so question for all, my character got dragon breathed by an adult red dragon and it was causing an “on fire” effect, I tried to use my characters reaction but the DM said being on fire makes you lose your reaction. I can’t find where it says being on fire makes you lose your reaction. Anyone have any onsite into this?
I feel like this kind of rules comes from the idea that when you have something on fire, you're kinda reacting to it, putting it out, hence losing your reaction. But it always strikes me as sort of near-sighted.
Intense cold damage could freeze your limbs, acid might need to be scrapped off as it eats through your protections, lightning might cause you to spasm while thunder or psychic might make you disoriented. Not to mention bludgeoning damage. I feel like you could justify losing your reaction from pretty much any type of damage.
But making it on a single element buffs that element. Does he apply this rule on fireballs as well? What about fire bolts ?
It's the kind of thing that's well-intended for realism but, imo, doesn't really work that great.
There are some spells and creatures that cause continuing effects after the attack, but Adult Red Dragon is not one of them. The Fire breath just does damage. It's not clear from your description if your DM is making an extra powerful Adult Red Dragon that has an extra ability, is adding an extra ability to all fire attacks, or is just misinterpreting the rules. Some fire attacks (but not the red dragon's breath attack) have a line that says "A flammable object hit by this spell ignites if it isn't being worn or carried." Since your clothes and equipment are being worn or carried, they would not catch on fire even if the attack did contain that line.
It's definitely a homebrew ruling by the DM. Given the large # of people who have been watching Game of Thrones, though, I'm actually a little surprised that this is the first comment of this kind. The impression one gets watching a GoT dragon setting fire to people is that it sets people's clothes on fire. So there's some fiction-creep here. It's not fair to do this without updating players on the house rule ahead of time, but I can see justification for the rule narrative-wise.
so question for all, my character got dragon breathed by an adult red dragon and it was causing an “on fire” effect, I tried to use my characters reaction but the DM said being on fire makes you lose your reaction. I can’t find where it says being on fire makes you lose your reaction. Anyone have any onsite into this?
Your DM is definitely either misreading the rules, or making up his own. All of the five chromatic dragons each have just one type of breath attack, and all it does is deal a smackton of damage, less if you make your save. After you take the damage, there is no other effect, according to the Monster Manual. And there is nothing in the rules about an "on fire" condition that takes away your reaction. There are spells & effects that set you on fire and require an action or check to put the fire out an avoid taking additional damage, but the description explicitly says so when it happens. An example of this would be if a Fire Elemental enters your space. You catch fire and take damage each turn until you or someone else takes an action to douse the flames. But even with that, there's nothing about you losing your ability to take reactions. I would talk to your DM, because houserules should be discussed ahead of time. If he tries to claim it's in the rules, ask him to cite his source, cuz it ain't in there.
It may not be a thing by the rules, but I do like it as a way of making a dragon's fire breath just a little nastier by requiring a reaction or an action to extinguish the flame. That is, assuming you wanted to make a red dragon's flame breath just a little nastier :)
It may not be a thing by the rules, but I do like it as a way of making a dragon's fire breath just a little nastier by requiring a reaction or an action to extinguish the flame. That is, assuming you wanted to make a red dragon's flame breath just a little nastier :)
But why specifically fire ? I mentioned how you could basically apply this to any elemental damage. Furthermore, it also raises the question: why would a dragon's breath set you on fire but not, say, a scorching ray, a fireball, or even a literal fire storm ?
Maybe the dragon breathes napalm. Again, we're not talking about RAW anymore, but you could say that dragonfire is special because of <insert reason>. Or you might just say that the breath of this one particular dragon is special because of <insert reason> when in fact, it's special at the table because the DM wants to make the encounter more challenging and memorable.
Fantasy has provided us with plenty of precedent for dragonfire being a special kind of fire if you want it to be.
Maybe the dragon breathes napalm. Again, we're not talking about RAW anymore, but you could say that dragonfire is special because of <insert reason>. Or you might just say that the breath of this one particular dragon is special because of <insert reason> when in fact, it's special at the table because the DM wants to make the encounter more challenging and memorable.
Fantasy has provided us with plenty of precedent for dragonfire being a special kind of fire if you want it to be.
"If you want it to be" is the key thing. The point of all this is that the DM has made those rules up. If you go by what's in the books, the effect of a dragon's fire breath is a single instance of a boatload of damage. That's it. No after effects. No lingering damage. No "on fire" condition that inhibits the player in any way. Is the DM free to homebrew something to make dragon's breath more powerful? Sure. But imposing a condition like that is a significant thing. At the very LEAST, when the player took the damage, the DM should have informed him of an conditions imposed on him. "Okay, you take umpty-ump points of fire damage, and are now 'burning', so you cannot take reactions until you put the flames out".
Sounds like your DM just didn't want you to use Uncanny Dodge, lol.
You can't Uncanny Dodge a dragons breath anyway, because it's not an Attack.
I believe he was trying to use his reaction on a subsequent turn, but the DM told him that since he was "on fire" from the dragon's breath that he couldn't take reactions.
"If you want it to be" is the key thing. The point of all this is that the DM has made those rules up. If you go by what's in the books, the effect of a dragon's fire breath is a single instance of a boatload of damage. That's it. No after effects. No lingering damage. No "on fire" condition that inhibits the player in any way. Is the DM free to homebrew something to make dragon's breath more powerful? Sure. But imposing a condition like that is a significant thing. At the very LEAST, when the player took the damage, the DM should have informed him of an conditions imposed on him. "Okay, you take umpty-ump points of fire damage, and are now 'burning', so you cannot take reactions until you put the flames out".
I made a point to be clear about this every time I posted in this thread.
Some monsters (well, maybe only one - the flesh golem is all I can think of) have an "aversion to fire" trait where they have disadvantage on attack roles for a round after they take fire damage. There's no rule about reactions and being "on fire," though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
so question for all, my character got dragon breathed by an adult red dragon and it was causing an “on fire” effect, I tried to use my characters reaction but the DM said being on fire makes you lose your reaction. I can’t find where it says being on fire makes you lose your reaction. Anyone have any onsite into this?
Being "on fire" is not a condition, and it is not stated anywhere that makes a character lose the reaction.
There's no "on fire" condition, conditions here.
There are some creature effects and spells that specify you remain "on fire", but those only do damage, I've never heard of someone losing a reaction.
Just double check with your DM, it could be a house rule he likes to play, so you may not find it within the official rules.
I feel like this kind of rules comes from the idea that when you have something on fire, you're kinda reacting to it, putting it out, hence losing your reaction. But it always strikes me as sort of near-sighted.
Intense cold damage could freeze your limbs, acid might need to be scrapped off as it eats through your protections, lightning might cause you to spasm while thunder or psychic might make you disoriented. Not to mention bludgeoning damage. I feel like you could justify losing your reaction from pretty much any type of damage.
But making it on a single element buffs that element. Does he apply this rule on fireballs as well? What about fire bolts ?
It's the kind of thing that's well-intended for realism but, imo, doesn't really work that great.
Click to learn to put cool-looking tooltips in your messages!
There are some spells and creatures that cause continuing effects after the attack, but Adult Red Dragon is not one of them. The Fire breath just does damage. It's not clear from your description if your DM is making an extra powerful Adult Red Dragon that has an extra ability, is adding an extra ability to all fire attacks, or is just misinterpreting the rules. Some fire attacks (but not the red dragon's breath attack) have a line that says "A flammable object hit by this spell ignites if it isn't being worn or carried." Since your clothes and equipment are being worn or carried, they would not catch on fire even if the attack did contain that line.
Sounds like your DM just didn't want you to use Uncanny Dodge, lol.
It's definitely a homebrew ruling by the DM. Given the large # of people who have been watching Game of Thrones, though, I'm actually a little surprised that this is the first comment of this kind. The impression one gets watching a GoT dragon setting fire to people is that it sets people's clothes on fire. So there's some fiction-creep here. It's not fair to do this without updating players on the house rule ahead of time, but I can see justification for the rule narrative-wise.
Your DM is definitely either misreading the rules, or making up his own. All of the five chromatic dragons each have just one type of breath attack, and all it does is deal a smackton of damage, less if you make your save. After you take the damage, there is no other effect, according to the Monster Manual. And there is nothing in the rules about an "on fire" condition that takes away your reaction. There are spells & effects that set you on fire and require an action or check to put the fire out an avoid taking additional damage, but the description explicitly says so when it happens. An example of this would be if a Fire Elemental enters your space. You catch fire and take damage each turn until you or someone else takes an action to douse the flames. But even with that, there's nothing about you losing your ability to take reactions. I would talk to your DM, because houserules should be discussed ahead of time. If he tries to claim it's in the rules, ask him to cite his source, cuz it ain't in there.
You can't Uncanny Dodge a dragons breath anyway, because it's not an Attack.
It may not be a thing by the rules, but I do like it as a way of making a dragon's fire breath just a little nastier by requiring a reaction or an action to extinguish the flame. That is, assuming you wanted to make a red dragon's flame breath just a little nastier :)
"Not all those who wander are lost"
But why specifically fire ? I mentioned how you could basically apply this to any elemental damage. Furthermore, it also raises the question: why would a dragon's breath set you on fire but not, say, a scorching ray, a fireball, or even a literal fire storm ?
Click to learn to put cool-looking tooltips in your messages!
Maybe the dragon breathes napalm. Again, we're not talking about RAW anymore, but you could say that dragonfire is special because of <insert reason>. Or you might just say that the breath of this one particular dragon is special because of <insert reason> when in fact, it's special at the table because the DM wants to make the encounter more challenging and memorable.
Fantasy has provided us with plenty of precedent for dragonfire being a special kind of fire if you want it to be.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
"If you want it to be" is the key thing. The point of all this is that the DM has made those rules up. If you go by what's in the books, the effect of a dragon's fire breath is a single instance of a boatload of damage. That's it. No after effects. No lingering damage. No "on fire" condition that inhibits the player in any way. Is the DM free to homebrew something to make dragon's breath more powerful? Sure. But imposing a condition like that is a significant thing. At the very LEAST, when the player took the damage, the DM should have informed him of an conditions imposed on him. "Okay, you take umpty-ump points of fire damage, and are now 'burning', so you cannot take reactions until you put the flames out".
I believe he was trying to use his reaction on a subsequent turn, but the DM told him that since he was "on fire" from the dragon's breath that he couldn't take reactions.
I made a point to be clear about this every time I posted in this thread.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Some monsters (well, maybe only one - the flesh golem is all I can think of) have an "aversion to fire" trait where they have disadvantage on attack roles for a round after they take fire damage. There's no rule about reactions and being "on fire," though.