The spell specifies who or what takes damage, even your guidance doesn't change the fact that the spell says creatures take damage, objects are ignited and has no damage dice for objects. So by RAW the objects are not damaged 8d6 fire damage, and the spell does not indicate how much damage "Ignited" means.
The rules do not define "Ignited" to say how much damage an object like a wooden door would take per round or when it would burn out.
I will acknowledge both that RAW can be ridiculous, and that flammable objects would absolutely be vulnerable(take double damage from) to sources of fire damage that target objects (for example a flametongue sword or a torch). But the spell says it damages creatures, not targets and not objects.
An example of a spell which would deal damage to objects is fire bolt "You hurl a mote of fire at a creature or object within range. Make a ranged spell attack against the target. On a hit, the target takes 1d10 fire damage. A flammable object hit by this spell ignites if it isn't being worn or carried." You will note, that with this wording Fire Bolt by RAW will still ignite objects even if the damage type is changed since it does not specify objects that take fire damage just "object hit"
Once again, RAW is ridiculous but is literally the written rule.
RAW: "When characters need to saw through ropes, shatter a window, or smash a vampire’s coffin, the only hard and fast rule is this: given enough time and the right tools, characters can destroy any destructible object. Use common sense when determining a character’s success at damaging an object... As always, use your best judgement"
You: "Fireball doesn't explicitly say it damages objects, so therefore no object ever takes damage from a fireball. I know, RAW is ridiculous, my hands are tied."
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)
The spell specifies who or what takes damage, even your guidance doesn't change the fact that the spell says creatures take damage, objects are ignited and has no damage dice for objects. So by RAW the objects are not damaged 8d6 fire damage, and the spell does not indicate how much damage "Ignited" means.
The rules do not define "Ignited" to say how much damage an object like a wooden door would take per round or when it would burn out.
I will acknowledge both that RAW can be ridiculous, and that flammable objects would absolutely be vulnerable(take double damage from) to sources of fire damage that target objects (for example a flametongue sword or a torch). But the spell says it damages creatures, not targets and not objects.
An example of a spell which would deal damage to objects is fire bolt "You hurl a mote of fire at a creature or object within range. Make a ranged spell attack against the target. On a hit, the target takes 1d10 fire damage. A flammable object hit by this spell ignites if it isn't being worn or carried." You will note, that with this wording Fire Bolt by RAW will still ignite objects even if the damage type is changed since it does not specify objects that take fire damage just "object hit"
Once again, RAW is ridiculous but is literally the written rule.
It does not matter that 'ignited' is in a separate paragraph. The metamagic does not specify being limited to any specific paragraph(s) to the exclusion of all others.
It does not matter that it say 'ignited' instead of 'set on fire' or 'causes ongoing fire damage' since that is what 'ignited' means.
It does not matter that the damage caused by being ignited is not specified, since it is not excluded by the metamagic.
Does that clarify my position better?
At the end of the day, ignited is defined by the dm and has no written rule. The only defined damage by the spell is the 8d6 fire. By RAW the ignition still happens (however the dm defines it) even if the damage type is changed since that clause is dependant on location not taking damage.
Edit: Now that i'm at a keyboard. The question originally was "Does a transmuted fire spell still ignite flammable objects? - Single Choice"
My answer based on raw is Yes.
My Reason for that answer is the language used in the spells is not dependent on the damage or the damage type done. It says Objects in the area for fireball or objects hit for fire bolt.
So if a fireball is turned to another element, the language for igniting objects does not change.
There are no written rules for ignited objects so i will bow out of any extended conversation on damage type of ignited objects, damage quantity of ignited objects, or if transmute spell impacts continued damage after the spell is resolved as all of these topics are rulings that must be made at the table by the DM and don't have direct written guidance that i'm aware of (yes i saw that objects can be ruled as vulnerable to fire, that is not guidance on how much fire damage they should take when lit on fire in the event that an object has significant hit points like a door)
Not looking to start another fight with this, but someone was asking about non fire spells that ignite things, I just remembered that lightning bolt does...cuz I almost tpked my team with it O:-)
The definition of ignited is outside the scope of "Does a transmuted fire spell still ignite flammable objects? - Single Choice"
The clause in the spell that ignites asks if an object is hit or in the affected area, so the type of damage the spell does has no impact on "does the object ignite?"
I never said the definition of ignite changes, that was another poster. I said the mechanical results of being ignited are up to the dm because there is no written rule saying "burning objects take x damage over y rounds" (at my table I happen to house rule off of alchemist fire but that is a different question)
The spell specifies who or what takes damage, even your guidance doesn't change the fact that the spell says creatures take damage, objects are ignited and has no damage dice for objects. So by RAW the objects are not damaged 8d6 fire damage, and the spell does not indicate how much damage "Ignited" means.
The rules do not define "Ignited" to say how much damage an object like a wooden door would take per round or when it would burn out.
I will acknowledge both that RAW can be ridiculous, and that flammable objects would absolutely be vulnerable(take double damage from) to sources of fire damage that target objects (for example a flametongue sword or a torch). But the spell says it damages creatures, not targets and not objects.
An example of a spell which would deal damage to objects is fire bolt "You hurl a mote of fire at a creature or object within range. Make a ranged spell attack against the target. On a hit, the target takes 1d10 fire damage. A flammable object hit by this spell ignites if it isn't being worn or carried." You will note, that with this wording Fire Bolt by RAW will still ignite objects even if the damage type is changed since it does not specify objects that take fire damage just "object hit"
Once again, RAW is ridiculous but is literally the written rule.
It does not matter that 'ignited' is in a separate paragraph. The metamagic does not specify being limited to any specific paragraph(s) to the exclusion of all others.
It does not matter that it say 'ignited' instead of 'set on fire' or 'causes ongoing fire damage' since that is what 'ignited' means.
It does not matter that the damage caused by being ignited is not specified, since it is not excluded by the metamagic.
Does that clarify my position better?
At the end of the day, ignited is defined by the dm and has no written rule. The only defined damage by the spell is the 8d6 fire. By RAW the ignition still happens (however the dm defines it) even if the damage type is changed since that clause is dependant on location not taking damage.
Edit: Now that i'm at a keyboard. The question originally was "Does a transmuted fire spell still ignite flammable objects? - Single Choice"
My answer based on raw is Yes.
My Reason for that answer is the language used in the spells is not dependent on the damage or the damage type done. It says Objects in the area for fireball or objects hit for fire bolt.
So if a fireball is turned to another element, the language for igniting objects does not change.
There are no written rules for ignited objectsso i will bow out of any extended conversation on damage type of ignited objects, damage quantity of ignited objects, or if transmute spell impacts continued damage after the spell is resolved as all of these topics are rulings that must be made at the table by the DM and don't have direct written guidance that i'm aware of (yes i saw that objects can be ruled as vulnerable to fire, that is not guidance on how much fire damage they should take when lit on fire in the event that an object has significant hit points like a door)
If you believe there is some definition of 'ignited' that does not involve setting anything on fire, that is your right.
I've just highlighted the important bits. You can't apply RAW rigidly when there is no RAW to appeal to, which is the case for most situations that arise in the game.
You can try to run a game by strict adherence to RAW if you want to, even though the DM Guide tells you that this isn't how the game is played, on page 4:
"The DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them."
When you come up with a surprising rules anomaly, as DM you can either (a) apply logic and create a more plausible narrative, or (b) defend irrational outcomes through prioritising rigid adherence to rules that aren't meant to be rigid.
In this case, allowing cold damage to set things on fire is a pretty clear call between (a) and (b).
I am asked a rules question I give the RAW answer if available.
This question has a silly answer by RAW, but it is actually defined by RAW so that is the answer I have given.
I already noted that this is not how I run my table
Rules as written, objects are ignited /*edit: the dm defines what ignited means mechanically, but whatever you make ignited do it happens regardless of the spells damage type*/ . you table your game, I won't judge what you rule at your table.
Not looking to start another fight with this, but someone was asking about non fire spells that ignite things, I just remembered that lightning bolt does...cuz I almost tpked my team with it O:-)
I looked through lightning damage spells but found none that specifically said it ignited flammable objects. It appears to be strictly associated with fire damage spell.
Not looking to start another fight with this, but someone was asking about non fire spells that ignite things, I just remembered that lightning bolt does...cuz I almost tpked my team with it O:-)
I looked through lightning damage spells but found none that specifically said it ignited flammable objects. It appears to be strictly associated with fire damage spell.
Edit: I think everyone can follow that link but here is the text.
A stroke of lightning forming a line 100 feet long and 5 feet wide blasts out from you in a direction you choose. Each creature in the line must make a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes 8d6 lightning damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
The lightning ignites flammable objects in the area that aren't being worn or carried.
I am asked a rules question I give the RAW answer if available.
This question has a silly answer by RAW, but it is actually defined by RAW so that is the answer I have given.
I already noted that this is not how I run my table
Rules as written, objects are ignited. you table your game, I won't judge what you rule at your table.
Yes they are ignited. I am not disputing that. What I am disputing is what damage type any such ignition does. Note, not disputing quantity or any other side effects from being ignited. I am just disputing damage type.
Transmuted does not even say it changes appearances, just the damage type. So it can still even be on fire. Transmute a wall of fire and it could still burn things. But it would still be a damage type other than fire (whatever the caster transmuted it to).
I conceded that point in post 68. And limited the scope of my answers to do they ignite from that point forward.
Not looking to start another fight with this, but someone was asking about non fire spells that ignite things, I just remembered that lightning bolt does...cuz I almost tpked my team with it O:-)
I looked through lightning damage spells but found none that specifically said it ignited flammable objects. It appears to be strictly associated with fire damage spell.
Thanks it must be one of the only one but like i originally said, i'd also let Transmutated Spell from fire to lightning keep igniting flammable objects.
Not looking to start another fight with this, but someone was asking about non fire spells that ignite things, I just remembered that lightning bolt does...cuz I almost tpked my team with it O:-)
I looked through lightning damage spells but found none that specifically said it ignited flammable objects. It appears to be strictly associated with fire damage spell.
Thanks it must be one of the only one but like i originally said, i'd also let Transmutated Spell from fire to lightning keep igniting flammable objects.
Never argued on that point, just remembered you asked if all spells with that effect were fire spells and found an example that was not.
Not looking to start another fight with this, but someone was asking about non fire spells that ignite things, I just remembered that lightning bolt does...cuz I almost tpked my team with it O:-)
I looked through lightning damage spells but found none that specifically said it ignited flammable objects. It appears to be strictly associated with fire damage spell.
Thanks it must be one of the only one but like i originally said, i'd also let Transmutated Spell from fire to lightning keep igniting flammable objects.
Never argued on that point, just remembered you asked if all spells with that effect were fire spells and found an example that was not.
I appreciate it, what's funny is that i looked throught the spell list interruptedly and i didn't spot it as i'm sure i looked it up. ☺
You can try to run a game by strict adherence to RAW if you want to, even though the DM Guide tells you that this isn't how the game is played, on page 4:
"The DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them."
When you come up with a surprising rules anomaly, as DM you can either (a) apply logic and create a more plausible narrative, or (b) defend irrational outcomes through prioritising rigid adherence to rules that aren't meant to be rigid.
This right here is the answer every time someone says, "I know its ridiculous, but it's RAW." It's also literally RAW to overturn these types of things to keep you world consistent and believable. It's not just a "do whatever you want" rule, it's an acknowledgement that rules can have interactions that just don't make any sense and in those cases you have the power to overturn them.
You can try to run a game by strict adherence to RAW if you want to, even though the DM Guide tells you that this isn't how the game is played, on page 4:
"The DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them."
When you come up with a surprising rules anomaly, as DM you can either (a) apply logic and create a more plausible narrative, or (b) defend irrational outcomes through prioritising rigid adherence to rules that aren't meant to be rigid.
This right here is the answer every time someone says, "I know its ridiculous, but it's RAW." It's also literally RAW to overturn these types of things to keep you world consistent and believable. It's not just a "do whatever you want" rule, it's an acknowledgement that rules can have interactions that just don't make any sense and in those cases you have the power to overturn them.
You are absolutely correct that RAW the DM's final say is what matters in cases of interpretation like this.
That being said, I doubt that the OP was looking for "Ask your DM" when posing this question to the Rules and Games Mechanics forum. I imagine most posters/responders to threads within this forum understand that DM has the final say on interpretation, but are nonetheless wanting to determine if a concrete answer can be obtained based solely on the rules that exist within the game.
Depending on the DM, reaching such a conclusion may be a fruitless endeavor, but there is some merit and enjoyment to be had by breaking down the rules when interesting situations like this arise (at least until the arguments/debates start getting out of hand and wildly off subject).
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!
That being said, I doubt that the OP was looking for "Ask your DM" when posing this question to the Rules and Games Mechanics forum. I imagine most posters/responders to threads within this forum understand that DM has the final say on interpretation, but are nonetheless wanting to determine if a concrete answer can be obtained based solely on the rules that exist within the game.
The thing is, "there is no clear, concrete RAW answer" is a valid response to a question, even if it rarely gets treated as such on this board.
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)
That being said, I doubt that the OP was looking for "Ask your DM" when posing this question to the Rules and Games Mechanics forum. I imagine most posters/responders to threads within this forum understand that DM has the final say on interpretation, but are nonetheless wanting to determine if a concrete answer can be obtained based solely on the rules that exist within the game.
The thing is, "there is no clear, concrete RAW answer" is a valid response to a question, even if it rarely gets treated as such on this board.
A: True
B: The question asked in the poll did have a concrete RAW answer, it was the side topic of what does "Ignited" mean in game mechanical terms that does not have a RAW answer
B: The question asked in the poll did have a concrete RAW answer
It did 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)
My opinion is the spell effect stays the same, you merely need to describe how its visually dirrerent.
It does set things on 'fire' but its flash frozen for an ice bolt. The 'burning' damage it may cause is frostbite or a cold burn or on inanimate objects becoming brittle and cracking, persistant acid damage it continues disolving, necrotic is decaying rot spreading infection radiant is just holy fire. Already exists as a column of fire.
Shocking grasp stuns reflexes so they cant react, Thunder and radiant partially stuns them likea flashbang so they cant react, acid fumes irritate their senses so theyc ant react etc etc.
I know this is old by now, but I would honestly argue, if you wanted to envision real world physics into this, that it's the rapid expansion of the explosion and the air friction that can cause the ignition, like an object entering an planet's atmosphere that causes the ignition, the material that causes the rapid expansion is irrelevant.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The spell specifies who or what takes damage, even your guidance doesn't change the fact that the spell says creatures take damage, objects are ignited and has no damage dice for objects. So by RAW the objects are not damaged 8d6 fire damage, and the spell does not indicate how much damage "Ignited" means.
The rules do not define "Ignited" to say how much damage an object like a wooden door would take per round or when it would burn out.
I will acknowledge both that RAW can be ridiculous, and that flammable objects would absolutely be vulnerable(take double damage from) to sources of fire damage that target objects (for example a flametongue sword or a torch). But the spell says it damages creatures, not targets and not objects.
An example of a spell which would deal damage to objects is fire bolt "You hurl a mote of fire at a creature or object within range. Make a ranged spell attack against the target. On a hit, the target takes 1d10 fire damage. A flammable object hit by this spell ignites if it isn't being worn or carried." You will note, that with this wording Fire Bolt by RAW will still ignite objects even if the damage type is changed since it does not specify objects that take fire damage just "object hit"
Once again, RAW is ridiculous but is literally the written rule.
RAW: "When characters need to saw through ropes, shatter a window, or smash a vampire’s coffin, the only hard and fast rule is this: given enough time and the right tools, characters can destroy any destructible object. Use common sense when determining a character’s success at damaging an object... As always, use your best judgement"
You: "Fireball doesn't explicitly say it damages objects, so therefore no object ever takes damage from a fireball. I know, RAW is ridiculous, my hands are tied."
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)
At the end of the day, ignited is defined by the dm and has no written rule. The only defined damage by the spell is the 8d6 fire. By RAW the ignition still happens (however the dm defines it) even if the damage type is changed since that clause is dependant on location not taking damage.
Edit: Now that i'm at a keyboard. The question originally was "Does a transmuted fire spell still ignite flammable objects? - Single Choice"
My answer based on raw is Yes.
My Reason for that answer is the language used in the spells is not dependent on the damage or the damage type done. It says Objects in the area for fireball or objects hit for fire bolt.
So if a fireball is turned to another element, the language for igniting objects does not change.
There are no written rules for ignited objects so i will bow out of any extended conversation on damage type of ignited objects, damage quantity of ignited objects, or if transmute spell impacts continued damage after the spell is resolved as all of these topics are rulings that must be made at the table by the DM and don't have direct written guidance that i'm aware of (yes i saw that objects can be ruled as vulnerable to fire, that is not guidance on how much fire damage they should take when lit on fire in the event that an object has significant hit points like a door)
Not looking to start another fight with this, but someone was asking about non fire spells that ignite things, I just remembered that lightning bolt does...cuz I almost tpked my team with it O:-)
The definition of ignited is outside the scope of "Does a transmuted fire spell still ignite flammable objects? - Single Choice"
The clause in the spell that ignites asks if an object is hit or in the affected area, so the type of damage the spell does has no impact on "does the object ignite?"
I never said the definition of ignite changes, that was another poster. I said the mechanical results of being ignited are up to the dm because there is no written rule saying "burning objects take x damage over y rounds" (at my table I happen to house rule off of alchemist fire but that is a different question)
I've just highlighted the important bits. You can't apply RAW rigidly when there is no RAW to appeal to, which is the case for most situations that arise in the game.
You can try to run a game by strict adherence to RAW if you want to, even though the DM Guide tells you that this isn't how the game is played, on page 4:
"The DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them."
When you come up with a surprising rules anomaly, as DM you can either (a) apply logic and create a more plausible narrative, or (b) defend irrational outcomes through prioritising rigid adherence to rules that aren't meant to be rigid.
In this case, allowing cold damage to set things on fire is a pretty clear call between (a) and (b).
I am asked a rules question I give the RAW answer if available.
This question has a silly answer by RAW, but it is actually defined by RAW so that is the answer I have given.
I already noted that this is not how I run my table
Rules as written, objects are ignited /*edit: the dm defines what ignited means mechanically, but whatever you make ignited do it happens regardless of the spells damage type*/ . you table your game, I won't judge what you rule at your table.
I looked through lightning damage spells but found none that specifically said it ignited flammable objects. It appears to be strictly associated with fire damage spell.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/lightning-bolt
Edit: I think everyone can follow that link but here is the text.
A stroke of lightning forming a line 100 feet long and 5 feet wide blasts out from you in a direction you choose. Each creature in the line must make a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes 8d6 lightning damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
The lightning ignites flammable objects in the area that aren't being worn or carried.
I conceded that point in post 68. And limited the scope of my answers to do they ignite from that point forward.
Thanks it must be one of the only one but like i originally said, i'd also let Transmutated Spell from fire to lightning keep igniting flammable objects.
Never argued on that point, just remembered you asked if all spells with that effect were fire spells and found an example that was not.
I appreciate it, what's funny is that i looked throught the spell list interruptedly and i didn't spot it as i'm sure i looked it up. ☺
This right here is the answer every time someone says, "I know its ridiculous, but it's RAW." It's also literally RAW to overturn these types of things to keep you world consistent and believable. It's not just a "do whatever you want" rule, it's an acknowledgement that rules can have interactions that just don't make any sense and in those cases you have the power to overturn them.
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
You are absolutely correct that RAW the DM's final say is what matters in cases of interpretation like this.
That being said, I doubt that the OP was looking for "Ask your DM" when posing this question to the Rules and Games Mechanics forum. I imagine most posters/responders to threads within this forum understand that DM has the final say on interpretation, but are nonetheless wanting to determine if a concrete answer can be obtained based solely on the rules that exist within the game.
Depending on the DM, reaching such a conclusion may be a fruitless endeavor, but there is some merit and enjoyment to be had by breaking down the rules when interesting situations like this arise (at least until the arguments/debates start getting out of hand and wildly off subject).
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 thing is, "there is no clear, concrete RAW answer" is a valid response to a question, even if it rarely gets treated as such on this board.
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: True
B: The question asked in the poll did have a concrete RAW answer, it was the side topic of what does "Ignited" mean in game mechanical terms that does not have a RAW answer
It did 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)
My opinion is the spell effect stays the same, you merely need to describe how its visually dirrerent.
It does set things on 'fire' but its flash frozen for an ice bolt. The 'burning' damage it may cause is frostbite or a cold burn or on inanimate objects becoming brittle and cracking, persistant acid damage it continues disolving, necrotic is decaying rot spreading infection radiant is just holy fire. Already exists as a column of fire.
Shocking grasp stuns reflexes so they cant react, Thunder and radiant partially stuns them likea flashbang so they cant react, acid fumes irritate their senses so theyc ant react etc etc.
I know this is old by now, but I would honestly argue, if you wanted to envision real world physics into this, that it's the rapid expansion of the explosion and the air friction that can cause the ignition, like an object entering an planet's atmosphere that causes the ignition, the material that causes the rapid expansion is irrelevant.