One of my players is using Rite of the Flame, and asked if his sword was actually on fire or not. The goal was to start a campfire using it (cool factor).
The RAW don't really specify from what I can tell.
Any thoughts?
I don't see why the player couldn't, but then it opens up a bunch of utility options in the future. Using cold to freeze water, fire to melt ice, etc.
I guess it depends on how you look at it; for example, if the sword is only flaming as it hits, then it wouldn't be suitable for starting a fire, as you need more of a sustained flame for that. If you're concerned about balance you could always make them take some hemocraft damage in return for producing a sustained flame/freeze etc., once might be enough for a single round flame to start a fire, but to set something bigger alight might require multiple rounds (and hemocraft damage) to do it?
For lighting a campfire this wouldn't be a big deal as they're probably going to be resting anyway, but it should give you a lever with which to limit possible abuse by forcing them to take longer (and suffer damage) to do something that a spell might do instantaneously.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I guess it depends on how you look at it; for example, if the sword is only flaming as it hits, then it wouldn't be suitable for starting a fire, as you need more of a sustained flame for that. If you're concerned about balance you could always make them take some hemocraft damage in return for producing a sustained flame/freeze etc., once might be enough for a single round flame to start a fire, but to set something bigger alight might require multiple rounds (and hemocraft damage) to do it?
For lighting a campfire this wouldn't be a big deal as they're probably going to be resting anyway, but it should give you a lever with which to limit possible abuse by forcing them to take longer (and suffer damage) to do something that a spell might do instantaneously.
Yeah, this is sort of what I'm leaning towards. Based on the RAW rules, as it doesn't specify exactly, I feel as though it bursts into flame upon contact with an enemy. However, bonus points for the cool factor for wanting to start campfires with it, so I'm inclined to let this one slide. If he's willing to take the hemocraft damage just to start a campfire, then so be it.
Then again, the campaign is Rime, so hemocraft damage is far more suitable than death by hypothermia...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
One of my players is using Rite of the Flame, and asked if his sword was actually on fire or not. The goal was to start a campfire using it (cool factor).
The RAW don't really specify from what I can tell.
Any thoughts?
I don't see why the player couldn't, but then it opens up a bunch of utility options in the future. Using cold to freeze water, fire to melt ice, etc.
I would say that yes, their sword is actually on fire, and yes you could start a campfire with it.
Site Info: Wizard's ToS | Fan Content Policy | Forum Rules | Physical Books | Content Not Working | Contact Support
How To: Homebrew Rules | Create Homebrew | Snippet Codes | Tool Tips (Custom) | Rollables (Generator)
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Feats | Spells | Magic Items
Other: Beyond20 | Page References | Other Guides | Entitlements | Dice Randomization | Images Fix | FAQ
I guess it depends on how you look at it; for example, if the sword is only flaming as it hits, then it wouldn't be suitable for starting a fire, as you need more of a sustained flame for that. If you're concerned about balance you could always make them take some hemocraft damage in return for producing a sustained flame/freeze etc., once might be enough for a single round flame to start a fire, but to set something bigger alight might require multiple rounds (and hemocraft damage) to do it?
For lighting a campfire this wouldn't be a big deal as they're probably going to be resting anyway, but it should give you a lever with which to limit possible abuse by forcing them to take longer (and suffer damage) to do something that a spell might do instantaneously.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Yeah, this is sort of what I'm leaning towards. Based on the RAW rules, as it doesn't specify exactly, I feel as though it bursts into flame upon contact with an enemy. However, bonus points for the cool factor for wanting to start campfires with it, so I'm inclined to let this one slide. If he's willing to take the hemocraft damage just to start a campfire, then so be it.
Then again, the campaign is Rime, so hemocraft damage is far more suitable than death by hypothermia...