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?
My mind has been made up this whole time. I have stated multiple times that RAW Transmuted Spell metamagic does not change the secondary effect. I don't see where you seem to think I have said otherwise.
The point I was trying to make earlier was that citing the definition of "flammable" from a physical standpoint is pointless when we are talking about magic.
The secondary effect of these fire spells is "flammable objects ignite." That is just an effect of the spell. It is not "flammable objects that take fire damage ignite" If the spell effect states that flammable objects ignite, then the spell will find a way to ignite those objects, regardless of if the damage type of the spell has changed. Thats magic.
If this is still confusing, I refer you back to the comment I made in #23 about fireball turned into coldball. There, I specifically lay out the languages and effects of the fireball spell and demonstrate how the spell first creates flames, then deals damage, and finally ignites objects. The first and third steps of that process do not change because of the Transmuted Spell metamagic.
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?
My mind has been made up this whole time. I have stated multiple times that RAW Transmuted Spell metamagic does not change the secondary effect. I don't see where you seem to think I have said otherwise.
Because the secondary effect specifically calls out igniting flammable objects. Fire is intrinsic to the secondary effect. No fire, no secondary effect, because that is literally what the word 'flammable' means. I'm sure there's a word for 'catches fire easily upon exposure to cold', but 'flammable' ain't it.
For your fireball-doing-cold-damage to ignite flammable objects, you need to either change the word 'flammable' to something else, or change the definition of the word 'flammable'. Except you just said transmuting does neither, and only changes the damage type on the primary effect.
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 couldn't find a word that means 'catches fire easily in cold', but I did find pyrophoric, which describes a substance that autoignites at very low temperatures.
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.
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?
My mind has been made up this whole time. I have stated multiple times that RAW Transmuted Spell metamagic does not change the secondary effect. I don't see where you seem to think I have said otherwise.
Because the secondary effect specifically calls out igniting flammable objects. Fire is intrinsic to the secondary effect. No fire, no secondary effect, because that is literally what the word 'flammable' means. I'm sure there's a word for 'catches fire easily upon exposure to cold', but 'flammable' ain't it.
For your fireball-doing-cold-damage to ignite flammable objects, you need to either change the word 'flammable' to something else, or change the definition of the word 'flammable'. Except you just said transmuting does neither, and only changes the damage type on the primary effect.
A cold ball still creates flames though. Same with an acidball, lightningball, etc.
Fireball
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 ignites flammable objects in the area that aren’t being worn or carried.
The part that is in bold is the only part changed by Transmuted Spell. The parts that are underlined highlight other parts of the spell which both create a source of fire and ignite objects. RAW, neither of the underlined portions are changed by the metamagic.
The spell creates flames. Those flames ignite objects. Both of these statements are true regardless of damage type dealt by spell or if that damage type is changed.
Dont read too hard into "magic can change the definition." It seems that writing it that way didnt properly get the point I was trying to make across. The more correct statement I should have made is "Magic doesnt care about common sense"
You know what? I'm going to give this one to you, Kaboom. I concede. One of the possible definitions of flammable, at least on wiki, is that it catches fire easily upon exposure to flame:
A combustible material is something that can combust (burn) in air. Flammable materials are combustible materials that ignite easily at ambient temperatures. In other words, a combustible material ignites with some effort and a flammable material catches fire immediately on exposure to flame.
So yeah, there's flames but no fire, and if you really really want your coldball or poisonball or thunderball (ahem) to set flammable objects on fire because magic, you've got a case.
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.
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?
My mind has been made up this whole time. I have stated multiple times that RAW Transmuted Spell metamagic does not change the secondary effect. I don't see where you seem to think I have said otherwise.
Because the secondary effect specifically calls out igniting flammable objects. Fire is intrinsic to the secondary effect. No fire, no secondary effect, because that is literally what the word 'flammable' means. I'm sure there's a word for 'catches fire easily upon exposure to cold', but 'flammable' ain't it.
For your fireball-doing-cold-damage to ignite flammable objects, you need to either change the word 'flammable' to something else, or change the definition of the word 'flammable'. Except you just said transmuting does neither, and only changes the damage type on the primary effect.
A cold ball still creates flames though. Same with an acidball, lightningball, etc.
Fireball
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 ignites flammable objects in the area that aren’t being worn or carried.
The part that is in bold is the only part changed by Transmuted Spell. The parts that are underlined highlight other parts of the spell which both create a source of fire and ignite objects. RAW, neither of the underlined portions are changed by the metamagic.
The spell creates flames. Those flames ignite objects. Both of these statements are true regardless of damage type dealt by spell or if that damage type is changed.
If the cornerstone of your argument is "Well you said magic can change the definition of flammable" without trying to understand the actual point I was trying to get across by saying that (i.e magic does not have to conform to "common sense") then there really isnt any point in arguing further.
But they are cold flames. The damage is all change to cold. All of it. It does not specify any exception. Even if it still sets them on fire (despite by definition of the transmute) no longer doing fire damage) they would be cold damage.
I would say that the flames produced by the secondary effect (due to the initial burst of flames before damage is dealt) are still hot. Transmuted Spell does not change the secondary effect in any way. Its weird, but its magic, and its RAW (although I understand any table's desire to change it to something more intuitive)
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)
Edit: for clarity RAW has some strange/silly results when new mechancs interact with old writing, but they still only change what they say they change. I'm also in the camp of make neat alternate secondary effects but I can't pretend that's RAW
Claiming one interpretation of a very unclear situation must of course be RAW, and everyone who disagrees with it is (peers down nose at plebes) merely using RAI/ROC/homebrew, is the absolute bane of this forum.
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)
Claiming one interpretation of a very unclear situation must of course be RAW, and everyone who disagrees with it is (peers down nose at plebes) merely using RAI/ROC/homebrew, is the absolute bane of this forum.
A: it's not unclear, the effect is in a completely different paragraph and doesn't mention damaged objects.
B: I use homebrew and interpretation (and even mentioned that I would use one of the homebrew suggestions myself). But when I'm asked what a rule is I say and argue for what is actually written in the book.
Edit: for clarity RAW has some strange/silly results when new mechancs interact with old writing, but they still only change what they say they change. I'm also in the camp of make neat alternate secondary effects but I can't pretend that's RAW
Transmuted Spell When you cast a spell that deals a type of damage from the following list, you can spend 1 sorcery point to change that damage type to one of the other listed types: acid, cold, fire, lightning, poison, thunder.
So, if a spell sets something on fire, does that not do fire damage? And if the spell is transmuted from fire damage to cold (or some other damage type) how would it still cause fire damage?
A spell can do multiple things. Fireball does three things: It produces a low roar and burst of flames, it deals fire damage, and finally it ignites objects. RAW, Transmuted Spell only changes that second effect, while leaving the first and third unchanged. (I once again refer back to comment #23 for a lengthier explanation on this example).
A feature only does what it says it does, no more no less. That is true for both transmuted spell and fireball. With transmuted spell, it only says it changes the damage type. It does not say it changes any other effect of the spell. With fireball, it says as part of the spell that it ignites flammable objects. This effect is not dependent on the object having been damaged by the spell, simply that it is within the area of effect.
Edit: for clarity RAW has some strange/silly results when new mechancs interact with old writing, but they still only change what they say they change. I'm also in the camp of make neat alternate secondary effects but I can't pretend that's RAW
Transmuted Spell When you cast a spell that deals a type of damage from the following list, you can spend 1 sorcery point to change that damage type to one of the other listed types: acid, cold, fire, lightning, poison, thunder.
So, if a spell sets something on fire, does that not do fire damage? And if the spell is transmuted from fire damage to cold (or some other damage type) how would it still cause fire damage?
See the description of fireball above. The spell does damage (changed by the feature you reference) then it ignited objects in the area the dm deems flammable, these actions are in separate paragraphs of the spell description and the ignite paragraph never mentions damage. Play your table how you want but transmute spell changes exactly one word of the spell
Edit for clarity: ignition is not fire damage. I'm not aware of standard rules for objects being on fire.
Edit: for clarity RAW has some strange/silly results when new mechancs interact with old writing, but they still only change what they say they change. I'm also in the camp of make neat alternate secondary effects but I can't pretend that's RAW
Transmuted Spell When you cast a spell that deals a type of damage from the following list, you can spend 1 sorcery point to change that damage type to one of the other listed types: acid, cold, fire, lightning, poison, thunder.
So, if a spell sets something on fire, does that not do fire damage? And if the spell is transmuted from fire damage to cold (or some other damage type) how would it still cause fire damage?
See the description of fireball above. The spell does damage (changed by the feature you reference) then it ignited objects in the area the dm deems flammable, these actions are in separate paragraphs of the spell description and the ignite paragraph never mentions damage. Play your table how you want but transmute spell changes exactly one word of the spell
Edit for clarity: ignition is not fire damage. I'm not aware of standard rules for objects being on fire.
The description of Transmuted Spell does not say only primary damage is transmuted though. It does not specify first paragraph only, or qualify what is transmuted.
The only Fire Damage, is the 6d6 fire damage, nothing else is eligable for the phrase change that damage type to one of the other listed types: acid, cold, fire, lightning, poison, thunder. I then clarified that igniting flammable objects is not the spell doing damage. So the only change is to the type of damage that the 8d6 is for fireball, no change to the description before, or the secondary effect in the following paragraph(which is not damage so it is not changed, has nothing to do with primary or first paragraph only)
I then clarified that igniting flammable objects is not the spell doing damage.
So flammable objects aren't damaged by fire in your world? Cool cool cool
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)
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 ignites flammable objects in the area that aren't being worn or carried.
At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th level or higher, the damage increases by 1d6 for each slot level above 3rd.
Text of Transmute Spell:
Transmuted Spell When you cast a spell that deals a type of damage from the following list, you can spend 1 sorcery point to change that damage type to one of the other listed types: acid, cold, fire, lightning, poison, thunder.
Text of Fireball if you spend 1 sorcery point to replace every mention of Fire damage with Cold Damage:
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 Cold damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
The fire spreads around corners. It ignites flammable objects in the area that aren't being worn or carried.
Mechanical Result of Following the Rule as written:
8d6 Cold Damage to creatures that fail their save (half if they succeed)
It ignites flammable objects in the area that aren't being worn or carried
These two things are in separate paragraphs, the second paragraph is not dependent on any damage being done by the first. And Ironically no object in the area takes any damage from the spell(they are ignited and i assume they would take damage each round but everything after the initial ignite is not the spell or magical). I don't know if the effect of being ignited is actually written in the books.
I then clarified that igniting flammable objects is not the spell doing damage.
So flammable objects aren't damaged by fire in your world? Cool cool cool
thats not even remotely what i said, they arn't damaged by the spell. they are on fire in following rounds. to quote myself from earlier " RAW has some strange/silly results when new mechancs interact with old writing, but they still only change what they say they change."
I then clarified that igniting flammable objects is not the spell doing damage.
So flammable objects aren't damaged by fire in your world? Cool cool cool
thats not even remotely what i said, they arn't damaged by the spell. they are on fire in following rounds. to quote myself from earlier " RAW has some strange/silly results when new mechancs interact with old writing, but they still only change what they say they change."
So the spell sets the flammable object on fire (even if it isn't doing fire damage), but the object isn't damaged by the spell. Ergo, the fire caused by the spell can't do damage to the object.
EDIT: You should probably just stick to Kaboom's "forget it Jake, it's magic" approach rather than trying to justify your illogical outcome with logic.
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 then clarified that igniting flammable objects is not the spell doing damage.
So flammable objects aren't damaged by fire in your world? Cool cool cool
thats not even remotely what i said, they arn't damaged by the spell. they are on fire in following rounds. to quote myself from earlier " RAW has some strange/silly results when new mechancs interact with old writing, but they still only change what they say they change."
So the spell sets the flammable object on fire (even if it isn't doing fire damage), but the object isn't damaged by the spell. Ergo, the fire caused by the spell can't do damage to the object.
EDIT: You should probably just stick to Kaboom's "forget it Jake, it's magic" approach rather than trying to justify your illogical outcome with logic.
The spell does fire damage to creatures, and lights objects on fire(no damage dice or guidance on damage for objects so using "the rules do what they say, no more no less" objects are not directly damaged by the spell).
The metamagic makes the spell do not fire damage (Cold, thunder, lighting, ect.) and has no impact on the wording of ignites objects as that effect is not given damage dice.
The spell is instantaneous with no rules for duration of objects lit on fire and ignited is plain language with no specific rules that i see defining how much damage or how long it burns.
So raw (which i've already noted earlier is not necessarily how i would run it at my table but is how you answer what is the rule) objects are not damaged by the spell, they are given what i will call a condition of ignited (not defined in the rules so purely dm call and ambiguous what its mechanical impact is). Any damage from the effect Igniting the object is not spell damage.
The spell does fire damage to creatures, and lights objects on fire(no damage dice or guidance on damage for objects so using "the rules do what they say, no more no less" objects are not directly damaged by the spell).
Umm, what? No guidance? There's an entire section in the DMG on how to handle objects taking damage. It even has a separate paragraph on damage types and... oh, would you look at that:
Objects and Damage Types. Objects are immune to poison and psychic damage. You might decide that some damage types are more effective against a particular object or substance than others. For example, bludgeoning damage works well for smashing things but not for cutting through rope or leather. Paper or cloth objects might be vulnerable to fire and lightning damage. A pick can chip away stone but can’t effectively cut down a tree. As always, use your best judgment.
But hey, flammable objects don't take damage from a fireball -- it just sets them on fire -- so I guess none of that matters.
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)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
My mind has been made up this whole time. I have stated multiple times that RAW Transmuted Spell metamagic does not change the secondary effect. I don't see where you seem to think I have said otherwise.
The point I was trying to make earlier was that citing the definition of "flammable" from a physical standpoint is pointless when we are talking about magic.
The secondary effect of these fire spells is "flammable objects ignite." That is just an effect of the spell. It is not "flammable objects that take fire damage ignite" If the spell effect states that flammable objects ignite, then the spell will find a way to ignite those objects, regardless of if the damage type of the spell has changed. Thats magic.
If this is still confusing, I refer you back to the comment I made in #23 about fireball turned into coldball. There, I specifically lay out the languages and effects of the fireball spell and demonstrate how the spell first creates flames, then deals damage, and finally ignites objects. The first and third steps of that process do not change because of the Transmuted Spell metamagic.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Because the secondary effect specifically calls out igniting flammable objects. Fire is intrinsic to the secondary effect. No fire, no secondary effect, because that is literally what the word 'flammable' means. I'm sure there's a word for 'catches fire easily upon exposure to cold', but 'flammable' ain't it.
For your fireball-doing-cold-damage to ignite flammable objects, you need to either change the word 'flammable' to something else, or change the definition of the word 'flammable'. Except you just said transmuting does neither, and only changes the damage type on the primary effect.
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 couldn't find a word that means 'catches fire easily in cold', but I did find pyrophoric, which describes a substance that autoignites at very low temperatures.
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 cold ball still creates flames though. Same with an acidball, lightningball, etc.
The part that is in bold is the only part changed by Transmuted Spell. The parts that are underlined highlight other parts of the spell which both create a source of fire and ignite objects. RAW, neither of the underlined portions are changed by the metamagic.
The spell creates flames. Those flames ignite objects. Both of these statements are true regardless of damage type dealt by spell or if that damage type is changed.
Dont read too hard into "magic can change the definition." It seems that writing it that way didnt properly get the point I was trying to make across. The more correct statement I should have made is "Magic doesnt care about common sense"
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
This meme seemed appropriate to the discussion
Edit: Dang, it didnt post the image correctly
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
You know what? I'm going to give this one to you, Kaboom. I concede. One of the possible definitions of flammable, at least on wiki, is that it catches fire easily upon exposure to flame:
So yeah, there's flames but no fire, and if you really really want your coldball or poisonball or thunderball (ahem) to set flammable objects on fire because magic, you've got a case.
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 say that the flames produced by the secondary effect (due to the initial burst of flames before damage is dealt) are still hot. Transmuted Spell does not change the secondary effect in any way. Its weird, but its magic, and its RAW (although I understand any table's desire to change it to something more intuitive)
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
I'm still voting NO in the poll, though.
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)
Your table your rules. RAW doesn't agree.
Edit: for clarity RAW has some strange/silly results when new mechancs interact with old writing, but they still only change what they say they change. I'm also in the camp of make neat alternate secondary effects but I can't pretend that's RAW
Claiming one interpretation of a very unclear situation must of course be RAW, and everyone who disagrees with it is (peers down nose at plebes) merely using RAI/ROC/homebrew, is the absolute bane of this forum.
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: it's not unclear, the effect is in a completely different paragraph and doesn't mention damaged objects.
B: I use homebrew and interpretation (and even mentioned that I would use one of the homebrew suggestions myself). But when I'm asked what a rule is I say and argue for what is actually written in the book.
A spell can do multiple things. Fireball does three things: It produces a low roar and burst of flames, it deals fire damage, and finally it ignites objects. RAW, Transmuted Spell only changes that second effect, while leaving the first and third unchanged. (I once again refer back to comment #23 for a lengthier explanation on this example).
A feature only does what it says it does, no more no less. That is true for both transmuted spell and fireball. With transmuted spell, it only says it changes the damage type. It does not say it changes any other effect of the spell. With fireball, it says as part of the spell that it ignites flammable objects. This effect is not dependent on the object having been damaged by the spell, simply that it is within the area of 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!
See the description of fireball above. The spell does damage (changed by the feature you reference) then it ignited objects in the area the dm deems flammable, these actions are in separate paragraphs of the spell description and the ignite paragraph never mentions damage. Play your table how you want but transmute spell changes exactly one word of the spell
Edit for clarity: ignition is not fire damage. I'm not aware of standard rules for objects being on fire.
The only Fire Damage, is the 6d6 fire damage, nothing else is eligable for the phrase change that damage type to one of the other listed types: acid, cold, fire, lightning, poison, thunder. I then clarified that igniting flammable objects is not the spell doing damage. So the only change is to the type of damage that the 8d6 is for fireball, no change to the description before, or the secondary effect in the following paragraph(which is not damage so it is not changed, has nothing to do with primary or first paragraph only)
Edit: Fireball is 8d6
So flammable objects aren't damaged by fire in your world? Cool cool cool
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)
Text of Fireball:
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 ignites flammable objects in the area that aren't being worn or carried.
At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th level or higher, the damage increases by 1d6 for each slot level above 3rd.
Text of Transmute Spell:
Transmuted Spell
When you cast a spell that deals a type of damage from the following list, you can spend 1 sorcery point to change that damage type to one of the other listed types: acid, cold, fire, lightning, poison, thunder.
Text of Fireball if you spend 1 sorcery point to replace every mention of Fire damage with Cold Damage:
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 Cold damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
The fire spreads around corners. It ignites flammable objects in the area that aren't being worn or carried.
Mechanical Result of Following the Rule as written:
8d6 Cold Damage to creatures that fail their save (half if they succeed)
It ignites flammable objects in the area that aren't being worn or carried
These two things are in separate paragraphs, the second paragraph is not dependent on any damage being done by the first. And Ironically no object in the area takes any damage from the spell(they are ignited and i assume they would take damage each round but everything after the initial ignite is not the spell or magical). I don't know if the effect of being ignited is actually written in the books.
thats not even remotely what i said, they arn't damaged by the spell. they are on fire in following rounds. to quote myself from earlier " RAW has some strange/silly results when new mechancs interact with old writing, but they still only change what they say they change."
So the spell sets the flammable object on fire (even if it isn't doing fire damage), but the object isn't damaged by the spell. Ergo, the fire caused by the spell can't do damage to the object.
EDIT: You should probably just stick to Kaboom's "forget it Jake, it's magic" approach rather than trying to justify your illogical outcome with logic.
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)
The spell does fire damage to creatures, and lights objects on fire(no damage dice or guidance on damage for objects so using "the rules do what they say, no more no less" objects are not directly damaged by the spell).
The metamagic makes the spell do not fire damage (Cold, thunder, lighting, ect.) and has no impact on the wording of ignites objects as that effect is not given damage dice.
The spell is instantaneous with no rules for duration of objects lit on fire and ignited is plain language with no specific rules that i see defining how much damage or how long it burns.
So raw (which i've already noted earlier is not necessarily how i would run it at my table but is how you answer what is the rule) objects are not damaged by the spell, they are given what i will call a condition of ignited (not defined in the rules so purely dm call and ambiguous what its mechanical impact is). Any damage from the effect Igniting the object is not spell damage.
Umm, what? No guidance? There's an entire section in the DMG on how to handle objects taking damage. It even has a separate paragraph on damage types and... oh, would you look at that:
But hey, flammable objects don't take damage from a fireball -- it just sets them on fire -- so I guess none of that matters.
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)