You are ignoring both the intent of the spell and a literal reading of the words.
But the thing is, when spells intend to shed light, they literally say so in their own words.
There's a difference between a spell that explicitly defines unambiguous magical light and a spell that creates incidental light; for the former this is a major part of how that spell operates, and you might even cast it because of that feature, to provide you with a specific area of light that you know you can use to overcome ordinary or even magical darkness.
But this is not mutually exclusive to the ordinary rules for other light sources in an environment; not all light is magical, and not all light is absolute.
Ultimately a bonfire is a bonfire, which means it's an environmental light source; while the specifics are left up to the DM, it's certainly going to produce some light, and it's certainly going to be visible, how much is up to the DM, though a 5x5 foot bonfire isn't actually all that big (it's the kind you might make with some piled driftwood on a beach, rather than the big bonfires at a festival or whatever).
It's not the kind of thing you can throw down in a room and guarantee that there's nobody hiding there, especially since fire is actually quite a poor light source in practice, but that doesn't mean it produces zero light. If you want to scan a room for sneaky skulkers, you use the light cantrip, not a spell that produces a bit of light as a side effect.
If the spell intended to shed any light, it would have given a degree and specific radius of illumination for it, not leave people second guessing. As written, it doesn't give any. A DM can still say it does, but it's not written in the spell's effect like for other spells that do shed light. Nor are the general rules giving any specs for bonefire itself. So what is a bonfire degree and radius of illumination? Your guess are as good as mine.
I assume a 5 foot cube fire would shed even more than the flame of a torch that illuminate a 40 feet radius.
They often do, yes, but the general rule for light does not stop applying unless that spell specifically contradicts it.
Spells are a bit more specific than general rules, they usually tells you when they intend to shed light or not, they don't leave people second guessing their possible effect.
It's still a ruling that can be made by the DM though, but the thread question is does create bonfire creates light, the spell doesn't say it does as written.
I agree that spells usually tell you when they intend to shed light. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it looks to me like you are saying that with spells, a lack of confirmation is the same thing as a contradiction and that isn't how rules work in D&D. Specific rules only beat general rules when they contradict them.
Create bonfire does not say that it does not create light, so the general rule that fire creates bright light still applies to the spell, so long as we can agree that a bonfire is a fire.
It reminds me of Pass Without Trace that create a veil of shadow without giving any lightly obscured effect.
The bonefire created cause fire damage, but it doesn't specifically shed bright light in any specific radius, like others spells and magic weapons such as Flametongue for exemple. With all those existing exemples, i hardly believe it was an oversight, especially for creating a bonefire. Crucial info as such would have been included in the spell if they really intended it. I think they purposefully left this out of the cantrip, preferring to leave it to DM to adjudicate how much light it shed, if any.
You are ignoring both the intent of the spell and a literal reading of the words.
But the thing is, when spells intend to shed light, they literally say so in their own words.
They often do, yes, but the general rule for light does not stop applying unless that spell specifically contradicts it.
Spells are a bit more specific than general rules, they usually tells you when they intend to shed light or not, they don't leave people second guessing their possible effect.
It's still a ruling that can be made by the DM though, but the thread question is does create bonfire creates light, the spell doesn't say it does as written.
Well actually, the rules on lighting do not say 'non-magical fires.' They say 'fires.' Most other lighting spells are not fires, so that generally light producing spells say that they produce light can be in most cases attributed to those spells not saying they produce anything in the rules that otherwise would produce light.
If you use Performance of Creation to create a torch, a non-magical item that is clearly listed in the equipment section of the player's handbook, is one able to light the torch or not? If lit, does this torch with clearly non-normal torch properties, including disappearing completely after an hour, still produce light?
If you create a torch, you can refer to torch for its degree and specific radius of illumination in the rulebook, wherethere's none for bonfire. Like i said, as written Create bonfire create a bonfire but doesn't say it shed light to what degree and radius, if any. Nor are the general rules providing any info on what a bonfire's degree and radius of illumination is, hence the whole second guessing i was alluding to.
If the spell intended to shed any light, it would have given a degree and specific radius of illumination for it, not leave people second guessing.
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. It doesn't matter if the amount of light is left to the DM, that's the DM's job, they are the one who determines how much light is in an environment from the various light sources within it.
The difference with explicit magical light sources is that they override the environment; they provide an explicit amount of light in an explicit radius that can only be overridden by other magical effects. It doesn't matter how overcast or wet the environment is, if you're underground, how stale the air is etc., it simply provides that much light. The end.
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.
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.
With respect to lighting, the rule giving examples of bright light sources does not say 'non-magical fires' but rather simply 'fires.' Since it does not specify either way, it would be inclusive. This means, unless specified otherwise, all fires magical or otherwise produce bright light.
Does it? Do all shortswords do the same damage or do magic ones do different damage? Your argument is from a lack of text, not from the text; that won't ever prove anything. Just make a ruling and move on.
Having been in the other thread and having reviewed some of the discussion here in this thread, I believe I may be coming to see this spell as a really wonderful litmus test for DMs.
I’d argue that a general rule that says fires tell you how much light they shed indicates the opposite conclusion that you come to. But again, you’re still arguing from a lack of text.
I’d argue that a general rule that says fires tell you how much light they shed indicates the opposite conclusion that you come to. But again, you’re still arguing from a lack of text.
Ok, how much light does a burning building shed by RAW? How much light does a non magical Bonfire shed? How much light does a burning Troll shed. The fact is, the rules don't tell us how much light is shed by fire, only that it does. RAW only gives a small number of examples and leaves the rest to the DM. A magical bonfire sheds the same light as a non magical bonfire, we know this because the spell says it creates a bonfire. How much light is up to the DM.
I’d argue that a general rule that says fires tell you how much light they shed indicates the opposite conclusion that you come to. But again, you’re still arguing from a lack of text.
Ok, how much light does a burning building shed by RAW? How much light does a non magical Bonfire shed? How much light does a burning Troll shed. The fact is, the rules don't tell us how much light is shed by fire, only that it does. RAW only gives a small number of examples and leaves the rest to the DM. A magical bonfire sheds the same light as a non magical bonfire, we know this because the spell says it creates a bonfire. How much light is up to the DM.
This question misses and makes my entire point. RAW? What does the book say on the matter? I'll wait.
I’d argue that a general rule that says fires tell you how much light they shed indicates the opposite conclusion that you come to. But again, you’re still arguing from a lack of text.
Ok, how much light does a burning building shed by RAW? How much light does a non magical Bonfire shed? How much light does a burning Troll shed. The fact is, the rules don't tell us how much light is shed by fire, only that it does. RAW only gives a small number of examples and leaves the rest to the DM. A magical bonfire sheds the same light as a non magical bonfire, we know this because the spell says it creates a bonfire. How much light is up to the DM.
This question misses and makes my entire point. RAW? What does the book say on the matter? I'll wait.
By RAW, the spell makes light. RAW just doesn't say how much. The question of this thread is "Does It Create Heat and Light?" The answer by RAW is yes.
I certainly agree to disagree. "It's up to the DM" is the same bad answer that I (and I think some of you) complain about in other threads. But again, if RAW doesn't tell you, then that's all there is to that question. Does it produce light? Yes? How much? None!?
Just my opinion, of course, but I don't think that a DM deciding how much light a given bonfire produces is any more a bad answer than the DM setting a DC on the fly for a particular ability check. The rule provides the method and the DM decides the extent. That being said, I think we all understand each other even if we don't all agree, and I'm content to put a fork in this thread much like the last one with all parties having stated their cases and moving on to the next debate :)
..., and I'm content to put a fork in this thread much like the last one with all parties having stated their cases and moving on to the next debate :)
Like if/how much heat it produces? Just kidding. :)
I certainly agree to disagree. "It's up to the DM" is the same bad answer that I (and I think some of you) complain about in other threads.
"It's up to the DM" isn't a bad answer when it's the correct one.
D&D is not a game where every question has, or needs to have, an absolute answer; that's kind of the point. It's a DM led game, a big part of the world is ultimately simulated by the DM themselves, they are the source and answer to most questions.
It's important to remember this on any Rules As Written question, because the rules tell us how the game is intended to be run by a DM, so ultimately "it's up to the DM" is the RAW answer to anything that doesn't have an explicit answer.
But in the absence of anything else create bonfire tells us that a bonfire is created, bonfires produce heat and light, ergo they must also do so in D&D (as nothing else tells us otherwise, just as chairs can be sat on, you can put objects on tables and so-on), and the lighting rules specifically confirm that fire produces light.
This is all we need to know to answer the question "does it create heat and light". How much and what impact does it have in game is up to the DM, and that's the correct answer in RAW.
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.
..., and I'm content to put a fork in this thread much like the last one with all parties having stated their cases and moving on to the next debate :)
Like if/how much heat it produces? Just kidding. :)
Lol, heat is actually a much trickier question, mostly because the Dev's were trying to remove worries about damage to worn equipment. This results in some truly absurd situations. But that would be an entirely different thread, I'd say....
Not really. Fire damage = heat damage. That's just common sense.
The 5e multiverse just has the mysterious property of work/held items being immune to damage that isn't specifically meant for them. Probably the influence of a god...
..., and I'm content to put a fork in this thread much like the last one with all parties having stated their cases and moving on to the next debate :)
Like if/how much heat it produces? Just kidding. :)
Lol, heat is actually a much trickier question, mostly because the Dev's were trying to remove worries about damage to worn equipment. This results in some truly absurd situations. But that would be an entirely different thread, I'd say....
Not really. Fire damage = heat damage. That's just common sense.
The 5e multiverse just has the mysterious property of work/held items being immune to damage that isn't specifically meant for them. Probably the influence of a god...
Yeah, if you want to preserve your sanity, just equate heat with fire damage.
And yet, carried objects are usually not set on fire by fire damage, RAW. The aforementioned magical bonfire will set flammable objects on fire, but only if they are not worn or held and despite it doing fire damage to creatures. And there is nothing that I know of anywhere in the rules that actually says that fire is ... warm.
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.
If the spell intended to shed any light, it would have given a degree and specific radius of illumination for it, not leave people second guessing. As written, it doesn't give any. A DM can still say it does, but it's not written in the spell's effect like for other spells that do shed light. Nor are the general rules giving any specs for bonefire itself. So what is a bonfire degree and radius of illumination? Your guess are as good as mine.
I assume a 5 foot cube fire would shed even more than the flame of a torch that illuminate a 40 feet radius.
It reminds me of Pass Without Trace that create a veil of shadow without giving any lightly obscured effect.
The bonefire created cause fire damage, but it doesn't specifically shed bright light in any specific radius, like others spells and magic weapons such as Flametongue for exemple. With all those existing exemples, i hardly believe it was an oversight, especially for creating a bonefire. Crucial info as such would have been included in the spell if they really intended it. I think they purposefully left this out of the cantrip, preferring to leave it to DM to adjudicate how much light it shed, if any.
If you create a torch, you can refer to torch for its degree and specific radius of illumination in the rulebook, wherethere's none for bonfire. Like i said, as written Create bonfire create a bonfire but doesn't say it shed light to what degree and radius, if any. Nor are the general rules providing any info on what a bonfire's degree and radius of illumination is, hence the whole second guessing i was alluding to.
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. It doesn't matter if the amount of light is left to the DM, that's the DM's job, they are the one who determines how much light is in an environment from the various light sources within it.
The difference with explicit magical light sources is that they override the environment; they provide an explicit amount of light in an explicit radius that can only be overridden by other magical effects. It doesn't matter how overcast or wet the environment is, if you're underground, how stale the air is etc., it simply provides that much light. The end.
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.
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.
Does it? Do all shortswords do the same damage or do magic ones do different damage? Your argument is from a lack of text, not from the text; that won't ever prove anything. Just make a ruling and move on.
This is how I see it as well.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Having been in the other thread and having reviewed some of the discussion here in this thread, I believe I may be coming to see this spell as a really wonderful litmus test for DMs.
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’d argue that a general rule that says fires tell you how much light they shed indicates the opposite conclusion that you come to. But again, you’re still arguing from a lack of text.
Ok, how much light does a burning building shed by RAW? How much light does a non magical Bonfire shed? How much light does a burning Troll shed. The fact is, the rules don't tell us how much light is shed by fire, only that it does. RAW only gives a small number of examples and leaves the rest to the DM. A magical bonfire sheds the same light as a non magical bonfire, we know this because the spell says it creates a bonfire. How much light is up to the DM.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
(emphasis mine) Are you speaking hypothetically, or are you referring to a general rule that uses such wording?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
This question misses and makes my entire point. RAW? What does the book say on the matter? I'll wait.
By RAW, the spell makes light. RAW just doesn't say how much. The question of this thread is "Does It Create Heat and Light?" The answer by RAW is yes.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I certainly agree to disagree. "It's up to the DM" is the same bad answer that I (and I think some of you) complain about in other threads. But again, if RAW doesn't tell you, then that's all there is to that question. Does it produce light? Yes? How much? None!?
Just my opinion, of course, but I don't think that a DM deciding how much light a given bonfire produces is any more a bad answer than the DM setting a DC on the fly for a particular ability check. The rule provides the method and the DM decides the extent. That being said, I think we all understand each other even if we don't all agree, and I'm content to put a fork in this thread much like the last one with all parties having stated their cases and moving on to the next debate :)
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Like if/how much heat it produces? Just kidding. :)
"It's up to the DM" isn't a bad answer when it's the correct one.
D&D is not a game where every question has, or needs to have, an absolute answer; that's kind of the point. It's a DM led game, a big part of the world is ultimately simulated by the DM themselves, they are the source and answer to most questions.
It's important to remember this on any Rules As Written question, because the rules tell us how the game is intended to be run by a DM, so ultimately "it's up to the DM" is the RAW answer to anything that doesn't have an explicit answer.
But in the absence of anything else create bonfire tells us that a bonfire is created, bonfires produce heat and light, ergo they must also do so in D&D (as nothing else tells us otherwise, just as chairs can be sat on, you can put objects on tables and so-on), and the lighting rules specifically confirm that fire produces light.
This is all we need to know to answer the question "does it create heat and light". How much and what impact does it have in game is up to the DM, and that's the correct answer in RAW.
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.
Not really. Fire damage = heat damage. That's just common sense.
The 5e multiverse just has the mysterious property of work/held items being immune to damage that isn't specifically meant for them. Probably the influence of a god...
Yeah, if you want to preserve your sanity, just equate heat with fire damage.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I have a question, what does RAW say about the oxygen content in the air?
Cause if it says nothing, then I guess we should wait till WoTC confirms it before we play.
;-p
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.