Unfortunately, the rules are not as clear as folks might like. One of the biggest issues is examples where some folks consider the description to be flavor text and another considers it to be a rule. Similarly, there are rules in which there are multiple statements and people consider additional statements to be clarifications or descriptions of mechanics.
Examples:
1) Nondetection Spell
"For the duration, you hide a target that you touch from divination magic. The target can be a willing creature or a place or an object no larger than 10 feet in any dimension. The target can't be targeted by any divination magic or perceived through magical scrying sensors."
Rule or flavor text?: "you hide a target that you touch from divination magic"
Additional rule or mechanic for the first statement?: "The target can't be targeted by any divination magic or perceived through magical scrying sensors"
Does nondetection protect the target against divination magic that does not specifically target them? eg detect magic?
2) Alarm spell:
"You set an alarm against unwanted intrusion. Choose a door, a window, or an area within range that is no larger than a 20-foot cube. Until the spell ends, an alarm alerts you whenever a Tiny or larger creature touches or enters the warded area."
Rule or flavor text?: "You set an alarm against unwanted intrusion"
Additional rule or mechanic for the first statement?: "Until the spell ends, an alarm alerts you whenever a Tiny or larger creature touches or enters the warded area."
Does alarm only warn against unwanted intrusion or intrusion by any creature? eg could you exclude party members from an Alarm?
[Edit: This one is answered in the spell when I learn to read completely "When you cast the spell, you can designate creatures that won't set off the alarm. " ... so it IS unwanted intrusion.]
3) Vision heavily obscured
"A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see Appendix A) when trying to see something in that area."
Rule or flavor text?: "A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely."
Additional rule or mechanic for the first statement?: A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see Appendix A) when trying to see something in that area
4) Divine Sense
"The presence of strong evil registers on your senses like a noxious odor, and powerful good rings like heavenly music in your ears. As an action, you can open your awareness to detect such forces. Until the end of your next turn, you know the location of any celestial, fiend, or undead within 60 feet of you that is not behind total cover."
Rule or flavor text?: "The presence of strong evil registers on your senses like a noxious odor, and powerful good rings like heavenly music in your ears"
Additional rule or mechanic for the first statement?: "As an action, you can open your awareness to detect such forces. Until the end of your next turn, you know the location of any celestial, fiend, or undead within 60 feet of you that is not behind total cover."
-------
Some of these form the basis of long running arguments on these forums because the RAW is not clear depending on how the individual DM chooses to interpret those sentences. Unfortunately, whoever wrote the books like to use language like this which makes it much more difficult for people to decide what the rule should actually be.
I'm mostly interested in what other examples of similar choices of wording that cause issues with interpreting rules might be out there.
2) Alarm specifically states "When you cast the spell, you can designate creatures that won't set off the alarm."
3) Nothing here is flavor text. A creature in an area that is heavily obscured (examples: darkess, opaque fog, dense foliage) suffers from the blindness condition. Note the modifiers on fog and foliage. Note the examples from lightly obscured: dim light, patchy fog, moderate foliage. It's up to the DM to decide which of the two it is.
Flavor text in a rule, is still a rule. This is what makes burning hands so awkward.
I'd say that Burning Hands is a great example to prove that there is such a thing as flavour text and that it isn't the same as rules text. I mean "a thin sheet of flames" is not the same as "a 15-foot cone" so either the spell description is internally inconsistent or the descriptive text is just that, a description, but not a rules mechanic.
Unfortunately, the rules are not as clear as folks might like. One of the biggest issues is examples where some folks consider the description to be flavor text and another considers it to be a rule. Similarly, there are rules in which there are multiple statements and people consider additional statements to be clarifications or descriptions of mechanics.
Examples:
1) Nondetection Spell
"For the duration, you hide a target that you touch from divination magic. The target can be a willing creature or a place or an object no larger than 10 feet in any dimension. The target can't be targeted by any divination magic or perceived through magical scrying sensors."
Rule or flavor text?: "you hide a target that you touch from divination magic"
It is a rule that you hide them from divination magic. However, the following rule text clarifies exactly how to implement that.
Additional rule or mechanic for the first statement?: "The target can't be targeted by any divination magic or perceived through magical scrying sensors"
Does nondetection protect the target against divination magic that does not specifically target them? eg detect magic?
The game is written in common usage language much of the time. often, a rule will present itself in a sort of summary of effect, followed by some more exacting specific implementation guidelines that clarify exactly how to achieve that effect.
Here, the 'summary' is that they're hidden from divination magic. How are they hidden from divination magic? "The target can't be targeted by any divination magic or perceived through magical scrying sensors." is how they're hidden from divination magic.
You see this sort of "what" followed by "how" type of rules breakdown all throughout the rules. A description of 'what' the rule aims to achieve then exact 'how' instructions for carrying it out.
2) Alarm spell:
"You set an alarm against unwanted intrusion. Choose a door, a window, or an area within range that is no larger than a 20-foot cube. Until the spell ends, an alarm alerts you whenever a Tiny or larger creature touches or enters the warded area."
Rule or flavor text?: "You set an alarm against unwanted intrusion"
Additional rule or mechanic for the first statement?: "Until the spell ends, an alarm alerts you whenever a Tiny or larger creature touches or enters the warded area."
Does alarm only warn against unwanted intrusion or intrusion by any creature? eg could you exclude party members from an Alarm?
What are we doing: You set an alarm against unwanted intrusion.
How are we doing it? An alarm alerts you whenever a Tiny or larger creature touches or enters the warded area.
3) Vision heavily obscured
"A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see Appendix A) when trying to see something in that area."
Rule or flavor text?: "A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely."
Additional rule or mechanic for the first statement?: A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see Appendix A) when trying to see something in that area
What are we doing: A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely.
How are we doing it? A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see Appendix A) when trying to see something in that area.
4) Divine Sense
"The presence of strong evil registers on your senses like a noxious odor, and powerful good rings like heavenly music in your ears. As an action, you can open your awareness to detect such forces. Until the end of your next turn, you know the location of any celestial, fiend, or undead within 60 feet of you that is not behind total cover."
Rule or flavor text?: "The presence of strong evil registers on your senses like a noxious odor, and powerful good rings like heavenly music in your ears"
Additional rule or mechanic for the first statement?: "As an action, you can open your awareness to detect such forces. Until the end of your next turn, you know the location of any celestial, fiend, or undead within 60 feet of you that is not behind total cover."
What are we doing: The presence of strong evil registers on your senses like a noxious odor, and powerful good rings like heavenly music in your ears.
How are we doing it? As an action, you can open your awareness to detect such forces. Until the end of your next turn, you know the location of any celestial, fiend, or undead within 60 feet of you that is not behind total cover.
-------
Some of these form the basis of long running arguments on these forums because the RAW is not clear depending on how the individual DM chooses to interpret those sentences. Unfortunately, whoever wrote the books like to use language like this which makes it much more difficult for people to decide what the rule should actually be.
I'm mostly interested in what other examples of similar choices of wording that cause issues with interpreting rules might be out there.
Hopefully this helps. The rules often first tell you what they are doing, then clarify how to do that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Flavor text in a rule, is still a rule. This is what makes burning hands so awkward.
I'd say that Burning Hands is a great example to prove that there is such a thing as flavour text and that it isn't the same as rules text. I mean "a thin sheet of flames" is not the same as "a 15-foot cone" so either the spell description is internally inconsistent or the descriptive text is just that, a description, but not a rules mechanic.
That isn't flavor text, it tells you exactly what the spell aims to do. Spells do exactly what their description says. Nothing more, or less, than that. If it is in the spell description, it is not flavor text.
Besides, there is no reason to say that the thin sheet of flames isn't a cone. Have you ever seen an ice cream cone? It is a thin sheet, and a cone.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Flavor text in a rule, is still a rule. This is what makes burning hands so awkward.
I'd say that Burning Hands is a great example to prove that there is such a thing as flavour text and that it isn't the same as rules text. I mean "a thin sheet of flames" is not the same as "a 15-foot cone" so either the spell description is internally inconsistent or the descriptive text is just that, a description, but not a rules mechanic.
That isn't flavor text, it tells you exactly what the spell aims to do. Spells do exactly what their description says. Nothing more, or less, than that. If it is in the spell description, it is not flavor text.
Besides, there is no reason to say that the thin sheet of flames isn't a cone. Have you ever seen an ice cream cone? It is a thin sheet, and a cone.
Eh, in my experience the first line of a spell description is more often just a mildly prosaic description of the spell, as opposed to actual rules/mechanics. They outline the general intended effect, but lack the kind of language or specificity to really be effective in describing how to apply the spell in a game. D&D is a fairly hard RPG, so if a line of an effect's description isn't using mechanical language, I'd be judicious about applying a mechanical effect to it.
That isn't flavor text, it tells you exactly what the spell aims to do. Spells do exactly what their description says. Nothing more, or less, than that. If it is in the spell description, it is not flavor text.
Might just be a difference of interpretation about what "flavour text" means. I agree with what you said above, that it often starts with a description of what it does and then goes on to specify how it is done. When I say "flavour text" I don't mean it should be completely ignored but rather that it shouldn't be read and applied in a strict literal way.
The Alarm spell mentioned above is a good example. The first part says "You set an alarm against unwanted intrusion" but that doesn't mean that the spell inherently knows what and where you think the intrusion is "unwanted". You still need to use the rules mechanic part to define what area you want it to cover and any creatures that won't set it off.
Besides, there is no reason to say that the thin sheet of flames isn't a cone. Have you ever seen an ice cream cone? It is a thin sheet, and a cone.
But that only highlights the problem with taking the flavour parts to literally.
Firstly, if you asked 100 players/DM's to describe how "a thin sheet flame" looks I'm willing to bet that very few (if any) would come up with an ice cream cone style of look. Secondly, if you do use a ice cream cone formed thin sheet of flame then you wouldn't get the effect that Burning Hands should have because it wouldn't affect all of the area that it should. A cone (or any AOE) shouldn't just effect outer layer but the whole area of it (the part where the ice cream filling would be if you will).
Flavor text in a rule, is still a rule. This is what makes burning hands so awkward.
I'd say that Burning Hands is a great example to prove that there is such a thing as flavour text and that it isn't the same as rules text. I mean "a thin sheet of flames" is not the same as "a 15-foot cone" so either the spell description is internally inconsistent or the descriptive text is just that, a description, but not a rules mechanic.
That isn't flavor text, it tells you exactly what the spell aims to do. Spells do exactly what their description says. Nothing more, or less, than that. If it is in the spell description, it is not flavor text.
Besides, there is no reason to say that the thin sheet of flames isn't a cone. Have you ever seen an ice cream cone? It is a thin sheet, and a cone.
Does that mean burning hands requires two free hands? You cannot hold a focus or other object because you need to have both hands with thumbs touching and fingers spread?
Flavor text in a rule, is still a rule. This is what makes burning hands so awkward.
I'd say that Burning Hands is a great example to prove that there is such a thing as flavour text and that it isn't the same as rules text. I mean "a thin sheet of flames" is not the same as "a 15-foot cone" so either the spell description is internally inconsistent or the descriptive text is just that, a description, but not a rules mechanic.
That isn't flavor text, it tells you exactly what the spell aims to do. Spells do exactly what their description says. Nothing more, or less, than that. If it is in the spell description, it is not flavor text.
Besides, there is no reason to say that the thin sheet of flames isn't a cone. Have you ever seen an ice cream cone? It is a thin sheet, and a cone.
Does that mean burning hands requires two free hands? You cannot hold a focus or other object because you need to have both hands with thumbs touching and fingers spread?
It doesn't say it requires two free hands. Not sure where you're getting that from.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
That isn't flavor text, it tells you exactly what the spell aims to do. Spells do exactly what their description says. Nothing more, or less, than that. If it is in the spell description, it is not flavor text.
Might just be a difference of interpretation about what "flavour text" means. I agree with what you said above, that it often starts with a description of what it does and then goes on to specify how it is done. When I say "flavour text" I don't mean it should be completely ignored but rather that it shouldn't be read and applied in a strict literal way.
The Alarm spell mentioned above is a good example. The first part says "You set an alarm against unwanted intrusion" but that doesn't mean that the spell inherently knows what and where you think the intrusion is "unwanted". You still need to use the rules mechanic part to define what area you want it to cover and any creatures that won't set it off.
Besides, there is no reason to say that the thin sheet of flames isn't a cone. Have you ever seen an ice cream cone? It is a thin sheet, and a cone.
But that only highlights the problem with taking the flavour parts to literally.
Firstly, if you asked 100 players/DM's to describe how "a thin sheet flame" looks I'm willing to bet that very few (if any) would come up with an ice cream cone style of look. Secondly, if you do use a ice cream cone formed thin sheet of flame then you wouldn't get the effect that Burning Hands should have because it wouldn't affect all of the area that it should. A cone (or any AOE) shouldn't just effect outer layer but the whole area of it (the part where the ice cream filling would be if you will).
I'm not a rocket scientist or anything, but I'd imagine if you were inside a cone of flames it'd get really uncomfortably warm really...really fast. You can be burned without coming into contact with direct flames. Most cooking isn't done with a blowtorch, it is done through convection. Heat radiates really well. The physical description of the effect is a thin sheet of flames, and the impact of that thin sheet of flames is a cone area being burned.
As an aside, if this helps, it is also important to remember that it is magic we're talking about, specifically magic in a fantasy universe that normal laws of physics don't even really exist in. Trying to apply some logical consistence like "Well the bright light of the flames that come from my fingertips doesn't physically contact the giant troll I'm combating so does it even burn him?" is several unnecessary lines of inquiry deep already.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Well... I think that's a bit obtuse, but it's also technically true. The spell doesn't say you need two free hands, but it details a situation which will probably require two free hands. If you can find a way to hold an object while having both hands with thumbs touching and fingers spread, then yes, you can hold your spellcasting focus while casting this spell. If holding a particular example of a spellcasting focus prevents you from completing the somatic component of this spell (which, again, is unusual in its level of detail) then you cannot hold it while casting the spell.
Well... I think that's a bit obtuse, but it's also technically true. The spell doesn't say you need two free hands, but it details a situation which will probably require two free hands. If you can find a way to hold an object while having both hands with thumbs touching and fingers spread, then yes, you can hold your spellcasting focus while casting this spell. If holding a particular example of a spellcasting focus prevents you from completing the somatic component of this spell (which, again, is unusual in its level of detail) then you cannot hold it while casting the spell.
The game isn't a reality simulator. It isn't meant to be.
Problems arise when you expect it to act like one. You can see it all over the place if you start drilling down. The rules are a system that integrates into the narration of the story you're telling, but if you are expecting perfect verisimilitude 5e will always come up short for you.
When you start butting up against problems like this it is because you're trying to focus too closely on a part of the game that the game doesn't have a detailed picture to give you. Back up your view, let it get a little blurry, and gloss right on over the inconsistency. That's my advice, anyway.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I really don't feel like investing the effort in defending the silly spell description for burning hands. To your larger point, I do believe we should expect things in D&D to work more or less the way they do in the real world, except for when there is a rule that changes that expectation. That's just my perspective on interpreting RAW.
Flavor text in a rule, is still a rule. This is what makes burning hands so awkward.
I'd say that Burning Hands is a great example to prove that there is such a thing as flavour text and that it isn't the same as rules text. I mean "a thin sheet of flames" is not the same as "a 15-foot cone" so either the spell description is internally inconsistent or the descriptive text is just that, a description, but not a rules mechanic.
That isn't flavor text, it tells you exactly what the spell aims to do. Spells do exactly what their description says. Nothing more, or less, than that. If it is in the spell description, it is not flavor text.
Besides, there is no reason to say that the thin sheet of flames isn't a cone. Have you ever seen an ice cream cone? It is a thin sheet, and a cone.
Does that mean burning hands requires two free hands? You cannot hold a focus or other object because you need to have both hands with thumbs touching and fingers spread?
It doesn't say it requires two free hands. Not sure where you're getting that from.
You said if it is in the spell’s description it isn’t flavor text. The spell description says “As you hold your hands with thumbs touching and fingers spread, a thin sheet of flames shoots forth from your outstretched fingertips.”
So that isn’t flavor? You need hands, plural, with thumbs touching and fingers spread. It’s what the spell says. Sounds like you need two hands free to do this. If it isn’t flavor text.
But I think it is flavor and you only need a free hand for the S component and the other can be doing whatever you like. This is why flavor text should be separate from the rules section of a spell.
Flavor text in a rule, is still a rule. This is what makes burning hands so awkward.
I'd say that Burning Hands is a great example to prove that there is such a thing as flavour text and that it isn't the same as rules text. I mean "a thin sheet of flames" is not the same as "a 15-foot cone" so either the spell description is internally inconsistent or the descriptive text is just that, a description, but not a rules mechanic.
That isn't flavor text, it tells you exactly what the spell aims to do. Spells do exactly what their description says. Nothing more, or less, than that. If it is in the spell description, it is not flavor text.
Besides, there is no reason to say that the thin sheet of flames isn't a cone. Have you ever seen an ice cream cone? It is a thin sheet, and a cone.
Does that mean burning hands requires two free hands? You cannot hold a focus or other object because you need to have both hands with thumbs touching and fingers spread?
It doesn't say it requires two free hands. Not sure where you're getting that from.
You said if it is in the spell’s description it isn’t flavor text. The spell description says “As you hold your hands with thumbs touching and fingers spread, a thin sheet of flames shoots forth from your outstretched fingertips.”
So that isn’t flavor? You need hands, plural, with thumbs touching and fingers spread. It’s what the spell says. Sounds like you need two hands free to do this. If it isn’t flavor text.
But I think it is flavor and you only need a free hand for the S component and the other can be doing whatever you like. This is why flavor text should be separate from the rules section of a spell.
If something requires free hands it'll say so. Nothing in burning hands says it does, even if you insist it does, anyone can read the spell description for themselves and see it doesn't.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
It feels like bad faith to ignore all context and only look for the presence or absence of the thing that will best support your argument.
EDIT: However, as I said before, you are technically correct, and I will give an example of how you could cast burning hands without having to drop or put away your spellcasting focus. If you cross your wrists and put your thumbs together palm-up with your fingers outstretched, it's reasonable that you might be able to cast the spell while holding something in your palm. There are probably other ways that a descriptive player could make it work for most items. Of course, it won't help you cast a V,S spell because you will need at least one hand free for the somatic component of the spell that lacks a material component.
A more interesting question is whether you still need to do this if you cast the spell subtly.
It feels like bad faith to ignore all context and only look for the presence or absence of the thing that will best support your argument.
EDIT: However, as I said before, you are technically correct, and I will give an example of how you could cast burning hands without having to drop or put away your spellcasting focus. If you cross your wrists and put your thumbs together palm-up with your fingers outstretched, it's reasonable that you might be able to cast the spell while holding something in your palm. There are probably other ways that a descriptive player could make it work for most items. Of course, it won't help you cast a V,S spell because you will need at least one hand free for the somatic component of the spell that lacks a material component.
A more interesting question is whether you still need to do this if you cast the spell subtly.
It feels like you're not picking up what I'm putting down.
What I'm saying is that not only do you not need to get into as much detail as you just did, you're not even supposed to. Instead of describing that you finagle your focus, you instead just describe putting your hands together thumbs touching shooting a thin sheet of flames. You needn't explain or even describe anything else. The only thing you need to care about is that your character does the thing the spell says. How he does it? Magic. Trying to drill down further causes problem, so... don't.
Or, if you do, know that you're going off-script when you do.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Unfortunately, the rules are not as clear as folks might like. One of the biggest issues is examples where some folks consider the description to be flavor text and another considers it to be a rule. Similarly, there are rules in which there are multiple statements and people consider additional statements to be clarifications or descriptions of mechanics.
Examples:
1) Nondetection Spell
"For the duration, you hide a target that you touch from divination magic. The target can be a willing creature or a place or an object no larger than 10 feet in any dimension. The target can't be targeted by any divination magic or perceived through magical scrying sensors."
Rule or flavor text?: "you hide a target that you touch from divination magic"
Additional rule or mechanic for the first statement?: "The target can't be targeted by any divination magic or perceived through magical scrying sensors"
Does nondetection protect the target against divination magic that does not specifically target them? eg detect magic?
2) Alarm spell:
"You set an alarm against unwanted intrusion. Choose a door, a window, or an area within range that is no larger than a 20-foot cube. Until the spell ends, an alarm alerts you whenever a Tiny or larger creature touches or enters the warded area."
Rule or flavor text?: "You set an alarm against unwanted intrusion"
Additional rule or mechanic for the first statement?: "Until the spell ends, an alarm alerts you whenever a Tiny or larger creature touches or enters the warded area."
Does alarm only warn against unwanted intrusion or intrusion by any creature? eg could you exclude party members from an Alarm?
[Edit: This one is answered in the spell when I learn to read completely "When you cast the spell, you can designate creatures that won't set off the alarm. " ... so it IS unwanted intrusion.]
3) Vision heavily obscured
"A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely. A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see Appendix A) when trying to see something in that area."
Rule or flavor text?: "A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely."
Additional rule or mechanic for the first statement?: A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see Appendix A) when trying to see something in that area
4) Divine Sense
"The presence of strong evil registers on your senses like a noxious odor, and powerful good rings like heavenly music in your ears. As an action, you can open your awareness to detect such forces. Until the end of your next turn, you know the location of any celestial, fiend, or undead within 60 feet of you that is not behind total cover."
Rule or flavor text?: "The presence of strong evil registers on your senses like a noxious odor, and powerful good rings like heavenly music in your ears"
Additional rule or mechanic for the first statement?: "As an action, you can open your awareness to detect such forces. Until the end of your next turn, you know the location of any celestial, fiend, or undead within 60 feet of you that is not behind total cover."
-------
Some of these form the basis of long running arguments on these forums because the RAW is not clear depending on how the individual DM chooses to interpret those sentences. Unfortunately, whoever wrote the books like to use language like this which makes it much more difficult for people to decide what the rule should actually be.
I'm mostly interested in what other examples of similar choices of wording that cause issues with interpreting rules might be out there.
Flavor text in a rule, is still a rule. This is what makes burning hands so awkward.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
2) Alarm specifically states "When you cast the spell, you can designate creatures that won't set off the alarm."
3) Nothing here is flavor text. A creature in an area that is heavily obscured (examples: darkess, opaque fog, dense foliage) suffers from the blindness condition. Note the modifiers on fog and foliage. Note the examples from lightly obscured: dim light, patchy fog, moderate foliage. It's up to the DM to decide which of the two it is.
Birgit | Shifter | Sorcerer | Dragonlords
Shayone | Hobgoblin | Sorcerer | Netherdeep
I'd say that Burning Hands is a great example to prove that there is such a thing as flavour text and that it isn't the same as rules text. I mean "a thin sheet of flames" is not the same as "a 15-foot cone" so either the spell description is internally inconsistent or the descriptive text is just that, a description, but not a rules mechanic.
It is a rule that you hide them from divination magic. However, the following rule text clarifies exactly how to implement that.
The game is written in common usage language much of the time. often, a rule will present itself in a sort of summary of effect, followed by some more exacting specific implementation guidelines that clarify exactly how to achieve that effect.
Here, the 'summary' is that they're hidden from divination magic. How are they hidden from divination magic? "The target can't be targeted by any divination magic or perceived through magical scrying sensors." is how they're hidden from divination magic.
You see this sort of "what" followed by "how" type of rules breakdown all throughout the rules. A description of 'what' the rule aims to achieve then exact 'how' instructions for carrying it out.
What are we doing: You set an alarm against unwanted intrusion.
How are we doing it? An alarm alerts you whenever a Tiny or larger creature touches or enters the warded area.
What are we doing: A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely.
How are we doing it? A creature effectively suffers from the blinded condition (see Appendix A) when trying to see something in that area.
What are we doing: The presence of strong evil registers on your senses like a noxious odor, and powerful good rings like heavenly music in your ears.
How are we doing it? As an action, you can open your awareness to detect such forces. Until the end of your next turn, you know the location of any celestial, fiend, or undead within 60 feet of you that is not behind total cover.
Hopefully this helps. The rules often first tell you what they are doing, then clarify how to do that.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
That isn't flavor text, it tells you exactly what the spell aims to do. Spells do exactly what their description says. Nothing more, or less, than that. If it is in the spell description, it is not flavor text.
Besides, there is no reason to say that the thin sheet of flames isn't a cone. Have you ever seen an ice cream cone? It is a thin sheet, and a cone.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Eh, in my experience the first line of a spell description is more often just a mildly prosaic description of the spell, as opposed to actual rules/mechanics. They outline the general intended effect, but lack the kind of language or specificity to really be effective in describing how to apply the spell in a game. D&D is a fairly hard RPG, so if a line of an effect's description isn't using mechanical language, I'd be judicious about applying a mechanical effect to it.
Might just be a difference of interpretation about what "flavour text" means. I agree with what you said above, that it often starts with a description of what it does and then goes on to specify how it is done. When I say "flavour text" I don't mean it should be completely ignored but rather that it shouldn't be read and applied in a strict literal way.
The Alarm spell mentioned above is a good example. The first part says "You set an alarm against unwanted intrusion" but that doesn't mean that the spell inherently knows what and where you think the intrusion is "unwanted". You still need to use the rules mechanic part to define what area you want it to cover and any creatures that won't set it off.
But that only highlights the problem with taking the flavour parts to literally.
Firstly, if you asked 100 players/DM's to describe how "a thin sheet flame" looks I'm willing to bet that very few (if any) would come up with an ice cream cone style of look.
Secondly, if you do use a ice cream cone formed thin sheet of flame then you wouldn't get the effect that Burning Hands should have because it wouldn't affect all of the area that it should. A cone (or any AOE) shouldn't just effect outer layer but the whole area of it (the part where the ice cream filling would be if you will).
Does that mean burning hands requires two free hands? You cannot hold a focus or other object because you need to have both hands with thumbs touching and fingers spread?
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
It's what makes the spell so awkward and inconsistent with the way spell text usually works in 5e.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
It doesn't say it requires two free hands. Not sure where you're getting that from.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I'm not a rocket scientist or anything, but I'd imagine if you were inside a cone of flames it'd get really uncomfortably warm really...really fast. You can be burned without coming into contact with direct flames. Most cooking isn't done with a blowtorch, it is done through convection. Heat radiates really well. The physical description of the effect is a thin sheet of flames, and the impact of that thin sheet of flames is a cone area being burned.
As an aside, if this helps, it is also important to remember that it is magic we're talking about, specifically magic in a fantasy universe that normal laws of physics don't even really exist in. Trying to apply some logical consistence like "Well the bright light of the flames that come from my fingertips doesn't physically contact the giant troll I'm combating so does it even burn him?" is several unnecessary lines of inquiry deep already.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Well... I think that's a bit obtuse, but it's also technically true. The spell doesn't say you need two free hands, but it details a situation which will probably require two free hands. If you can find a way to hold an object while having both hands with thumbs touching and fingers spread, then yes, you can hold your spellcasting focus while casting this spell. If holding a particular example of a spellcasting focus prevents you from completing the somatic component of this spell (which, again, is unusual in its level of detail) then you cannot hold it while casting the spell.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
The game isn't a reality simulator. It isn't meant to be.
Problems arise when you expect it to act like one. You can see it all over the place if you start drilling down. The rules are a system that integrates into the narration of the story you're telling, but if you are expecting perfect verisimilitude 5e will always come up short for you.
When you start butting up against problems like this it is because you're trying to focus too closely on a part of the game that the game doesn't have a detailed picture to give you. Back up your view, let it get a little blurry, and gloss right on over the inconsistency. That's my advice, anyway.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I really don't feel like investing the effort in defending the silly spell description for burning hands. To your larger point, I do believe we should expect things in D&D to work more or less the way they do in the real world, except for when there is a rule that changes that expectation. That's just my perspective on interpreting RAW.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
You said if it is in the spell’s description it isn’t flavor text. The spell description says “As you hold your hands with thumbs touching and fingers spread, a thin sheet of flames shoots forth from your outstretched fingertips.”
So that isn’t flavor? You need hands, plural, with thumbs touching and fingers spread. It’s what the spell says. Sounds like you need two hands free to do this. If it isn’t flavor text.
But I think it is flavor and you only need a free hand for the S component and the other can be doing whatever you like. This is why flavor text should be separate from the rules section of a spell.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
If something requires free hands it'll say so. Nothing in burning hands says it does, even if you insist it does, anyone can read the spell description for themselves and see it doesn't.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
It feels like bad faith to ignore all context and only look for the presence or absence of the thing that will best support your argument.
EDIT: However, as I said before, you are technically correct, and I will give an example of how you could cast burning hands without having to drop or put away your spellcasting focus. If you cross your wrists and put your thumbs together palm-up with your fingers outstretched, it's reasonable that you might be able to cast the spell while holding something in your palm. There are probably other ways that a descriptive player could make it work for most items. Of course, it won't help you cast a V,S spell because you will need at least one hand free for the somatic component of the spell that lacks a material component.
A more interesting question is whether you still need to do this if you cast the spell subtly.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
It feels like you're not picking up what I'm putting down.
What I'm saying is that not only do you not need to get into as much detail as you just did, you're not even supposed to. Instead of describing that you finagle your focus, you instead just describe putting your hands together thumbs touching shooting a thin sheet of flames. You needn't explain or even describe anything else. The only thing you need to care about is that your character does the thing the spell says. How he does it? Magic. Trying to drill down further causes problem, so... don't.
Or, if you do, know that you're going off-script when you do.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Warhammer tends to distinguish flavour text and rules mechanics by presenting them in separate paragraphs, with the flavour text italicised.