AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

Got a questionn concerning fire and enchanted weapons.

If you enchant a blade and then put it net to a bush woul the bush catch on fire, or does the elemental damage from the weapon itself not spread outside of the weapons reach.

This probelm has come up many times for my druid since some players walk swinging firey swords through the bushes, to me the bush is set on fire then...

Or even worse... summon an azer and let it waddle around.

What's the specific lore on fire here?

Usually I would say you are generally careful enough with your flaming weapons... but sometimes a DM will take notice and it has happened before.. I know I caused a fire in Amia forest once on my sorcerer.. an unintentional fire but had to roll with the punches because of it... so I would say just be cautious what you do when you walk around with anything fire in a forest.. 9/10 you will be fine.. it's that 1/10 time that you never expect that will get you *when a DM is watching*.

disclaimer:

my fire was started by a... hmm.. "poor spell choice" in pVp... but still the point stands.

Wysiwyg, mostly. Although once time I noticed an unattended fire in Amia forest and had myself a bit of fun. I'd not emote burning anything plot down without notifying a DM, basically. We decide what torches the environs etc.

It's just I see players go "not nothing is burning since its enchanted fire" *basicly swallos his flaming sword to prove the point*

IMO, conjured fire acts lke real fire and can spread on so wether its a flying spark or a fire elemental it will still burn down anything it touches

Maybe but like...do you really want the DM's to spend our dev time putting scorch marks in amia forest whenever a druid catches some adventuring windbagger running through with an azer or a flamed up weapon, which is basically THE MOST popular and easily gotten enchantment?

I mean not to sound callous, but it's not a priority. We just go with the WYSIWYG policy. If someone wants to emote swallowing a sword that's kind of SUPER doofy, but if you emote plot stuff catching on fire around you that's the same as emoting tearing a door off a bar door or knocking the helm off a guard.

I agree with Lally here... if there was some script to say catch the foliage on fire every time someone or something with a fire enchantment came near it.. amia forest would be a pile of ash with no real chance to grow back... id much rather have it be that pile of ash when players come together and actually plot to burn the forest down like the Sharrans did some time ago... but just be weary because some DMs will watch you and might just do something *though i doubt it will have server wide effects*

edit: though a question always lingers... I would say magical fire is much more dangerous then mundane fire.. it might not be so easy to put out but that would be best for the lore thread

Oh yes you can absolutely defer to the lore thread with this to ask around. I'm just giving you a single DM opinion. Unfortunately I'm not always correct!

It does not set things on fire. If it did it would come with a DC save vs. Catching Fire.

It's a visual effect which inflicts damage upon a successful hit. Else your flaming weapon would be so hot you cannot hold it... or buzz you with electricity, killing you. or simply melt under the acid on it. IMHO.

P.S. also you can give a weapon a flame/acid/cold visual while ahving a completely other element on the weapon of slashing/piercing damage on it actually.

I was going to say I am confused by the save comment because no spell has a save vrs catch on fire or my evocer would have been all over it *burning hands anyone?*... but the save vrs spell with reflex does represent that... I get it now.

edit: I would love it if those fire spells did that have effect though... "The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area. It can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze. If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the fireball may continue beyond the barrier if the area permits; otherwise it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does."

The general lore is that magical fire doesn't actually catch things on fire so much as it burns them. I.E. A fireball will char the hell out of any bush your fire it at, but it won't actually cause a fire that would spread to other ones. Magical fire never actually "creates" more fire I guess is a way to say it. Unlike a natural fire which spreads and grows as it burns.

I imagine it'd be much the same way with a fire-enchanted weapon. It would just char the leaves and twigs in the immediate vicinity. Something like a slightly larger outline of the weapon burnt onto the ground/shrub/etc/.

A weapon treated with Alchemist's Fire likely would spread a fire, however. It's a chemical fire after all. But since the fire dies away so quickly, it probably isn't any more dangerous for setting a blaze than a splash of gasoline.

Yossarin wrote:

It does not set things on fire. If it did it would come with a DC save vs. Catching Fire.

Well, i was assuming that hitting something with a flaming object -usually- isn't sufficient enough to set someone on fire, but if you took your +3 Flaming Avenger and just started rubbing someone down with it, they most certainly might.

... Perhaps i'll cover an axe-head in cloth and oil, go find a stump, and get back to you all.

Quote:

The general lore is that magical fire doesn't actually catch things on fire so much as it burns them.

Wrong.

"The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area."

Anything that can catch fire will when a fireball is cast.. same with Burning Hands.

Quote:

Flammable materials burn if the flames touch them.

this is all straight from the SRD.

What I said is the Amian lore on fire.

I know what the SRD says. But as I recall, we modified that because of the implications it has on a persistent world server. We wouldn't have any buildings left standing because CE Joey McArsonist would be claiming to take out entire towns with a single fireball. Which you can, in PnP, with a bit of patience.

The reason an explosion (i.e. Fireball) doesn't set fire to stuff is because it consumes the oxygen and thus starves much of the fire it might create. My sword isn't exploding, it's just on fire.

Edited to remove grumpiness. Totally going to bed now :p

There is a difference between burning and combustion. You can hold a piece of paper above a flame and it will wilt and blacken without actually catching on fire. This is what I mean when I say burning. That same piece of paper a few inches lower will grow and spread a fire within itself. This is what I mean when I say combustion.

Burns are the result high heat, which can come from a plethora of sources. And if you do your research, you'll find what we call "fire damage" is better translated as "heat damage." Steam in D&D does "fire damage." Example: a Steam Mephit's breath.

SRD wrote:

10-foot cone of steam, damage 1d4 fire, Reflex DC 12 half. Living creatures that fail their saves are tormented by burned skin and seared eyes unless they have immunity to fire or are otherwise protected.

So no, fire damage does not equal combustion. It means burning. And I will say once again with good amount of confidence, magical fire does not spread in most cases. You can not metagame your surroundings here.

If you need an explanation why, here's a theory for you. Natural fire works by a chemical reaction from the breakdown of bonds between molecules in the presence of oxygen. In other words, it needs fuel to burn and spread. Magical fire is created from the Weave, born out of reality itself. It doesn't need nor does it even use fuel. It's a spontaneous manifestation that creeps out of existence when the Weave returns to its original state, when the spell ends.

Tell that to the DM who plays the environment when you cast say... wall of fire in a forest... if a DM is around and they want your spell to effect the environment it will and I can testify to that because it happened to me... not just fire spells... you think big chunks of ice from icestorm falling won't cause damage either?

Dieu_Le_Fera wrote:

Tell that to the DM who plays the environment when you cast say... wall of fire in a forest... if a DM is around and they want your spell to effect the environment it will and I can testify to that because it happened to me

Affecting the environment is one thing. Causing the devs to have to remove buildings and change whole areas because of a single spell by a single character in a single random instance is a world apart. A wall of fire in the forest does effect the environment. It burns the grass and foliage under it and probably a few feet in either direction of it. That doesn't mean it lights the whole forest on fire. And if you think that's what a DM wants to happen every time they witness a fireball in a wooded area, I have to say you've got their priorities skewed. Note: yeah, if a DM did want an entire area to burn down from a Burning Hands, they could. But that presents tough precedent to follow and a tremendous strain on developers.

Quote:

you think big chunks of ice from icestorm falling won't cause damage either?

I really don't think you're seeing the difference here. Things will and do damage easily without require overhauls of the setting. Again, I'm not saying magical fire doesn't do damage and if you're trying to make it seem like I'm saying that, then read my words again. It burns things. Horribly. But it does not create a chain reaction that any schmuck could use to metagame entire areas.

I agree with you there... if anything like that could happen to an area it needs a DM... but at the same time it fosters the idea that "well I casted inferno in the forest a million times before and this never happened!" *as the player whines to the DM*... don't say it can't... it's up to the DMs to decide what can and should happen... and if they happen to be around that one time you do cast something in the forest like wall of fire... or inferno.. burning hands... icestorm.. don't be surprised if the environment reacts...

that is all I am saying.

It seems silly that this is an argument....

Generally speaking:

Weapon enchantments do not spread from weapon to object without "purpose". You aren't going to accidentally spark a fire with Flame Weapon. You might PURPOSEFULLY attempt to, though.

The same goes for spells. Due to PvP settings mages are generally assumed to have Selective Metamagic and can pick and choose their spell's targets. That includes the environment, to a degree. "To a degree" means "When a DM says otherwise", of course. The short answer is: Sure, use your fire spells in a forest, but when you use along lasting AoE fire spell don't be angry when a DM picks up on that.

TormakSaber wrote:

It seems silly that this is an argument....

Generally speaking:

Weapon enchantments do not spread from weapon to object without "purpose". You aren't going to accidentally spark a fire with Flame Weapon. You might PURPOSEFULLY attempt to, though.

The same goes for spells. Due to PvP settings mages are generally assumed to have Selective Metamagic and can pick and choose their spell's targets. That includes the environment, to a degree. "To a degree" means "When a DM says otherwise", of course. The short answer is: Sure, use your fire spells in a forest, but when you use along lasting AoE fire spell don't be angry when a DM picks up on that.

Very cool. Clever way of dealing with the PvP settings

WYSIWYG
meaning if someones flaming weapon isnt actually setting things on fire either through visual effect, dm fun having, or emotes... then no, there is no fire. the limitation of the systems visual effects for things like weapons can and have to be interpreted in many different ways anyway.

and its always been a rule that magical fire wont cause actual natural fire unless specified. fireball will set fire to combustibles but since that isnt coded anywhere in the game, it isnt lore appropriate until a dm says so.

as for me, whenever i have a fire type summon or anything else that makes sense ill emote small things using the speak command. example:
*the hell hound lazily pads behind the goblin, twigs and small foot sized patches of grass burn up behind him and leave a tiny trail*
or something like it just as a way to generate some rp with anyone who might be trying to track me, or wants to complain about the few blades of grass that were damaged. the more info you can provide, the more situations you'll likely get in. now, if i didnt emote this, then no one would have cause to think my hell hound was doing anything dangerous at all.

Yossarin wrote:

It does not set things on fire. If it did it would come with a DC save vs. Catching Fire.

The world rolled a 20 on its reflex save.

Fire Storm
Evocation [Fire]
Level: Clr 8, Drd 7, Fire 7
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 round
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Area: Two 10-ft. cubes per level (S)
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Reflex half
Spell Resistance: Yes

When a fire storm spell is cast, the whole
area is shot through with sheets of roaring
flame. The raging flames do not harm natural
vegetation, ground cover, and any
plant creatures in the area that you wish to
exclude from damage. Any other creature
within the area takes 1d6 points of fire
damage per caster level (maximum 20d6).

How does that work here? Can druids control if the Fire Storm spell harms vegetation in Amia, or?
Never seen the spell used in the forest, and would think that people have forgotten about the pretty interesting detail.

id say, if i were to see this IG, as a player, that its all what you see is what you get. unless the caster chooses to emote that the spell harms the vegetation and there is a dm present to show those changes, then there can be no claim to any vegetation being harmed. now, if the caster does emote but there is no dm around and no way to show the effect visually then it is up to the players to consent to that rp. if everyone chooses to ignore the destruction because it isnt dm sanctioned, then that is how itll happen (even though to me this sounds lousy, it is unfortunately how the game is usually played). you can always rely on WYSIWYG in my opinion.

I hate WYSIWYG....

I would like to know DM ruling on Firestorm too. I've always used them on my druids elsewhere in PnP and NWN knowing it's one of few AoEs that won't randomly damage everything around me as a druid.

it's just a game, there's no need to overcomplicate everything. A dm already said that the fire doesn't burn the forests all down ect, unless at dm discretion. Case closed. Problem solved.

Tomato Sword wrote:

I hate WYSIWYG....

I would like to know DM ruling on Firestorm too. I've always used them on my druids elsewhere in PnP and NWN knowing it's one of few AoEs that won't randomly damage everything around me as a druid.

Well the there you go! Leave it to a Druid god to invent magic that doesn't hurt the environment.

Dieu_Le_Fera wrote:

I know I caused a fire in Amia forest once on my sorcerer.. an unintentional fire but had to roll with the punches because of it...

Nyeah nyeah nyeah!

Also, here's a slightly on-topic question: Does Nature's Balance heal vegetation etc?

Dark Immolation wrote:

We wouldn't have any buildings left standing because CE Joey McArsonist would be claiming to take out entire towns with a single fireball.

No one...calls me Joey anymore...no one.

Quote:

Also, here's a slightly on-topic question: Does Nature's Balance heal vegetation etc?

I know I have used it once in a DM event to do just that... so it depends on the DM and what you are trying to do I am sure

I think it could be possible to use Nature's Balance to do that, yeah. Level of effectiveness dependant on a DM around, but smaller things would be eas enough to just "do".

also, ive always justified in rp that you cannot just go around blowing up permanent structures with the idea that with all of the rogue mages running around, there has to be some amount of protection on these places. it only makes sense (even if it isnt true) that there are enchantments in place to protect them from fire dmg/whathaveyou.

Pretty much. Look at it this way: If you want to assault a structure or light a massive forest fire or pretty much do anything destructive to the environment on a scale that may require a Module Change, you need a DM. See also: http://www.amiaworld.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=63037

If you want to use flame sword as a source of heat, or RP using a minimized burning hands to light your campfire? Have at it.

See the difference?

i use the lvl 0 flare spell on campfires to emote "lighting the ground on fire" and it doesn't destroy the placeable. also, it can easily be stomped out which just adds to the immersion.

But there always is that terrible terrible unpredictability of magic... especially arcane magic.

FEAR IT!

It's not really unpredictable. The commonly used spells are bored down to a science, thanks to wizards.

Issues with fire

Who is online