DM worth his salt would change the spell. I'd probably make icy terrain if I was the DM. Difficult terrain penalty in area.
Lightning would still burn, acid can 'burn' too. Thunder? I'd do the same as shatter and damage objects, since its a L2 spell and fireball was L3 (but not for a firebolt).
I'll accept that a fireball that's been changed to deal cold damage can't start fires when the argument comes from someone who can start fires without an ignition or fuel source.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I'll accept that a fireball that's been changed to deal cold damage can't start fires when the argument comes from someone who can start fires without an ignition or fuel source.
How do those limitations apply when fireball, itself, includes the sentence "It ignites flammable objects in the area that aren't being worn or carried" and therefore is an ignition source that requires fuel to ignite said fuel in the context of this aspect of the spell.
A laser could do similar in RL, only igniting flammable objects without being otherwise 'fire,' but rather 'radiant' energy. The still hot embers of a no longer burning yet not fully extinguished campfire pit would be another example.
"Can start fires in objects by removing heat energy from them" is perhaps where you were going with that, though?
RAW fireball ignites flammable objects within its area of effect. I think everyone agrees with that statement.
Fireball is magic. I think everyone also agrees with that statement.
Magic and physics are not the same thing. Magic may not follow the same rules of "physics" as found in the "real" world. Does anyone disagree?
So, when a sorcerer transmutes a fireball into a cold ball where is the problem with it still igniting flammable objects? I think this comes in part from how various people imagine transmutation metamagic to work in the context of D&D.
All transmutation metamagic says is: "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."
What damage does fireball do mechanically? 8d6 fire damage.
One way of imagining transmutation is that the entire area of fire of a fireball is changed to cold, acid, thunder or lightning ... giving a 20' radius ball of cold, acid, thunder or lightning. In this case, it becomes difficult to physically justify the spell still igniting flammable objects. However, it is magic and physics doesn't need to apply so we could just say that is sufficient. Also, the rules do NOT state that the description of transmutation I have given here is an accurate representation of what transmutation does. Instead, an equally valid image would be that the sorcerer creates a region within which there is still a fireball but at the interface where it would do 8d6 fire damage, it is transformed to a different element. It is otherwise still a fireball but the transmutation only happens when the mechanical damage specified in the spell is applied to a target. Since flammable objects within the area of effect never take the fire damage specified in the fireball ... perhaps the transmutation metamagic only changes the damage when it is applied. How does it do this? Magic of course.
Either of the explanations above, and likely many more could account for a magical fireball doing a different type of damage to specific targets within its area but still doing being "hot" enough to ignite flammable materials within the area of effect. (Keep in mind that fireball does not ignite items that are worn or carried so there is a clear difference between the creatures being targeted by the spell and its effect on the environment).
Anyway, the bottom line is a DM can run it however they like.
The way the spell is written, it will still ignite flammable materials no matter what damage type a sorcerer might choose to apply. HOW it does this can easily be explained and justified via magic since magic is not physics. Would it be a logical change to allow only fire damage to ignite things? Sure, if the DM wants to imagine the effect as a fireball/coldball/acidball/lightningball/thunderball ... but how the DM and players imagine transmutation to work is NOT part of the rules. It is part of their own interpretation and ruling since the rules don't say anything except that the damage type (which is a specific term in 5e referring to the damage rolled for the spell) is changed.
"Different attacks, damaging spells, and other harmful effects deal different types of damage. Damage types have no rules of their own, but other rules, such as damage resistance, rely on the types."
Igniting flammable objects is not a type of damage itself ... it is a secondary effect of the spell that, RAW, is not dependent on the damage type applied to creatures by the spell.
I'll accept that a fireball that's been changed to deal cold damage can't start fires when the argument comes from someone who can start fires without an ignition or fuel source.
How do those limitations apply when fireball, itself, includes the sentence "It ignites flammable objects in the area that aren't being worn or carried" and therefore is an ignition source that requires fuel to ignite said fuel in the context of this aspect of the spell.
A laser could do similar in RL, only igniting flammable objects without being otherwise 'fire,' but rather 'radiant' energy. The still hot embers of a no longer burning yet not fully extinguished campfire pit would be another example.
"Can start fires in objects by removing heat energy from them" is perhaps where you were going with that, though?
No, I'm saying that I refuse to accept arguments that magic doesn't work a certain way or otherwise try to invoke how things are in the real world unless they can actually cast spells in the real world. Otherwise it's a silly argument.
I'll accept that a fireball that's been changed to deal cold damage can't start fires when the argument comes from someone who can start fires without an ignition or fuel source.
How do those limitations apply when fireball, itself, includes the sentence "It ignites flammable objects in the area that aren't being worn or carried" and therefore is an ignition source that requires fuel to ignite said fuel in the context of this aspect of the spell.
A laser could do similar in RL, only igniting flammable objects without being otherwise 'fire,' but rather 'radiant' energy. The still hot embers of a no longer burning yet not fully extinguished campfire pit would be another example.
"Can start fires in objects by removing heat energy from them" is perhaps where you were going with that, though?
No, I'm saying that I refuse to accept arguments that magic doesn't work a certain way or otherwise try to invoke how things are in the real world unless they can actually cast spells in the real world. Otherwise it's a silly argument.
Right, but was just pointing out that in the challenge to them you described, as you described it, reality does actually work in that specific way. An ignition source does not need, itself, nor does it, itself, need fuel to be an ignition source. It needs fuel as the thing it ignites, but so do fire spells in game, in this context.
However, I would say the counter argument to 'it is magic, so it still sets things on fire' is to say that it being magic in that context is just saying "the rules are intended to be read in a pedantic manner, interpreting as strictly as possible.' We have many clear based answers as to what spells of other energy types do and setting things on fire is not one of them, so it follows that if you change the energy type, any side effects listed in the spell should change too, even if it does not explicitly say that.
Abilities and spells in 5E do what they say they do and nothing more. If Transmuted spells were intended to change the spells' secondary effects it would say so in the ability's description. Simple as that. A cold-transmuted fireball still starts fires, a thunder transmuted Rime's Binding Ice still encases the targets in ice if they fail the save, etc.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Abilities and spells in 5E do what they say they do and nothing more. If Transmuted spells were intended to change the spells' secondary effects it would say so in the ability's description. Simple as that. A cold-transmuted fireball still starts fires, a thunder transmuted Rime's Binding Ice still encases the targets in ice if they fail the save, etc.
If it was always that simple, there would be no Sage Advice needed to clarify anything and there would never be errata, since everything would be perfect from day one.
The wording on Transmuted Spell is quite unambiguous.
Is it really?
"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, when a transmuted fireball 'ignites' flammable objects in the area not worn or carried, since that is an effect of the spell, is any damage from that ignition similarly transmuted or not? Fireball and other spells that cause such secondary damage do not even specify how much damage objects so ignited take or how long they burn, so do they take no damage at all, since no damage is actually specified? Do they burn forever, since it does not say otherwise?
The wording on Transmuted Spell is quite unambiguous.
Is it really?
"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, when a transmuted fireball 'ignites' flammable objects in the area not worn or carried, since that is an effect of the spell, is any damage from that ignition similarly transmuted or not? Fireball and other spells that cause such secondary damage do not even specify how much damage objects so ignited take or how long they burn, so do they take no damage at all, since no damage is actually specified? Do they burn forever, since it does not say otherwise?
That does not seem particularly clear at all.
That's an issue with the rules regarding damaging objects, not with Transmuted Spell.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
The wording on Transmuted Spell is quite unambiguous.
Is it really?
"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, when a transmuted fireball 'ignites' flammable objects in the area not worn or carried, since that is an effect of the spell, is any damage from that ignition similarly transmuted or not? Fireball and other spells that cause such secondary damage do not even specify how much damage objects so ignited take or how long they burn, so do they take no damage at all, since no damage is actually specified? Do they burn forever, since it does not say otherwise?
That does not seem particularly clear at all.
That's an issue with the rules regarding damaging objects, not with Transmuted Spell.
Is it, though? If the transmuted spell does not ignite things, then there is no question of what igniting things does at all, let alone in that context. So, if the spell does ignite things, what that means if the spell is transmuted is an aspect of it being transmuted. Damage to objects is left pretty much entirely to the DM to come up with, so if the damage is cold instead of fire, perhaps it freezes the object, instead (i.e. cold damage to the object, which could affect some items differently, even if they are flammable). Some wooden structures might be more vulnerable to thunder/vibrational damage than even to fire damage, for example, at the DM's discretion, but not at all bothered by cold damage. Or still might. Most common oils seem to have freezing points around -40 to -50 C. That sounds very cold but there are parts of Northern countries where such temperatures are normal in the winter. A damage spell being deemed that cold or colder would not be unreasonable at all. Alcohol, another flammable liquid, has a freezing point of around -115 C, so maybe not there but maybe.
But the bottom line is that transmute does not say either way whether such secondary damage is included in 'damage' or not.
No. A spell never does anything it doesn't say it does. Fireball does not cause a massive puddle of acid to appear on the ground, even if it's transmuted to acid damage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
No. A spell never does anything it doesn't say it does. Fireball does not cause a massive puddle of acid to appear on the ground, even if it's transmuted to acid damage.
Unless, of course, the DM rules otherwise anyway. Although just as a fireball, itself, does not keep burning after, there would be no expected remaining puddle of acid.
It would make sense that there could be rusted metal, if non-magical metal was struck by it, though.
I came here because I want to transmute my fireball to acid damage and was wondering if it would leave a massive puddle of acid on the ground.
It depends. If your DM is using this as simply a cosmetic description with no mechanics, then sure. That's just a trapping of the modification. If you're asking if this replaces the, "Flammable objects in the area that aren’t being worn or carried start burning," line, the answer is no. Even a Fireball transmuted to deal cold damage will still set things on fire.
We like to say that spells do what they say they do. Transmuted spell metamagic is an example where spells do not do what they say they do.
No fire, no burn.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
have you ever seen anyone ever throwing a fire bolt at anyone???
Have you ever seen someone change a fireball to snowball?
Yes they do RAW.
No they shouldn't.
DM worth his salt would change the spell. I'd probably make icy terrain if I was the DM. Difficult terrain penalty in area.
Lightning would still burn, acid can 'burn' too. Thunder? I'd do the same as shatter and damage objects, since its a L2 spell and fireball was L3 (but not for a firebolt).
I'll accept that a fireball that's been changed to deal cold damage can't start fires when the argument comes from someone who can start fires without an ignition or fuel source.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
How do those limitations apply when fireball, itself, includes the sentence "It ignites flammable objects in the area that aren't being worn or carried" and therefore is an ignition source that requires fuel to ignite said fuel in the context of this aspect of the spell.
A laser could do similar in RL, only igniting flammable objects without being otherwise 'fire,' but rather 'radiant' energy. The still hot embers of a no longer burning yet not fully extinguished campfire pit would be another example.
"Can start fires in objects by removing heat energy from them" is perhaps where you were going with that, though?
RAW fireball ignites flammable objects within its area of effect. I think everyone agrees with that statement.
Fireball is magic. I think everyone also agrees with that statement.
Magic and physics are not the same thing. Magic may not follow the same rules of "physics" as found in the "real" world. Does anyone disagree?
So, when a sorcerer transmutes a fireball into a cold ball where is the problem with it still igniting flammable objects? I think this comes in part from how various people imagine transmutation metamagic to work in the context of D&D.
All transmutation metamagic says is: "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."
What damage does fireball do mechanically? 8d6 fire damage.
One way of imagining transmutation is that the entire area of fire of a fireball is changed to cold, acid, thunder or lightning ... giving a 20' radius ball of cold, acid, thunder or lightning. In this case, it becomes difficult to physically justify the spell still igniting flammable objects. However, it is magic and physics doesn't need to apply so we could just say that is sufficient. Also, the rules do NOT state that the description of transmutation I have given here is an accurate representation of what transmutation does. Instead, an equally valid image would be that the sorcerer creates a region within which there is still a fireball but at the interface where it would do 8d6 fire damage, it is transformed to a different element. It is otherwise still a fireball but the transmutation only happens when the mechanical damage specified in the spell is applied to a target. Since flammable objects within the area of effect never take the fire damage specified in the fireball ... perhaps the transmutation metamagic only changes the damage when it is applied. How does it do this? Magic of course.
Either of the explanations above, and likely many more could account for a magical fireball doing a different type of damage to specific targets within its area but still doing being "hot" enough to ignite flammable materials within the area of effect. (Keep in mind that fireball does not ignite items that are worn or carried so there is a clear difference between the creatures being targeted by the spell and its effect on the environment).
Anyway, the bottom line is a DM can run it however they like.
The way the spell is written, it will still ignite flammable materials no matter what damage type a sorcerer might choose to apply. HOW it does this can easily be explained and justified via magic since magic is not physics. Would it be a logical change to allow only fire damage to ignite things? Sure, if the DM wants to imagine the effect as a fireball/coldball/acidball/lightningball/thunderball ... but how the DM and players imagine transmutation to work is NOT part of the rules. It is part of their own interpretation and ruling since the rules don't say anything except that the damage type (which is a specific term in 5e referring to the damage rolled for the spell) is changed.
"Different attacks, damaging spells, and other harmful effects deal different types of damage. Damage types have no rules of their own, but other rules, such as damage resistance, rely on the types."
Igniting flammable objects is not a type of damage itself ... it is a secondary effect of the spell that, RAW, is not dependent on the damage type applied to creatures by the spell.
No, I'm saying that I refuse to accept arguments that magic doesn't work a certain way or otherwise try to invoke how things are in the real world unless they can actually cast spells in the real world. Otherwise it's a silly argument.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Right, but was just pointing out that in the challenge to them you described, as you described it, reality does actually work in that specific way. An ignition source does not need, itself, nor does it, itself, need fuel to be an ignition source. It needs fuel as the thing it ignites, but so do fire spells in game, in this context.
However, I would say the counter argument to 'it is magic, so it still sets things on fire' is to say that it being magic in that context is just saying "the rules are intended to be read in a pedantic manner, interpreting as strictly as possible.' We have many clear based answers as to what spells of other energy types do and setting things on fire is not one of them, so it follows that if you change the energy type, any side effects listed in the spell should change too, even if it does not explicitly say that.
Abilities and spells in 5E do what they say they do and nothing more. If Transmuted spells were intended to change the spells' secondary effects it would say so in the ability's description. Simple as that. A cold-transmuted fireball still starts fires, a thunder transmuted Rime's Binding Ice still encases the targets in ice if they fail the save, etc.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
If it was always that simple, there would be no Sage Advice needed to clarify anything and there would never be errata, since everything would be perfect from day one.
The wording on Transmuted Spell is quite unambiguous.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Is it really?
"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, when a transmuted fireball 'ignites' flammable objects in the area not worn or carried, since that is an effect of the spell, is any damage from that ignition similarly transmuted or not? Fireball and other spells that cause such secondary damage do not even specify how much damage objects so ignited take or how long they burn, so do they take no damage at all, since no damage is actually specified? Do they burn forever, since it does not say otherwise?
That does not seem particularly clear at all.
That's an issue with the rules regarding damaging objects, not with Transmuted Spell.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Is it, though? If the transmuted spell does not ignite things, then there is no question of what igniting things does at all, let alone in that context. So, if the spell does ignite things, what that means if the spell is transmuted is an aspect of it being transmuted. Damage to objects is left pretty much entirely to the DM to come up with, so if the damage is cold instead of fire, perhaps it freezes the object, instead (i.e. cold damage to the object, which could affect some items differently, even if they are flammable). Some wooden structures might be more vulnerable to thunder/vibrational damage than even to fire damage, for example, at the DM's discretion, but not at all bothered by cold damage. Or still might. Most common oils seem to have freezing points around -40 to -50 C. That sounds very cold but there are parts of Northern countries where such temperatures are normal in the winter. A damage spell being deemed that cold or colder would not be unreasonable at all. Alcohol, another flammable liquid, has a freezing point of around -115 C, so maybe not there but maybe.
But the bottom line is that transmute does not say either way whether such secondary damage is included in 'damage' or not.
I came here because I want to transmute my fireball to acid damage and was wondering if it would leave a massive puddle of acid on the ground.
No. A spell never does anything it doesn't say it does. Fireball does not cause a massive puddle of acid to appear on the ground, even if it's transmuted to acid damage.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Unless, of course, the DM rules otherwise anyway. Although just as a fireball, itself, does not keep burning after, there would be no expected remaining puddle of acid.
It would make sense that there could be rusted metal, if non-magical metal was struck by it, though.
As has already been said, not by default. Your DM may choose to replace the "burns objects" with "leaves acid", but that's their call.
Or you can just cast vitriolic sphere, but that trades its lingering damage with a higher level.
It depends. If your DM is using this as simply a cosmetic description with no mechanics, then sure. That's just a trapping of the modification. If you're asking if this replaces the, "Flammable objects in the area that aren’t being worn or carried start burning," line, the answer is no. Even a Fireball transmuted to deal cold damage will still set things on fire.