Counterspelled Booming Blade

[Keltest]

That would only be a argument if there was any consistently to begin with. It's arbitrary what spell do it say they do.

Why does fireball, flame sphere, and bonfire catch objects on fire but incendiary cloud, wall of fire, and burning hands don't besides just because? Is some spell based fire hotter than the others?

Why do some fire based spells have the amount of illumination it provides but others don't? Does a wall of fire really provide no light?

Because the writers wanted those spells to be able to catch things on fire and the others not to. Calling it arbitrary makes it seem like they flipped a coin or something rather than just made a decision.

[Wintermoot]

A worthless distinction to draw. Either way you're changing/adding to the rules of the game.

Except its not a worthless distinction. Especially on this forum where "homebrew" has become a dirty word that gets used by some posters to devalue others contributions.

A ruling, to me, is something that happens in the actual play of the game (something that doesn't seem to actually get addressed here) For example. Let's say I am GMing a battle on top of an old wooden building which I've already described as flimsy and motheaten. Up on the roof, someone throws a wall of fire down on the roof during the fight. It's a *RULING* if I was to say that the fire causes the roof to collapse even though the spell doesn't say anything about damaging the surface its resting on.

Or, different roof, but there's a water tower up on the roof. The axe wielding barbarian uses his turn to chop the leg out from under the water tower and sending several hundred gallons of water down on the wall of fire. its a *RULING* to say it extinguishes the fire, even though the spell doesn't state it can be extinguished by a huge torrent of water.

Both of those are valid rulings in the flow of an actual game and both would be fine in an adventure league game or a regular game. BUT there will be some RAW warriors who will complain about those and curse them as "homebrew". But they aren't. They are simply rulings.

To me, Homebrewing, is an act of creating new content to compliment and add to the rules done OUTSIDE the actual play of the game. It has nothing to do with dealing with creative solutions by creative players during the flow of the game. It's a very poor game if the GM's answer to every creative idea is "sorry, the rules don't cover that so you can't do it"

[Blatant Beast]

Well, yes... but. Some spells talk about spreading or catching things on fire. So, since some do, it's implied that those that don't, don't. DMs are free to countermand the RAW, but at that point, Wall of Fire becomes a homebrew spell for that specific campaign.

Whenever I see a post, in which someone appears to be using the word "homebrew" as pejorative, I want to tell them to stuff that notion deep into the nether underdark regions of their body.

When D&D was created in the mid 1970's, the game was open to Third Parties Products, and DM rulings and Innovations, because the game needed content and input, and Gygax and Co. realized this.

When 5e was created, Mearl, Crawford, Perkins and Co. expected Third Party Producers to support the system, because the idea at the time was Hasbro was not going to support the system. The inaugural Adventure Path was written by a Third Party...which is insane when you think about.

It is like buying a Tesla Cybertruck, brought to you by Honda.

When Gary Gygax, later wrote in his Sorcerer's Scroll Editorial Column in Dragon Magazine, that a D&D game could only use official products, the player base response was to tell Gary to take a Flying Carpet Ride.

40 years latter, it would seem a large portion of the player base, tethers and restrains themselves, no input required. Gary would have loved the Self Herding Sheep development.

D&D spells are like Legos. In their base form, they are not so discrete rules blocks, that can snap into place. Fantasy Literature, (including D&D Novels, in some cases), generally does not discuss Magic as if the process of using Magic is like snapping pre-fabricated Legos together.

In the Wheel of Time series, Channelers, (for example),are not using Lego Magic, each Weave is an individual expression with some general forms. 5e can replicate this type of magical expression, by judicious use of the Ability Check system....we do not actually need tons of text to be produced, read, and manipulated.

If a gaming group wants to represent the dynamic nature of magic, by allowing a caster to make a Spellcasting Ability Score (Arcana) Check, which if passed, would cause a flare up of fire from the Wall of Fire that sets something ablaze.....this is not homebrew, this is a DM applying the central system that already exists: The Ability Check.

This is the system operating within it designed tolerances.

If you want to play, or it you want to demand players only play by the Rules as Interpreted, err Rules as Written....if you want a system that can only be played one way, and tells only one type of story....that system is not D&D.

That sounds like Call of Cthulhu to me. This is not knocking Call of Cthulhu, I have tremendous love for that RPG, but the game was designed to support one particular flavor of fantasy.

D&D is not designed that way.

Can people stop denigrating those of us, that can handle Ad Hoc Stunts, using the rules as written, as engaging in "homebrew" or "countermanding" the rules...it is rude and insulting behavior.

Flavor your game to your taste, is a base line of civility for RPG discussion...if you accept this, you should be polite even when you disagree.

We all know what is being dogwhistled, when "homebrew" is used in a certain context...and it isn't tolerance.

[Dr.Samurai]

Well, yes... but. Some spells talk about spreading or catching things on fire. So, since some do, it's implied that those that don't, don't.

I just want to point out how quickly we went from Aimeryan saying we're just doing exactly what the RAW says, nothing more or less, to we're inferring implications in the RAW to tell us what is and isn't allowed.

Big difference, made in the blink of an eye.

DMs are free to countermand the RAW, but at that point, Wall of Fire becomes a homebrew spell for that specific campaign.

You can't revoke something that isn't there. There is no RAW about Wall of Fire not being able to spread or be put out. If someone tries it, the DM has to rule on it. That's not "countermanding" the RAW.

And nothing states it can.

So in your games, you only do what the RAW explicitly says you are allowed to do?

I already know the answer to the question is "LMFAO absolutely not at all".

That is the point of RAW vs Homebrew. Following RAW is the expectation, not the exception.

Whether or not we want to call this DM Ruling or Homebrew is just going to be a lot of faff about nothing. If in a module the DM rules rocks fall, you all die, is that a DM Ruling or Homebrew? Wordplay, at best.

There is not a single D&D table anywhere, in the history of the game, to the present, and into the future, that was or is run on this strictly pure RAW basis. It doesn't exist. It can't exist because the rules are not meant to cover every possible action and interaction within the RAW. So this "countermanding RAW" and "you're houseruling" is ACTUALLY what all the faff is about nothing.

Conversations would be much more interesting if we leaned into possibilities and improvising actions, rather than regurgitating the written word like paralegals. Because that's how the game is actually run and played.

This creates a privileged position for magic, because the game is built around rulings, but we're saying "except for magic". And then even, modules will often say "if you cast x spell, you can do this" and allow the spell to go beyond the "sacred RAW". As an example, in Descent into Avernus, there are "wounds" in the Cyst out of which fountains of blood pour out. Someone can cast the Cure Wounds spell to "heal" the wounds and close up the holes. Now... it's not a stretch of imagination for anyone reading this post to understand how we got from the Cure Wounds spell description to "and also can heal wounds in a weird living structure". But it would not be possible in the "RAW is god" approach to the game.

And allowing for instances where you can do more than what the spell says, but the spell can never be negatively impacted beyond what the spell says, is having your cake and eating it too.

[Keltest]

Except its not a worthless distinction. Especially on this forum where "homebrew" has become a dirty word that gets used by some posters to devalue others contributions.

A ruling, to me, is something that happens in the actual play of the game (something that doesn't seem to actually get addressed here) For example. Let's say I am GMing a battle on top of an old wooden building which I've already described as flimsy and motheaten. Up on the roof, someone throws a wall of fire down on the roof during the fight. It's a *RULING* if I was to say that the fire causes the roof to collapse even though the spell doesn't say anything about damaging the surface its resting on.

Or, different roof, but there's a water tower up on the roof. The axe wielding barbarian uses his turn to chop the leg out from under the water tower and sending several hundred gallons of water down on the wall of fire. its a *RULING* to say it extinguishes the fire, even though the spell doesn't state it can be extinguished by a huge torrent of water.

Both of those are valid rulings in the flow of an actual game and both would be fine in an adventure league game or a regular game. BUT there will be some RAW warriors who will complain about those and curse them as "homebrew". But they aren't. They are simply rulings.

To me, Homebrewing, is an act of creating new content to compliment and add to the rules done OUTSIDE the actual play of the game. It has nothing to do with dealing with creative solutions by creative players during the flow of the game. It's a very poor game if the GM's answer to every creative idea is "sorry, the rules don't cover that so you can't do it"

If the spell doesn't damage structures, why is it collapsing the roof? Fireball damages (flammable) structures, but what is Wall of Fire doing to the structure within the text of the rules that could destroy the roof?

Likewise, its magic fire. Why is water putting it out? That doesnt even work for all real fires. Does fireball/firebolt not work under water now? What happens if a water elemental walks through a wall of fire?

[Amnestic]

Except its not a worthless distinction. Especially on this forum where "homebrew" has become a dirty word that gets used by some posters to devalue others contributions.

Then maybe those posters are the ones who should re-evaluate.

It has nothing to do with dealing with creative solutions by creative players during the flow of the game. It's a very poor game if the GM's answer to every creative idea is "sorry, the rules don't cover that so you can't do it"

This suggests, in the context of the discussion, the idea of "I want the spell to do more than it says it can" is "being creative" on the player's part. I am not convinced that is the case.

[KorvinStarmast]

Except its not a worthless distinction.

Indeed. (The note in my sig has been there for quite a while.

Spoiler: Malifice

Show

a. Malifice (paraphrased): Rulings are not 'House Rules.' Rulings are a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do

.

Especially on this forum where "homebrew" has become a dirty word that gets used by some posters to devalue others contributions.

Sadly, yes.

A ruling, to me, is something that happens in the actual play of the game (something that doesn't seem to actually get addressed here).

Yes. My brother made a ruling ages ago that sacred flame, being a kind of flame, stopped troll regen. It wasn't until later that we looked at the spell and he decided "Hmm, Maybe that wasn't quite right, in future it doesn't" and we kept playing.

Both of those are valid rulings in the flow of an actual game and both would be fine in an adventure league game or a regular game. BUT there will be some RAW warriors who will complain about those and curse them as "homebrew". But they aren't. They are simply rulings.

Unfortunately.

To me, Homebrewing, is an act of creating new content to compliment and add to the rules done OUTSIDE the actual play of the game. It has nothing to do with dealing with creative solutions by creative players during the flow of the game. It's a very poor game if the GM's answer to every creative idea is "sorry, the rules don't cover that so you can't do it"

Agree.

Whenever I see a post, in which someone appears to be using the word "homebrew" as pejorative, I want to tell them to stuff that notion deep into the nether underdark regions of their body.

So that's why Gygax invented the underdark. Got it.

When D&D was created in the mid 1970's, the game was open to Third Parties Products, and DM rulings and Innovations, because the game needed content and input, and Gygax and Co. realized this. When 5e was created, Mearl, Crawford, Perkins and Co. expected Third Party Producers to support the system, because the idea at the time was Hasbro was not going to support the system. The inaugural Adventure Path was written by a Third Party...which is insane when you think about.

*golf clap*

When Gary Gygax, later wrote in his Sorcerer's Scroll Editorial Column in Dragon Magazine, that a D&D game could only use official products, the player base response was to tell Gary to take a Flying Carpet Ride.

Indeed, but he was also taking that position for Convention and Tournament play. (Which used modules with some frequency).

In the Wheel of Time series, Channelers, (for example),are not using Lego Magic, each Weave is an individual expression with some general forms. 5e can replicate this type of magical expression, by judicious use of the Ability Check system....we do not actually need tons of text to be produced, read, and manipulated.

If a gaming group wants to represent the dynamic nature of magic, by allowing a caster to make a Spellcasting Ability Score (Arcana) Check, which if passed, would cause a flare up of fire from the Wall of Fire that sets something ablaze.....this is not homebrew, this is a DM applying the central system that already exists: The Ability Check.This is the system operating within it designed tolerances.

Bravo.

If you want to play, or if you want to demand players only play by the Rules as Interpreted, err Rules as Written....if you want a system that can only be played one way, and tells only one type of story....that system is not D&D.

That sounds like Call of Cthulhu to me. This is not knocking Call of Cthulhu, I have tremendous love for that RPG, but the game was designed to support one particular flavor of fantasy.

D&D is not designed that way.

Nice point.

Can people stop denigrating those of us, that can handle Ad Hoc Stunts, using the rules as written, as engaging in "homebrew" or "countermanding" the rules...

Never hurts to ask.

And even AL had some caveats in the original season materials (I gave up at season 8) about DM rulings being final and SA Compendium being usable but not authoritative.

We all know what is being dogwhistled, when "homebrew" is used in a certain context...and it isn't tolerance.

The best point on RAW that I've seen made was on a different forum, some years ago, in terms of RAW being a common language or a common frame of reference used to begin a discussion, not to end one.

[stoutstien]

Simple explanation? Magic.

Besides it's not simple, nor in its complexity, is it complete. It devalues the thing that is supposed to be the mysterious force underling the power of the very gods and reduces it to a game of pseudo-semantics reading that must ignore the spirit of the game. It's vaguely specific which is why the vast majority of things that can actually break a game fall into this category.

Makes for fun memes and promotes selling splat book with more and more spells but from a design standpoint it's crap.

[Blatant Beast]

Because the writers wanted those spells to be able to catch things on fire and the others not to. Calling it arbitrary makes it seem like they flipped a coin or something rather than just made a decision.

The Writers are writing the baseline effect for the spells. Doing so, does not mean, that DM rulings do not apply, and that DMs and Player's also cannot make decisions.

The fact that a Monk gains an ability that lets them run up walls, no check required, does not mean another character cannot do something similar...it just means the non-monk needs to make a D20 Test....you know the whole central mechanic for the game of D&D.

This is not homebrew, this is a case of narrative elements being represented in game play in action, (monks can do amazing things, in ways that even athletic people can't). I have seen video of the athlete Bo Jackson literally running up and across the outfield wall and catch a Fly Ball during a Kansas City Royals Baseball game.

This does not mean, that Bo Jackson is a monk. Bo Jackson is a world class athlete, he made an Ability Check. Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, is a bunch of monks.

The Poison Section of the DMG does not specify that poisons have physical properties, like taste, odor, etc...does this mean the Devs made a decision to make all Poisons, Iocane Powder?...odorless, tasteless, colorless.....or does it mean that the Devs, in the short amount of time they had to produce the Core Books, figured people would apply their own experiences and judgements, and not read the text as if they were running computer code like a computer?

10 years of the same, unconvincing RAW arguments...as we can see by the responses...it looks like there are quite a few people that just are not going to take the RAW Obsession anymore. "No we aint going to take it."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xmckWVPRaI

[Psyren]

Agree to disagree. If Firebolt didn't set things on fire, you'd have a point. But adding properties to something that doesn't explicitly have them is the realm of homebrew, not rulings. IMO.

Firebolt, Fireball, Create Bonfire, yes I'm aware that a bunch of them specifically call it out. But if you want to rule that someone can hold a torch inside a Wall of Fire and it won't get lit, you have every right to rule that way, but me ruling opposite from you doesn't mean either of us is homebrewing anything.

A worthless distinction to draw.

It's not, and you know it's not. Or rather, it might genuinely be to you, and I genuinely don't care.

[Darth Credence]

I'm curious as to how people would rule the Wall of Fire vs Tidal Wave spell interaction since that was mentioned above. Spell text in spoilers.

Spoiler: Wall of Fire

Show

You create a wall of fire on a solid surface within range. You can make the wall up to 60 feet long, 20 feet high, and 1 foot thick, or a ringed wall up to 20 feet in diameter, 20 feet high, and 1 foot thick. The wall is opaque and lasts for the duration.

When the wall appears, each creature within its area must make a Dexterity saving throw. On a failed save, a creature takes 5d8 fire damage, or half as much damage on a successful save.

One side of the wall, selected by you when you cast this spell, deals 5d8 fire damage to each creature that ends its turn within 10 feet of that side or inside the wall. A creature takes the same damage when it enters the wall for the first time on a turn or ends its turn there. The other side of the wall deals no damage.

Spoiler: Tidal Wave

Show

You conjure up a wave of water that crashes down on an area within range. The area can be up to 30 feet long, up to 10 feet wide, and up to 10 feet tall. Each creature in that area must make a Dexterity saving throw. On a failed save, a creature takes 4d8 bludgeoning damage and is knocked prone. On a successful save, a creature takes half as much damage and isn’t knocked prone. The water then spreads out across the ground in all directions, extinguishing unprotected flames in its area and within 30 feet of it, and then it vanishes.

So, we have one spell that creates a wall of fire that lasts for 1 minute and is up to 60 feet long and 20 feet high. Another that is 30 feet long, 10 feet high, and creates water that vanishes entirely by the end of the caster's turn (which is kind of weird, too - does it leave mud behind, or does the water get sucked out of the ground?). So let's say a wall of fire is up, and another caster uses tidal wave in an attempt to bring it down. As a DM, how would you rule? I'll put my thoughts about how I would rule in spoilers so I don't influence anyone. I'm not even sure on what would be RAW.

Spoiler: RAW?

Show

My best guess at RAW here is that the two spells do not interact. The bolded bit in tidal wave about unprotected flames is the biggest question there - is a wall of fire protected by magic? I doubt it should be, since I think of flames inside a lantern or something for that, but I could see the idea being that magic is protection in that case. If someone was attempting to go pure RAW, which is a fool's game but some try it, I would say they would rule that the tidal wave does what it does regardless of the existence of the wall, and the wall continues doing what it does. Since the wall is opaque, it means targeting someone on the other side of the wall is tricky. This seems very unsatisfying to me. I'm interested in what others think is actually RAW.

Spoiler: Thoughts on tidal wave

Show

As others have alluded to, there is the possibility that the tidal wave extinguishes the wall of fire. That sounds great! It looks like a real wizards duel going on, where one makes a wall of fire, then the next creates a tidal wave to put it out. Great stuff. But, doesn't really seem to work with the spells or with reality. A wall of fire isn't actually consuming anything, it's just a magical flame hanging there. This is important because of the size difference. If the tidal wave is made perpendicular to the wall of fire, which seems likely, it can at best take out a quarter of the wall - half the length and half the height, so it could put out the flames in that quarter. But the rest of the flame is still there, and how do you rule what the wall does at that point? Does the wall 'heal' itself and the flames come back everywhere? Does the tidal wave spread along the ground and put out the fire, extinguishing the entire wall? If it does that, would it matter if the ground was sloped, and the water wouldn't flow all that direction (the spell says it spreads, with no note about ground slope, but if we're getting away from spells only do what they say, does it make sense it would spread up a 45 degree slope?)? Do we just now have a hole in the wall of fire? Or, what if the wall was taken from the end, and it didn't go far enough and so part of it wouldn't be extinguished by the written description of tidal wave - does the wall 'heal'?

Spoiler: Thoughts on wall of fire

Show

On to wall of fire. So we're talking about the water from the tidal wave extinguishing the wall, but we haven't given thought to what the wall of fire does to the tidal wave. We have a wall of fire that is hot enough to do more fire damage just by being within 10 feet of it than the bludgeoning damage someone would take falling 60 feet. That's got to be a serious amount of heat, right? Is it enough heat that the water in the tidal wave evaporates before it can do anything? That happens in forest fires a lot. Extinguishing a fire with water takes a lot of water, and relies on cooling the flames and blocking the oxygen that can feed it. In this case, the entire back of the fire will be exposed to air, magic may mean that the fire doesn't need air, and the magic fire probably doesn't cool down. So does the wall of fire simply laugh at the tidal wave as it evaporates before it can do anything?

Spoiler: How I'd rule

Show

First, I'm definitely never going to have an NPC cast wall of fire if a PC has tidal wave, because I'd just as soon not get into this. But if my life took a weird turn and it happened, I think I'd end up ruling that the tidal wave opens up a hole in the wall of fire that will last for one round, but eliminates itself in the process. I think I would have the opening reach to the top of the wall, so those who stay in the middle of the opening can even avoid the fire damage from being too close. That lets the lower-level spell still do something to the higher-level spell that makes it worthwhile, it gives me a cool visual, and the higher-level spell still wins out. I would prefer to have it work like a spell duel, where tidal wave counters wall of fire, but outside of a spell duel I don't think that works right.

[Amnestic]

It's not, and you know it's not. Or rather, it might genuinely be to you, and I genuinely don't care.

When the only distinction is whether it comes up before the game or during the game, it seems pretty useless to me.

If I put in Session 0 that Wall of Fire can ignite objects, that's homebrew (or a "houserule", perhaps), but if it comes up during play it's a "ruling" - different to a houserule, apparently, in some way that some people seem to think matters.

[Theodoxus]

I'm not denigrating homebrew, but inflection is lost on text, so I can't fault anyone for thinking so. [I haven't run a bog standard by the book game of 5E in years, probably close to 7 or 8 by now]

What I am denigrating, because I've seen it happen far too often by disparate DMs, is saying 'in this instance, I'm gong to go ahead and let WoF burn down the structure you're running it through, because LOLs' and then 3 sessions in, I want to use WoF to burn down the Temple of MaCGuffin because evil is brewing there, and the DM is all 'LOL - nope.'

A ruling needs to be consistent across the campaign, not just the session. [Unless there's OOC discussion with the group as to why the ruling was poorly decided but no retcon will happen so we'll just chalk it up to 'magic' or somesuch.] So, I take quite a lot of umbrage when the 'Rulings' concept is rolled out over something that is expressly stated within the rulebook. WoF doesn't burn objects. And stating it does fundamentally changes what the spell is capable of doing. That's not a ruling, that altering the laws of the universe because of what, a whim? And for the billionth time, I am 10000000% ok with that decision. As long as it's not arbitrary.

Rulings are for when there's no clear guidance. How far can you jump (please don't rehash that tired chestnut!) How much damage does an airship deal when ramming into the marshmallow castle? What is the percent chance of my bard impregnating the princess on our wedding night? Whatever the answer is, is a ruling.

When the only distinction is whether it comes up before the game or during the game, it seems pretty useless to me.

If I put in Session 0 that Wall of Fire can ignite objects, that's homebrew (or a "houserule", perhaps), but if it comes up during play it's a "ruling" - different to a houserule, apparently, in some way that some people seem to think matters.

It matters because from my experience in both persistent games and AL, rulings are flighty and arbitrary and mercurial. Probably because it's not a 'rule' but a 'ruling', a judgement for a situation on the spot and the DM doesn't make note and can become completely contradictory the next time it comes up.

I do realize (and concede) this could totally be a 'Theodoxus' problem and not anyone elses... sorry for spewing my psychosis all over the board.

[Dr.Samurai]

The Writers are writing the baseline effect for the spells. Doing so, does not mean, that DM rulings do not apply, and that DMs and Player's also cannot make decisions.

Precisely this.

The fact that a Monk gains an ability that lets them run up walls, no check required, does not mean another character cannot do something similar...it just means the non-monk needs to make a D20 Test....you know the whole central mechanic for the game of D&D.

This is not homebrew, this is a case of narrative elements being represented in game play in action, (monks can do amazing things, in ways that even athletic people can't). I have seen video of the athlete Bo Jackson literally running up and across the outfield wall and catch a Fly Ball during a Kansas City Royals Baseball game.

This does not mean, that Bo Jackson is a monk. Bo Jackson is a world class athlete, he made an Ability Check. Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, is a bunch of monks.

Correct again. The new Giants barbarian has a level 10 feature to toss an enemy. It's a bonus action, they get a saving throw, and it can be anywhere within 30ft.

My level 13 fighter had an enemy grappled and I asked the DM if I could throw the enemy. The DM didn't say "no, only path of giants barbarians have that feature". Instead he set a target DC and asked me to make an improvised attack roll. This is how the game works. This is the feature of the game.

The Poison Section of the DMG does not specify that poisons have physical properties, like taste, odor, etc...does this mean the Devs made a decision to make all Poisons, Iocane Powder?...odorless, tasteless, colorless.....or does it mean that the Devs, in the short amount of time they had to produce the Core Books, figured people would apply their own experiences and judgements, and not read the text as if they were running computer code like a computer?

Well, the RAW doesn't say they have taste, odor, or color. You can certainly countermand the RAW and make up your own homebrew poisons if you want, but RAW they are all some variant of Iocane Powder. Obviously...

I'm curious as to how people would rule the Wall of Fire vs Tidal Wave spell interaction since that was mentioned above. Spell text in spoilers.

Spoiler: Wall of Fire

Show

You create a wall of fire on a solid surface within range. You can make the wall up to 60 feet long, 20 feet high, and 1 foot thick, or a ringed wall up to 20 feet in diameter, 20 feet high, and 1 foot thick. The wall is opaque and lasts for the duration.

When the wall appears, each creature within its area must make a Dexterity saving throw. On a failed save, a creature takes 5d8 fire damage, or half as much damage on a successful save.

One side of the wall, selected by you when you cast this spell, deals 5d8 fire damage to each creature that ends its turn within 10 feet of that side or inside the wall. A creature takes the same damage when it enters the wall for the first time on a turn or ends its turn there. The other side of the wall deals no damage.

Spoiler: Tidal Wave

Show

You conjure up a wave of water that crashes down on an area within range. The area can be up to 30 feet long, up to 10 feet wide, and up to 10 feet tall. Each creature in that area must make a Dexterity saving throw. On a failed save, a creature takes 4d8 bludgeoning damage and is knocked prone. On a successful save, a creature takes half as much damage and isn’t knocked prone. The water then spreads out across the ground in all directions, extinguishing unprotected flames in its area and within 30 feet of it, and then it vanishes.

So, we have one spell that creates a wall of fire that lasts for 1 minute and is up to 60 feet long and 20 feet high. Another that is 30 feet long, 10 feet high, and creates water that vanishes entirely by the end of the caster's turn (which is kind of weird, too - does it leave mud behind, or does the water get sucked out of the ground?). So let's say a wall of fire is up, and another caster uses tidal wave in an attempt to bring it down. As a DM, how would you rule? I'll put my thoughts about how I would rule in spoilers so I don't influence anyone. I'm not even sure on what would be RAW.

Spoiler: RAW?

Show

My best guess at RAW here is that the two spells do not interact. The bolded bit in tidal wave about unprotected flames is the biggest question there - is a wall of fire protected by magic? I doubt it should be, since I think of flames inside a lantern or something for that, but I could see the idea being that magic is protection in that case. If someone was attempting to go pure RAW, which is a fool's game but some try it, I would say they would rule that the tidal wave does what it does regardless of the existence of the wall, and the wall continues doing what it does. Since the wall is opaque, it means targeting someone on the other side of the wall is tricky. This seems very unsatisfying to me. I'm interested in what others think is actually RAW.

Spoiler: Thoughts on tidal wave

Show

As others have alluded to, there is the possibility that the tidal wave extinguishes the wall of fire. That sounds great! It looks like a real wizards duel going on, where one makes a wall of fire, then the next creates a tidal wave to put it out. Great stuff. But, doesn't really seem to work with the spells or with reality. A wall of fire isn't actually consuming anything, it's just a magical flame hanging there. This is important because of the size difference. If the tidal wave is made perpendicular to the wall of fire, which seems likely, it can at best take out a quarter of the wall - half the length and half the height, so it could put out the flames in that quarter. But the rest of the flame is still there, and how do you rule what the wall does at that point? Does the wall 'heal' itself and the flames come back everywhere? Does the tidal wave spread along the ground and put out the fire, extinguishing the entire wall? If it does that, would it matter if the ground was sloped, and the water wouldn't flow all that direction (the spell says it spreads, with no note about ground slope, but if we're getting away from spells only do what they say, does it make sense it would spread up a 45 degree slope?)? Do we just now have a hole in the wall of fire? Or, what if the wall was taken from the end, and it didn't go far enough and so part of it wouldn't be extinguished by the written description of tidal wave - does the wall 'heal'?

Spoiler: Thoughts on wall of fire

Show

On to wall of fire. So we're talking about the water from the tidal wave extinguishing the wall, but we haven't given thought to what the wall of fire does to the tidal wave. We have a wall of fire that is hot enough to do more fire damage just by being within 10 feet of it than the bludgeoning damage someone would take falling 60 feet. That's got to be a serious amount of heat, right? Is it enough heat that the water in the tidal wave evaporates before it can do anything? That happens in forest fires a lot. Extinguishing a fire with water takes a lot of water, and relies on cooling the flames and blocking the oxygen that can feed it. In this case, the entire back of the fire will be exposed to air, magic may mean that the fire doesn't need air, and the magic fire probably doesn't cool down. So does the wall of fire simply laugh at the tidal wave as it evaporates before it can do anything?

Spoiler: How I'd rule

Show

First, I'm definitely never going to have an NPC cast wall of fire if a PC has tidal wave, because I'd just as soon not get into this. But if my life took a weird turn and it happened, I think I'd end up ruling that the tidal wave opens up a hole in the wall of fire that will last for one round, but eliminates itself in the process. I think I would have the opening reach to the top of the wall, so those who stay in the middle of the opening can even avoid the fire damage from being too close. That lets the lower-level spell still do something to the higher-level spell that makes it worthwhile, it gives me a cool visual, and the higher-level spell still wins out. I would prefer to have it work like a spell duel, where tidal wave counters wall of fire, but outside of a spell duel I don't think that works right.

Well... this post was a refreshing breath of fresh air lol. Love it.

I think I'd rule it similar to what you suggest, and maybe have the caster of the wall of fire make a concentration check because of the disruption to the spell.

When the only distinction is whether it comes up before the game or during the game, it seems pretty useless to me.

If I put in Session 0 that Wall of Fire can ignite objects, that's homebrew (or a "houserule", perhaps), but if it comes up during play it's a "ruling" - different to a houserule, apparently, in some way that some people seem to think matters.

I don't think that's the only distinction though, and I do think coupling rulings with homebrew or houserules is deliberate and not helpful.

Homebrew is creating your own material for the game. I don't think when someone decides how a spell interacts with the greater world, that is homebrew. That suggests that the spell description is meant to cover all interactions with the spell, and I don't think there's any reason to believe that.

Houserules, as I understand them, is changing how something works. So it would be like saying that Fire Bolt actually doesn't ignite unattended objects, even though the spell description explicitly says it does. When the RAW is silent on an issue, and the DM adjudicates it, I would not consider that a houserule.

Rulings are covering the areas where the RAW is unclear or doesn't say. Rulings are expected to happen. The game actually can't function very far without rulings.

By insisting that rulings are houserules, an implication is made that the DM/Table/Players are playing the game in a way that wasn't intended. Which seems to me to be the opposite of the truth.

[Psyren]

What I am denigrating, because I've seen it happen far too often by disparate DMs, is saying 'in this instance, I'm gong to go ahead and let WoF burn down the structure you're running it through, because LOLs' and then 3 sessions in, I want to use WoF to burn down the Temple of MaCGuffin because evil is brewing there, and the DM is all 'LOL - nope.'

I agree this kind of inconsistency is bad if unjustified, but justifying it seems pretty easy. A Temple of Macguffin sounds like something the BBEG might want to protect from fire (of all kinds.)

WoF doesn't burn objects.

No, it's silent on how it interacts with objects. Big difference, and I'll explain why.

If Wall of Fire explicitly said "this does not ignite objects" and then you decided that it does, that would be homebrewing the text of the spell.

If Wall of Fire says nothing, then the general rule applies - "Use common sense when determining a character’s success at damaging an object" (DMG pg. 246). That common sense determination is, wait for it, a ruling.

When the only distinction is whether it comes up before the game or during the game, it seems pretty useless to me.

If I put in Session 0 that Wall of Fire can ignite objects, that's homebrew (or a "houserule", perhaps), but if it comes up during play it's a "ruling" - different to a houserule, apparently, in some way that some people seem to think matters.

One is changing a printed rule and one is the DM filling in a blank like the DMG instructs them to.
One is allowed/expected in AL and one isn't.
I can't explain it any clearer than that.

[Amnestic]

When the RAW is silent on an issue, and the DM adjudicates it, I would not consider that a houserule.

Why not? Surely it becomes a rule for the house after it happens, unless you're playing this by ear every time it comes up. Once it crops up once, that becomes the de facto new state for the game. The ruling becomes the houserule. Once the DM says Wall of Fire can ignite objects (or that Tidal Wave can punch a hole in Wall of Fire), that's just how it is for the table going forward.

Assuming people remember it, I guess.

Rulings are covering the areas where the RAW is unclear or doesn't say. Rulings are expected to happen. The game actually can't function very far without rulings.

If I ask my DM if I can cast Ice Knife as a Reaction to Counterspell a target's Fireball (because fire vs. ice!) and they say 'yes', is that a houserule, or a ruling, or homebrew?
Is it different if I'm asking to cast it normally to 'Counter' their Create Bonfire? Either way the spell is doing more than it normally does, so does the changed action cost matter to whether it's a "houserule" or "ruling"?

Does it matter if I ask them before a game or during actual play? Does it matter if I then take it online and suggest it to other people?

'cos to me it's all the same. It's just a change (call it a 'clarification' if you want) to the rules as written. When it happens seems completely irrelevant.

RAW is silent on if I can expend hit dice in place of spell slots or not. If a DM said yes, is that a houserule, or a ruling? Or homebrew? I just can't see what it matters one way or the other. If the DM pro-actively says it - either in Session 0, or later! - without player prompting, does that change which one it is?

There's so much crossover saying one is this and one is that just doesn't seem important.

[Keltest]

No, it's silent on how it interacts with objects. Big difference, and I'll explain why.

Wall of Fire is also silent on whether or not it shoots lightning bolts at everybody within five miles. Should we then assume that its just a ruling to say that it does so?

This, for the record, is exactly why "spells only do what they say they do" is such a common thing.

[Aimeryan]

So in your games, you only do what the RAW explicitly says you are allowed to do?

Not at all, however, you are the one implying that homebrew/ruling/dingoberry is a bad thing. I am simply pointing out what the rules as written are, and what they are not. That a DM rules as written can never make that DM bad. It can be a failing on WotC if doing so leads to negative consequences, but not the DM.

What seems to being pushed here is the idea that magical fire has to set things alight and be put out by water, as mundane fire is. That is not the rules as written, and frankly is about as relevant as saying Wall of Fire in your games turns things into butterflies. It is a made up rule at your table, whatever word pleases you to call that.

[Psyren]

Wall of Fire is also silent on whether or not it shoots lightning bolts at everybody within five miles. Should we then assume that its just a ruling to say that it does so?

If you had quoted the whole thing you'd see the distinction. One of these things has a general rule and the other doesn't. There is a general rule about how fire interacts with objects. There is no general rule for fire spontaneously generating lightning.

This, for the record, is exactly why "spells only do what they say they do" is such a common thing.

No, it's common because players online want to pull one over on their DM. This is a question of how the DM themselves should rule.

[Christew]

There is no misrepresentation, it is a cut and past from a PDF of the PHB, 10th printing.

Either (a) you are looking at an unofficial PDF, or (b) somehow pasting induced a typo, because the 10th printing unambiguously features an em dash in the passage that you quoted.

Any dispute regarding an interpretation based off a sole punctuation mark, no less an ambiguous Em dash, is not something that can be characterized as ‘clear’, and one better have more supporting evidence.

I mean, at a basic level, hyphens connect things and em dashes separate things. The reading you advocated was only allowable because of the hyphen (though even then it would be a grammatically improper use of a hyphen and would render the subsequent comma improper too). You highlighted the hyphen to support your reading, but now want to argue that "a sole punctuation mark" can't be the basis for meaning in a sentence? Weird.

As to the clarity of that passage, several other posters walked you through its unambiguous meaning. It's a pretty straightforward matter of sentence construction.

The game is better, if you allow stuff, and skills, and Martials, and people do things and interact with the situation, and the environment, through means other than spells.

You are free to disagree, but Baldur’s Gate 3 says hello.

I don't disagree with this. I also don't see how this follows my pointing out that you misquoted the RAW.

[Dr.Samurai]

There's so much crossover saying one is this and one is that just doesn't seem important.

Well, there is an easy way to test this.

Would we all agree then that "houserules" in the way you're defining them, which is to say they are interchangeable with "rulings", are an integral and expected part of the game?

Not at all, however, you are the one implying that homebrew/ruling/dingoberry is a bad thing.

Oh is that so? When I said rulings are integral to the game and the game can't go far without them, you interpreted that as saying rulings are bad? Forgive me if I go elsewhere for interpretations of the RAW then...

I am simply pointing out what the rules as written are, and what they are not.

No need; we all can read.

What seems to being pushed here is the idea that magical fire has to set things alight and be put out by water, as mundane fire is.

The alternative position "it has to be written in the book in order to be possible" is far weaker a position for a game of make believe that explicitly does not try to cover all scenarios in the text.

Why even call it magical "fire" if it can't be expected to work like fire? Just call it Wall of Red Wavy Thing That Hurts People instead.

I don't think your game is superior because when you cast Wall of Fire through a tavern, the tables and chairs are completely untouched while all the people burn on one side just because "that is as far as the text goes on the matter".

That is not the rules as written

Meaningless. This only matters to optimizers/youtube content creators. The rules don't tell you what happens to objects on the hot side of a wall of fire. They tell you what happens to creatures. To make the claim that therefore wall of fire does not harm objects is simply not true.

It is a made up rule at your table, whatever word pleases you to call that.

As equally made up as wall of fire not harming objects is at your table.

[Amnestic]

Well, there is an easy way to test this.

Would we all agree then that "houserules" in the way you're defining them, which is to say they are interchangeable with "rulings", are an integral and expected part of the game?

Yeah? I wouldn't have my own list of houserules+changes and thousands of words of homebrew (check my sig, it's all good, probably) if I didn't think changing stuff was good.

[KorvinStarmast]

Besides it's not simple, nor in its complexity, is it complete. It devalues the thing that is supposed to be the mysterious force underling the power of the very gods and reduces it to a game of pseudo-semantics reading that must ignore the spirit of the game. It's vaguely specific which is why the vast majority of things that can actually break a game fall into this category.

I think that the last sentence has hit on a core point.

What I am denigrating, because I've seen it happen far too often by disparate DMs, is saying 'in this instance, I'm gong to go ahead and let WoF burn down the structure you're running it through, because LOLs' and then 3 sessions in, I want to use WoF to burn down the Temple of MaCGuffin because evil is brewing there, and the DM is all 'LOL - nope.'

Concur.

A ruling needs to be consistent across the campaign, not just the session. Unless there's OOC discussion with the group as to why the ruling was poorly decided but no retcon will happen so we'll just chalk it up to 'magic' or somesuch.

Yes, getting buy-in to how the imaginary world works.

The new Giants barbarian has a level 10 feature to toss an enemy. It's a bonus action, they get a saving throw, and it can be anywhere within 30ft.

My level 13 fighter had an enemy grappled and I asked the DM if I could throw the enemy. The DM didn't say "no, only path of giants barbarians have that feature". Instead he set a target DC and asked me to make an improvised attack roll. This is how the game works. This is the feature of the game.

Good example.

No, it's silent on how it interacts with objects. Big difference, and I'll explain why.

Fire breathing dragons set some things on fire when they breath. Thatched roofs on buildings, among other things ... (ref p 246 DMG)

If Wall of Fire says nothing, then the general rule applies - "Use common sense when determining a character’s success at damaging an object" (DMG pg. 246). That common sense determination is, wait for it, a ruling.

yes.

One of these things has a general rule and the other doesn't.
There is a general rule about how fire interacts with objects.
There is no general rule for fire spontaneously generating lightning.

But I hear that volcanos in RL can sometimes generate lightning ... which leads us to ...

No, it's common because players online want to pull one over on their DM.

Yes/

[Psyren]

But I hear that volcanos in RL can sometimes generate lightning

While true, that isn't because of fire it happens in the gaseous plume above the volcano.

[Slipjig]

Wall of Fire is also silent on whether or not it shoots lightning bolts at everybody within five miles. Should we then assume that its just a ruling to say that it does so?

This, for the record, is exactly why "spells only do what they say they do" is such a common thing.

The difference in this case is that fire is a thing that exists in the real world and we all know it's normal properties. One of then is igniting flammable objects, another is shedding visible light.

If we are talking about something that DOESN'T burn objects and DOESN'T shed light, then it isn't fire.

I suspect that after the first few fire spells, the designers probably had a conversation along the lines of, "Do you think we need to copy/paste the bit about igniting objects and giving off light?" "Nah, we included that in the first four fire spells, I'm sure the players get it by now. Let's save some column inches."

[Theodoxus]

The difference in this case is that fire is a thing that exists in the real world and we all know it's normal properties. One of then is igniting flammable objects, another is shedding visible light.

If we are talking about something that DOESN'T burn objects and DOESN'T shed light, then it isn't fire.

I suspect that after the first few fire spells, the designers probably had a conversation along the lines of, "Do you think we need to copy/paste the bit about igniting objects and giving off light?" "Nah, we included that in the first four fire spells, I'm sure the players get it by now. Let's save some column inches."

You know what innovation really helped with that, yet was inexplicably (I'm sure someone will now quote some article or dev roundtable) left out of 5E? Keywords.

If there was a Keyword for Fire that included things like 'sets unattended flammable material on fire and provides 5' of bright light per spell level unless otherwise noted' Then they would have saved a LOT of column space, and could have done similar for every energy type, perhaps giving better definitions to them at the same time.

But Keywords I'm sure is a trigger word for 4E expats... so we can't have that affecting our feefees.

[Keltest]

The difference in this case is that fire is a thing that exists in the real world and we all know it's normal properties. One of then is igniting flammable objects, another is shedding visible light.

If we are talking about something that DOESN'T burn objects and DOESN'T shed light, then it isn't fire.

I suspect that after the first few fire spells, the designers probably had a conversation along the lines of, "Do you think we need to copy/paste the bit about igniting objects and giving off light?" "Nah, we included that in the first four fire spells, I'm sure the players get it by now. Let's save some column inches."

Yeah, but fire in the real world doesn't spontaneously erupt into an opaque wall that's only hot on one side either. To say that magic fire behaves atypically to real fire would be a tad redundant methinks.

[Amnestic]

The difference in this case is that fire is a thing that exists in the real world and we all know it's normal properties. One of then is igniting flammable objects, another is shedding visible light.

If we are talking about something that DOESN'T burn objects and DOESN'T shed light, then it isn't fire.

I suspect that after the first few fire spells, the designers probably had a conversation along the lines of, "Do you think we need to copy/paste the bit about igniting objects and giving off light?" "Nah, we included that in the first four fire spells, I'm sure the players get it by now. Let's save some column inches."

It's funny you say that, because the majority of PHB fire spells (such as Firebolt, Fireball, Burning Hands, Fire Storm, Meteor Swarm) spread across all spell levels and lists do mention it.

...but Wall of Fire, seemingly as a rare outlier in the book does not (along with Flame Strike).

[Dr.Samurai]

Yeah? I wouldn't have my own list of houserules+changes and thousands of words of homebrew (check my sig, it's all good, probably) if I didn't think changing stuff was good.

That's a giant list of homebrew though, and I do think it's good (having looked over it a number of times ). But it specifically reads like homebrew to me, as opposed to something like JH's lists of houserules when he puts up a recruitment thread.

I'm happy not to play the label game, but I'm not the one tossing out words like "houserule" around as a point in the first place. If it doesn't matter, then lets agree not to use it .

I think the issue is the trick that gets pulled all the time --> quote a body of text from the books and claim that this is indisputable RAW --> build upon that with a giant bunch of assumptions/inferences/implications and also call that indisputable RAW.

RAW is only helpful if you never move beyond it. My point is that we always move beyond it in every game ever played. I don't know anyone involved at a high level of the game, whether from the creator, to the current devs, to the youtube personalities, that would expect the game to be played purely "RAW" without ever going outside the bounds of the text. Maybe the new corporate profit types that need it to work more like a video game. Or the optimizers that REQUIRE a "default" way for the game to be played, so they can optimize around it and claim to make the best xyz.

All of this is simply to say that if someone comes here and says "My party and I keep running into Wall of Fire, as we are fighting against cultists of Mephistopholes. None of us has Dispel Magic. What can we do to deal with it?"

Making suggestions to put it out with water or cold magic or covering yourself with an object, etc. is not wrong. Because we don't know what will work with their game. Saying that the answers can only abide by RAW-as-interpreted-by-me is not true. They should be able to go back and try stuff at their table and see if it works.

[Rukelnikov]

You know what innovation really helped with that, yet was inexplicably (I'm sure someone will now quote some article or dev roundtable) left out of 5E? Keywords.

If there was a Keyword for Fire that included things like 'sets unattended flammable material on fire and provides 5' of bright light per spell level unless otherwise noted' Then they would have saved a LOT of column space, and could have done similar for every energy type, perhaps giving better definitions to them at the same time.

But Keywords I'm sure is a trigger word for 4E expats... so we can't have that affecting our feefees.

They weren't something new that 4e brought, 3e had lots of them, called tags, I imagine they were left out of 5e because they wanted the book to read less gamey.