For example, does fireball or lightning bolt light up a dark room momentarily, enough to spot the locations of creatures in the darkness?
If I hurl a fire bolt or eldritch blast into the darkness at a creature, but guess wrong about which grid square the creature is in, does the fire bolt illuminate the creature enough that I now know for sure which square it occupies?
Does a witch bolt provide enough light to see the expression on my target's face, "You cast that spell on me? Really?"
This question came from a really long thread on another forum about whether or not create bonfire generated light (and heat and smoke and so on).
I think it is pretty situational. Fireball and Lightning Bolt will ignite terrain so while the spells themselves might not illuminate anything, the burning bushes or street trash or giant mushrooms might.
Direct fire spells look pretty but I wouldn't allow them to do more than show everybody with LOS that it was cast.
Create Bonfire has the best argument for producing light as it says it makes a bonfire. However, there are several spells that produce light and are very specific on how much light they make. Create Bonfire says nothing about light so I would call that it makes light in its 5 foot square but not outside of it. Obviously it creates heat as it does fire damage and ignites things.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
I think I agree with DxJxC. The answer has to be "so little that it doesn't have a mechanical effect" or the rules would tell you about it.
Other than that, I made an argument in other threads that the light rules tell you that sources specify the light they create, but people obviously disagreed with that (mostly with some form of argument from conclusion).
This is the 3rd thread on this topic in recent history. If someone really wants create a spell to create light in their game, then they should talk with their group about it. I really think this is one of those things that you can change if you like or decide on the fly per instance. "That fireball lit up the room, you could see two more assassins in the corner" or whatever.
Spells dont shed light unless noted otherwise. A DM can always rule that they still do, or that an effect is visible by producing light enought to be perceived without additional mechanical impact, but spells that actually shed lights explicitly mention the radius and degree of illumination, if any, as far as the rules are concerned.
"That fireball lit up the room, you could see two more assassins in the corner" or whatever.
I'm more worried about "That fireball lit up the room, so the enemies could see the rogue. Rogue, you are no longer hidden."
True enough. Even in my example, apparently it would seem that the assassins in the corner were hiding in the darkness. It is a bad mechanical decision.
I think the best explanation is that all of these example spells produce visible light, but not functional light, so while they would absolutely produce light for the purposes of alerting enemies to the spellcasting, they would only reveal hidden targets if your DM chooses to rule it so. Another way of thinking about is that spells like these produce light for the purposes of seeing the spells themselves.
The exception from the examples is create bonfire because it actually creates "a bonfire", so if bonfires in your world produce light, so will this one. The difference is that while it's a spell, the light would not be magical (and the spell itself is not producing the light), it would be like conjuring a torch.
If you've got two wizards hurling lightning bolts at each other down a corridor, it doesn't matter if they cast silence on the room first, as those flashes of light would still be visible (along with the smell of singed beards), and could alert guards to their presence.
However, those flashes revealing someone hiding shadows is up to your DM; these are instantaneous flashes of light, you'd be lucky to notice anything, let alone exactly where it was, and since turns happen simultaneously the target may be moving anyway, so still might not be where you saw them.
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.
Yep, that's the same argument for create bonfire that I've seen 3 times now. Not that it is wrong logically, its just not rules. I guess that does make it wrong per se.
Yep, that's the same argument for create bonfire that I've seen 3 times now. Not that it is wrong logically, its just not rules. I guess that does make it wrong per se.
I'm not sure what part about create bonfire creating a bonfire is ambiguous? What do you imagine that bonfire is if not a bonfire? It doesn't say you create an illusion of a bonfire. People love to use the "spells only do what they say" justification for things, but this is a spell that literally tells you it creates a bonfire, so that's part of what it does.
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.
No one is disputing the fact that it creates a bonfire, (it specifically say so) but rather that it doesn't say it shed light with any given radius and degree of illumination that any light source provide.
So as written create bonfire creates a bonfire but no light source, leaving DMs free to add any if desired.
That's at least 18 spells where the description specifically mentions degrees of light. It doesn't seem like an accident when a spell doesn't mention it.
The most interesting case to consider is Continual Flame, which expressly produces a flame "equivalent in brightness to a torch" ... if Create Bonfire were supposed to produce light, there are multiple examples of deliberate language that would be listed in its description. The lack of that language feels clear.
There's probably a few practical reasons to have access to a bonfire that doesn't create light, especially if attempting to camp for an evening without drawing attention.
It seems like lots of people are focusing on the “spells only do what they say” general rule but not factoring in the “plain English” general rule. It says it creates a bonfire. Plain English of a what a bonfire is means it would create light.
There are also considerations about light-creating spells and the way they interact with darkness. For instance, witch bolt and create bonfire would be dispelled by darkness if you want to describe them as spells that creates an area of light. Instantaneous spells would not be affected, of course.
That's at least 18 spells where the description specifically mentions degrees of light. It doesn't seem like an accident when a spell doesn't mention it.
These are all spells that create specific areas and intensities of magical light for their duration; this is different from spells that simply give off incidental light as part of their visual appearance.
It would be strange to argue that the lightning bolt of the eponymous spell produces no visible light just because it doesn't say so, as it very clearly should, but for the purposes of how the spell appears (i.e- the ability to see the spell), it just won't grant the benefits of a persistent light in an environment.
There should be no expectation that you can just fire off lightning bolts without giving yourself away.
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.
Just my two cents on the create bonfire discussion before the light from spells discussion. Perhaps the designers wanted it to be a bonfire that gave off light like a normal one would, and all other descriptions within the spell are simply for determining combat value. It's still a fire, and fires give off light, but unlike wall of fire, the only ambiguous part is how much damage is dealt and in what manner. Wall of Fire is different because it has a lot more mechanical implications. Create Bonfire makes a fire, which gives off light because fire gives off light, but how much is determined by the DM, because it's not stated. I would say for instantaneous spells that would logically light up places, that visually they do give off light, but not mechanically. You can't use a fireball to see where hidden creatures are in a darkness spell, and the darkness doesn't extinguish instantaneous spells like guiding bolt, but both you and those within the darkness would see(and maybe hear? The wording on it is a bit weird, fireball's not explicitly an explosion, and most spells don't state the sound they give off) the fireball happen.
Overall, I would say it's on a case by case basis for DMs to decide how much light those spells give off, if any. The rules are ambiguous, and like many things, it's for the DM to decide.
Hosted a battle between the Cult of Sedge and the Forum Countershere(Done now). I_Love_Tarrasques has won the fight, scoring a victory for the fiendish Moderators.
There should be no expectation that you can just fire off lightning bolts without giving yourself away.
There should be no expectation that the rules will present a realistic description of reality either.
By the way, on this particular topic, XgtE gives some guidance:
Many spells create obvious effects: explosions of fire, walls of ice, teleportation, and the like. Other spells, such as charm person, display no visible, audible, or otherwise perceptible sign of their effects, and could easily go unnoticed by someone unaffected by them.
There should be no expectation that the rules will present a realistic description of reality either.
This is a very strange argument to make when the rules for the spells in question state their visible effects; lightning bolt specifically describes "a stroke of lightning", which everyone knows produces a flash of light, so it is literally 100% written in RAW that such a flash would happen, because otherwise you're choosing to ignore what is written in the spell.
What it won't don't do is produce persistent light, because the spell is instantaneous (the flash is all you get) and no such persisting effect is described, so it has no particular mechanical benefit beyond the spell's existence. It will however absolutely be visible to anyone wondering why there was a sudden flash of flight.
Whether that flash might be enough to briefly illuminate someone hiding in shadow is up to the DM, as it would depend on relative positioning, whether the illuminated target was moving, whether the flash would have dazzled the witness rather than revealing anything and so-on; this is why it's usually best just to assume instantaneous light serves no purpose other than being visible.
The paragraph in Xanathar's Guide is referring to spells that do not have described visible effects; charm person doesn't describe "a stroke of lightning", at most the only detectible traces of the spell are the vocal and somatic components (if these are seen or heard) or the target behaving strangely (ignoring an enemy they're supposed to be fighting), there is no arc of lightning, no mote of flame, or anything else described in the spell, which is why you can assume it has no visible effect of its own.
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 I didn't make my points very effectively. One is that obvious effects are that. You can tell a spell is being cast and you can see those effects.
The other is that the rules are separate from reality. Things not described in the rules are not part of the rules and must therefore be at some level outside of them.
The spell lightning bolt also don't mention it shed light in any radius or degree of illumination like other spells providing light source specifically give. So it might flash, but this has no effect rule wise per se, unless the DM decide there's any.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Specifically, spells that don't mention light.
For example, does fireball or lightning bolt light up a dark room momentarily, enough to spot the locations of creatures in the darkness?
If I hurl a fire bolt or eldritch blast into the darkness at a creature, but guess wrong about which grid square the creature is in, does the fire bolt illuminate the creature enough that I now know for sure which square it occupies?
Does a witch bolt provide enough light to see the expression on my target's face, "You cast that spell on me? Really?"
This question came from a really long thread on another forum about whether or not create bonfire generated light (and heat and smoke and so on).
I always assumed none. Or only enough to see the effect but not anything in the environment.
It kind of ruins stealth in darkness if every spell briefly lit up the surroundings.
I think it is pretty situational. Fireball and Lightning Bolt will ignite terrain so while the spells themselves might not illuminate anything, the burning bushes or street trash or giant mushrooms might.
Direct fire spells look pretty but I wouldn't allow them to do more than show everybody with LOS that it was cast.
Create Bonfire has the best argument for producing light as it says it makes a bonfire. However, there are several spells that produce light and are very specific on how much light they make. Create Bonfire says nothing about light so I would call that it makes light in its 5 foot square but not outside of it. Obviously it creates heat as it does fire damage and ignites things.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
I think I agree with DxJxC. The answer has to be "so little that it doesn't have a mechanical effect" or the rules would tell you about it.
Other than that, I made an argument in other threads that the light rules tell you that sources specify the light they create, but people obviously disagreed with that (mostly with some form of argument from conclusion).
This is the 3rd thread on this topic in recent history. If someone really wants create a spell to create light in their game, then they should talk with their group about it. I really think this is one of those things that you can change if you like or decide on the fly per instance. "That fireball lit up the room, you could see two more assassins in the corner" or whatever.
I'm more worried about "That fireball lit up the room, so the enemies could see the rogue. Rogue, you are no longer hidden."
Spells dont shed light unless noted otherwise. A DM can always rule that they still do, or that an effect is visible by producing light enought to be perceived without additional mechanical impact, but spells that actually shed lights explicitly mention the radius and degree of illumination, if any, as far as the rules are concerned.
True enough. Even in my example, apparently it would seem that the assassins in the corner were hiding in the darkness. It is a bad mechanical decision.
I think the best explanation is that all of these example spells produce visible light, but not functional light, so while they would absolutely produce light for the purposes of alerting enemies to the spellcasting, they would only reveal hidden targets if your DM chooses to rule it so. Another way of thinking about is that spells like these produce light for the purposes of seeing the spells themselves.
The exception from the examples is create bonfire because it actually creates "a bonfire", so if bonfires in your world produce light, so will this one. The difference is that while it's a spell, the light would not be magical (and the spell itself is not producing the light), it would be like conjuring a torch.
If you've got two wizards hurling lightning bolts at each other down a corridor, it doesn't matter if they cast silence on the room first, as those flashes of light would still be visible (along with the smell of singed beards), and could alert guards to their presence.
However, those flashes revealing someone hiding shadows is up to your DM; these are instantaneous flashes of light, you'd be lucky to notice anything, let alone exactly where it was, and since turns happen simultaneously the target may be moving anyway, so still might not be where you saw them.
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.
Yep, that's the same argument for create bonfire that I've seen 3 times now. Not that it is wrong logically, its just not rules. I guess that does make it wrong per se.
I'm not sure what part about create bonfire creating a bonfire is ambiguous? What do you imagine that bonfire is if not a bonfire? It doesn't say you create an illusion of a bonfire. People love to use the "spells only do what they say" justification for things, but this is a spell that literally tells you it creates a bonfire, so that's part of what it does.
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.
No one is disputing the fact that it creates a bonfire, (it specifically say so) but rather that it doesn't say it shed light with any given radius and degree of illumination that any light source provide.
So as written create bonfire creates a bonfire but no light source, leaving DMs free to add any if desired.
As stated by others... The issue is that there are multiple spells that specifically mention light in their description. Providing a handful of examples:
Dancing Lights; Light; Produce Flame; Faerie Fire; Branding Smite; Flame Blade; Flaming Sphere; Moonbeam; Daylight; Fire Shield; Dawn*Sunlight; Holy Weapon* Immolation; Investiture of Flame; Sunbeam*Sunlight; Crown of Stars; Symbol; Holy Aura
That's at least 18 spells where the description specifically mentions degrees of light. It doesn't seem like an accident when a spell doesn't mention it.
The most interesting case to consider is Continual Flame, which expressly produces a flame "equivalent in brightness to a torch" ... if Create Bonfire were supposed to produce light, there are multiple examples of deliberate language that would be listed in its description. The lack of that language feels clear.
There's probably a few practical reasons to have access to a bonfire that doesn't create light, especially if attempting to camp for an evening without drawing attention.
It seems like lots of people are focusing on the “spells only do what they say” general rule but not factoring in the “plain English” general rule.
It says it creates a bonfire. Plain English of a what a bonfire is means it would create light.
There are also considerations about light-creating spells and the way they interact with darkness. For instance, witch bolt and create bonfire would be dispelled by darkness if you want to describe them as spells that creates an area of light. Instantaneous spells would not be affected, of course.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
These are all spells that create specific areas and intensities of magical light for their duration; this is different from spells that simply give off incidental light as part of their visual appearance.
It would be strange to argue that the lightning bolt of the eponymous spell produces no visible light just because it doesn't say so, as it very clearly should, but for the purposes of how the spell appears (i.e- the ability to see the spell), it just won't grant the benefits of a persistent light in an environment.
There should be no expectation that you can just fire off lightning bolts without giving yourself away.
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.
Just my two cents on the create bonfire discussion before the light from spells discussion. Perhaps the designers wanted it to be a bonfire that gave off light like a normal one would, and all other descriptions within the spell are simply for determining combat value. It's still a fire, and fires give off light, but unlike wall of fire, the only ambiguous part is how much damage is dealt and in what manner. Wall of Fire is different because it has a lot more mechanical implications. Create Bonfire makes a fire, which gives off light because fire gives off light, but how much is determined by the DM, because it's not stated. I would say for instantaneous spells that would logically light up places, that visually they do give off light, but not mechanically. You can't use a fireball to see where hidden creatures are in a darkness spell, and the darkness doesn't extinguish instantaneous spells like guiding bolt, but both you and those within the darkness would see(and maybe hear? The wording on it is a bit weird, fireball's not explicitly an explosion, and most spells don't state the sound they give off) the fireball happen.
Overall, I would say it's on a case by case basis for DMs to decide how much light those spells give off, if any. The rules are ambiguous, and like many things, it's for the DM to decide.
Subclass Evaluations So Far:
Sorcerer
Warlock
My statblock. Fear me!
Hosted a battle between the Cult of Sedge and the Forum Counters here(Done now). I_Love_Tarrasques has won the fight, scoring a victory for the fiendish Moderators.
There should be no expectation that the rules will present a realistic description of reality either.
By the way, on this particular topic, XgtE gives some guidance:
This is a very strange argument to make when the rules for the spells in question state their visible effects; lightning bolt specifically describes "a stroke of lightning", which everyone knows produces a flash of light, so it is literally 100% written in RAW that such a flash would happen, because otherwise you're choosing to ignore what is written in the spell.
What it won't don't do is produce persistent light, because the spell is instantaneous (the flash is all you get) and no such persisting effect is described, so it has no particular mechanical benefit beyond the spell's existence. It will however absolutely be visible to anyone wondering why there was a sudden flash of flight.
Whether that flash might be enough to briefly illuminate someone hiding in shadow is up to the DM, as it would depend on relative positioning, whether the illuminated target was moving, whether the flash would have dazzled the witness rather than revealing anything and so-on; this is why it's usually best just to assume instantaneous light serves no purpose other than being visible.
The paragraph in Xanathar's Guide is referring to spells that do not have described visible effects; charm person doesn't describe "a stroke of lightning", at most the only detectible traces of the spell are the vocal and somatic components (if these are seen or heard) or the target behaving strangely (ignoring an enemy they're supposed to be fighting), there is no arc of lightning, no mote of flame, or anything else described in the spell, which is why you can assume it has no visible effect of its own.
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 I didn't make my points very effectively. One is that obvious effects are that. You can tell a spell is being cast and you can see those effects.
The other is that the rules are separate from reality. Things not described in the rules are not part of the rules and must therefore be at some level outside of them.
The spell lightning bolt also don't mention it shed light in any radius or degree of illumination like other spells providing light source specifically give. So it might flash, but this has no effect rule wise per se, unless the DM decide there's any.