You'd let a cantrip overwrite a 2nd level spell? Not sure that's what most people would do.
You'd have a spell do something that it doesn't say that it does? Not sure that's what most people would do.
I'd have it create a bonfire. The thing it says it does. Bonfires light up an area.
I can throw a rock at a person or a tree or a house but I can only throw Produce Flame at a creature because the spell only does what it says it does. Even though there isn’t much difference between a rock and the ball of fire ( except one being magic). Odd how rules matter.
The spell says it creates a bonfire. So it does.
And wouldn't you be surprised to know that bonfires are made out of fire and illuminate the area they're in?
When a spell creates/manifests/summons/conjures something, it is that thing. So if that thing has properties, ie is made of fire and sheds light, then the summoned fire does also.
Odd how simple that is, no?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
You'd let a cantrip overwrite a 2nd level spell? Not sure that's what most people would do.
You'd have a spell do something that it doesn't say that it does? Not sure that's what most people would do.
I'd have it create a bonfire. The thing it says it does. Bonfires light up an area.
I can throw a rock at a person or a tree or a house but I can only throw Produce Flame at a creature because the spell only does what it says it does. Even though there isn’t much difference between a rock and the ball of fire ( except one being magic). Odd how rules matter.
The spell says it creates a bonfire. So it does.
And wouldn't you be surprised to know that bonfires are made out of fire and illuminate the area they're in?
When a spell creates/manifests/summons/conjures something, it is that thing. So if that thing has properties, ie is made of fire and sheds light, then the summoned fire does also.
Odd how simple that is, no?
Sure, simple. A fire tells you how much light it produces, this fire doesn't have that statement, so it produces exactly as much as that statement allows: none.
So your argument is that the spell is not limited by its description on the light that it creates. Fine. Who decided how far from darkness spells are conjured bonfires dispelled? If that is anything but the rules that tell you then it is necessarily houserule.
As always, consult your DM. He/she/they will decide.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Yes and then it continues onwards to describe what this bonfire does.
Which does not include light.
If we assume that if a bonfire created by a spell has properties that the summoned fire shares, then why did they need to errata it to say that fire burns flammable objects?
edit: note we are arguing on a RAW basis, obviously ask your DM if bonfire creates light if it is relevant. Most DMs, including me will say sure in a actual game because that's RAF.
You'd let a cantrip overwrite a 2nd level spell? Not sure that's what most people would do.
You'd have a spell do something that it doesn't say that it does? Not sure that's what most people would do.
I'd have it create a bonfire. The thing it says it does. Bonfires light up an area.
I can throw a rock at a person or a tree or a house but I can only throw Produce Flame at a creature because the spell only does what it says it does. Even though there isn’t much difference between a rock and the ball of fire ( except one being magic). Odd how rules matter.
The spell says it creates a bonfire. So it does.
And wouldn't you be surprised to know that bonfires are made out of fire and illuminate the area they're in?
When a spell creates/manifests/summons/conjures something, it is that thing. So if that thing has properties, ie is made of fire and sheds light, then the summoned fire does also.
Odd how simple that is, no?
Sure, simple. A fire tells you how much light it produces, this fire doesn't have that statement, so it produces exactly as much as that statement allows: none.
You should consult your DM, they may decide that fire sheds light, and arguing otherwise midgame isn't going to be super productive for you or your group.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
If your only addition to this topic is that DMs can make ruling, that won't help anyone come to a rules understanding. Especially on a topic where there are rules, you just choose to ignore them.
Yes and then it continues onwards to describe what this bonfire does.
Which does not include light.
If we assume that if a bonfire created by a spell has properties that the summoned fire shares, then why did they need to errata it to say that fire burns flammable objects?
How much does a familiar weight? Do they have a weight?
Your argument would argue they're weightless since find familiar doesn't specify exactly how much they weigh.
My argument is they weight whatever your familiar's chosen form typically weighs as decided on by your DM.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
If your only addition to this topic is that DMs can make ruling, that won't help anyone come to a rules understanding. Especially on a topic where there are rules, you just choose to ignore them.
You're arguing that they cannot make rulings, which is patently false. You don't get to make everyone's DM's rulings for them.
I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that there are rules on this topic, and that the rules answer to the question is found in those rules and not in DM fiat. Any other assessment has not understood my position.
Edit: or possibly intentionally misrepresented my position.
If your only addition to this topic is that DMs can make ruling, that won't help anyone come to a rules understanding. Especially on a topic where there are rules, you just choose to ignore them.
You're arguing that they cannot make rulings, which is patently false. You don't get to make everyone's DM's rulings for them.
I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that there are rules on this topic, and that the rules answer to the question is found in those rules and not in DM fiat. Any other assessment has not understood my position.
Edit: or possibly intentionally misrepresented my position.
You don't stand by your claim then?
A fire tells you how much light it produces, this fire doesn't have that statement, so it produces exactly as much as that statement allows: none.
You're dictating a 'ruling' here. There is no 'rule' that says this...this is exactly the sort of thing that DMs make "rulings" about. Either you're claiming your ruling is the 'right' one or you didn't mean to say this and can retract it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that there are rules on this topic, and that the rules answer to the question is found in those rules and not in DM fiat. Any other assessment has not understood my position.
Edit: or possibly intentionally misrepresented my position.
You don't stand by your claim then?
A fire tells you how much light it produces, this fire doesn't have that statement, so it produces exactly as much as that statement allows: none.
You're dictating a 'ruling' here. There is no 'rule' that says this...this is exactly the sort of thing that DMs make "rulings" about. Either you're claiming your ruling is the 'right' one or you didn't mean to say this and can retract it.
No. I am dictating the consequence of the rules. If you dont' understand my argument I can explain it again, but I'd be much happier if you just said that than continuing to misrepresent what I have said.
I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that there are rules on this topic, and that the rules answer to the question is found in those rules and not in DM fiat. Any other assessment has not understood my position.
This thread has, multiple times, cited the specific rules that prove you wrong: the rules answer to this question (how much light does the create bonfire bonfire emit?) is not found in any RAW we have beyond the absolutely certain RAW that it is more than "none".
I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that there are rules on this topic, and that the rules answer to the question is found in those rules and not in DM fiat. Any other assessment has not understood my position.
This thread has, multiple times, cited the specific rules that prove you wrong: the rules answer to this question (how much light does the create bonfire bonfire emit?) is not found in any RAW we have beyond the absolutely certain RAW that it is more than "none".
What says it is more than none that doesn't also say that it should tell you how much? Actually, what even says that it is more than none? Why do the other examples of fire spells that do actually produce light in a specific radius not indicate that a spell that is meant to produce light will tell us? What are you even on about?
You keep pointing to a sentence that you haven't seemingly read. It uses its construction to separate phrases and clauses. It has a clause about gloomy days then goes on to provide another clause about smaller sources of illumination, which it says tell you how much light they shed. It's not that confusing.
Counter examples might not prove a rule, but it certainly disproves the default behavior of the system. If you are going to tell me page after page that it is obviously defaults one way, then any example counter to that just makes you look bad.
And again you bring up the logical fallacy of the chair: If there are rules on a subject, we should throw out those because there aren't rules for every subject? Also, again, you seem to be confused on the difference between visible and shedding light.
You keep making the same mistakes, it is getting boring.
You'd let a cantrip overwrite a 2nd level spell? Not sure that's what most people would do.
You'd have a spell do something that it doesn't say that it does? Not sure that's what most people would do.
I'd have it create a bonfire. The thing it says it does. Bonfires light up an area.
I can throw a rock at a person or a tree or a house but I can only throw Produce Flame at a creature because the spell only does what it says it does. Even though there isn’t much difference between a rock and the ball of fire ( except one being magic). Odd how rules matter.
The spell says it creates a bonfire. So it does.
And wouldn't you be surprised to know that bonfires are made out of fire and illuminate the area they're in?
When a spell creates/manifests/summons/conjures something, it is that thing. So if that thing has properties, ie is made of fire and sheds light, then the summoned fire does also.
Odd how simple that is, no?
The Spell:
You create a bonfire on ground that you can see within range. Until the spell ends, the magic bonfire fills a 5-foot cube. Any creature in the bonfire’s space when you cast the spell must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or take 1d8 fire damage. A creature must also make the saving throw when it moves into the bonfire’s space for the first time on a turn or ends its turn there.
The bonfire ignites flammable objects in its area that aren’t being worn or carried.
The spell’s damage increases by 1d8 when you reach 5th level (2d8), 11th level (3d8), and 17th level (4d8).
it also refers to it as a magical bonfire, bolded above, and then proceeds to describe what the magical bonfire does. I’ve never seen a real magical bonfire before, but when I do I will let you know how much light it produces, if any.
By the way, I really don’t care about wether it sheds light or not, which I’ve stated previously. My concern is about how rules interact in a game about rules in a Rules & Game Mechanics forum. And when discussing interactions between rules, the wording, and what is included and what is excluded, is important.
You keep pointing to a sentence that you haven't seemingly read. It uses its construction to separate phrases and clauses. It has a clause about gloomy days then goes on to provide another clause about smaller sources of illumination, which it says tell you how much light they shed. It's not that confusing.
Counter examples might not prove a rule, but it certainly disproves the default behavior of the system. If you are going to tell me page after page that it is obviously defaults one way, then any example counter to that just makes you look bad.
And again you bring up the logical fallacy of the chair: If there are rules on a subject, we should throw out those because there aren't rules for every subject? Also, again, you seem to be confused on the difference between visible and shedding light.
You keep making the same mistakes, it is getting boring.
Either 'within a specific radius' only applies to 'other sources of illumination' or it applies to everything on the list. Since 'fire' is listed as a separate item from 'other sources of illumination,' then for 'within a specific radius' to apply to 'fire,' it has to apply to everything on the list, including gloomy days.
Either 'within a specific radius' applies to one thing in a list or must also apply to things not in that list? Hard disagree.
I assert it applies to everything in the list, but again, you didn't understand that I am saying that the clause before the list is not part of the list. I have written that several times, you just haven't been understanding the text that I am writing.
You are still not understanding. That clause is not part of the list.
Why do you assume it is me (or anyone else disagreeing with you) not understanding rather than you?
The clause is not an item on the list, it is an adjectival clause, meaning it modifies one or more of the nouns that compromise the list. It either modifies all the nouns on the list (which would include the gloomy day) or only the last noun on the list (other sources of illumination, excluding both the gloomy day and fires).
So, which is it?
'Gloomy days' is not in the list. I can say it again. The list starts after the conjunction ('as do') that separates the independent and dependent clauses. One clause has a subject ('gloomy days') and a predicate ('provides bright light light'). The other clause only has a subject (a list of 4 items, modified by an, as you called it, adjectival clause -- though I think it is a phrase) that share the predicate with the other half of the sentence.
So, 4 items are mentioned as shedding light in a specific radius in that sentence: torches, lanterns, fires, and other sources of illumination. We know that torches do state their radius. Same with lanterns. We have examples of sources of illumination mentioning their radii for some spells and objects. And finally, fire spells do often times, except in the case of several examples which this discussion is over.
I am hesitant to participate in this discussion further but here are some points that hopefully help.
The rules governing light (https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/adventuring#VisionandLight) are left intentionally vague. Providing an exhaustive list of all possible light sources and their specific effects would be tedious and prohibitively expensive. Things like lighthouses, street lights, cooking fires, and eclipses are never explicitly described in the rules but would be reasonable for a DM to make a ruling about. I don't see picking this rule apart any further as being constructive to either position. As ThriKeenWarrior demonstrated whether the rules governing light even come into play at all is subject to debate.
Using the fact that many spells that produce a lasting flame are also described as producing light to conclude that Create Bonfire does not is a result of inductive reasoning. The spell itself does not state that it produces no light and there is no other rule saying that it doesn't. It is a common refrain that spells only produce the effects they are described as producing but as far as I have been able to find this is not actually in any published materials from WotC. If I am wrong and it is somewhere in the PHB or Sage Advice or something I would really appreciate a link.
For those that agree that Create Bonfire creates a fire as described in the Vision and Light rules then the spell produces an undefined amount of light. The radius of the light shed could be arbitrarily small or arbitrarily large. It is up to the DM to decide if Create Bonfire creates a meaningful amount of light. Earlier I said that you could use Flaming Sphere as an example to draw off of but I have since realized this is in fact pretty dim. A Torch produces as much light Flaming Sphere so for those that want Create Bonfire to shed as much light as a mundane bonfire you would probably want to use a larger number.
However I would not recommend doing so. My reasoning for not allowing Create Bonfire to produce light stems from game balance concerns rather than a direct application of the rules. If you allow Create Bonfire to produce as much light as a Torch then it has a lot of overlap with other cantrips such as Light and Dancing Lights which cannot also do damage. This is why Produce Flame only sheds 10ft of bright light while you hold it. If you want a cantrip that can illuminate something far away you must pick either Light or Dancing Lights. If you let Create Bonfire to produce even more light then you risk overlapping with Daylight which is a third level spell.
I loved your well-reasoned post. Thank you for taking the time to write it. I find your game balance approach refreshing. I would like to offer another perspective though. Dancing Lights is mobile, as is Light (at least potentially). This is not possible for Create Bonfire and offers the previously mentioned spells a significant advantage of a different type. Therefore, I would be hesitant to reduce the potential radius of light simply because it does damage and they do not.
Really though, thank you for your thoughtful post.
The spell says it creates a bonfire. So it does.
And wouldn't you be surprised to know that bonfires are made out of fire and illuminate the area they're in?
When a spell creates/manifests/summons/conjures something, it is that thing. So if that thing has properties, ie is made of fire and sheds light, then the summoned fire does also.
Odd how simple that is, no?
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Sure, simple. A fire tells you how much light it produces, this fire doesn't have that statement, so it produces exactly as much as that statement allows: none.
As always, consult your DM. He/she/they will decide.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Yes and then it continues onwards to describe what this bonfire does.
Which does not include light.
If we assume that if a bonfire created by a spell has properties that the summoned fire shares, then why did they need to errata it to say that fire burns flammable objects?
edit: note we are arguing on a RAW basis, obviously ask your DM if bonfire creates light if it is relevant. Most DMs, including me will say sure in a actual game because that's RAF.
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.
You should consult your DM, they may decide that fire sheds light, and arguing otherwise midgame isn't going to be super productive for you or your group.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
If your only addition to this topic is that DMs can make ruling, that won't help anyone come to a rules understanding. Especially on a topic where there are rules, you just choose to ignore them.
How much does a familiar weight? Do they have a weight?
Your argument would argue they're weightless since find familiar doesn't specify exactly how much they weigh.
My argument is they weight whatever your familiar's chosen form typically weighs as decided on by your DM.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that there are rules on this topic, and that the rules answer to the question is found in those rules and not in DM fiat. Any other assessment has not understood my position.
Edit: or possibly intentionally misrepresented my position.
You don't stand by your claim then?
You're dictating a 'ruling' here. There is no 'rule' that says this...this is exactly the sort of thing that DMs make "rulings" about. Either you're claiming your ruling is the 'right' one or you didn't mean to say this and can retract it.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
No. I am dictating the consequence of the rules. If you dont' understand my argument I can explain it again, but I'd be much happier if you just said that than continuing to misrepresent what I have said.
This thread has, multiple times, cited the specific rules that prove you wrong: the rules answer to this question (how much light does the create bonfire bonfire emit?) is not found in any RAW we have beyond the absolutely certain RAW that it is more than "none".
What says it is more than none that doesn't also say that it should tell you how much? Actually, what even says that it is more than none? Why do the other examples of fire spells that do actually produce light in a specific radius not indicate that a spell that is meant to produce light will tell us? What are you even on about?
You keep pointing to a sentence that you haven't seemingly read. It uses its construction to separate phrases and clauses. It has a clause about gloomy days then goes on to provide another clause about smaller sources of illumination, which it says tell you how much light they shed. It's not that confusing.
Counter examples might not prove a rule, but it certainly disproves the default behavior of the system. If you are going to tell me page after page that it is obviously defaults one way, then any example counter to that just makes you look bad.
And again you bring up the logical fallacy of the chair: If there are rules on a subject, we should throw out those because there aren't rules for every subject? Also, again, you seem to be confused on the difference between visible and shedding light.
You keep making the same mistakes, it is getting boring.
The Spell:
it also refers to it as a magical bonfire, bolded above, and then proceeds to describe what the magical bonfire does. I’ve never seen a real magical bonfire before, but when I do I will let you know how much light it produces, if any.
By the way, I really don’t care about wether it sheds light or not, which I’ve stated previously. My concern is about how rules interact in a game about rules in a Rules & Game Mechanics forum. And when discussing interactions between rules, the wording, and what is included and what is excluded, is important.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Either 'within a specific radius' applies to one thing in a list or must also apply to things not in that list? Hard disagree.
[REDACTED]
I assert it applies to everything in the list, but again, you didn't understand that I am saying that the clause before the list is not part of the list. I have written that several times, you just haven't been understanding the text that I am writing.
You are still not understanding. 'Gloomy day' is in a clause is that is not part of the list.
'Gloomy days' is not in the list. I can say it again. The list starts after the conjunction ('as do') that separates the independent and dependent clauses. One clause has a subject ('gloomy days') and a predicate ('provides bright light light'). The other clause only has a subject (a list of 4 items, modified by an, as you called it, adjectival clause -- though I think it is a phrase) that share the predicate with the other half of the sentence.
So, 4 items are mentioned as shedding light in a specific radius in that sentence: torches, lanterns, fires, and other sources of illumination. We know that torches do state their radius. Same with lanterns. We have examples of sources of illumination mentioning their radii for some spells and objects. And finally, fire spells do often times, except in the case of several examples which this discussion is over.
I am hesitant to participate in this discussion further but here are some points that hopefully help.
The rules governing light (https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/adventuring#VisionandLight) are left intentionally vague. Providing an exhaustive list of all possible light sources and their specific effects would be tedious and prohibitively expensive. Things like lighthouses, street lights, cooking fires, and eclipses are never explicitly described in the rules but would be reasonable for a DM to make a ruling about. I don't see picking this rule apart any further as being constructive to either position. As ThriKeenWarrior demonstrated whether the rules governing light even come into play at all is subject to debate.
Using the fact that many spells that produce a lasting flame are also described as producing light to conclude that Create Bonfire does not is a result of inductive reasoning. The spell itself does not state that it produces no light and there is no other rule saying that it doesn't. It is a common refrain that spells only produce the effects they are described as producing but as far as I have been able to find this is not actually in any published materials from WotC. If I am wrong and it is somewhere in the PHB or Sage Advice or something I would really appreciate a link.
For those that agree that Create Bonfire creates a fire as described in the Vision and Light rules then the spell produces an undefined amount of light. The radius of the light shed could be arbitrarily small or arbitrarily large. It is up to the DM to decide if Create Bonfire creates a meaningful amount of light. Earlier I said that you could use Flaming Sphere as an example to draw off of but I have since realized this is in fact pretty dim. A Torch produces as much light Flaming Sphere so for those that want Create Bonfire to shed as much light as a mundane bonfire you would probably want to use a larger number.
However I would not recommend doing so. My reasoning for not allowing Create Bonfire to produce light stems from game balance concerns rather than a direct application of the rules. If you allow Create Bonfire to produce as much light as a Torch then it has a lot of overlap with other cantrips such as Light and Dancing Lights which cannot also do damage. This is why Produce Flame only sheds 10ft of bright light while you hold it. If you want a cantrip that can illuminate something far away you must pick either Light or Dancing Lights. If you let Create Bonfire to produce even more light then you risk overlapping with Daylight which is a third level spell.
Hello Fangeye,
I loved your well-reasoned post. Thank you for taking the time to write it. I find your game balance approach refreshing. I would like to offer another perspective though. Dancing Lights is mobile, as is Light (at least potentially). This is not possible for Create Bonfire and offers the previously mentioned spells a significant advantage of a different type. Therefore, I would be hesitant to reduce the potential radius of light simply because it does damage and they do not.
Really though, thank you for your thoughtful post.
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