While Transmutated Spell only change damage type, I'd never have a spell saying it ignitie flammable object still do if i judge it no longer involve flammability in any way. I'd let lightning damage for exemple still ignite, but not cold.
This is the most forum thread ever. What does the word "flammable" even mean? Who cares?
If y'all want magic snow that sets stuff on fire, then cool, have that.It's still doing fire damage.
That last sentence is actually untrue, as the entire point of the thread was focused around features (specifically the transmuted spell metamagic option) which changes the damage the spell deals.
The more specific example is a Fireball which now deals cold damage also igniting flammable objects that has people in a tizzy
You have it exactly backwards. If you want it to set things on fire, it has to do fire damage. 'Flammable' has an actual definition, and it isn't "easily catches fire when it gets really cold". fireball ignites flammable objects.
A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame. Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A target takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
The fire spreads around corners. It ignitesflammable objects in the area that aren't being worn or carried.
Those highlighted words are not independent of each other. They all refer to the same process. If you change 'fire' to 'cold' throughout the spell, it affects words like 'ignite' and 'flammable' too, because those words have fire as part of their meaning. (That would, therefore, mean the DM would have some latitude in creating different secondary effects from your transmuted fireball. Standing water would freeze in a coldball. Objects might melt rather than ignite in an acidball. Etc. etc.)
If you transmute a fireball into doing cold damage, it would no longer set things on fire, because flammable objects don't catch fire in the cold. No fire, no... well, fire.
What you want for your magical burning snow is to cast fireball normally, but due to your specific character's bells and whistles decide to flavor it to look like a big snowball. Then you can have your snow that sets things on fire. Because it's still doing fire damage.
Contrast that with ray of frost, which implies that it's reducing a creature's speed because it freezes them but doesn't actually say it outright:
A frigid beam of blue-white light streaks toward a creature within range. Make a ranged spell attack against the target. On a hit, it takes 1d8 cold damage, and its speed is reduced by 10 feet until the start of your next turn.
If you transmute that one into fire damage, the target's speed would still be reduced, because the secondary effect isn't intrinsically tied to it being really cold.
Transmuted spell only changes the damage type dealt, it does not affect any of the secondary effects. RAW, a "coldball" would deal cold damage, but also still create flames that ignite objects. Yes, its nonsensical from a realistic standpoint, but again we are talking about magic which is capable of doing wonderous and confusing things.
A burst of cold air creating flames doesnt make sense, but thats exactly what happens because a transmuted spell does not change secondary effects or any other aspect of the spell beyond damage type. For casting a "cold ball", what occurs RAW is
1) A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame. (occurs regardless of transmuted spell). A DM or player may flavor it differently, but this aspect is technically unchanged by the metamagic
2) Targets make a Dex save and takes 8d6 cold damage on a failed save or half as much on a successful one (effect of transmuted spell). This does not make sense to anyone engulfed in the flames, which appear hot, but hey...magic
3) The fire initiated in step 1) spreads around corners and ignites flammable objects, as this is a secondary effect of the spell (occurs regardless of transmuted spell)
I understand if this sort of thing is strange enough to merit houseruling differently, but within the rules of 5e there is nothing preventing it from occurring. Dealing fire damage is not explicitly tied to igniting objects in 5e spellcasting, as there exist a number of spells which deal fire damage but do not ignite objects (Aganazzar's Scorcher, Firebolt, Hellish Rebuke, etc). There are also spells which can create flames but do not deal damage (Thaumaturgy, Control Flames, Druidcraft, etc). The two are mutually exclusive as far as the rules of spellcasting are concerned.
If we are talking about "realistic" burning effects, then there should be nothing preventing objects which are worn or carried from also igniting if they are flammable. But this is a game, and we are talking about magic, so none of it must conform to "common sense"
Edit: Also, just noticed the Fire Shield spell which explicitly allows you to create flames which deal cold damage without any change to the spell, so there is a precedent in 5e for "cold flames" to exist.
Transmuted spell only changes the damage type dealt, it does not affect any of the secondary effects.
Does it change the definition of the word "flammable"? Because that's what you're insisting it does.
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)
Transmuted spell only changes the damage type dealt, it does not affect any of the secondary effects.
Does it change the definition of the word "flammable"? Because that's what you're insisting it does.
Magic changes the definition of flammable to include whatever it wants. Magic does not care about the normal restrictions of everyday life, it overcomes them and ignores them. Thats what makes magic magical. It would be like dismissing all conjuration magic because conjuring an elephant out of thin air does not obey conservation of mass/energy.
If its so nonsensical that you feel the need to change it, you are welcome to do that in your game.
But this is a discussion in the Rules and Game Mechanics forum. RAW Transmuted Spell does not change a spell's secondary effect
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Transmuted spell only changes the damage type dealt, it does not affect any of the secondary effects.
Does it change the definition of the word "flammable"? Because that's what you're insisting it does.
The meaning of flamible does not change, it defines a category of object affected by the spells secondary effect. It is not the fire damage lighting objects on fire, it is the magic asking "is this flammable? If yes it is on fire now"
It's not magic that ignite flammable objects, it's heat or fire source. You can burn a barn down with a non-magical torch!
Funny enough it's either, you can use mundane effects or magical ones. Would you say mold earth doesn't make holes because you can use a shovel? In the current conversation spells with an effect "ignite flammable objects" are using magic not heat by RAW
It's not magic that ignite flammable objects, it's heat or fire source. You can burn a barn down with a non-magical torch!
Funny enough it's either, you can use mundane effects or magical ones. Would you say mold earth doesn't make holes because you can use a shovel? In the current conversation spells with an effect "ignite flammable objects" are using magic not heat by RAW
I'm not saying the spell doesn't do this because mundane stuff can, i'm saying it's clear that the spell effect ignite flammable object because it was originally written as a fire effect. Changing that may lead DMs to adjucate the spell differently than originally intended and writtenfor this reason.
It's not magic that ignite flammable objects, it's heat or fire source. You can burn a barn down with a non-magical torch!
Funny enough it's either, you can use mundane effects or magical ones. Would you say mold earth doesn't make holes because you can use a shovel? In the current conversation spells with an effect "ignite flammable objects" are using magic not heat by RAW
I'm not saying the spell doesn't do this because mundane stuff can, i'm saying it's clear that the spell effect ignite flammable object because it was originally written as a fire effect. Changing that may lead DMs to adjucate the spell differently than originally intended and writtenfor this reason.
If that is the case, why do spells specify not worn or carried? are these objects suddenly not flammable? If it is because the spell is a fire effect, why are only some fire spells able to ignite objects (if the argument is intensity of flame I would point out that spells with similar intensity don't always ignite or not ignite objects. for example scorching ray 2d6 does not ignite objects but that fire bolt at 1d10 does)
Edit: the above to show the ignition is a spell effect not a direct effect of fire damage and therefore would remain if only the damage type is changed
It's not magic that ignite flammable objects, it's heat or fire source. You can burn a barn down with a non-magical torch!
Funny enough it's either, you can use mundane effects or magical ones. Would you say mold earth doesn't make holes because you can use a shovel? In the current conversation spells with an effect "ignite flammable objects" are using magic not heat by RAW
I'm not saying the spell doesn't do this because mundane stuff can, i'm saying it's clear that the spell effect ignite flammable object because it was originally written as a fire effect. Changing that may lead DMs to adjucate the spell differently than originally intended and writtenfor this reason.
If that is the case, why do spells specify not worn or carried? are these objects suddenly not flammable? If it is because the spell is a fire effect, why are only some fire spells able to ignite objects (if the argument is intensity of flame I would point out that spells with similar intensity don't always ignite or not ignite objects. for example scorching ray 2d6 does not ignite objects but that fire bolt at 1d10 does)
Edit: the above to show the ignition is a spell effect not a direct effect of fire damage and therefore would remain if only the damage type is changed
This is the key. Spell dealing fire damage does not always equate to igniting flammable objects and spells causing flames to appear or spread do not always rely on fire damage being dealt as a prerequisite (nor result in fire damage being dealt). Moreso, as previously pointed out, flames produced by spell effects exhibit odd behavior in that they will selectively not ignite a flammable object that is being worn or carried by a living being.
Mundane flames work following only the mundane/scientific rules of the world. Magic is not bound by such restrictions and instead introduces its own freedoms/restrictions no matter how nonsensical it may appear from a mundane/scientific perspective most commoners in the world of D&D may hold
The rules are not always consistent with fire damage causing flammibility, but i don't think any non-fire spell exist cause flammable objects to ignite. If you guys can think of one, i'd be curious to know.
The rules are not always consistent with fire damage causing flammibility, but i don't think any non-fire spell exist cause flammable objects to ignite. If you guys can think of one, i'd be curious to know.
That is a question trying to get to RAI, My response was based on RAW. This feels like a gotcha question that just shows we are arguing different topics.
Edit: also yes you have caught me in an tired and argumentative state, hence the doubledown on raw, Your table do what you want.
The rules are not always consistent with fire damage causing flammibility, but i don't think any non-fire spell exist cause flammable objects to ignite. If you guys can think of one, i'd be curious to know.
Druidcraft can be used to ignite anything from a candle to a campfire.
Control Flames allows you to spread existing fire into a space, but spreading the fire this way does not itself deal damage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
The rules are not always consistent with fire damage causing flammibility, but i don't think any non-fire spell exist cause flammable objects to ignite. If you guys can think of one, i'd be curious to know.
Druidcraft can be used to ignite anything from a candle to a campfire.
Control Flames allows you to spread existing fire into a space, but spreading the fire this way does not itself deal damage.
These spells create or manipulate fire. I meant a spell that would deal another damage type that would also ignite flammable object.
RAW, if the only thing changed is the damage, then the spell would still "ignite" the object. A question that I have is do the rules address what that means? As far as I can tell there is no guidance for what an ignited object takes in terms of damage or if a creature takes damage if they tried to grab said object, or what a creature might have to do to stop the burning (use an action?). I know there are specific monster effects and item effects that go into this detail, but none of the spell ones do.
I would say ignited objects do mundane fire damage, I thought this was specified somewhere but i must have just houseruled 1d4 based on alchemist fire.
The rules are not always consistent with fire damage causing flammibility, but i don't think any non-fire spell exist cause flammable objects to ignite. If you guys can think of one, i'd be curious to know.
Druidcraft can be used to ignite anything from a candle to a campfire.
Control Flames allows you to spread existing fire into a space, but spreading the fire this way does not itself deal damage.
These spells create or manipulate fire. I meant a spell that would deal another damage type that would also ignite flammable object.
The best I can offer is the existence of the spell Fire Shield, which per the effect of the spell creates flames around the caster, but those flames are capable of dealing cold damage instead of fire.
I refer back to comment #23 that I made which outlines exactly how it works for Fireball, and fall back on to the following points about magical ignition:
1) Magic is not required to follow the same rules as mundane phenomenon.
2) Within 5e spells fire damage =/= ignition in all cases, therefor it is not a rule that fire damage is a prerequisite for ignition otherwise all spells which deal fire damage would have it as a secondary effect.
3) Because spell-based ignition ignores certain flammable objects (those worn/carried), then the mechanism behind the ignition is not equivalent to holding a torch up to a flammable object, as the torch does not care about the worn/carried status of the item.
Transmuted spell only changes the damage type dealt, it does not affect any of the secondary effects.
Does it change the definition of the word "flammable"? Because that's what you're insisting it does.
Magic changes the definition of flammable to include whatever it wants.
But you just said transmuting the spell only changes its damage type.
Please make up your mind. Does transmuting the spell transmute its secondary effects as well, or not?
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 would rule that it ruins objects in a different way depending on the damage type it was transmuted to.
I.E. The cloth is burned by the lightning, the cloth is petrified by the cold, the thunder tears the cloth.
Not sure how poison would work, though.
This is where I'm at. There is no "ignited" condition just as there is no "flammable" keyword on any items. There are no rules that guide what it means or how it affects things or how much damage it does or how long it takes to do said damage. This line is entirely given up to DM discretion, and while it is RAW it's about the shakiest "flavor" of RAW there is given the hodgepodge mix of flavor and mechanics in other spell descriptions such as the first line of burning hands.
We are relying entirely on natural language here. I don't think it's unreasonable to interpret the RAI to be "the spell does damage over time to objects that are vulnerable to the type of damage done." In my opinion ruling this way makes spell transmutation more fun, more interesting, and more rewarding when used tactically. That's more than enough justification than I need to edit a line with absolutely zero game mechanics to prop it up.
RAW yes. That said, most DMs would say no, and I would agree.
I am an average mathematics enjoyer.
>Extended Signature<
While Transmutated Spell only change damage type, I'd never have a spell saying it ignitie flammable object still do if i judge it no longer involve flammability in any way. I'd let lightning damage for exemple still ignite, but not cold.
Transmuted spell only changes the damage type dealt, it does not affect any of the secondary effects. RAW, a "coldball" would deal cold damage, but also still create flames that ignite objects. Yes, its nonsensical from a realistic standpoint, but again we are talking about magic which is capable of doing wonderous and confusing things.
A burst of cold air creating flames doesnt make sense, but thats exactly what happens because a transmuted spell does not change secondary effects or any other aspect of the spell beyond damage type. For casting a "cold ball", what occurs RAW is
1) A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame. (occurs regardless of transmuted spell). A DM or player may flavor it differently, but this aspect is technically unchanged by the metamagic
2) Targets make a Dex save and takes 8d6 cold damage on a failed save or half as much on a successful one (effect of transmuted spell). This does not make sense to anyone engulfed in the flames, which appear hot, but hey...magic
3) The fire initiated in step 1) spreads around corners and ignites flammable objects, as this is a secondary effect of the spell (occurs regardless of transmuted spell)
I understand if this sort of thing is strange enough to merit houseruling differently, but within the rules of 5e there is nothing preventing it from occurring. Dealing fire damage is not explicitly tied to igniting objects in 5e spellcasting, as there exist a number of spells which deal fire damage but do not ignite objects (Aganazzar's Scorcher, Firebolt, Hellish Rebuke, etc). There are also spells which can create flames but do not deal damage (Thaumaturgy, Control Flames, Druidcraft, etc). The two are mutually exclusive as far as the rules of spellcasting are concerned.
If we are talking about "realistic" burning effects, then there should be nothing preventing objects which are worn or carried from also igniting if they are flammable. But this is a game, and we are talking about magic, so none of it must conform to "common sense"
Edit: Also, just noticed the Fire Shield spell which explicitly allows you to create flames which deal cold damage without any change to the spell, so there is a precedent in 5e for "cold flames" to exist.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Does it change the definition of the word "flammable"? Because that's what you're insisting it does.
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)
Magic changes the definition of flammable to include whatever it wants. Magic does not care about the normal restrictions of everyday life, it overcomes them and ignores them. Thats what makes magic magical. It would be like dismissing all conjuration magic because conjuring an elephant out of thin air does not obey conservation of mass/energy.
If its so nonsensical that you feel the need to change it, you are welcome to do that in your game.
But this is a discussion in the Rules and Game Mechanics forum. RAW Transmuted Spell does not change a spell's secondary effect
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
The meaning of flamible does not change, it defines a category of object affected by the spells secondary effect. It is not the fire damage lighting objects on fire, it is the magic asking "is this flammable? If yes it is on fire now"
It's not magic that ignite flammable objects, it's heat or fire source. You can burn a barn down with a non-magical torch!
Fully understand why folks saying changing the damage type means stuff doesn't ignite.
OTOH, I also think the idea of a "cold" fireball igniting objects so that they burn with flames that are freezing cold is pretty cool.
Not sure how I would rule, though.
Funny enough it's either, you can use mundane effects or magical ones. Would you say mold earth doesn't make holes because you can use a shovel? In the current conversation spells with an effect "ignite flammable objects" are using magic not heat by RAW
I'm not saying the spell doesn't do this because mundane stuff can, i'm saying it's clear that the spell effect ignite flammable object because it was originally written as a fire effect. Changing that may lead DMs to adjucate the spell differently than originally intended and writtenfor this reason.
If that is the case, why do spells specify not worn or carried? are these objects suddenly not flammable? If it is because the spell is a fire effect, why are only some fire spells able to ignite objects (if the argument is intensity of flame I would point out that spells with similar intensity don't always ignite or not ignite objects. for example scorching ray 2d6 does not ignite objects but that fire bolt at 1d10 does)
Edit: the above to show the ignition is a spell effect not a direct effect of fire damage and therefore would remain if only the damage type is changed
This is the key. Spell dealing fire damage does not always equate to igniting flammable objects and spells causing flames to appear or spread do not always rely on fire damage being dealt as a prerequisite (nor result in fire damage being dealt). Moreso, as previously pointed out, flames produced by spell effects exhibit odd behavior in that they will selectively not ignite a flammable object that is being worn or carried by a living being.
Mundane flames work following only the mundane/scientific rules of the world. Magic is not bound by such restrictions and instead introduces its own freedoms/restrictions no matter how nonsensical it may appear from a mundane/scientific perspective most commoners in the world of D&D may hold
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
The rules are not always consistent with fire damage causing flammibility, but i don't think any non-fire spell exist cause flammable objects to ignite. If you guys can think of one, i'd be curious to know.
That is a question trying to get to RAI, My response was based on RAW. This feels like a gotcha question that just shows we are arguing different topics.
Edit: also yes you have caught me in an tired and argumentative state, hence the doubledown on raw, Your table do what you want.
Druidcraft can be used to ignite anything from a candle to a campfire.
Control Flames allows you to spread existing fire into a space, but spreading the fire this way does not itself deal damage.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
These spells create or manipulate fire. I meant a spell that would deal another damage type that would also ignite flammable object.
I would say ignited objects do mundane fire damage, I thought this was specified somewhere but i must have just houseruled 1d4 based on alchemist fire.
The best I can offer is the existence of the spell Fire Shield, which per the effect of the spell creates flames around the caster, but those flames are capable of dealing cold damage instead of fire.
I refer back to comment #23 that I made which outlines exactly how it works for Fireball, and fall back on to the following points about magical ignition:
1) Magic is not required to follow the same rules as mundane phenomenon.
2) Within 5e spells fire damage =/= ignition in all cases, therefor it is not a rule that fire damage is a prerequisite for ignition otherwise all spells which deal fire damage would have it as a secondary effect.
3) Because spell-based ignition ignores certain flammable objects (those worn/carried), then the mechanism behind the ignition is not equivalent to holding a torch up to a flammable object, as the torch does not care about the worn/carried status of the item.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
But you just said transmuting the spell only changes its damage type.
Please make up your mind. Does transmuting the spell transmute its secondary effects as well, or not?
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)
This is where I'm at. There is no "ignited" condition just as there is no "flammable" keyword on any items. There are no rules that guide what it means or how it affects things or how much damage it does or how long it takes to do said damage. This line is entirely given up to DM discretion, and while it is RAW it's about the shakiest "flavor" of RAW there is given the hodgepodge mix of flavor and mechanics in other spell descriptions such as the first line of burning hands.
We are relying entirely on natural language here. I don't think it's unreasonable to interpret the RAI to be "the spell does damage over time to objects that are vulnerable to the type of damage done." In my opinion ruling this way makes spell transmutation more fun, more interesting, and more rewarding when used tactically. That's more than enough justification than I need to edit a line with absolutely zero game mechanics to prop it up.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm