Flavor text in a rule, is still a rule. This is what makes burning hands so awkward.
I'd say that Burning Hands is a great example to prove that there is such a thing as flavour text and that it isn't the same as rules text. I mean "a thin sheet of flames" is not the same as "a 15-foot cone" so either the spell description is internally inconsistent or the descriptive text is just that, a description, but not a rules mechanic.
That isn't flavor text, it tells you exactly what the spell aims to do. Spells do exactly what their description says. Nothing more, or less, than that. If it is in the spell description, it is not flavor text.
Besides, there is no reason to say that the thin sheet of flames isn't a cone. Have you ever seen an ice cream cone? It is a thin sheet, and a cone.
Does that mean burning hands requires two free hands? You cannot hold a focus or other object because you need to have both hands with thumbs touching and fingers spread?
It doesn't say it requires two free hands. Not sure where you're getting that from.
You said if it is in the spell’s description it isn’t flavor text. The spell description says “As you hold your hands with thumbs touching and fingers spread, a thin sheet of flames shoots forth from your outstretched fingertips.”
So that isn’t flavor? You need hands, plural, with thumbs touching and fingers spread. It’s what the spell says. Sounds like you need two hands free to do this. If it isn’t flavor text.
But I think it is flavor and you only need a free hand for the S component and the other can be doing whatever you like. This is why flavor text should be separate from the rules section of a spell.
If something requires free hands it'll say so. Nothing in burning hands says it does, even if you insist it does, anyone can read the spell description for themselves and see it doesn't.
First, I agree with you. But you said if it is in the spell description it isn't flavor text. I think there is, and I think the thumbs/fingers part of the sentence is.
Second, it doesn't need to say you need a free hand because the rules for S components tells you that already, so no need to take up space in every spell description to say that. Burning Hands says something different.
It feels like bad faith to ignore all context and only look for the presence or absence of the thing that will best support your argument.
EDIT: However, as I said before, you are technically correct, and I will give an example of how you could cast burning hands without having to drop or put away your spellcasting focus. If you cross your wrists and put your thumbs together palm-up with your fingers outstretched, it's reasonable that you might be able to cast the spell while holding something in your palm. There are probably other ways that a descriptive player could make it work for most items. Of course, it won't help you cast a V,S spell because you will need at least one hand free for the somatic component of the spell that lacks a material component.
A more interesting question is whether you still need to do this if you cast the spell subtly.
It feels like you're not picking up what I'm putting down.
What I'm saying is that not only do you not need to get into as much detail as you just did, you're not even supposed to. Instead of describing that you finagle your focus, you instead just describe putting your hands together thumbs touching shooting a thin sheet of flames. You needn't explain or even describe anything else. The only thing you need to care about is that your character does the thing the spell says. How he does it? Magic. Trying to drill down further causes problem, so... don't.
Or, if you do, know that you're going off-script when you do.
My DM doesn't really care about spell components and all that, but some tables are sticklers for how each and every interaction works depending on the requirements of the components of a spell. You say "you instead just describe putting your hands together thumbs touching shooting a thin sheet of flames". But I can see some DM somewhere, that follows all the spellcasting rules for components to the letter, ask a player how the players Eldritch Knight is casting that spell while wielding a shield?
If anything, I think what you said here "What I'm saying is that not only do you not need to get into as much detail as you just did, you're not even supposed to" should be a statement to WotC about this spell description. The wording, that I bolded in a previous post, from the spell description, goes into too much detail and describes using both hands to put thumbs together with fingers spread to shoot a sheet of flames. Even though the spellcasting rules say you only need one hand free to cast any S component spell.
Anyway, I don't believe you need two hands free to cast Burning Hands. But I do believe that spells do have flavor text and that text should be separate from the actual mechanics of the spell. Similar to how some feats will have some text followed by some bullet points to what the feat actually does. War Caster, which would be handy in this very situation, being one of them. (actually War Caster is not a good example, but Elven Accuracy would probably be better)
It feels like you're not picking up what I'm putting down.
Maybe you're right. Seems to me like you are saying that if a spell requires both hands free, it must explicitly say so without exception. I'm saying we can reach that conclusion explicitly or contextually. You said yourself that "if it is in the spell description, it is not flavor text." but then you seem to be ok with ignoring what that text says because it doesn't have another sentence in the description that explicitly says you need two hands free. So in your analysis, putting your thumbs together and spreading your fingers is perfectly fine for someone wielding a sword in their hand.
The only way that kind of perspective makes any sense to me is if you consider the first sentence of burning hands to be mechanically irrelevant flavor text, which you have made clear you do not. And then when asked to account for how those situations interact, you reply, "D&D isn't a reality simulator. It doesn't say you need two hands free, so it doesn't matter." and "No need for that kind of detail."
On Burning Hands, there is also the question of whether it is a cone or a triangular sheet, i.e. two or three dimensional.
Thankfully that question is of little matter because the part of the spell description that IS clear says this.
Each creature in a 15-foot cone must make a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes 3d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
So it affects a regular cone shape regardless of it being a "thin sheet of flames" or not. Maybe Rav's assertion that proximity is enough to be damaged is correct even though the rules normally doesn't work that way.
But I can see some DM somewhere, that follows all the spellcasting rules for components to the letter, ask a player how the players Eldritch Knight is casting that spell while wielding a shield?
The putting your hands together thumbs touching etc isn't a "requirement" to cast the spell.
That's what I'm saying. It isn't a requirement.
... it is an effect.
When you cast the spell, your thumbs tuouch and flames shoot out.
How? Magic.
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.
There's no such thing as fluff text in this edition, it's all part of the spell effect.
Spell: Each spell description begins with a block of information, including the spell's name, level, school of magic, casting time, range, components, and duration. The rest of a spell entry describes the spell's effect.
On Burning Hands, there is also the question of whether it is a cone or a triangular sheet, i.e. two or three dimensional.
As for Non-detection, the issue with spells such as Detect Magic is that the interpretation means that the person subject to a Non-Detection spell cannot use a Detect Magic spell, themselves, while still being subject to the magic on them being detected. That is at best counter-intuitive and does not seem likely RAI, even if it is RAW by way of a tight definition of 'target.'
See this is more a problem with how people misinterpret the word "target" of a spell. A cone of cold has a range of "Self" but that doesn't mean that the caster is a target of the spell and has to make a save against their own spell and take damage from it - no, it targets creatures "in the area" of a 60ft cone. Likewise Detect Magic doesn't target the caster, it targets 'creatures and objects in a 30ft radius'.
On Burning Hands, there is also the question of whether it is a cone or a triangular sheet, i.e. two or three dimensional.
Not really, just google "photo flame thrower". A flame thrower shoots flammable liquid in a straight line, but the flames from that igniting and mixing with the air expand to fill effectively a cone emanating from the weapon. This is precisely what Burning Hands is. It shoots out a thin sheet of fire which expands to fill a 15ft cone.
But I can see some DM somewhere, that follows all the spellcasting rules for components to the letter, ask a player how the players Eldritch Knight is casting that spell while wielding a shield?
The putting your hands together thumbs touching etc isn't a "requirement" to cast the spell.
That's what I'm saying. It isn't a requirement.
... it is an effect.
When you cast the spell, your thumbs tuouch and flames shoot out.
How? Magic.
So this spell produces an ice-cream cone shaped effect that burns creatures not touching the flames while forcing you to drop what you are holding to assume the described position (since it doesn't say you hold onto them)? Occam's razor would like a word with you.
If you have to infer an entirely non-standard set of parameters for a spell based on a description that offers exactly none of that and has a much more simple and reasonable option (its describing the casting and a 2D triangular effect as flavor text from an older edition, and updating the mechanics to work with 5e standard rules), then you are probably not correct in intent or interpretation.
The shape of a cone AoE is described in the PHB. It has nothing to do with the spell description, all AoE areas are described in the PHB. Nearly all AoE's are technically three-dimensional, although in many instances the height aspect is irrelevant, thus they are generally outlined via two-dimensional shapes when determining affected creatures or area. Technically, at any given point, a horizontally directed cone effect will reach up for a distance equal to half of the distance from the central axis, but this will almost never be relevant for determining affected creatures.
Some of the rules, if you remove them, will cause the game to sort of collapse in on itself. Usually in small ways, but sometimes dramatically. These are usually (but not always) the rules that include numbers and/or refer to other game mechanics. If you don't know how much damage Fireball deals, or how big it is, then casting Fireball becomes incredibly jank, but you can still remove those rules if you want to.
Remove whatever rules you don't like. That's the game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
First, I agree with you. But you said if it is in the spell description it isn't flavor text. I think there is, and I think the thumbs/fingers part of the sentence is.
Second, it doesn't need to say you need a free hand because the rules for S components tells you that already, so no need to take up space in every spell description to say that. Burning Hands says something different.
My DM doesn't really care about spell components and all that, but some tables are sticklers for how each and every interaction works depending on the requirements of the components of a spell. You say "you instead just describe putting your hands together thumbs touching shooting a thin sheet of flames". But I can see some DM somewhere, that follows all the spellcasting rules for components to the letter, ask a player how the players Eldritch Knight is casting that spell while wielding a shield?
If anything, I think what you said here "What I'm saying is that not only do you not need to get into as much detail as you just did, you're not even supposed to" should be a statement to WotC about this spell description. The wording, that I bolded in a previous post, from the spell description, goes into too much detail and describes using both hands to put thumbs together with fingers spread to shoot a sheet of flames. Even though the spellcasting rules say you only need one hand free to cast any S component spell.
Anyway, I don't believe you need two hands free to cast Burning Hands. But I do believe that spells do have flavor text and that text should be separate from the actual mechanics of the spell. Similar to how some feats will have some text followed by some bullet points to what the feat actually does. War Caster, which would be handy in this very situation, being one of them. (actually War Caster is not a good example, but Elven Accuracy would probably be better)
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Maybe you're right. Seems to me like you are saying that if a spell requires both hands free, it must explicitly say so without exception. I'm saying we can reach that conclusion explicitly or contextually. You said yourself that "if it is in the spell description, it is not flavor text." but then you seem to be ok with ignoring what that text says because it doesn't have another sentence in the description that explicitly says you need two hands free. So in your analysis, putting your thumbs together and spreading your fingers is perfectly fine for someone wielding a sword in their hand.
The only way that kind of perspective makes any sense to me is if you consider the first sentence of burning hands to be mechanically irrelevant flavor text, which you have made clear you do not. And then when asked to account for how those situations interact, you reply, "D&D isn't a reality simulator. It doesn't say you need two hands free, so it doesn't matter." and "No need for that kind of detail."
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Thankfully that question is of little matter because the part of the spell description that IS clear says this.
So it affects a regular cone shape regardless of it being a "thin sheet of flames" or not. Maybe Rav's assertion that proximity is enough to be damaged is correct even though the rules normally doesn't work that way.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The putting your hands together thumbs touching etc isn't a "requirement" to cast the spell.
That's what I'm saying. It isn't a requirement.
... it is an effect.
When you cast the spell, your thumbs tuouch and flames shoot out.
How? Magic.
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.
There's no such thing as fluff text in this edition, it's all part of the spell effect.
See this is more a problem with how people misinterpret the word "target" of a spell. A cone of cold has a range of "Self" but that doesn't mean that the caster is a target of the spell and has to make a save against their own spell and take damage from it - no, it targets creatures "in the area" of a 60ft cone. Likewise Detect Magic doesn't target the caster, it targets 'creatures and objects in a 30ft radius'.
Not really, just google "photo flame thrower". A flame thrower shoots flammable liquid in a straight line, but the flames from that igniting and mixing with the air expand to fill effectively a cone emanating from the weapon. This is precisely what Burning Hands is. It shoots out a thin sheet of fire which expands to fill a 15ft cone.
So this spell produces an ice-cream cone shaped effect that burns creatures not touching the flames while forcing you to drop what you are holding to assume the described position (since it doesn't say you hold onto them)? Occam's razor would like a word with you.
If you have to infer an entirely non-standard set of parameters for a spell based on a description that offers exactly none of that and has a much more simple and reasonable option (its describing the casting and a 2D triangular effect as flavor text from an older edition, and updating the mechanics to work with 5e standard rules), then you are probably not correct in intent or interpretation.
The shape of a cone AoE is described in the PHB. It has nothing to do with the spell description, all AoE areas are described in the PHB. Nearly all AoE's are technically three-dimensional, although in many instances the height aspect is irrelevant, thus they are generally outlined via two-dimensional shapes when determining affected creatures or area. Technically, at any given point, a horizontally directed cone effect will reach up for a distance equal to half of the distance from the central axis, but this will almost never be relevant for determining affected creatures.
It's all rules.
Some of the rules, if you remove them, will cause the game to sort of collapse in on itself. Usually in small ways, but sometimes dramatically. These are usually (but not always) the rules that include numbers and/or refer to other game mechanics. If you don't know how much damage Fireball deals, or how big it is, then casting Fireball becomes incredibly jank, but you can still remove those rules if you want to.
Remove whatever rules you don't like. That's the game.