cube, that any light emitted from it is kept to that locale, and because it doesn't explicitly have a "area of light", i.e there's no area specified, therefore it's not effected by the darkness spell or other effects requiring light.
In other words it only emits light for the purpose of being visible and nothing more. It's like a glow in the dark shirt, you can clearly see it in complete darkness, but it's not exactly emitting a 30ft or even 5ft radius of bright light.
Is that a good compromise?
Note that the bonfire still wouldn't be visible in the darkness spell because that spell states it makes creatures "unable to see", what I mean is that it wouldn't get dispelled.
Edit: clarified what i meant by darkness and added "or other effects requiring light."
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
I believe that it should produce light appropriate to the size of a fire. A 5ft cube is a rather large fire. However, I would not be opposed to my DM wanting limit the light to only be a glow that makes the fire visible. I could play at that table without any issue, even though I personally would not rule it this way.
I also agree that create bonfire would not be visible in magical darkness. That seems perfectly reasonable to me.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
If we follow JC's common refrain that spells/abilities do what they say they do then RAW create bonfire doesn't emit light because it doesn't mention emitting light. Seems like this is probably even the RAI since they clearly know how to write spells that specifically emit light and from a game design perspective it's part of why players are making a meaningful choice when they pick between create bonfire, produce flame, firebolt, light, dancing lights, etc.
However, in my own game based on RAF I ruled that the bonfire provides light within the 5ft cube of the spell. At the time the party was fighting shadows and getting pretty beaten up because they didn't have ready means of creating light to keep the shadows from hiding every round. The party was starting to feel down and I wanted to reward them for thinking strategically and trying to fight the enemy's weakness. It also felt right because it's a bit weird to think of a 5ft flame that doesn't make any light. I think it turned out well with that particular group and producing light in a very limited area that's also filled with flame didn't end up breaking anything. That being said I'd certainly understand any DM that decided to stick with RAW.
The spell does only what it says it does. What it does is create a large fire. Fires emit bright light per RAW. The specific light radius is given in others spells as a specific limiter. The cantrip light, for example, needs that limiter because you can choose objects of varying sizes. The light radius produced by the cantrip used on a shield is the same as the light radius produced by a button. Create bonfire does not need this because its size is clearly defined and the bright light produced should be proportional to the fire created, which is stated to produce bright light.
However, I do think your solution is acceptable as a solution for your table and seems well-received by those at your table, which is exactly what the goal should be for a DM.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Worth noting it's arguable that RAI that statement could be referring to nonmagical fire, and that the idea of this being a "limiter" is iffy because by that logic Create Bonfire could have any radius of bright light, including infinity.
In addition, nothing states bright light is proportional to fire created except common sense, which has been preestablished to not exist in D&D lore nor rulesets. Reminder, D&D does not abide by English definitions, and several names & descriptions are metaphorical or (for lack of a better word) imagery rather than to be taken literally, such as Chill Touch or Sneak Attack (referring to both the description's flavor text and name for reference).
I think it's fine if you allow it to have light, but just note it's not described in the spell, and this is the same type of logic that powers things like using Create or Destroy Water to instakill people (i.e, the spell states that it can do _ and through a literal realistic interpretation that includes _), except admittingly this is far less extreme of course.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
Okay I could probably have made that bit a tad more sarcastic-sounding.
The rest of it stands though, and the point of that one quip was to point out that Erik_Soong bases their argument on RAW saying fire makes bright light, but then later on says that it's proportional to size. This is weak because that part's not included anywhere in the RAW mentioned.
Edit: If they then go back and state that common sense applies to this point, then there's the argument that this now falls into RAF or that common sense might dictate that bonfire in this instance does not literally refer to a bonfire but rather the image of one (hence why it doesn't burn itself out instantly despite not stating the the bonfire does not require fuel. Burning fuel is a property of fires most people expect akin to making light).
Speaking of going back and applying common sense, the below post. My stance is the same as in my other post. I don't think allowing create bonfire to make light should be considered RAW or RAI. RAF is different, and obviously this all doesn't apply to a nonmagical bonfire which has more freedom for the DM to do what want with it than a magical bonfire because it's not restricted to the specifics of this spell or the rules.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
The fire can be assumed to do what a fire does. Is it logical that a 5ft cube of fire has a light radius of infinity in your opinion? Arguing that RAI only includes non-magical fire is not supported by any evidence that I can see. Nowhere in the rules does it state that bright light conditions only apply to non-magical sources. At least none that I have been able to find.
Is common sense not enough for you? There are many things in the rules of D&D that are not defined to the atom. Some logical burden must be shouldered by the players at the table, unfortunately. Equating the names of spells to the effects of the spells is logically fallacious. The descriptions can be used as a reliable source for what the spells do. The spell description states that it creates a large fire of measurable size.
The radius of light is not defined in the spell, but it is illogical to assume the fire operates in a way other than what fire does when no description is provided to direct you to this conclusion. It seems more like motivated reasoning, which brings me to a question: what is your goal here? Create or destroy water could not do what you suggest, as a creature is not an open container.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
I understand what you are saying but no one is saying that you cannot sit in a chair because there are no rules for it. When there are no rules, use common sense, or ask your DM. But there are rules for create bonfire, which is a magical fire, not a real fire, so may not act in accordance with how real fires act. Real, or even Fantasy, bonfires will burn until it’s fuel (wood, for example) is gone. Create Bonfire lasts exactly 60 seconds or until the caster stops thinking about it (concentration). And then poof it’s gone. And I would have no problem if someone wants to house rule how it works. But, again, this is the Rules As Written forum so sometimes common sense and the rules don’t align.
Personally, I don't care care if create bonfire sheds light 5’, 30’, or 0’. But the spell Darkness will not dispel it, but will make it not visible in the Darknesses sphere.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Why? Why assume something when we have examples to the contrary?
No, but they do say that fires shed light in a specific radius. That specific radius is nowhere to be found in the spell or a generic description of a bonfire. So what is the specific radius?
If there are rules that state something differently, then of course not. We use the rules where the rules exist.
And there are things that ARE defined, like that sources of illumination tell you how much light they shed.
Right. And the descriptions of spells that shed light tell you that they do. See light or flaming sphere for examples. This spell tells you that it creates a bonfire, and nowhere in the spell or the rules is it mentioned how much light that bonfire should create, only that if it did it'd tell you how much it did.
The obvious counter examples of fire spells that do create light is what brings us to the conclusion that spells that generate light tell you how they generate light. Certainly, it isn't a realistic conclusion that a fire doesn't create light, but that doesn't mean it is counter to any rules. In fact, it is perfectly in line with each rule that you can produce on the subject. It is also in line with other examples of spells that do and don't create light.
The motivation of the reasoning here is simply that this is a rules discussion, and rules tell us how light behaves, how spells that produce light are written, and how darkness interacts with them, and yet there are still people who don't understand it and keep writing weird conclusions based on what they know about fire from anything but the rules of the game.
There is no ‘weird conclusion’ being submitted here. The arguments that people have presented are rational arguments. You may find that the assumption that you are an unappreciated genius and that everyone who disagrees with you are gibbering morons is not an overly productive mindset to enter a debate with. What is your goal here? Are you trying to win or is your goal to arrive at the most correct conclusion, even if it is not your own? If you are after the former, I would like to skip over the next 5 pages of bad faith arguments with you and just bow out now. I find little value in having the final word, so if you need it, you can have it.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Oh, and by the way, of course I'm trying to come to the correct conclusion, that's why I'm basing my arguments on rules, examples of other spells, and what we know about the game, not what I think I understand about fire from my real life experiences. Bad faith is ignoring rules in a rules argument, or intentionally misrepresenting other peoples' arguments, or just calling an argument that you don't understand or agree with bad faith.
Used blue in my comments, no reason why I picked blue it just came to me first.
Also as for the other post, Flaming Sphere technically has more grounds to emit light than Create Bonfire does, cause it actually calls out the ball as "fire" as opposed to "bonfire" which yeah includes fire but isn't as much of a key word if you will (esp. since those rules on light go on to describe torches and lanterns, which... also contain fire).
Actually reading that rule for bright light though, (none of these are my main arguments just random other tidbits)
Technically the rules for bright light doesn't even state that the torches/lanterns even need to be lit, so already if we want to argue common sense exceptions have to made to that rule regardless. I mean, this doesn't mean a whole lot though and obviously we know that the intent is for it to refer to lit lanterns and torches, so not included in my main argument.
You could probably make a decent argument just out of the fact that it states "Even gloomy days provide bright light, as do torches, lanterns, fires, and other sources of illumination within a specific radius" implies that all the above have "a specific radius" and that without it - provided by a DM or description - they do not produce bright light. Not my main argument though because I think any argument based solely on word choice is a little weak considering it's 5E D&D, and the whole without a specific radius they don't produce bright light is a bit iffy.
I think I might side with you on not wanting to continue this argument much further. I don't think this is even relevant to the actual thread anymore either, because it having light isn't exactly overpowered nor is even mentioned in the OP.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.