Again "Fire is hot" is just common sense. The kind of common sense that 5e relies on. It is just a premise and not really a mechanic. IRL fire is defined by the release of energy in the form of heat, light, and sound. Heat, light, and sound each have a separate damage type in d&d.
And yeah, I mentioned the the work/held thing in my comment. It is just a game mechanic to keep things simple and not have to track item durability etc. But it does make things weird narratively.
I agree with you completely that being the way it should work but the standard counter-argument is that common sense has no place in the rules. The rules are only are what they say, nothing more, nothing less. And the game writers seem to back this up, officially.
The rules never explain what fire is because it is the same as IRL fire. They also never say what materials are flammable, they never explain water, etc.
There is a certain amount of world knowledge that the rules assume you already know. If absolutely everything not in the rules is not in the game, then the game is unplayable.
I agree with you completely that being the way it should work but the standard counter-argument is that common sense has no place in the rules. The rules are only are what they say, nothing more, nothing less. And the game writers seem to back this up, officially.
What you're referring to isn't how the game is written. Instead, DJC is correct - the rules devs use "natural" (i.e. nearly unintelligible and prone to interpretation) language that is absolutely, in every context, intended to convey what it says. So, for example, water is wet - we don't need a rule saying so. If a rule says water is present, you should assume it is wet. Likewise, fire emits heat, matter is attracted by gravity so if you're on a standard-issue planet if you let go of it will drop down, etc.
What you're thinking of is when the rules don't say anything at all. Sticking with our fire example, someone might ask if the fire emits smoke. Not all fires emit smoke, but some do, so when the rules for a fire don't cover it, a DM is expressly free to decide that it emits smoke or not. Someone might also ask if the fire can freeze things. In the real world there's no such thing as a freezing fire and the rules don't tell us fires can freeze things or that they can't, so we assume they can't, since all they discuss is the fire. But if the rules say there's a fire, then there's a fire, and the consequences of that (per DM fiat) will happen unless rules are present stopping it.
Phew - yeah, before this spirals too much... I'd agree, that in the end, it's up to the DM to decide.
I, as a DM, has always ruled it produces dim light (since there's fire as the damage effect, and fire, by nature produces light).
But yeah, it's in the end - going to depend on the DM. I just wasn't sure if there was an officially ruling, or as mentioned, an errata somewhere (I would have assumed if there was, that the D&D Beyond spell description would have been updated to include those changes).
The problem is that the Dev's say both. However they seem more often to say 'as the written, no more, no less' than 'natural language' or 'deliberately left to the DM to decide' (which are separate things, of course). I suspect they say 'deliberately left to the DM' less because to those who want everything spelled out formally, it sounds like they copped out rather than being the gurus they prefer to be seen as.
The "as written" general rule typically refers to spells only doing what they say, but that's usually understood to mean that a spell can't normally do something it doesn't say at all; for example create or destroy water only mentions destroying water in an open container, or fog, so you can't expect to be allowed to destroy other liquids, remove liquid from something that isn't itself liquid and so-on. While your DM might allow it anyway, that's a ruling beyond what the spell says.
But this doesn't apply to create bonfire as it's told us what we need to know (that a bonfire is created); so it's not describing damage and nothing else, it just isn't giving us more specifics of the bonfire part, so that's very much a "left to the DM" case. So that's a ruling about what the spell says.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
It doesn't need to specify it as it tells you exactly what it does; it creates a bonfire, and you (presumably) know what a bonfire is.
I'd say that most (all?) of us knows what a real life bonfire is but I think anyone claiming they know how a magical bonfire works is presuming quite a lot.
The idea that literally everything that can shed light must specify exactly how much is insane, because by that logic 99% of Faerûn is in permanent darkness, as the rules never specify how much light the sun provides or in what radius. A candelabra or chandelier would be pointless because you'd only ever use the radius provided by a candle, fireplaces, firepits, stoves etc. never provide any heat or illumination. Everyone freezes to death indoors under fifty blankets on a summer's day. etc. etc.
Assuming that mundane non-magical things/occurrences work as they do in our real world without the rules saying much about is of course fine. Assuming that magical or spell effects behave in ways not described in their text, especially when the behaviour you claim they have is something that is explicitly stated in other spells that do behave in such a way, seems like a stretch to me.
Assuming that mundane non-magical things/occurrences work as they do in our real world without the rules saying much about is of course fine. Assuming that magical or spell effects behave in ways not described in their text, especially when the behaviour you claim they have is something that is explicitly stated in other spells that do behave in such a way, seems like a stretch to me.
The alternative is reading the phrase "you create a bonfire" and deciding it means "you create an area of fire adjacent harm that in no way whatsoever resembles a bonfire as there are no flames, heat or light". That's what the weird literal (yet not literal because it involves ignoring parts of the text) interpretation amounts to, as the spell never says there are flames, only that it deals fire damage (which, since we're being ultra literal, in 5e RAW is no longer specific, it's just a keyword with zero meaning).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
It doesn't need to specify it as it tells you exactly what it does; it creates a bonfire, and you (presumably) know what a bonfire is.
I'd say that most (all?) of us knows what a real life bonfire is but I think anyone claiming they know how a magical bonfire works is presuming quite a lot.
A magical bonfire is exactly the same as a normal bonfire except in ways it specially says it differs. The create bonfire says it creates a bonfire, and doesn't say it is invisible nor that it doesn't shed light like a normal bonfire, so it should behave like normal because it doesn't specify otherwise.
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.
just because something 'burns' does not necessarily mean it produces light. Light (energy) is a by-product of the consumption of some material. In this case the spell is a magical fuel source. If you place a traditional flammable object into it, it can ignite and follow the physics of that fuel source. Energy can exist in many forms within a system and may be converted from one form to another within the constraint of the conservation law. These different forms include gravitational, kinetic, thermal, elastic, electrical, chemical, radiant, nuclear, and mass energy.
Yes because it is possible to literally burn calories; as fat and other forms of stored calories are combustable, so you can set them on fire and watch them actually burn.
No because when someone says "burn calories" what they usually mean is exercise or similar, in which case "burn" is figurative as what is actually happening is a chemical process that doesn't involve fire, flame or burning at all.
just because something 'burns' does not necessarily mean it produces light.
The word "burn" is not used in the spell description. The word "bonfire" however is; the spell literally says "you create a bonfire". Not "you create an imaginary mystical effect that just happens to be named 'bonfire' but is in absolutely no way to ever be considered a bonfire under any circumstances".
The problem with arguing that the conjured bonfire is not a bonfire is that the spell literally, explicitly, and unambiguously tells you otherwise.
The question isn't really whether the bonfire would produce light or heat; it's a bonfire so it should certainly produce some or it's not really a bonfire. The real issue is how much; a small fire can produce a fair bit of heat, probably enough to prevent freezing if you can keep the bonfire going long enough, but your average bonfire doesn't actually produce a lot of light, and it's usually orange/red so it might be fair to rule it as 10-15 feet of dim environmental light, but it depends a lot on the circumstances, where the bonfire is positioned etc., i.e- it's a DM's call each time.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
No, but a rattlesnake does. I don't own an IR camera.
just because something 'burns' does not necessarily mean it produces light.
True and irrelevant - the spell's text doesn't use the word "burn". What matters for this (necroed) thread is whether a bonfire produces light.
Light (energy) is a by-product of the consumption of some material.
Not necessarily. We're discussing D&D 5E, not Earth. The physics are very distinct and it is trivial to produce a perpetual light device.
In this case the spell is a magical fuel source.
Citation needed.
If you place a traditional flammable object into it, it can ignite and follow the physics of that fuel source.
Only if you let go of it. So long as you hold onto it, it won't burn - you can even pick up a piece of paper and shove your hand in the fire and the paper won't even be singed.
I'm facepalming so hard at this thread, while I imagine my players reaction:
DM: It's the middle of the night, it's dark and cold, there are no trees or bushes around just desert sand as far as you can see. Druid: *Gets excited* FINALLY I can use this cantrip and do something useful with it. I cast create bonfire. DM: So yeah, it's still dark because the spell doesn't specifically say it makes light, oh and also you're still cold too because it doesn't say it gives off heat. Druid: Urm... what. What the hell is even the point of this spell?
If it doesn't give off light or heat, is a cantrip so can't pierce any magical darkness why would anyone ever actually take this spell or cast it? The damage? Ahahahaha.
I'm absolutely certain the rules writers intended to make this spell that ridiculously bad. (Sarcasm).
If you are the DM, choose what works best for your story.
Enjoy!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember there are Rules as Written (RAW), Rules as Intended (RAI), and Rules as Fun (RAF). There's some great RAW, RAI, and RAF here... please check in with your DM to determine how they want to adjudicate the RAW/RAI/RAF for your game.
IMHO It's all about common sense. The fact that it's not explicitly mentioned, does not imply it doesn't exist. Food and drink rules exist. But so far, I have never read rules about toilets and toilet paper, and characters do not die of constipation either.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Semper in faecibus sumus, solum profundum variat" playing since 1986
So, you guys know how Shadow Blade creates "a sword of solidified gloom," right? Do you think if you ran your hand along the edge of the sword, you'd get cut?
No, but a rattlesnake does. I don't own an IR camera.
Why are assuming it gives off 'Inferred light' either? the assumption was 'you' don't see any 'visible light'; the segment of the electromagnetic spectrum that the human eye can view
just because something 'burns' does not necessarily mean it produces light.
True and irrelevant - the spell's text doesn't use the word "burn". What matters for this (necroed) thread is whether a bonfire produces light.
It also doesn't say 'emits', or 'illuminates' but people are saying that a normal bonfire does so this should.
this is not a 'traditional bonfire' it is a 'magical bonfire'' The visual image people have of a 'bonfire' has change. original they were -late Middle English: from bone + fire. The term originally denoted a large open-air fire on which bones were burnt (sometimes as part of a celebration), also one for burning heretics or proscribed literature. Dr Johnson accepted the mistaken idea that the word came from French bon ‘good’. You don't think many people visual them being made of bones, the term 'bonfire is to help people conceptualize the object.
Light (energy) is a by-product of the consumption of some material.
Not necessarily. We're discussing D&D 5E, not Earth. The physics are very distinct and it is trivial to produce a perpetual light device.
In this case the spell is a magical fuel source.
Citation needed.
Until the spell ends, the magic bonfire fills a 5-foot cube
If you place a traditional flammable object into it, it can ignite and follow the physics of that fuel source.
Only if you let go of it. So long as you hold onto it, it won't burn - you can even pick up a piece of paper and shove your hand in the fire and the paper won't even be singed.
So, you guys know how Shadow Blade creates "a sword of solidified gloom," right? Do you think if you ran your hand along the edge of the sword, you'd get cut?
Depends on if you make an attack that beats your own AC or not. If the attack hits it does psychic damage.
Since this thread has got some traction again, I just want to clarify my two points from eariler:
If the rules don't say it, then that is all there is to that question: The rules don't say it. DM's can make all the rulings they want, but that doesn't make it part of the rule text.
Narrative can be separate from mechanics. You can do things like allow a bonfire to shed enough light to not actually change obscurement rules or interact with magical darkness.
Neither of those points should be particularly controversial, but they were earlier in this thread. They probably will be again.
I'm facepalming so hard at this thread, while I imagine my players reaction:
DM: It's the middle of the night, it's dark and cold, there are no trees or bushes around just desert sand as far as you can see. Druid: *Gets excited* FINALLY I can use this cantrip and do something useful with it. I cast create bonfire. DM: So yeah, it's still dark because the spell doesn't specifically say it makes light, oh and also you're still cold too because it doesn't say it gives off heat. Druid: Urm... what. What the hell is even the point of this spell?
If it doesn't give off light or heat, is a cantrip so can't pierce any magical darkness why would anyone ever actually take this spell or cast it? The damage? Ahahahaha.
I'm absolutely certain the rules writers intended to make this spell that ridiculously bad. (Sarcasm).
What exactly are you comparing this to? Damage-wise it's right in the middle of the pack, and it's got some pretty useful area-denial/movement-encouragement control ability. Used in conjunction with an ally's Booming Blade, you can guarantee that one spell or the other is going to get a second damage instance. Or you can keep it on a locked-down enemy and you get cantrip damage plus whatever you do with your action.
The only real downside is the concentration. But at low levels or long adventuring days when you rely more heavily on cantrips, this one can be very good.
For what it's worth, my group gives the bonfire the light radius of a torch. While I think this does make the most sense, it also makes the spell significantly better for casters (and their allies) that don't rely on darkvision. Like almost to the point where it is too good in some situations.
Remember there are Rules as Written (RAW), Rules as Intended (RAI), and Rules as Fun (RAF). There's some great RAW, RAI, and RAF here... please check in with your DM to determine how they want to adjudicate the RAW/RAI/RAF for your game. If its just a cool character concept, then run it by the DM. If you are just trying to push the rules to their limit of breaking, there are plenty of ways to do that for any game, but that really breaks the RAI (and often RAF) for many gamers. When in doubt bring it up to the whole group to discuss if it would a fun thing for all involved, with the DM always having the final say.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember there are Rules as Written (RAW), Rules as Intended (RAI), and Rules as Fun (RAF). There's some great RAW, RAI, and RAF here... please check in with your DM to determine how they want to adjudicate the RAW/RAI/RAF for your game.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The rules never explain what fire is because it is the same as IRL fire. They also never say what materials are flammable, they never explain water, etc.
There is a certain amount of world knowledge that the rules assume you already know. If absolutely everything not in the rules is not in the game, then the game is unplayable.
What you're referring to isn't how the game is written. Instead, DJC is correct - the rules devs use "natural" (i.e. nearly unintelligible and prone to interpretation) language that is absolutely, in every context, intended to convey what it says. So, for example, water is wet - we don't need a rule saying so. If a rule says water is present, you should assume it is wet. Likewise, fire emits heat, matter is attracted by gravity so if you're on a standard-issue planet if you let go of it will drop down, etc.
What you're thinking of is when the rules don't say anything at all. Sticking with our fire example, someone might ask if the fire emits smoke. Not all fires emit smoke, but some do, so when the rules for a fire don't cover it, a DM is expressly free to decide that it emits smoke or not. Someone might also ask if the fire can freeze things. In the real world there's no such thing as a freezing fire and the rules don't tell us fires can freeze things or that they can't, so we assume they can't, since all they discuss is the fire. But if the rules say there's a fire, then there's a fire, and the consequences of that (per DM fiat) will happen unless rules are present stopping it.
Phew - yeah, before this spirals too much... I'd agree, that in the end, it's up to the DM to decide.
I, as a DM, has always ruled it produces dim light (since there's fire as the damage effect, and fire, by nature produces light).
But yeah, it's in the end - going to depend on the DM. I just wasn't sure if there was an officially ruling, or as mentioned, an errata somewhere (I would have assumed if there was, that the D&D Beyond spell description would have been updated to include those changes).
Thanks everyone for the feedback.
Check out my publication on DMs Guild: https://www.dmsguild.com/browse.php?author=Tawmis%20Logue
Check out my comedy web series - Neverending Nights: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Wr4-u9-zw0&list=PLbRG7dzFI-u3EJd0usasgDrrFO3mZ1lOZ
Need a character story/background written up? I do it for free (but also take donations!) - https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?591882-Need-a-character-background-written-up
The "as written" general rule typically refers to spells only doing what they say, but that's usually understood to mean that a spell can't normally do something it doesn't say at all; for example create or destroy water only mentions destroying water in an open container, or fog, so you can't expect to be allowed to destroy other liquids, remove liquid from something that isn't itself liquid and so-on. While your DM might allow it anyway, that's a ruling beyond what the spell says.
But this doesn't apply to create bonfire as it's told us what we need to know (that a bonfire is created); so it's not describing damage and nothing else, it just isn't giving us more specifics of the bonfire part, so that's very much a "left to the DM" case. So that's a ruling about what the spell says.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I'd say that most (all?) of us knows what a real life bonfire is but I think anyone claiming they know how a magical bonfire works is presuming quite a lot.
Assuming that mundane non-magical things/occurrences work as they do in our real world without the rules saying much about is of course fine.
Assuming that magical or spell effects behave in ways not described in their text, especially when the behaviour you claim they have is something that is explicitly stated in other spells that do behave in such a way, seems like a stretch to me.
The alternative is reading the phrase "you create a bonfire" and deciding it means "you create an area of fire adjacent harm that in no way whatsoever resembles a bonfire as there are no flames, heat or light". That's what the weird literal (yet not literal because it involves ignoring parts of the text) interpretation amounts to, as the spell never says there are flames, only that it deals fire damage (which, since we're being ultra literal, in 5e RAW is no longer specific, it's just a keyword with zero meaning).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
A magical bonfire is exactly the same as a normal bonfire except in ways it specially says it differs. The create bonfire says it creates a bonfire, and doesn't say it is invisible nor that it doesn't shed light like a normal bonfire, so it should behave like normal because it doesn't specify otherwise.
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.
Do you see any light when you burn calories?
just because something 'burns' does not necessarily mean it produces light. Light (energy) is a by-product of the consumption of some material. In this case the spell is a magical fuel source. If you place a traditional flammable object into it, it can ignite and follow the physics of that fuel source. Energy can exist in many forms within a system and may be converted from one form to another within the constraint of the conservation law. These different forms include gravitational, kinetic, thermal, elastic, electrical, chemical, radiant, nuclear, and mass energy.
Yes and no.
Yes because it is possible to literally burn calories; as fat and other forms of stored calories are combustable, so you can set them on fire and watch them actually burn.
No because when someone says "burn calories" what they usually mean is exercise or similar, in which case "burn" is figurative as what is actually happening is a chemical process that doesn't involve fire, flame or burning at all.
The word "burn" is not used in the spell description. The word "bonfire" however is; the spell literally says "you create a bonfire". Not "you create an imaginary mystical effect that just happens to be named 'bonfire' but is in absolutely no way to ever be considered a bonfire under any circumstances".
The problem with arguing that the conjured bonfire is not a bonfire is that the spell literally, explicitly, and unambiguously tells you otherwise.
The question isn't really whether the bonfire would produce light or heat; it's a bonfire so it should certainly produce some or it's not really a bonfire. The real issue is how much; a small fire can produce a fair bit of heat, probably enough to prevent freezing if you can keep the bonfire going long enough, but your average bonfire doesn't actually produce a lot of light, and it's usually orange/red so it might be fair to rule it as 10-15 feet of dim environmental light, but it depends a lot on the circumstances, where the bonfire is positioned etc., i.e- it's a DM's call each time.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
No, but a rattlesnake does. I don't own an IR camera.
True and irrelevant - the spell's text doesn't use the word "burn". What matters for this (necroed) thread is whether a bonfire produces light.
Not necessarily. We're discussing D&D 5E, not Earth. The physics are very distinct and it is trivial to produce a perpetual light device.
Citation needed.
Only if you let go of it. So long as you hold onto it, it won't burn - you can even pick up a piece of paper and shove your hand in the fire and the paper won't even be singed.
I'm facepalming so hard at this thread, while I imagine my players reaction:
DM: It's the middle of the night, it's dark and cold, there are no trees or bushes around just desert sand as far as you can see.
Druid: *Gets excited* FINALLY I can use this cantrip and do something useful with it. I cast create bonfire.
DM: So yeah, it's still dark because the spell doesn't specifically say it makes light, oh and also you're still cold too because it doesn't say it gives off heat.
Druid: Urm... what. What the hell is even the point of this spell?
If it doesn't give off light or heat, is a cantrip so can't pierce any magical darkness why would anyone ever actually take this spell or cast it?
The damage? Ahahahaha.
I'm absolutely certain the rules writers intended to make this spell that ridiculously bad. (Sarcasm).
Sarcasm aside, Create Bonefire is i believe the only cantrip in the entire game creating a lasting damaging AOE.
Makes light in our game, as a normal bonfire would. How much that light is, not sure.
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
Ask your DM. Their ruling is all that maters.
If you are the DM, choose what works best for your story.
Enjoy!
Remember there are Rules as Written (RAW), Rules as Intended (RAI), and Rules as Fun (RAF). There's some great RAW, RAI, and RAF here... please check in with your DM to determine how they want to adjudicate the RAW/RAI/RAF for your game.
IMHO It's all about common sense. The fact that it's not explicitly mentioned, does not imply it doesn't exist. Food and drink rules exist. But so far, I have never read rules about toilets and toilet paper, and characters do not die of constipation either.
playing since 1986
Oh hey, it's the bonfire thread again!
So, you guys know how Shadow Blade creates "a sword of solidified gloom," right? Do you think if you ran your hand along the edge of the sword, you'd get cut?
Depends on if you make an attack that beats your own AC or not. If the attack hits it does psychic damage.
Since this thread has got some traction again, I just want to clarify my two points from eariler:
Neither of those points should be particularly controversial, but they were earlier in this thread. They probably will be again.
What exactly are you comparing this to? Damage-wise it's right in the middle of the pack, and it's got some pretty useful area-denial/movement-encouragement control ability. Used in conjunction with an ally's Booming Blade, you can guarantee that one spell or the other is going to get a second damage instance. Or you can keep it on a locked-down enemy and you get cantrip damage plus whatever you do with your action.
The only real downside is the concentration. But at low levels or long adventuring days when you rely more heavily on cantrips, this one can be very good.
For what it's worth, my group gives the bonfire the light radius of a torch. While I think this does make the most sense, it also makes the spell significantly better for casters (and their allies) that don't rely on darkvision. Like almost to the point where it is too good in some situations.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Remember there are Rules as Written (RAW), Rules as Intended (RAI), and Rules as Fun (RAF). There's some great RAW, RAI, and RAF here... please check in with your DM to determine how they want to adjudicate the RAW/RAI/RAF for your game. If its just a cool character concept, then run it by the DM. If you are just trying to push the rules to their limit of breaking, there are plenty of ways to do that for any game, but that really breaks the RAI (and often RAF) for many gamers. When in doubt bring it up to the whole group to discuss if it would a fun thing for all involved, with the DM always having the final say.
Remember there are Rules as Written (RAW), Rules as Intended (RAI), and Rules as Fun (RAF). There's some great RAW, RAI, and RAF here... please check in with your DM to determine how they want to adjudicate the RAW/RAI/RAF for your game.