What impact do spells such as Wall of Fire (that have an ongoing damaging effect) have on their environment after they finish or are dispelled/dropped? What inspired this question is when Wall of Fire was used on Critical Role
in s2 e43 onboard a (wooden) pirate ship and lasted several rounds (equivalent of at least 12-18 seconds of 5d8 fire damage, plus the initial damage) before concentration was lost
and the spell dropped, instantly removing all the fire without igniting anything or causing the environment to catch (and thus remain) on fire afterwards.
Interestingly it is not noted that the spell ignites flammable objects unlike Fireball, however I cannot think of why it would not do so, particularly considering that it does not give the caster the option to choose its targets, preventing friendly fire (ha ha).
Anyway, if this were cast on a flammable surface, would it be fair to assume that such fire spells would set the environment ablaze (particularly after several turns), meaning that after being dispelled or dropped, a fire (albeit non-magical and less ferocious - arguably just causing the usual 5 [1d10] fire damage) would remain in its place?
Of course there is no concrete answer for this (as is the nature of D&D) but I'm interested in your thoughts & opinions.
I personally would rule that if the Wall of Fire went the full duration things will burn after, but if dispelled or dropped I would say that no fire remains. However if the intent of the caster was to catch things on fire initially, I’d be okay with that too and let it burn.
As you talked about, fire spells tend to have wording along the lines of: "ignites flammable objects not being worn or carried". Without that wording I believe the intent is the spell is magic and only damages creatures. However as a Player I don't assume that, especially with spells that have a duration longer then instantaneous. As a DM I'll usually mention something before the spell is cast if it's going to have that kind of detrimental effect on the landscape, because it's technically not in the rules and I feel like the character would know ahead of time before casting the spell.
I also agree with Utticer that the intent of the caster is important. So if they're intentionally trying to catch something on fire I'll work with the player to make that happen, even if the spell doesn't talk about doing that. The more creative they are trying to be, or the more focused they are on that effect, or the more they are willing to give up to make the fire happen, the easier I'll make it.
What impact do spells such as Wall of Fire (that have an ongoing damaging effect) have on their environment after they finish or are dispelled/dropped? What inspired this question is when Wall of Fire was used on Critical Role
in s2 e43 onboard a (wooden) pirate ship and lasted several rounds (equivalent of at least 12-18 seconds of 5d8 fire damage, plus the initial damage) before concentration was lost
and the spell dropped, instantly removing all the fire without igniting anything or causing the environment to catch (and thus remain) on fire afterwards.
Interestingly it is not noted that the spell ignites flammable objects unlike Fireball, however I cannot think of why it would not do so, particularly considering that it does not give the caster the option to choose its targets, preventing friendly fire (ha ha).
Anyway, if this were cast on a flammable surface, would it be fair to assume that such fire spells would set the environment ablaze (particularly after several turns), meaning that after being dispelled or dropped, a fire (albeit non-magical and less ferocious - arguably just causing the usual 5 [1d10] fire damage) would remain in its place?
Of course there is no concrete answer for this (as is the nature of D&D) but I'm interested in your thoughts & opinions.
I personally would rule that if the Wall of Fire went the full duration things will burn after, but if dispelled or dropped I would say that no fire remains. However if the intent of the caster was to catch things on fire initially, I’d be okay with that too and let it burn.
edit: That scene in CR was super amazing.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
InsiderAs you talked about, fire spells tend to have wording along the lines of: "ignites flammable objects not being worn or carried". Without that wording I believe the intent is the spell is magic and only damages creatures. However as a Player I don't assume that, especially with spells that have a duration longer then instantaneous. As a DM I'll usually mention something before the spell is cast if it's going to have that kind of detrimental effect on the landscape, because it's technically not in the rules and I feel like the character would know ahead of time before casting the spell.
I also agree with Utticer that the intent of the caster is important. So if they're intentionally trying to catch something on fire I'll work with the player to make that happen, even if the spell doesn't talk about doing that. The more creative they are trying to be, or the more focused they are on that effect, or the more they are willing to give up to make the fire happen, the easier I'll make it.
Find me on Twitter: @OboeLauren
It isn't a satisfying answer, but: Because magic.
I’ll point out. That not every ruling on critical role is RAW too.
ex: s1 ep19 or 20.
a level 10 fighter with a +8 mod. Would still hit a rat by rolling a 3.
but, it was funnier to have Wil Wheaton miss. Since he rolled 1 and 2 on his 2 other attacks on the same rat.
edit: as to the actual OP question.
typically DMs will remind you it ignited flammable things not worn. And ask if you still want to. But the boat *should* have been on fire.
edit2:
there’s actually a specific PuffinForest video, of this almost exact scenario (using a flaming sphere) in one of the AL modules.
its the same one as the “bucket” idea.
Blank