How would you get the 'fire bolt' into the pipe behind the ball?
And no the spell prestidigitation just says warm not super heated.
And yes very good air rifles have been produced that are easily capable of hunting deer, and people.
If a DM allows this pipe gun he would be opening a huge problem for himself. Its a magical way to get around the gunpowder problem and in effect would even allow large cannon.
How would you get the 'fire bolt' into the pipe behind the ball?
I think the suggestion is just that fire bolt be used the for mechanics, and firing it with some kind of home-made device is purely for the flavour; same as how Artificers are encouraged to change how they describe spells to be somehow part of an invention.
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.
I understand using the spell for mechanics thats fine.
But for most spells you need to see the target area in someway at least. To allow this one instance of casting through the side of a metal pipe opens up the option to other spells. Or, to allow the casting of the spell into the pipe and then releasing it at some later date entails the crafting of a whole new magic item. Not just the simple adding of a pipe,pellet and spell to make something new. I can see the full creation of a new magic item. Usable with a limited amount of charges and a long reload time. But then again if you put the pipe on a stock, like for a crossbow, it would them just be a muzzle loading long gun. And since the DM has already said no firearms........
I understand using the spell for mechanics thats fine.
But for most spells you need to see the target area in someway at least. To allow this one instance of casting through the side of a metal pipe opens up the option to other spells. Or, to allow the casting of the spell into the pipe and then releasing it at some later date entails the crafting of a whole new magic item. Not just the simple adding of a pipe,pellet and spell to make something new. I can see the full creation of a new magic item. Usable with a limited amount of charges and a long reload time. But then again if you put the pipe on a stock, like for a crossbow, it would them just be a muzzle loading long gun. And since the DM has already said no firearms........
No one is saying to cast Fire bolt through the side of the pipe so it is then inside the pipe and then fires out. It’s just describing it as if the fire bolt comes out of the pipe. It’s basically you are casting the spell with a wand, as spell focus, but the wand is a hollow pipe. You aim the pipe/wand, cast the spell, and the firebolt comes from the tip. And I know Fire Bolt does not have M component so focus doesn’t matter and and it targets a creature or object not a space so you wouldn’t have the issue you bring up either.
If you used predsigitation to make tea, could you say that warm is boiling in order to make it?, what about food that set on fire as presentation?
No and no. Boiling is agreeably "hot" whereas warm would be above room temperature but below scalding yourself. Same goes for the second question in this.
I understand using the spell for mechanics thats fine.
And that's all you'd be doing. Describing it as a metal ball shot through a pipe would have no more impact on the mechanics than saying your fire bolt came out green instead of red
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
If you used predsigitation to make tea, could you say that warm is boiling in order to make it?, what about food that set on fire as presentation?
Rules As Written, no because it can only "warm" the substance.
However prestidigitation is basically a general "make my life easier" spell; it does loads of things you could very easily just do yourself by mundane means, so a DM will probably allow anything that has no particular mechanical benefit. So if you just want to heat your tea/coffee for drinking that's likely to be fine, but if you want boiling water to splash on someone's face that might not be.
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.
IMO, if you're going to try to pull a trick like this off by pointing to real-world physics, you need to be able to make the physics work. In this case, you need to figure out how hot you need to make the air in question in order to make it expand fast enough to propel your ball-bearing at a speed that it'll do any damage. I'm not about to break out Boyle's law, much less the rest of the necessary physics, but I'm pretty sure the answer is "very".
Then, even ignoring the necessary engineering to make the seal work (because if the heated air can just flow around the ball, it will), you need to persuade your GM that this cantrip, that has no ability to do any damage, can heat something up to that temperature.
I understand using the spell for mechanics thats fine.
And that's all you'd be doing. Describing it as a metal ball shot through a pipe would have no more impact on the mechanics than saying your fire bolt came out green instead of red
Actually that does change all the mechanics. Your either adding a material component to the fire bolt spell , the bearing, or your creating a wand of firing ball bearings(needing material to work). Neither result should be so easy or even possible with a simple cantrip. The OP is asking to create a rifle just by casting a cantrip, which is not even RAI in any way.
Just changing the color of your spell is not changing the actual mechanics, its just the eventual flavor of the outcome.
If he wants a magic wand he can create one by the existing rules, or he can employ an artificer to create one or he can even be an artificer.
Your either adding a material component to the fire bolt spell , the bearing, or your creating a wand of firing ball bearings(needing material to work). Neither result should be so easy or even possible with a simple cantrip.
Fire bolt has a somatic component, while strictly speaking these are just motions or gestures or whatever (in the description "you hurl a mote of fire"), nothing prevents flavour from being more restrictive than that, i.e- the motion in this case would be shooting the fire (or heated ball bearing or whatever) from the "gun", along with whatever steps are required to do-so.
This is adding to the minimum (having a hand free) and essentially a form of self-restriction, as presumably not having the "gun" would mean being unable to cast, even though nothing in the rules says that would be the case.
I have an Artificer that plays a bit like that; they're an Armorer so all of their powers are themed around their guardian armour, so for him thunderwave is cast by punching a thunder gauntlet into the back of his shield, which has been built specifically to amplify the effect into the wave of thunder that the spell creates. If I were unable to use the shield (or thunder gauntlet) I'd self restrict and not cast the spell even though mechanically there's nothing stopping me from doing so (because it never required me to have or punch a shield to begin with).
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 understand using the spell for mechanics thats fine.
And that's all you'd be doing. Describing it as a metal ball shot through a pipe would have no more impact on the mechanics than saying your fire bolt came out green instead of red
Actually that does change all the mechanics. Your either adding a material component to the fire bolt spell , the bearing, or your creating a wand of firing ball bearings(needing material to work). Neither result should be so easy or even possible with a simple cantrip. The OP is asking to create a rifle just by casting a cantrip, which is not even RAI in any way.
Just changing the color of your spell is not changing the actual mechanics, its just the eventual flavor of the outcome.
If he wants a magic wand he can create one by the existing rules, or he can employ an artificer to create one or he can even be an artificer.
Seems like you’re overthinking it. As long as it does a d10 fire damage with a 120 range, (etc.) the rest is flavor. Instead of a “mote of fire” it’s a bullet. If you try to make it non-magical bludgeoning or piercing damage, then you’ve changed it beyond flavor, or if you try to remove the V component that’s more than flavor (though I’d say the thing going Bang! could easily count as that), but otherwise the way he generates the thing doesn’t matter.
I understand using the spell for mechanics thats fine.
And that's all you'd be doing. Describing it as a metal ball shot through a pipe would have no more impact on the mechanics than saying your fire bolt came out green instead of red
Actually that does change all the mechanics.
It really doesn't. The spell functions in exactly the same way -- you're only changing how you describe it
You seem to be confusing a spell's optional description with its required components
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I understand using the spell for mechanics thats fine.
And that's all you'd be doing. Describing it as a metal ball shot through a pipe would have no more impact on the mechanics than saying your fire bolt came out green instead of red
Actually that does change all the mechanics. Your either adding a material component to the fire bolt spell, the bearing (No. the Fire Bolt “mote” is the “bearing”) , or your creating a wand of firing ball bearings(needing material to work) (The wand/pipe can be a focus or just something you are holding as FB doesn’t need M component so a focus isn’t necessary. You just need a free hand for S component and instead of hurling the mote/bearing it comes from the end (not from inside) of the wand/pipe). Neither result should be so easy or even possible with a simple cantrip. The OP is asking to create a rifle just by casting a cantrip, which is not even RAI in any way.
Just changing the color of your spell is not changing the actual mechanics, its just the eventual flavor of the outcome.
If he wants a magic wand he can create one by the existing rules, or he can employ an artificer to create one or he can even be an artificer.
Responses in blue in the quote because I’m on my phone and splitting up a quote is a pain this way. It’s just flavor not Mechanical change
I’m with the rest - no it won’t work, and neither will produce flame. Neither is providing the heat rapidly enough to generate the pressures needed to fire the ballbearings down the barrel. One of two things would happen: 1) if the ball bearing isn’t an air tight fit the expanding air will just flow around it and out leaving the ballbearings in the tube. 2) if the ball bearings have an air tight fit then they are pushed slowly down the barrel until they pop out the end and drop to the ground at your feet.
Neither method is doing what gunpowder is actually doing. It’s not heating the air behind the bullet causing the air to expand pushing the bullet out. Gunpowders are (very rapidly) converting a small volume of solid (the gunpowder) into a large volume of (high pressure because the bullet is air tight) gas that then pushes the bullet down the tube as the (new) gases behind it expand rapidly down the tube. One of the early problems with attempts at breach loading was getting the breach seal both air tight and strong enough that the bullet’s friction with the barrel was weakest link in the gas containment so that you didn’t blow the breach back into your face.
Those would be more like shot puts than ball bearings. Unless you just catapult the entire bag at once.
Choose one object weighing 1 to 5 pounds within range that isn’t being worn or carried. 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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Or....hear me out...you just have a bag of ball bearings and use Catapult.
A bag of ball bearings to me is not a single object but a thousant one, and a single ball is not meeting the weight requirement to be used with the Catapult. spell.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
How would you get the 'fire bolt' into the pipe behind the ball?
And no the spell prestidigitation just says warm not super heated.
And yes very good air rifles have been produced that are easily capable of hunting deer, and people.
If a DM allows this pipe gun he would be opening a huge problem for himself. Its a magical way to get around the gunpowder problem and in effect would even allow large cannon.
Another reason I do not like the Artificer class.
I think the suggestion is just that fire bolt be used the for mechanics, and firing it with some kind of home-made device is purely for the flavour; same as how Artificers are encouraged to change how they describe spells to be somehow part of an invention.
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 understand using the spell for mechanics thats fine.
But for most spells you need to see the target area in someway at least. To allow this one instance of casting through the side of a metal pipe opens up the option to other spells.
Or, to allow the casting of the spell into the pipe and then releasing it at some later date entails the crafting of a whole new magic item. Not just the simple adding of a pipe,pellet and spell to make something new. I can see the full creation of a new magic item. Usable with a limited amount of charges and a long reload time. But then again if you put the pipe on a stock, like for a crossbow, it would them just be a muzzle loading long gun.
And since the DM has already said no firearms........
If you used predsigitation to make tea, could you say that warm is boiling in order to make it?, what about food that set on fire as presentation?
By the way thanks for all the feedback, this is my first thread creation
No one is saying to cast Fire bolt through the side of the pipe so it is then inside the pipe and then fires out. It’s just describing it as if the fire bolt comes out of the pipe. It’s basically you are casting the spell with a wand, as spell focus, but the wand is a hollow pipe. You aim the pipe/wand, cast the spell, and the firebolt comes from the tip. And I know Fire Bolt does not have M component so focus doesn’t matter and and it targets a creature or object not a space so you wouldn’t have the issue you bring up either.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
No and no. Boiling is agreeably "hot" whereas warm would be above room temperature but below scalding yourself. Same goes for the second question in this.
And that's all you'd be doing. Describing it as a metal ball shot through a pipe would have no more impact on the mechanics than saying your fire bolt came out green instead of red
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Rules As Written, no because it can only "warm" the substance.
However prestidigitation is basically a general "make my life easier" spell; it does loads of things you could very easily just do yourself by mundane means, so a DM will probably allow anything that has no particular mechanical benefit. So if you just want to heat your tea/coffee for drinking that's likely to be fine, but if you want boiling water to splash on someone's face that might not be.
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.
IMO, if you're going to try to pull a trick like this off by pointing to real-world physics, you need to be able to make the physics work. In this case, you need to figure out how hot you need to make the air in question in order to make it expand fast enough to propel your ball-bearing at a speed that it'll do any damage. I'm not about to break out Boyle's law, much less the rest of the necessary physics, but I'm pretty sure the answer is "very".
Then, even ignoring the necessary engineering to make the seal work (because if the heated air can just flow around the ball, it will), you need to persuade your GM that this cantrip, that has no ability to do any damage, can heat something up to that temperature.
Actually that does change all the mechanics.
Your either adding a material component to the fire bolt spell , the bearing, or your creating a wand of firing ball bearings(needing material to work). Neither result should be so easy or even possible with a simple cantrip.
The OP is asking to create a rifle just by casting a cantrip, which is not even RAI in any way.
Just changing the color of your spell is not changing the actual mechanics, its just the eventual flavor of the outcome.
If he wants a magic wand he can create one by the existing rules, or he can employ an artificer to create one or he can even be an artificer.
Fire bolt has a somatic component, while strictly speaking these are just motions or gestures or whatever (in the description "you hurl a mote of fire"), nothing prevents flavour from being more restrictive than that, i.e- the motion in this case would be shooting the fire (or heated ball bearing or whatever) from the "gun", along with whatever steps are required to do-so.
This is adding to the minimum (having a hand free) and essentially a form of self-restriction, as presumably not having the "gun" would mean being unable to cast, even though nothing in the rules says that would be the case.
I have an Artificer that plays a bit like that; they're an Armorer so all of their powers are themed around their guardian armour, so for him thunderwave is cast by punching a thunder gauntlet into the back of his shield, which has been built specifically to amplify the effect into the wave of thunder that the spell creates. If I were unable to use the shield (or thunder gauntlet) I'd self restrict and not cast the spell even though mechanically there's nothing stopping me from doing so (because it never required me to have or punch a shield to begin with).
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.
Seems like you’re overthinking it. As long as it does a d10 fire damage with a 120 range, (etc.) the rest is flavor. Instead of a “mote of fire” it’s a bullet. If you try to make it non-magical bludgeoning or piercing damage, then you’ve changed it beyond flavor, or if you try to remove the V component that’s more than flavor (though I’d say the thing going Bang! could easily count as that), but otherwise the way he generates the thing doesn’t matter.
It really doesn't. The spell functions in exactly the same way -- you're only changing how you describe it
You seem to be confusing a spell's optional description with its required components
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Responses in blue in the quote because I’m on my phone and splitting up a quote is a pain this way. It’s just flavor not Mechanical change
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I’m with the rest - no it won’t work, and neither will produce flame. Neither is providing the heat rapidly enough to generate the pressures needed to fire the ballbearings down the barrel. One of two things would happen:
1) if the ball bearing isn’t an air tight fit the expanding air will just flow around it and out leaving the ballbearings in the tube.
2) if the ball bearings have an air tight fit then they are pushed slowly down the barrel until they pop out the end and drop to the ground at your feet.
Neither method is doing what gunpowder is actually doing. It’s not heating the air behind the bullet causing the air to expand pushing the bullet out. Gunpowders are (very rapidly) converting a small volume of solid (the gunpowder) into a large volume of (high pressure because the bullet is air tight) gas that then pushes the bullet down the tube as the (new) gases behind it expand rapidly down the tube. One of the early problems with attempts at breach loading was getting the breach seal both air tight and strong enough that the bullet’s friction with the barrel was weakest link in the gas containment so that you didn’t blow the breach back into your face.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Why? Sure I'd allow it, now you do 1d6 damage and roll with disadvantage to hit.
Maybe 1D4 - to your own toe!
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Those would be more like shot puts than ball bearings. Unless you just catapult the entire bag at once.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
A bag of ball bearings to me is not a single object but a thousant one, and a single ball is not meeting the weight requirement to be used with the Catapult. spell.