|
13 months ago ::
May 26, 2012 - 10:17PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Dec 15, 2009
|
I wasn't really sure how to handle the wizard setting things on fire with Burning Hands. She wanted the monsters to take additional damage, but I decided that it was more of dramatic effect than a attack.
For example some orcs were behind an upturned table and she blasted them. She felt they had to leave the cover or suffer fire damage. I felt that the effect didn't have enough power to do any sort of damage, but was more akin to standing next to a campfire.
What are people's thoughts on things burning after Burning Hands. Should it do ongoing damage? Should it obscure targets with smoke?
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 26, 2012 - 10:37PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
I wasn't really sure how to handle the wizard setting things on fire with Burning Hands. She wanted the monsters to take additional damage, but I decided that it was more of dramatic effect than a attack.
For example some orcs were behind an upturned table and she blasted them. She felt they had to leave the cover or suffer fire damage. I felt that the effect didn't have enough power to do any sort of damage, but was more akin to standing next to a campfire.
What are people's thoughts on things burning after Burning Hands. Should it do ongoing damage? Should it obscure targets with smoke?
Personaly i would find her argument a sound one. Roll a d4 tell her thats the ammount of time before the table is unusable for cover due to heat, at that point a d6 per round would be appropriote. In theory it could provide smoke screen if the fire was realy raging, all depends on how you wanna play it.
Always excuse the spelling, and personal opinions are just that personal and opinions. Getting Down with the playtesting of 5th http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/view/75882/29139253/Complilation_of_Playtest_Feedback Compilation of Feedback post /bump please 
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 26, 2012 - 10:44PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
Interesting question.
It does say, quite clearly, that the spell ignites "unattended flammable objects" in the area.
The question is - what does this really mean in play.
I wouldn't ignore it -it is a part of the spell mechanics and is there intentionally.
However - the solution to your situation is simple: Wood (and flesh) are not flammable.
Wood is combustible.
The table would not burst into flame from the Burning Hands unless covered with a flammable liquid such as oil* or (more likely in a D&D game) alcohol.
If you want to test this, go grab a blowtorch and swipe the flame across your dining room table. Unless you have something more flammable than wood on the table, the table doesn't burst into flames...
Tell the player to toss an oil flask (or a convenient keg of brandy) onto the table first next time - the burning hands lights the oil, the burning oil starts the table burning....
Carl
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 26, 2012 - 11:04PM
#4
|
|
|
When our mage used Burning Hands on orcs, I ruled that the one who was hit had his clothes on fire. Not enough to damage, but enough to have disadvantage. Now I think I should have also given him a Dex save to put it off.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 26, 2012 - 11:06PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Mar 20, 2003
|
If they're using the able as cover I don't think it's unattended. Most likely they'll either pick it up and throw it at you or smother the fire.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 26, 2012 - 11:31PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
I think the problem lies in whether or not you think magical fire is magical...
I mean, yes, when you take a blow torch to a treated table you have at home the flame is not sufficient to set the table on fire, but we can't actually test a "magical" fire on that same treated and coated wood. Do we really think the table the orcs were hiding behind is like your dining room table?
This argument goes back to Second edition with the whole how can a 3d6 Fireball explode the iron bars on a cage, or blast open a door with 25+ hit points? (If you read the fiction novels from those days characters like Fizban and Raistlin, Mordenkainen and Elminster, used to use fireballs for these purposes all the time)
The answer is of course the Fireball doing 18 points of damage, maximum, can't explode those things, unless you consider that it is a magical effect. Times like this are an opportunity for a DM to allow their characters to feel like heroes, rather than a guy wearing a robe carrying around a blow torch testing tables at Home Depot.
Let the table catch fire, make the orcs - who should be afraid of magic users in the first place - flee from the table and give the wizard his due, which is controlling the battlefield.
If you're worried about the wizard being too powerful as the result of a good use of burning hands, don't be. There are plenty of other rooms where a little bit of fire isn't going to do much damage, like the room with 40 Kobolds with javelins.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 27, 2012 - 12:12AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2012
|
I think it is a personal preference. For me I don't think a first level spell is not magical, or intense as it were, enough to catch a table on fire, I would say scorched at best. I would consider things that are readily flamable like clothing, paper, etc for secondary effects but not a typical wooden table. That is not to say that you should have the same perspective. Just maintain continuity on how you handle this kind of stuff, whether you want a more mundane or conventional response or something more fantastical and when you have these conversation you have a precedence for future reference.
|
|
|
