My reading of the rule is that torches, lanterns, fires, and other sources of illumination give areas for their light, and so either DM fiat says what they are (which, fine, i give up), or they're printed. My logic is that what I think would happen in any situation doesn't change the rules on what happens. A lamp provides 15' of bright light, but whatever a DM says a burning pool of oil sheds is their own decision. I don't think a burning pool of oil provides 15' of bright light. And I certainly know it isn't printed that pools of oil generally produce that much. Any particular DM might decide that the rules for bright and dim light are granular enough that a burning pool of oil makes it no easier to make out creatures or objects in a room, therefore provides 0' of either type of light.
Does it provide light? Who cares? Probably not enough to create an area of bright light. Just like any "light" that doesn't say it creates enough illumination to provide bright light. moonbeam's light is not bright light (or even dim light).
Your logic appears to be "I know what it does in the real world, so that must be what the rules say it does in the game." I disagree, because I read the sentence that says what provides light as telling you that those things ALSO should tell you how much. And I do concede that isn't the only reading. Which means it is DM fiat.
My reading of the rule is that torches, lanterns, fires, and other sources of illumination give areas for their light, and so either DM fiat says what they are (which, fine, i give up), or they're printed. My logic is that what I think would happen in any situation doesn't change the rules on what happens. A lamp provides 15' of bright light, but whatever a DM says a burning pool of oil sheds is their own decision. I don't think a burning pool of oil provides 15' of bright light. And I certainly know it isn't printed that pools of oil generally produce that much. Any particular DM might decide that the rules for bright and dim light are granular enough that a burning pool of oil makes it no easier to make out creatures or objects in a room, therefore provides 0' of either type of light.
Does it provide light? Who cares? Probably not enough to create an area of bright light. Just like any "light" that doesn't say it creates enough illumination to provide bright light. moonbeam's light is not bright light (or even dim light).
Your logic appears to be "I know what it does in the real world, so that must be what the rules say it does in the game." I disagree, because I read the sentence that says what provides light as telling you that those things ALSO should tell you how much. And I do concede that isn't the only reading. Which means it is DM fiat.
From the description of Moonbeam, "Until the spell ends, dim light fills the cylinder," which makes sense since moonlight is dim light, per the rules.
And the logic is that things do what they would be expected to do in the real world unless we are specifically told otherwise. Chairs can be sat in, since we are not told they cannot be sat in. Fires provide light, even if we are not told how much. We are even told it counts as bright light, even though we are not told how far it extends.
And as I described, my reading of that sentence on bright light does say otherwise: I think it says that torches, lanterns, fires, and other sources of illumination tell you how much light they provide. And I have the evidence that torches, lanterns, other sources of illumination, and maybe even some fires somewhere in the rules tell you how much light they shed. If you disagree, that's fine, but I have my evidence.
And as I described, my reading of that sentence on bright light does say otherwise: I think it says that torches, lanterns, fires, and other sources of illumination tell you how much light they provide. And I have the evidence that torches, lanterns, other sources of illumination, and maybe even some fires somewhere in the rules tell you how much light they shed. If you disagree, that's fine, but I have my evidence.
You're ignoring an awfully large pile of evidence when you cherry-pick the evidence you want to support you. Almost the entire game is written the way you're claiming it isn't written; the fact is that both of the following are true:
The rules are not exhaustive: it is both common and typical for the rules to fail to discuss something. Just because we don't have a rule saying something doesn't mean the rules devs don't expect it to be true.
This doesn't mean all spells emit light, of course. But it does mean that a general rule, such as "objects have volume and mass" or "fires emit light", is expected to apply unless you're told it doesn't. That's what you're doing here: you've been told fires emit light and you're deciding they don't. As an example fire I already mentioned, you're claiming oil poured on the ground and lit emits no light, despite the rules saying it does in general and no rule on the oil saying it doesn't.
The rules are not inductive: the presence of a rule does not imply that the rule's presence is necessary. This is the real guts of your claim: despite all evidence to the contrary, you claim that because other fires have rules for emitting light, that means their rules must be necessary, so something without that in its entry must not emit light, despite being a fire. In other words, you are claiming the game never has redundant rules.
So, for example, you are claiming the rule that a [Tooltip Not Found]s has the light property does something instead of nothing.
You're also claiming that because Way of Mercy Monks get a mask at level 3, surely no-one else can get a mask at level 3. After all, they have no rule saying so.
Your theory of how 5E works isn't how it works, and your interpretation will cause a significant number of consequences not only unintended by the devs, but much more importantly, not expected by any player you DM over or any DM DMing you. I can tell you right now that the number of DMs that will let you get away with lighting a town on fire with perfect stealth because a burning town has no listed amount of emitted light is nearly 0 (you're proof it's above 0).
What light rules am I ignoring, notwithstanding the one which we disagree on the interpretation of (that I think fires should say how big they are)?
It is a misrepresentation of my opinion to say that stuff without rules doesn’t behave as it normally does. I have said that my opinion is that the rules for light do say how they behave, and it is different from the real world. And just because you disagree does not make my reading incorrect.
I generally hold the belief that we should assume something in D&D acts the same way it does in the real world, unless a rule or game feature informs us that it behaves differently. Create bonfire creates a bonfire, and bonfires emit light. Any fire that behaves unlike our expectation of a fire should tell us that it does. The fact that the bonfire does not tell us exactly how much light it emits is not a problem because the DM is there to let us know if we need guidance on the matter.
As an aside, my position also means that darkness would dispel the bonfire created by the spell.
What light rules am I ignoring, notwithstanding the one which we disagree on the interpretation of (that I think fires should say how big they are)?
It is a misrepresentation of my opinion to say that stuff without rules doesn’t behave as it normally does. I have said that my opinion is that the rules for light do say how they behave, and it is different from the real world. And just because you disagree does not make my reading incorrect.
I am not certain how you get to the conclusion that the rules say that light behaves differently than in the real world. In the real world, light sources produce levels of lighting in radii. Every given light source has specific properties, including radii in which they provide sufficient light to equate to enough for human eyes to see with no penalty. This is what I have been trying to explain with my forest fire example.
I've discussed my reading a few times. If you want me to explain the differences with real light, I can: Real light exists on a continuum and any source might produce a varying amount of light based on a lot of factors, and falls off with the square of distance from the source. I wouldn't expect every real world torch to produce exactly the same area of light in all conditions, for example. The game lists 3 categories, and (I believe) tells you that when a source provides bright light it is within a specific radius. The idea is that a specific radius (or some other definition of the area of light) is what defines an area of light within the game. Certainly I think there are plenty of differences between the real world expectation of light and the game's. I have never seen the boundary between bright and dim light. I have never had vision completely blocked by darkness in real life. Real life light does not behave like the game's depiction of light -- really at all.
I have already conceded that DM decision results in an arbitrary range at which a create bonfire is dispelled by darkness. I don't see what point you're trying to make by continuing to ask questions about my opinion, especially ones that don't go to some fundamental flaw in my opinion's logic (the logic is fine if you accept the premise, which I am no longer asking you to do). I don't think I'll answer any more questions on it.
(This is my first comment or post ever. Apologies if I use the wrong order, or links, or format or whatever...)
Create Bonfire is downright WEIRD!! It produces a 5 foot cube of magical fire which causes damage if you fail a DEX save, and it can set flammable objects on fire, as long as they are not being worn or carried. But it doesn't mention how much light it gives off, unlike many other fire spells. Nor does it cause damage outside of the 5' cube.
This is how I interpret the description of the spell :
RAW, Create Bonfire does exactly what the spell description (NOT the name of the spell!!) says it does, and absolutely nothing else. This is really bizarre and creates some highly illogical and counter-intuitive outcomes.
It is not normal fire.
The magical flames are visible (it does not say the flames are invisible), but they do not give off additional light to illuminate anything beyond the 5 foot cube.
This is unlike Flaming Sphere, which creates magical fire (5' diameter sphere), heat (causes damage to an additional 5' radius), and light (bright light to 20' and dim light to another 20').
As I read it, RAW, in a completely dark room, Create Bonfire would create a 5' cube of visible magical fire which does not illuminate anything else beyond it's 5' cube. Even more bizarrely, it might even possibly give off no heat beyond it's 5' cube. (No damage to adjacent areas, and no mention of warmth or heat.)
So, it's really strange magic.
And Create Bonfire...does not create a normal bonfire.
RAW, this is very, very weird (or silly, stupid, etc.) ...but also really creepy and spooky. And kinda fun, I think! It's magic, not physics. A visible fire with no heat (maybe?!?) or light emanating from it. But put your hand inside...and a DEX save or take damage.
However, as soon as something real and tangible (but not being worn or carried) is lit on fire, physics and reality return. Now something real is on fire, and suddenly you have heat and light. You decide how much bigger or smaller it is compared to a torch (20' radius bright light, and 20' more of dim light).
* * TLDR short summary :
Create Bonfire is a really weird magic spell. RAW, it produces a 5' cube of visible magical fire which causes damage, but gives off no additional light (and maybe even no additional heat!?!) ...until it lights something real on fire. Then you can have your normal fire, and reality, and physics.
So, RAW it's really creepy and spooky...and fun!...a visible fire with no illumination, which can still hurt you and still light real objects on fire (not being worn or carried).
Or...you're the DM, and RAW is just silly, so the spell creates a normal bonfire from the beginning.
You know you have some really good points. but, I think it'd still behave like a normal bonfire whenever possible unless the spell specifies otherwise. But your point about it being confined to its 5ft cube is interesting and the light it creates may also only be in its space, and no further.
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.
Are you guys serious claiming that RAW means literal reading for subjects side topics, as if the spell descriptions are somehow pronouncements of a computer, rather than books written by a human being that expect you to understand simple English. The book is a guide for DMs and they are expected to have a brain.
Yes, the literal reading overrides subjects related to combat and other relevant topics, but that does not mean "RAW" does not include normal human interpretation. It is not House Ruling to say the Bonfire it creates supplies normal light.
If you think Create Bonfire is a 'spooky' spell, read Catapult:
The object flies in a straight line up to 90 feet in a direction you choose before falling to the ground, stopping early if it impacts against a solid surface. If the object would strike a creature, that creature must make a Dexterity saving throw. On a failed save, the object strikes the target and stops moving. When the object strikes something, the object and what it strikes each take 3d8 bludgeoning damage.
By your literal reading of the spell, it only falls to the ground if it hits something besides the target. If it hits a target it 'stops moving'. By your literal reading methodology, if it stops moving, that means it doesn't fall - it just hangs there in mid air. After all, it has to stop moving, and falling would be movement.
I get the sentiment. If we take the advice that items/spells/abilities etc do only what they say they do and nothing else too literally we end up with really unusual results all all over the place. Like, for example, a torch does not say it is flammable so you couldn't light it on fire. And, also, it burns for an hour, and with no way to trigger this burning from effects that normally light "flammable objects" on fire. Instead, you can only light torches with effects that specifically target torches, instead of general flammable objects. A Tinderbox can do it,because it spells out lighting torches specifically. But you can't light a torch off of another already lit torch, because the torch doesn't even say it can light flammable objects on fire let alone light torches on fire.
Would it make sense to take the rules that literally? And exclusively apply the "and nothing else" as if it was a binding law? Not really, no. A certain degree of common sense should be involved.
What is a bonfire? The spell should behave as much like one as is reasonable and that doesn't exclusively contradict the limits listed in writing in the spell entry.
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.
(This is quite long. Sorry about that. Oh well...)
Wow! Thanks for your reply. You must be really passionate about following these comment threads.
I've always thought of spells as special, because they are often so specifically and precisely worded. (But certainly not always.)
Plus, they're, well, magic. So they don't have to follow the laws of physics or conventions of reality. Spells and magic often ignore or bypass physics, not just modify it.
Invisibility and darkness spells come to mind, especially since we are discussing light and fire.
I think it's a fun interpretation of Create Bonfire to read it strictly literally. You end up with a really creepy, unearthly, freakish magical fire which is visible, but does not illuminate the room. It doesn't specify colour (I'm from Canada, let us have our "o-u-r" spellings! 😉) , so you might even let the player flavour (yes, another "our" spelling!) the flames as they choose.
I also realize that many people (most people?) will find this to be not just weird or spooky, but silly.
So it's easy for me to understand your point of view.
I've always thought of RAW for spells as : "Read the description (and not so much the name of the spell) , and that's what it does. No more. No less."
I've always thought of RAI for spells as : "Yes, read the description, but sometimes apply some common sense. After all, the writers are human, not perfect...plus there might be typos."
(Homebrew is : "I don't like that very much. I want it to do something different.")
But D&D 5E has been around for a long time. With a lot of people like you who really care, and examine the rules and the wording closely. Many, many years of people like you looking at each spell. And many, many years of changes, updates, errata, and Sage Advice.
So I find it very curious that Create Bonfire does not mention light (illumination beyond the 5' cube) , unlike so many other fire spells.
Many spells have names which do not accurately represent what the spell actually does according to RAW spell descriptions.
Chill Touch, for example, is not chilly (nectrotic damage, not cold damage) and isn't really a touch either (the spectral hand can not move anything, unlike Mage Hand).
But Chill Touch is a good name for a spell.
And Create Bonfire is a far better name for a spell than "5' cube of visible magical fire which does not provide illumination."
In the end, I like my reading of RAW as a 5' cube of visible magical fire...which only starts giving off heat or illumination after it ignites something real to create a normal fire.
But it certainly IS weird.
And lots of people just want a magic spell to create a 5' cube of magic fire which also behaves like normal fire right from the beginning.
I've really enjoyed reading this (very, very long) back and forth discussion.
I find that I get the most out of it when each person listens to (well, reads, I guess) what the other person is actually saying, not what they think the other person might be implying, and respects their opinion.
I imagine that you would be a really interesting person to play D&D with. With you as DM, I presume.
Thanks for listening (oops...reading) and letting me join your discussion.
Have a great day/evening/night/whatever, wherever you are!
Are you guys serious claiming that RAW means literal reading for subjects side topics, as if the spell descriptions are somehow pronouncements of a computer, rather than books written by a human being that expect you to understand simple English. The book is a guide for DMs and they are expected to have a brain.
Yes, the literal reading overrides subjects related to combat and other relevant topics, but that does not mean "RAW" does not include normal human interpretation. It is not House Ruling to say the Bonfire it creates supplies normal light.
If you think Create Bonfire is a 'spooky' spell, read Catapult:
The object flies in a straight line up to 90 feet in a direction you choose before falling to the ground, stopping early if it impacts against a solid surface. If the object would strike a creature, that creature must make a Dexterity saving throw. On a failed save, the object strikes the target and stops moving. When the object strikes something, the object and what it strikes each take 3d8 bludgeoning damage.
By your literal reading of the spell, it only falls to the ground if it hits something besides the target. If it hits a target it 'stops moving'. By your literal reading methodology, if it stops moving, that means it doesn't fall - it just hangs there in mid air. After all, it has to stop moving, and falling would be movement.
[REDACTED]
Mog_Dracov,
Um, ok, thanks for your...um, fairly strong reply.
1. It's only my interpretation of RAW, that's it. I think it creates a magical bonfire that is spooky and creepy...and really fun!
And can become a normal bonfire as soon as something real and tangible is lit on fire.
But that's just my reading of it.
Many people just want a spell to create a magic bonfire that also has the properties of normal fire, right from the start.
2. Response to what you said :
"Yes, the literal reading overrides subjects related to combat and other relevant topics..." , and
"Or you can realize that the rules are specific only about combat and related subjects and not supposed to be read by a literal fool."
...um, Create Bonfire is a combat spell. It does damage. It lights things on fire. It's a magic spell that can absolutely be used in combat.
3. As for the Catapult spell :
The first sentence of the text you included explains exactly what happens.
Per your own quote :
"The object flies in a straight line up to 90 feet in a direction you choose before falling to the ground..." unless it hits a solid surface or creature... "stopping early if it impacts against a solid surface."
That seems quite specific to me.
By my "literal reading methodology," as you put it, the spell explains exactly what happens after 90' if the object has not struck a creature or solid surface. It falls to the ground.
If the object does strike a creature or solid object, it does damage to the creature or surface, and also to the object. The object does not stop and hover in mid-air, because the spell does not say it does.
RAW, a spell does exactly what it says it does and that's it. No more. No less.
RAI, a spell description must be read with some common sense.
(Homebrew is when a spell does something else entirely.)
4. I have explained my interpretation of the spell Create Bonfire in my first post.
This thread has driven me insane. I am a pale husk of a person, drifting in the psychic wind. My mind has detached itself from my body to go and live in the phosphorescent blackness of the wavering void. And it's not because I've seen any particularly insane arguments. It's just because the same irreconcilable arguments have smashed into one another so many times already.
WolfOfTheBees doesn't have to be wrong, for their reading to be a bad fit for your table. It's a bad fit for my table, for sure. Even if we accept it as RAW, we also know that it's RAW for the DM to change anything. And no one can force you to keep playing a game if it's a deal-breaker that your DM insists on a reading that makes bonfires dimmer than candles. Some people prefer to focus on the interplay between rules wordings, rather than the fiction, so they can overlook the apparent silliness. I play most games that way, tbh. I wouldn't play 5e that way, but luckily I don't have to.
However.
I think quindraco makes a point here that's really important:
The rules are not inductive: the presence of a rule does not imply that the rule's presence is necessary. This is the real guts of your claim: despite all evidence to the contrary, you claim that because other fires have rules for emitting light, that means their rules must be necessary, so something without that in its entry must not emit light, despite being a fire. In other words, you are claiming the game never has redundant rules.
So, for example, you are claiming the rule that a [Tooltip Not Found]s has the light property does something instead of nothing.
You're also claiming that because Way of Mercy Monks get a mask at level 3, surely no-one else can get a mask at level 3. After all, they have no rule saying so.
Your theory of how 5E works isn't how it works, and your interpretation will cause a significant number of consequences not only unintended by the devs, but much more importantly, not expected by any player you DM over or any DM DMing you.
So I'm afraid the debate over who's correct isn't over yet. The crackling expanse awaits, friends, and it will flamingo us all within its cartilaginous vermilion soon. Rejoice and cavort, for the frabjuous true name of the cosmos is -- [muffled shouting] -- [static] -- [unintelligible] -- <end transmission>.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
My reading of the rule is that torches, lanterns, fires, and other sources of illumination give areas for their light, and so either DM fiat says what they are (which, fine, i give up), or they're printed. My logic is that what I think would happen in any situation doesn't change the rules on what happens. A lamp provides 15' of bright light, but whatever a DM says a burning pool of oil sheds is their own decision. I don't think a burning pool of oil provides 15' of bright light. And I certainly know it isn't printed that pools of oil generally produce that much. Any particular DM might decide that the rules for bright and dim light are granular enough that a burning pool of oil makes it no easier to make out creatures or objects in a room, therefore provides 0' of either type of light.
Does it provide light? Who cares? Probably not enough to create an area of bright light. Just like any "light" that doesn't say it creates enough illumination to provide bright light. moonbeam's light is not bright light
(or even dim light).Your logic appears to be "I know what it does in the real world, so that must be what the rules say it does in the game." I disagree, because I read the sentence that says what provides light as telling you that those things ALSO should tell you how much. And I do concede that isn't the only reading. Which means it is DM fiat.
And as I described, my reading of that sentence on bright light does say otherwise: I think it says that torches, lanterns, fires, and other sources of illumination tell you how much light they provide. And I have the evidence that torches, lanterns, other sources of illumination, and maybe even some fires somewhere in the rules tell you how much light they shed. If you disagree, that's fine, but I have my evidence.
I mean, that is how I read that sentence. Is there any additional question? Why didn’t they write it your way? A choice.
My opinion is that there is a rule that essentially says that “the radius should be stated in the rules” so that is what it would mean, yes.
And as I said, I think that is a reasonable reading of that rule based on all the other evidence in the rules.
You're ignoring an awfully large pile of evidence when you cherry-pick the evidence you want to support you. Almost the entire game is written the way you're claiming it isn't written; the fact is that both of the following are true:
Your theory of how 5E works isn't how it works, and your interpretation will cause a significant number of consequences not only unintended by the devs, but much more importantly, not expected by any player you DM over or any DM DMing you. I can tell you right now that the number of DMs that will let you get away with lighting a town on fire with perfect stealth because a burning town has no listed amount of emitted light is nearly 0 (you're proof it's above 0).
What light rules am I ignoring, notwithstanding the one which we disagree on the interpretation of (that I think fires should say how big they are)?
It is a misrepresentation of my opinion to say that stuff without rules doesn’t behave as it normally does. I have said that my opinion is that the rules for light do say how they behave, and it is different from the real world. And just because you disagree does not make my reading incorrect.
I generally hold the belief that we should assume something in D&D acts the same way it does in the real world, unless a rule or game feature informs us that it behaves differently. Create bonfire creates a bonfire, and bonfires emit light. Any fire that behaves unlike our expectation of a fire should tell us that it does. The fact that the bonfire does not tell us exactly how much light it emits is not a problem because the DM is there to let us know if we need guidance on the matter.
As an aside, my position also means that darkness would dispel the bonfire created by the spell.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
(This is my first comment or post ever. Apologies if I use the wrong order, or links, or format or whatever...)
Create Bonfire is downright WEIRD!! It produces a 5 foot cube of magical fire which causes damage if you fail a DEX save, and it can set flammable objects on fire, as long as they are not being worn or carried. But it doesn't mention how much light it gives off, unlike many other fire spells. Nor does it cause damage outside of the 5' cube.
This is how I interpret the description of the spell :
RAW, Create Bonfire does exactly what the spell description (NOT the name of the spell!!) says it does, and absolutely nothing else. This is really bizarre and creates some highly illogical and counter-intuitive outcomes.
It is not normal fire.
The magical flames are visible (it does not say the flames are invisible), but they do not give off additional light to illuminate anything beyond the 5 foot cube.
This is unlike Flaming Sphere, which creates magical fire (5' diameter sphere), heat (causes damage to an additional 5' radius), and light (bright light to 20' and dim light to another 20').
As I read it, RAW, in a completely dark room, Create Bonfire would create a 5' cube of visible magical fire which does not illuminate anything else beyond it's 5' cube. Even more bizarrely, it might even possibly give off no heat beyond it's 5' cube. (No damage to adjacent areas, and no mention of warmth or heat.)
So, it's really strange magic.
And Create Bonfire...does not create a normal bonfire.
RAW, this is very, very weird (or silly, stupid, etc.) ...but also really creepy and spooky. And kinda fun, I think! It's magic, not physics. A visible fire with no heat (maybe?!?) or light emanating from it. But put your hand inside...and a DEX save or take damage.
However, as soon as something real and tangible (but not being worn or carried) is lit on fire, physics and reality return. Now something real is on fire, and suddenly you have heat and light. You decide how much bigger or smaller it is compared to a torch (20' radius bright light, and 20' more of dim light).
* * TLDR short summary :
Create Bonfire is a really weird magic spell. RAW, it produces a 5' cube of visible magical fire which causes damage, but gives off no additional light (and maybe even no additional heat!?!) ...until it lights something real on fire. Then you can have your normal fire, and reality, and physics.
So, RAW it's really creepy and spooky...and fun!...a visible fire with no illumination, which can still hurt you and still light real objects on fire (not being worn or carried).
Or...you're the DM, and RAW is just silly, so the spell creates a normal bonfire from the beginning.
You know you have some really good points. but, I think it'd still behave like a normal bonfire whenever possible unless the spell specifies otherwise. But your point about it being confined to its 5ft cube is interesting and the light it creates may also only be in its space, and no further.
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.
Are you guys serious claiming that RAW means literal reading for subjects side topics, as if the spell descriptions are somehow pronouncements of a computer, rather than books written by a human being that expect you to understand simple English. The book is a guide for DMs and they are expected to have a brain.
Yes, the literal reading overrides subjects related to combat and other relevant topics, but that does not mean "RAW" does not include normal human interpretation. It is not House Ruling to say the Bonfire it creates supplies normal light.
If you think Create Bonfire is a 'spooky' spell, read Catapult:
By your literal reading of the spell, it only falls to the ground if it hits something besides the target. If it hits a target it 'stops moving'. By your literal reading methodology, if it stops moving, that means it doesn't fall - it just hangs there in mid air. After all, it has to stop moving, and falling would be movement.
[REDACTED]
I get the sentiment. If we take the advice that items/spells/abilities etc do only what they say they do and nothing else too literally we end up with really unusual results all all over the place. Like, for example, a torch does not say it is flammable so you couldn't light it on fire. And, also, it burns for an hour, and with no way to trigger this burning from effects that normally light "flammable objects" on fire. Instead, you can only light torches with effects that specifically target torches, instead of general flammable objects. A Tinderbox can do it,because it spells out lighting torches specifically. But you can't light a torch off of another already lit torch, because the torch doesn't even say it can light flammable objects on fire let alone light torches on fire.
Would it make sense to take the rules that literally? And exclusively apply the "and nothing else" as if it was a binding law? Not really, no. A certain degree of common sense should be involved.
What is a bonfire? The spell should behave as much like one as is reasonable and that doesn't exclusively contradict the limits listed in writing in the spell entry.
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.
Ravnodaus,
(This is quite long. Sorry about that. Oh well...)
Wow! Thanks for your reply. You must be really passionate about following these comment threads.
I've always thought of spells as special, because they are often so specifically and precisely worded. (But certainly not always.)
Plus, they're, well, magic. So they don't have to follow the laws of physics or conventions of reality. Spells and magic often ignore or bypass physics, not just modify it.
Invisibility and darkness spells come to mind, especially since we are discussing light and fire.
I think it's a fun interpretation of Create Bonfire to read it strictly literally. You end up with a really creepy, unearthly, freakish magical fire which is visible, but does not illuminate the room. It doesn't specify colour (I'm from Canada, let us have our "o-u-r" spellings! 😉) , so you might even let the player flavour (yes, another "our" spelling!) the flames as they choose.
I also realize that many people (most people?) will find this to be not just weird or spooky, but silly.
So it's easy for me to understand your point of view.
I've always thought of RAW for spells as : "Read the description (and not so much the name of the spell) , and that's what it does. No more. No less."
I've always thought of RAI for spells as : "Yes, read the description, but sometimes apply some common sense. After all, the writers are human, not perfect...plus there might be typos."
(Homebrew is : "I don't like that very much. I want it to do something different.")
But D&D 5E has been around for a long time. With a lot of people like you who really care, and examine the rules and the wording closely. Many, many years of people like you looking at each spell. And many, many years of changes, updates, errata, and Sage Advice.
So I find it very curious that Create Bonfire does not mention light (illumination beyond the 5' cube) , unlike so many other fire spells.
Many spells have names which do not accurately represent what the spell actually does according to RAW spell descriptions.
Chill Touch, for example, is not chilly (nectrotic damage, not cold damage) and isn't really a touch either (the spectral hand can not move anything, unlike Mage Hand).
But Chill Touch is a good name for a spell.
And Create Bonfire is a far better name for a spell than "5' cube of visible magical fire which does not provide illumination."
In the end, I like my reading of RAW as a 5' cube of visible magical fire...which only starts giving off heat or illumination after it ignites something real to create a normal fire.
But it certainly IS weird.
And lots of people just want a magic spell to create a 5' cube of magic fire which also behaves like normal fire right from the beginning.
I've really enjoyed reading this (very, very long) back and forth discussion.
I find that I get the most out of it when each person listens to (well, reads, I guess) what the other person is actually saying, not what they think the other person might be implying, and respects their opinion.
I imagine that you would be a really interesting person to play D&D with. With you as DM, I presume.
Thanks for listening (oops...reading) and letting me join your discussion.
Have a great day/evening/night/whatever, wherever you are!
Mog_Dracov,
Um, ok, thanks for your...um, fairly strong reply.
1. It's only my interpretation of RAW, that's it. I think it creates a magical bonfire that is spooky and creepy...and really fun!
And can become a normal bonfire as soon as something real and tangible is lit on fire.
But that's just my reading of it.
Many people just want a spell to create a magic bonfire that also has the properties of normal fire, right from the start.
2. Response to what you said :
"Yes, the literal reading overrides subjects related to combat and other relevant topics..." , and
"Or you can realize that the rules are specific only about combat and related subjects and not supposed to be read by a literal fool."
...um, Create Bonfire is a combat spell. It does damage. It lights things on fire. It's a magic spell that can absolutely be used in combat.
3. As for the Catapult spell :
The first sentence of the text you included explains exactly what happens.
Per your own quote :
"The object flies in a straight line up to 90 feet in a direction you choose before falling to the ground..." unless it hits a solid surface or creature... "stopping early if it impacts against a solid surface."
That seems quite specific to me.
By my "literal reading methodology," as you put it, the spell explains exactly what happens after 90' if the object has not struck a creature or solid surface. It falls to the ground.
If the object does strike a creature or solid object, it does damage to the creature or surface, and also to the object. The object does not stop and hover in mid-air, because the spell does not say it does.
RAW, a spell does exactly what it says it does and that's it. No more. No less.
RAI, a spell description must be read with some common sense.
(Homebrew is when a spell does something else entirely.)
4. I have explained my interpretation of the spell Create Bonfire in my first post.
I expanded upon this in a response to Ravnodaus.
It's just my reading of RAW. That's it.
Other interpretations are possible.
This thread has driven me insane. I am a pale husk of a person, drifting in the psychic wind. My mind has detached itself from my body to go and live in the phosphorescent blackness of the wavering void. And it's not because I've seen any particularly insane arguments. It's just because the same irreconcilable arguments have smashed into one another so many times already.
WolfOfTheBees doesn't have to be wrong, for their reading to be a bad fit for your table. It's a bad fit for my table, for sure. Even if we accept it as RAW, we also know that it's RAW for the DM to change anything. And no one can force you to keep playing a game if it's a deal-breaker that your DM insists on a reading that makes bonfires dimmer than candles. Some people prefer to focus on the interplay between rules wordings, rather than the fiction, so they can overlook the apparent silliness. I play most games that way, tbh. I wouldn't play 5e that way, but luckily I don't have to.
However.
I think quindraco makes a point here that's really important:
So I'm afraid the debate over who's correct isn't over yet. The crackling expanse awaits, friends, and it will flamingo us all within its cartilaginous vermilion soon. Rejoice and cavort, for the frabjuous true name of the cosmos is -- [muffled shouting] -- [static] -- [unintelligible] -- <end transmission>.