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 only resource a cantrip costs is your action (and the opportunity cost of selecting a different one), so it is as mobile as that allows for. Outside of combat, you could argue that they're equally mobile.
Here is an example: The party is ambushed at night while the Elf Wizard is on watch. On their turn the Elf Wizard wants to illuminate their enemies so the rest of the party without darkvision can be more effective. If you allow Create Bonfire to produce light then the Elf Wizard can cast it on one of the enemies, deal damage to it, and illuminate it for his companions.
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.
You're ignoring other facets, but anything Produce Flame or below (so 10'/10' bright/dim or less) will let Create Bonfire avoid competing with Light cast on a small object or Dancing Lights even when the ability to illuminate a non-continuous area is ignored, due to Create Bonfire's combined limitations of Concentration (1 minute) and Range 60'. I think pegging the spell to Produce Flame is a reasonable homebrew, but because anything weaker is also reasonable, I myself use 5'/15' bright/dim at my table (so it works like a 1/3 output lamp), where the 5' bright happens inside the Bonfire's 4 grid spaces (since I use the DMG stock rules on a grid, meaning the AOE gets locked to a grid intersection, not a grid square) and the 15' dim extends from those.
Here is an example: The party is ambushed at night while the Elf Wizard is on watch. On their turn the Elf Wizard wants to illuminate their enemies so the rest of the party without darkvision can be more effective. If you allow Create Bonfire to produce light then the Elf Wizard can cast it on one of the enemies, deal damage to it, and illuminate it for his companions.
I understood the message you were trying to convey. I am saying that while I do find it insightful, I disagree with your point because of the overwhelming versatility of the two mentioned spells over create bonfire. The spells are different enough, in my opinion, that reducing the potential light produced by create bonfire is not necessary from a balancing standpoint. I do agree with previous posters that there may be narrative reasons to reduce the radius of light it produces though.
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.
You edited while I was typing my reply. I edited, seemingly while you were typing yours. You are still ignoring the Oxford comma and the fact that clear days not being listed, they must be other sources of illumination and therefore, according to you, produce no light since they have no specified area.
And you have provided no arguments other than simply declaring it so as to why gloomy days are not part of the list.
I provided only an understanding of the language used to construct the sentence and evidence of the phrase applying to elements of the list other than the last. I don’t seriously think need more proof than that.
You're ignoring other facets, but anything Produce Flame or below (so 10'/10' bright/dim or less) will let Create Bonfire avoid competing with Light cast on a small object or Dancing Lights even when the ability to illuminate a non-continuous area is ignored, due to Create Bonfire's combined limitations of Concentration (1 minute) and Range 60'. I think pegging the spell to Produce Flame is a reasonable homebrew, but because anything weaker is also reasonable, I myself use 5'/15' bright/dim at my table (so it works like a 1/3 output lamp), where the 5' bright happens inside the Bonfire's 4 grid spaces (since I use the DMG stock rules on a grid, meaning the AOE gets locked to a grid intersection, not a grid square) and the 15' dim extends from those.
I must admit I am surprised to learn that the default DMG rules for AoE allow a 5ft cube to effect 4 5ft squares. I have always used something more akin to the Token method described in Xanathar's Guide to Everything.
But using Produce Flame as a reference point for making a ruling on Create Bonfire seems very reasonable to me.
Having an Oxford comma (assuming it isn’t just a stylistic choice of a former English teacher), indicates that fires and other sources of illumination are not treated as a single element of a 3 members list, not that the 4 members were to be treated differently.
One has a much harder time arguing that ‘other sources of illumination within a specific radius’ Is a single element with a phrase only meant to apply to it when some of those other elements shed light within a specific radius as well.
I base the light radius of the create bonfire spell on #d8 times 10 feet for both Bright/Dim light radii. That way as the spell gets stronger, and the amount of energy it radiates increases, so would the amount of light it sheds.
While I am aware no definitive light radius is specified by the spell, I am also aware as DM/GM I have the ability to define/adjudicate rules "on the fly" or before such undefined cases arise, so as to help inform and define other rules that are generally/specifically defined/adjudicated by ether the RAW or house-ruled.
As to the OP of this thread, don't really see the create bonfire spell as overpowered, but when a party of players starts to become pyro-maniacs, sooner or later playing with fire may get you severely burned.
( having the group mistakenly set an object that has a fireball enchantment placed on it tends to get the point across [ can everyone say "Fluffer-nutter!" ] )
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
An Oxford comma indicates the qualifier on the last item only applies to the last item as it is separate from the list.
What? That's not what an Oxford comma is at all. An Oxford comma, or serial comma, is the comma before the "and" in a list of three or more items. It removes ambiguity about whether we're looking at a list or an appositive (making it clear that it's a list), but that's it, and it's always "optional" (unless you're writing for some publication that has a style guide enforcing its use or omission).
Is your whole position based on your misunderstanding of punctuation?
I think the argument is that Create Bonfire does not specifically create light as part of the spell effect (as opposed to implictly creating light at DM discretion), therefore isn't dispelled by Darkness.
That seems pretty obvious to me. A DM could rule whatever they want, but the strict reading of RAW says the spell isn't dispelled. (It still gets dark and you can't see the bonfire, just like you can't see a lit torch.)
How is there a 7+ page discussion arguing grammar and semantics about this? Semantics cannot be perfect; if a rules argument has devolved to a semantics argument, the discussion is pretty pointless, except as it pertains to writing/editing rules themselves (which none of us are doing).
But darkness only cares if the spell creates an area of light, and the only way we'd know that is if create bonfire told us, like flaming sphere does. Only rules tell us about mechanics.
Here is an example: The party is ambushed at night while the Elf Wizard is on watch. On their turn the Elf Wizard wants to illuminate their enemies so the rest of the party without darkvision can be more effective. If you allow Create Bonfire to produce light then the Elf Wizard can cast it on one of the enemies, deal damage to it, and illuminate it for his companions.
Funnily enough, any balance concerns over area of light cast by a cantrip always seem to ignore the good ol control flames which is by far the most powerful of the lot.
Edit: For precise figures it turns a torch into a 40ft bright/40ft dim, or a lantern into a 60ft bright/60ft dim, or a bullseye lantern into a 120ft bright/120ft dim cone. It can even affect 3 such flames at once, per caster who knows it.
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.
But darkness only cares if the spell creates an area of light, and the only way we'd know that is if create bonfire told us, like flaming sphere does. Only rules tell us about mechanics.
Create Bonfire, the spell, doesn't create light. The bonfire that was created by the spell might, though.
Again, like a conjuration/summon spell. If you summon an animal to attack someone. You're not attacking them with a spell. The summoned creature is attacking them which was summoned by a spell.
It is an order of separation.
Create Bonfire is creating a bonfire. Bonfires (should) shed light by any reasonable interpretation. But any light it sheds is shed by the bonfire, not by the spell.
Darkness only cares if the spell is creating the light. No one, far as I can tell, has argued the spell would create the light. Only that there would indeed be light.
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.
But darkness only cares if the spell creates an area of light, and the only way we'd know that is if create bonfire told us, like flaming sphere does. Only rules tell us about mechanics.
Create Bonfire, the spell, doesn't create light. The bonfire that was created by the spell might, though.
Again, like a conjuration/summon spell. If you summon an animal to attack someone. You're not attacking them with a spell. The summoned creature is attacking them which was summoned by a spell.
It is an order of separation.
Create Bonfire is creating a bonfire. Bonfires (should) shed light by any reasonable interpretation. But any light it sheds is shed by the bonfire, not by the spell.
Darkness only cares if the spell is creating the light. No one, far as I can tell, has argued the spell would create the light. Only that there would indeed be light.
Well, if that's the case, then there is at least SAC advice that touches on that -- yes, darkness only cares about light from spells.
But darkness only cares if the spell creates an area of light, and the only way we'd know that is if create bonfire told us, like flaming sphere does. Only rules tell us about mechanics.
Create Bonfire, the spell, doesn't create light. The bonfire that was created by the spell might, though.
Again, like a conjuration/summon spell. If you summon an animal to attack someone. You're not attacking them with a spell. The summoned creature is attacking them which was summoned by a spell.
It is an order of separation.
Create Bonfire is creating a bonfire. Bonfires (should) shed light by any reasonable interpretation. But any light it sheds is shed by the bonfire, not by the spell.
Darkness only cares if the spell is creating the light. No one, far as I can tell, has argued the spell would create the light. Only that there would indeed be light.
Well, if that's the case, then there is at least SAC advice that touches on that -- yes, darkness only cares about light from spells.
Well, other than non-spell light sources having the light simply suppressed without ending the spell.
However in this case, it is a magical bonfire, so arguably, it is still a magical light source.
Which means it is a spell effect that is limited by its spell effect. Or it is a mundane fire that produces light. Which is it?
Forest fires produce exactly as much light as they say they do in whichever source they’re printed in. If you are saying that it is DM fiat, then why would you expect any single ruling to be correct? It is perfectly reasonable for a DM to rule that the spell doesn’t say it produces light, so it doesn’t. That has to be an acceptable conclusion of saying that the DM decides anyway. And it is the one that you would have to default to if you cut out DM fiat.
And fine, you know what, I'll concede. Whether darkness dispels create bonfire, and at what distance, can be entirely up to the DM. If a DM says that such a bonfire creates magical light, they can decide how much. And my ruling will remain the same, as it is based on every rule that I could read and every example in the game and uses no guesswork.
Forest fires produce exactly as much light as they say they do in whichever source they’re printed in. If you are saying that it is DM fiat, then why would you expect any single ruling to be correct? It is perfectly reasonable for a DM to rule that the spell doesn’t say it produces light, so it doesn’t. That has to be an acceptable conclusion of saying that the DM decides anyway. And it is the one that you would have to default to if you cut out DM fiat.
And fine, you know what, I'll concede. Whether darkness dispels create bonfire, and at what distance, can be entirely up to the DM. If a DM says that such a bonfire creates magical light, they can decide how much. And my ruling will remain the same, as it is based on every rule that I could read and every example in the game and uses no guesswork.
Your logic appears identical to claiming that burning oil emits light when mounted in a lamp or lantern but not when lying on the ground. I don't understand what basis you could possibly have for that. We've given you the general rule that all fires emit light and neither the aforementioned oil nor create bonfire have specific text overriding the general.
The only resource a cantrip costs is your action (and the opportunity cost of selecting a different one), so it is as mobile as that allows for. Outside of combat, you could argue that they're equally mobile.
I hate to interrupt, but I just wanted to pop in and say I don’t think create bonfire is hugely overpowered. Thanks.
I did not mean to imply that Create Bonfire would completely replace Light or Dancing Lights if it were also allowed to produce light. Just that it would diminish the value of choosing Light or Dancing Lights over Create Bonfire.
Here is an example: The party is ambushed at night while the Elf Wizard is on watch. On their turn the Elf Wizard wants to illuminate their enemies so the rest of the party without darkvision can be more effective. If you allow Create Bonfire to produce light then the Elf Wizard can cast it on one of the enemies, deal damage to it, and illuminate it for his companions.
Even if you only consider the use cases for producing light, the more often Create Bonfire can be used instead of Light or Dancing Lights the more incentive your characters have to choose Create Bonfire over Light or Dancing Lights.
You're ignoring other facets, but anything Produce Flame or below (so 10'/10' bright/dim or less) will let Create Bonfire avoid competing with Light cast on a small object or Dancing Lights even when the ability to illuminate a non-continuous area is ignored, due to Create Bonfire's combined limitations of Concentration (1 minute) and Range 60'. I think pegging the spell to Produce Flame is a reasonable homebrew, but because anything weaker is also reasonable, I myself use 5'/15' bright/dim at my table (so it works like a 1/3 output lamp), where the 5' bright happens inside the Bonfire's 4 grid spaces (since I use the DMG stock rules on a grid, meaning the AOE gets locked to a grid intersection, not a grid square) and the 15' dim extends from those.
I understood the message you were trying to convey. I am saying that while I do find it insightful, I disagree with your point because of the overwhelming versatility of the two mentioned spells over create bonfire. The spells are different enough, in my opinion, that reducing the potential light produced by create bonfire is not necessary from a balancing standpoint. I do agree with previous posters that there may be narrative reasons to reduce the radius of light it produces though.
Otherwise, your post was thought-provoking.
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 provided only an understanding of the language used to construct the sentence and evidence of the phrase applying to elements of the list other than the last. I don’t seriously think need more proof than that.
I must admit I am surprised to learn that the default DMG rules for AoE allow a 5ft cube to effect 4 5ft squares. I have always used something more akin to the Token method described in Xanathar's Guide to Everything.
But using Produce Flame as a reference point for making a ruling on Create Bonfire seems very reasonable to me.
Having an Oxford comma (assuming it isn’t just a stylistic choice of a former English teacher), indicates that fires and other sources of illumination are not treated as a single element of a 3 members list, not that the 4 members were to be treated differently.
One has a much harder time arguing that ‘other sources of illumination within a specific radius’ Is a single element with a phrase only meant to apply to it when some of those other elements shed light within a specific radius as well.
I base the light radius of the create bonfire spell on #d8 times 10 feet for both Bright/Dim light radii. That way as the spell gets stronger, and the amount of energy it radiates increases, so would the amount of light it sheds.
While I am aware no definitive light radius is specified by the spell, I am also aware as DM/GM I have the ability to define/adjudicate rules "on the fly" or before such undefined cases arise, so as to help inform and define other rules that are generally/specifically defined/adjudicated by ether the RAW or house-ruled.
As to the OP of this thread, don't really see the create bonfire spell as overpowered, but when a party of players starts to become pyro-maniacs, sooner or later playing with fire may get you severely burned.
( having the group mistakenly set an object that has a fireball enchantment placed on it tends to get the point across [ can everyone say "Fluffer-nutter!" ] )
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
What? That's not what an Oxford comma is at all. An Oxford comma, or serial comma, is the comma before the "and" in a list of three or more items. It removes ambiguity about whether we're looking at a list or an appositive (making it clear that it's a list), but that's it, and it's always "optional" (unless you're writing for some publication that has a style guide enforcing its use or omission).
Is your whole position based on your misunderstanding of punctuation?
I think the argument is that Create Bonfire does not specifically create light as part of the spell effect (as opposed to implictly creating light at DM discretion), therefore isn't dispelled by Darkness.
That seems pretty obvious to me. A DM could rule whatever they want, but the strict reading of RAW says the spell isn't dispelled. (It still gets dark and you can't see the bonfire, just like you can't see a lit torch.)
How is there a 7+ page discussion arguing grammar and semantics about this? Semantics cannot be perfect; if a rules argument has devolved to a semantics argument, the discussion is pretty pointless, except as it pertains to writing/editing rules themselves (which none of us are doing).
But darkness only cares if the spell creates an area of light, and the only way we'd know that is if create bonfire told us, like flaming sphere does. Only rules tell us about mechanics.
Funnily enough, any balance concerns over area of light cast by a cantrip always seem to ignore the good ol control flames which is by far the most powerful of the lot.
Edit: For precise figures it turns a torch into a 40ft bright/40ft dim, or a lantern into a 60ft bright/60ft dim, or a bullseye lantern into a 120ft bright/120ft dim cone. It can even affect 3 such flames at once, per caster who knows 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.
Create Bonfire, the spell, doesn't create light. The bonfire that was created by the spell might, though.
Again, like a conjuration/summon spell. If you summon an animal to attack someone. You're not attacking them with a spell. The summoned creature is attacking them which was summoned by a spell.
It is an order of separation.
Create Bonfire is creating a bonfire. Bonfires (should) shed light by any reasonable interpretation. But any light it sheds is shed by the bonfire, not by the spell.
Darkness only cares if the spell is creating the light. No one, far as I can tell, has argued the spell would create the light. Only that there would indeed be light.
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.
Well, if that's the case, then there is at least SAC advice that touches on that -- yes, darkness only cares about light from spells.
Everyone who decides to participate in this thread needs to remember to do so in line with the rules
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Which means it is a spell effect that is limited by its spell effect. Or it is a mundane fire that produces light. Which is it?
You just said it, they’re magical fires.
A spell’s effect is described in its description.
Forest fires produce exactly as much light as they say they do in whichever source they’re printed in. If you are saying that it is DM fiat, then why would you expect any single ruling to be correct? It is perfectly reasonable for a DM to rule that the spell doesn’t say it produces light, so it doesn’t. That has to be an acceptable conclusion of saying that the DM decides anyway. And it is the one that you would have to default to if you cut out DM fiat.
And fine, you know what, I'll concede. Whether darkness dispels create bonfire, and at what distance, can be entirely up to the DM. If a DM says that such a bonfire creates magical light, they can decide how much. And my ruling will remain the same, as it is based on every rule that I could read and every example in the game and uses no guesswork.
Your logic appears identical to claiming that burning oil emits light when mounted in a lamp or lantern but not when lying on the ground. I don't understand what basis you could possibly have for that. We've given you the general rule that all fires emit light and neither the aforementioned oil nor create bonfire have specific text overriding the general.