You keep pointing outside the rules saying “see rules” and I just don’t get it. Whatever light any particular fire creates provides no illumination per the game unless it is specified. 

So your answer to “what rules?” Is “none.” That says enough for me in this rules question (whether darkness dispels create bonfire).

Don’t make straw men. If you want to ignore what I’m saying, that’s fine. But don’t pretend my argument is anything beyond the rules for light as expressed in the vision and light section, the darkness spell, some persistent fire spells, and the conspicuous absence from create bonfire. If we have rules on a topic, why don’t you think they’re important enough to use when trying to figure out how to rule on that topic? Since there aren’t rules for sitting in chairs we should throw out the vision and light rules? I can’t even think how to respond to this. It is so far away from rules that it frankly doesn’t need a response.

Oh, and please, don’t make straw men (I guess it is worth repeating since you made two in the same post). I said the visual appearance was immaterial to shedding light, not that spells didn’t have one. If a spell says it sheds light, however much it says it sheds is exactly how much light it shed, regardless of what the spell says or doesn’t say about the appearance of the effect otherwise. 

Fire that doesn’t shed light looks like fire. It just doesn’t make it so that you can see the wolf next to you. Because it doesn’t say it does.

i guess it’s sort of the same as how darkness behaves like it says rather than real world darkness. It’s like the rules are different from reality. 

Quote from Kotath >>

A lack of a specified radius does not equate with the lack of a specific radius.

 

 That says enough for me. This argument is incomprehensible from a “this game has rules about light” standpoint. 

I mean if a thing is limited, per the rules, then either it is limited BY THOSE RULES or by DM fiat. DM fiat is beyond the rules and mechanics forum. 

Right. A spell sheds exactly as much light as it says it does. Or DM fiat. Then the mechanics must be bound to how much the spell says it sheds. 

I just fundamentally cannot agree that spells that don’t say that they do something (shed light) would do it when we have examples of how spells are written when they do that thing (shed light). We know what this looks like. It is a solved problem. Not one for invention beyond what the spells and rules tell us.

Quote from Kotath >>

Quote from WolfOfTheBees >>

Right. A spell sheds exactly as much light as it says it does. Or DM fiat. Then the mechanics must be bound to how much the spell says it sheds. 

 

Next question for you. If a spell says it creates a lit torch, i.e. an object which has a defined illumination radius elsewhere in the rules, does it create light since it is defined elsewhere in the rules or not, since the spell does not say the lit torch illuminates like a lit torch?

 If it creates something with defined properties, then it can use those properties, unless of course the spell overrides it. If I create a minor illusion of a lit torch, then of course it doesn’t shed light.

But you can’t point to how much light a bonfire sheds, can you?

Quote from Kotath >>

Quote from WolfOfTheBees >>

I just fundamentally cannot agree that spells that don’t say that they do something (shed light) would do it when we have examples of how spells are written when they do that thing (shed light). We know what this looks like. It is a solved problem. Not one for invention beyond what the spells and rules tell us.

 

A light spell (or similar lighting specific spells) provide such details because that is the primary purpose of those spells. There is no real world 'light spell,' whereas there are real world bonfires. Again, there is no rule saying that one can sit in a chair because it is a well known concept that one can sit in chairs and thus there is no need to state any such rule. This cantrip is 1 min duration and requires concentration. It is very inferior to a light spell for providing light, even if given similar illumination capacity.

 This ignores the list of persistent fire spells (provided in post #58) that say that they create light. This is a solved problem: spells that shed light tell us and those that don't mention light don’t mention light.

Quote from Kotath >>

A light spell (or similar lighting specific spells) provide such details because that is the primary purpose of those spells.

 That's hardly a convincing argument when spells like Flame Blade, Flaming Sphere, Fire Shield, Immolation, Investiture of Flame also provide such details without it being the primary purpose of those spells.

Of course I can understand the thinking that Create Bonfire and Wall of Fire really should shed light as a secondary benefit but it seems really far fetched to claim that they definitely do when there is such a clear difference between them and the other spells in how they are written.

Again, fire is literally light and heat. Even if it is just heat, it is not fire. That other spells do specify radii and that is a fair counterpoint, however I would argue back that blades of pure fire, spheres of pure fire, shields of pure fire, these are things that similarly to the light spell do not really exist in the real world to provide real world comparisons for DM's or players. Immolation and flaming clothes technically do exist in the real world but one would hope that players and DM's have no experience with either. Thus, the same argument I used regarding the light spell applies

it could be an oversight with respect to Wall of Fire. 

Someone does not understand physics.

Fire is a chemical reaction between Oxygen and anything else.  Almost always these reactions create light.  Note that heat is simply the word we use for light in a certain wavelength (aka color).

Fire is NOT light, Fire is NOT heat.   Fire creates light and heat, but so does a firefly, so does lightning, so does a human body (humans give off a lot of heat and a tiny amount of light that is barely detectable),  etc. etc.   It is quite possible to have a lot of light, even the color of light we call heat, and NOT have fire.

Fire is primarily used by humans to create light, specifically the color known as heat. But fire is NOT light.

Quote from Kotath >>

Again, fire is literally light and heat. Even if it is just heat, it is not fire. That other spells do specify radii and that is a fair counterpoint, however I would argue back that blades of pure fire, spheres of pure fire, shields of pure fire, these are things that similarly to the light spell do not really exist in the real world to provide real world comparisons for DM's or players. Immolation and flaming clothes technically do exist in the real world but one would hope that players and DM's have no experience with either. Thus, the same argument I used regarding the light spell applies

it could be an oversight with respect to Wall of Fire. 

If there are rules on a thing, why would we throw them away and resort to our real-world experience to tell us about them? Should I throw out every rule that differs from reality in any way?

Or are we talking about rules here? That seems the most appropriate in the rules and mechanics forum. Especially when we're discussing the mechanics of a spell, and the underlying rules that lead to those mechanics.

Every time you point outside the rules to come to your conclusion, you're drawing attention to the fact that the rules do not say what you need them to in order to make it to that conclusion.

You keep bringing up chairs yet saying that there aren't rules for chairs.

There are rules for light aren't there? Why should we throw them out?

You may not have gotten it, because you keep just going in circles, but yes, a spell that produces light produces light in a specific range. That is what matters as to whether or not it produces light: whether it tells you what that specific range is. If the range is not specified, then no specific range is given. In order for a specific range to be given, it must be specified somewhere. Whether you want to hang your argument on the difference between those words is kind of beyond the point because my argument doesn't hang on one of those two definitions. And the difference is still incomprehensible. Can you really say that something is specific without having it specified somehow? by something? Come on.

I believe it is worth noting again that the spell does say it creates a fire. Fire is defined in the rules as shedding bright light. 

Quote from Erik_Soong >>

I believe it is worth noting again that the spell does say it creates a fire. Fire is defined in the rules as shedding bright light. 

 That is half the rule. It doesn’t just shed bright light. It sheds exactly as much bright light as it tells you it does. That is the problem that other users in this thread can’t reconcile either. 

Quote from WolfOfTheBees >>

Quote from Erik_Soong >>

I believe it is worth noting again that the spell does say it creates a fire. Fire is defined in the rules as shedding bright light. 

 That is half the rule. It doesn’t just shed bright light. It sheds exactly as much bright light as it tells you it does. That is the problem that other users in this thread can’t reconcile either. 

Without the specific text you are asking for, we must default to the general, which is that fire creates bright light. Would you like me to link you to the rule on bright light for your review?

Yes sure. I would like to see if it is the same rule that says that fires produce light within a specific distance, which would mean that you are using half the rule you are basing your argument on. 

Quote from WolfOfTheBees >>

Yes sure. I would like to see if it is the same rule that says that fires produce light within a specific distance, which would mean that you are using half the rule you are basing your argument on. 

Vision and Light, PHB.

Vision and Light, BR if you need it. 

The rules are clear. Fire creates bright light. There is no half rule being used. The full rule is that fires create bright light or illumination. 

Wait what? This really doesn’t say that fire creates light in a specific radius? 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.