Fearie Fire

[Moreplovac]

Could you please tell me how you're ruling this spell? It seems to me that no matter if the target makes or fails their save, everyone else gets advantage on them.

[Giant2005]

"Any creature in the area when the spell is cast is also outlined in light if it fails a Dexterity saving throw."
"Any attack roll against an affected creature or object has advantage if the attacker can see it"

You only get advantage if the creature is affected. The creature is only affected if it is within the area at the time of casting and fails a Dex save. So no, you do not get advantage against the creature if it succeeds in its save.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Where on earth did you get that idea? There's no ambiguity in the spell at all: if you make the save you are not affected. You only give away advanatge if you are affected.

Edit: ah, good ninja, Giant. I physically could not have typed that any faster. :smalleek:

[the secret fire]

Guys...he's talking about Fearie Fire, the hyper-broken UA spell, not Faerie Fire, the incredibly useful normal spell. Yeah, man, Fearie Fire is totally OP, a level one no-save f-you to the entire D&D bestiary. I personally prefer to cast Furry Fire, myself, but that's because I'm a pervert. Fearie Fire is clearly the more broken spell.

[Inevitability]

Guys...he's talking about Fearie Fire, the hyper-broken UA spell, not Faerie Fire, the incredibly useful normal spell. Yeah, man, Fearie Fire is totally OP, a level one no-save f-you to the entire D&D bestiary. I personally prefer to cast Furry Fire, myself, but that's because I'm a pervert. Fearie Fire is clearly the more broken spell.

How about Fourie Fire? Quadruple goodness for a single spell slot! Guess it's one of these threads again. :P

[Laserlight]

How about Fourie Fire? Quadruple goodness for a single spell slot! Guess it's one of these threads again. :P

Fourier Fire? Me think it some kind of Transform, but me ignorant barbarian who not know math, so me not sure. Ask pencil neck wizard geek.

[pwykersotz]

At least it's not Ferry Fire. Dark times ahead for that ferryman's family. Tell me why Sorcerer's get fire spells again? :smalltongue:

[Dalebert]

Don't even get me started on Fury Fire. It makes me so angry!

[kladams707]

Don't even get me started on Fury Fire. It makes me so angry!

I'm most disturbed by furry fire.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Look, can we please all just agree that the only balanced option here is Fair Fire and leave it at that?

[JellyPooga]

Look, can we please all just agree that the only balanced option here is Fair Fire and leave it at that?

No, that's for burning down beer tents and ferris wheels. You must be thinking of something else.

[hymer]

No, that's for burning down beer tents and ferris wheels. You must be thinking of something else.

Dairy Fire? That can wreak havoc at fairs, too.

[IShouldntBehere]

Where on earth did you get that idea? There's no ambiguity in the spell at all: if you make the save you are not affected. You only give away advanatge if you are affected.

Edit: ah, good ninja, Giant. I physically could not have typed that any faster. :smalleek:

There are some games where "Affected" simply means "takes part in this effects resolution" or something close to that. Using that as a base it's easy to see where the confusion would come from. All creatures making a save against the spell Faerie Fire are affected by it, those that fail save against the spell are outlined and glow per what the spell says happens when it says you fail the save. Then all those affected by the spell (save or not), have advantage imposed against them.

If you're coming at reading the spell from this kind of mindset you might expect it to read

"All creatures affected by the spell must make a saving throw ~. Attacks against creatures outlined by the light of this spell have advantage, creatures outlined by the light of this spell can't turn invisible"

As written in the book, the two blocks of text could read like separate clauses about what happens when you are in the area of the spell, with the paragraph on attack advantage and invisibility being separate from the previous paragraph containing the save information.

This goes doubly true if once reading the spell and seeing this ambiguity you start asking "What is the RAW here?" instead of "OK. What about this spell would make it grant advantage anyway". To give another example of where this kind of thinking might lead: Does the advantage apply to creatures without sight. In other words if an eyeless cave-demon incapable of perceiving light attempts to attack a foe outlined with Faerie Fire, does it get advantage on the attacks?


(I concede that this requires reading the rules in a way 5e isn't really written, I just think the OPs question is one that they could fairly arrive at without having missed any wording in the spell or being intentionally obtuse.)

[Joe the Rat]

No, that's for burning down beer tents and ferris wheels. You must be thinking of something else.
NP's on point. You're thinking of Faire Fyre. Note the Ye Olde Fakee Englishe spelling. E.

[kladams707]

Would ferry fire ferry fire or set ferries afire?

[TheTeaMustFlow]

Would ferry fire ferry fire or set ferries afire?

Yes.

And don't even get me started on Hairy Fire, can't believe that hasn't been mentioned yet.

[JellyPooga]

NP's on point. You're thinking of Faire Fyre. Note the Ye Olde Fakee Englishe spelling. E.

Ah yes, of course. Morris Dancers (individual CR:8, Troupe CR:17 for the at-will Irresistable Dance ability they have) have Vulnerability to it, as I recall, but drinking a pint of cider allows you another Save to end the effect.

[Zalabim]

Let's not forget the reversed form, Faerie Hire. It's good for when you need a tiny boost to your workforce.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Let's not forget the reversed form, Faerie Hire. It's good for when you need a tiny boost to your workforce.

I don't know if it's that good - faeries are notoriously unreliable. Faerie Lyre can by useful for tiny bards though, in case they get separated from their instruments.

[Crgaston]

I don't know if it's that good - faeries are notoriously unreliable. Faerie Lyre can by useful for tiny bards though, in case they get separated from their instruments.

Combined with Faerie Choir, it's totally OP for weddings and such.

[JellyPooga]

Combined with Faerie Choir, it's totally OP for weddings and such.

Hairy Choir is better for the after-party though. Shame about the prohibitive cost of the material component (1 gallon of ale or lager per choir-member summoned).

[Laserlight]

I don't know if it's that good - faeries are notoriously unreliable. Faerie Lyre can by useful for tiny bards though.

Given how unreliable they are, perhaps you mean Faerie Liar?

[Segev]

Of course, Faerie Pyre is just plain OP against the fey.

[pwykersotz]

I once cast a spell to give me some of the authority of a priest. I believe it was called Fairly Friar.

[Zippdementia]

Faerie Fire is an oddly powerful spell. If you are worried about it wrecking one of your encounters, you have a few in-world options for handling it, in that encounter.

One is to simply give your monster(s) Dex saves and high Dex. That way they can dodge the more damaging aspect of the spell.

Another is to have affected creatures cast a spell/scroll of dispell magic, or have an item that cancels the effects of Faerie Fire. This is most appropriate if they are mages, of course, or if there is some reason they would know the party uses this spell a lot, like a signature move.

One more is to have some other field disadvantage that cancels out Faerie Fire's advantage: like the villains have the high ground, or are casting distracting spells of their own. It's also pretty easy to understand a ruling of "invisible creatures lose their invisibility perks but heros still do NOT gain advantage on them" if you just want to be straight forward about that.

Lastly, if your creatures are intelligent, they may simply choose to run away if affected by Faerie Fire, or attack from a distance. Faerie Fire goes away if the mage has to cast another spell/ability with concentrate, so forcing them into a situation where they need to do this can effectively diminish the spell, too.

If this is NOT for a big encounter, then don't worry about it. Let them Faerie Fire away. If they use it over and over in small or random encounters and you get bored with that, have some tough CR monsters start investigating all the blinking, glowing, magical lights that keep popping up in their dungeon/forest/cave. Drawing the attention of bigger beasts may give the party pause in continually pursuing the same tactic.

[Inevitability]

No love for Fiery Fire? I admit it's a bit redundant, but it has its uses!

[Ninja_Prawn]

No love for Fiery Fire? I admit it's a bit redundant, but it has its uses!

Especially in China, where 火 means 'fire' and two 火s stacked on top of each other (炎) means 'burning hot'!

What do you think of my new tagline: Ninja_Prawn - learning something new with every post!

[pwykersotz]

Especially in China, where 火 means 'fire' and two 火s stacked on top of each other (炎) means 'burning hot'!

What do you think of my new tagline: Ninja_Prawn - learning something new with every post!

I learned something new today. :smallsmile:

(And I didn't notice the white text until before I submitted that first line. :smalltongue: )

[Dalebert]

It says an attack roll has advantage if the caster can see it. I'd posit that the spell only grants advantage if the target is visible. It doesn't let you see the target. It just outlines it with light. You're seeing light that indicates where the target is and cancels out the advantage it would gain from invisibility. If it's visible, it grants advantage. It makes sense too. If you can only see the outline of a creature, a silhouette, then it's hard to tell where it's armor covers it or where vulnerable parts of it are, things that would be very well lit up for you by the FF if it's visible.


Faerie Fire is an oddly powerful spell. If you are worried about it wrecking one of your encounters, you have a few in-world options for handling it, in that encounter.

It's a nice spell for 1st level but it's still concentration. That alone seems to be enough in my experience to keep it from being abused. It's kind of like Sleep. It's very good to have at lower levels but not as big a deal at higher levels. It's one of those that's nice to have in case you encounter invisible creatures but even then, it can be tricky to target it correctly and the enemies still of course get a save. My lvl 9 druid doesn't even prepare it that much. I have much more powerful and reliable things I can do to deal with invisible creatures like summon two giant spiders with blindsight, or maybe a giant constrictor snake, or maybe twice as many of those with a 5th level slot.

My drow can cast this for free once a day and it still doesn't get cast much, again because it uses up his concentration. It's mostly saved for invisible creatures.

BTW, Darkness is another effective counter. Darkness is generally good for leveling the playing field when creatures have an advantage from being invisible or when they've FFed you. Everyone is blinded and no one had advantage... unless they have blindsight. Unfortunately, that's a somewhat common monster ability. =\

[HeyBJ]

It says an attack roll has advantage if the caster can see it. I'd posit that the spell only grants advantage if the target is visible. It doesn't let you see the target. It just outlines it with light. You're seeing light that indicates where the target is and cancels out the advantage it would gain from invisibility. If it's visible, it grants advantage. It makes sense too. If you can only see the outline of a creature, a silhouette, then it's hard to tell where it's armor covers it or where vulnerable parts of it are, things that would be very well lit up for you by the FF if it's visible.

Agreed. The spell description says that invisible targets that fail the saving throw just don't benefit from invisibility; no advantage on attacks against them. And I think the "attacker has advantage if they can see them" is a stipulation added to say that blinded attackers still attack at disadvantage because you'd need to see the outline to benefit.

[the secret fire]

It says an attack roll has advantage if the caster can see it. I'd posit that the spell only grants advantage if the target is visible. It doesn't let you see the target. It just outlines it with light. You're seeing light that indicates where the target is and cancels out the advantage it would gain from invisibility. If it's visible, it grants advantage. It makes sense too. If you can only see the outline of a creature, a silhouette, then it's hard to tell where it's armor covers it or where vulnerable parts of it are, things that would be very well lit up for you by the FF if it's visible.

Even if you are correct in this (and I'm not sure that you are, though you might be), granting advantage for a minute against all visible targets in a 20' cube that fail a single Dex save is still a hugely powerful effect. Advantage/Disadvantage is a devastating mechanic to have on your side, and spells that grant it (including the oft-maligned Blur) are almost universally underrated, often severely so.

[Dalebert]

Yeah, they're nice, but they're also often easy to counter. You can have an ally assist to gain advantage or cancel out disad. The weaker-hitting ally could assist a harder-hitting one.

I love blur in the right circumstances. It is concentration also so it's best if you have a benefit to help with concentration. Otherwise it probably will only last a hit or two on average. Not so great.

Case in point--my bladesinger challenged a drow elite to a dual and cast blur. He has a great concentration bonus from BSing. It was great for a round or two. Then she FFed him. Should have occurred to me. Derp! So my blur benefit went away. It's good but I just don't think it's so good as to be broken. These effects generally use up your concentration which is a very precious resource.

[the secret fire]

I love blur in the right circumstances. It is concentration also so it's best if you have a benefit to help with concentration. Otherwise it probably will only last a hit or two on average. Not so great.

Blur, and really any effect that exploits the advantage/disadvantage system, gets exponentially better with each +1 bonus you're talking about, be it AC, to-hit, whatever. If you've already got a really high AC and then throw Blur on top of that, "a hit or two" might take a hundred rounds, especially if you can also spam Shield (which a bladesinger obviously can, being forced to have a free hand, and all). Also, forcing enemies to attack you at disadvantage makes you virtually immune to critical hits unless you spend all your time fighting high level Champions.


Case in point--my bladesinger challenged a drow elite to a dual and cast blur. He has a great concentration bonus from BSing. It was great for a round or two. Then she FFed him. Should have occurred to me. Derp! So my blur benefit went away. It's good but I just don't think it's so good as to be broken. These effects generally use up your concentration which is a very precious resource.

So your extremely powerful spell worked really well for a couple of rounds until it was countered by her extremely powerful spell, eh? I guess you hadn't taken Resilient: Dex yet (one of my favorite recommendations for a bladesinger...you're an elf, so start your Dex at 17, and get yourself a major save proficiency for free the first time you bump a stat) or had bad luck on your save? That sucks, but nothing in this scenario makes Blur any less useful.

Though I'll admit Blur is probably best utilized by Arcane Tricksters, who spend more time needing to dodge attacks, and whose spell selection/slots are sufficiently limited that burning concentration on the spell is not much of a limiting factor. For straight wizards, the opportunity costs of casting Blur are obviously much higher.

[Dalebert]

I don't think anyone is denying that adv/dis are significant. I'm not sure what we're arguing at this point. I'm not denying those are good spells. Are you suggesting they're broken or that there is something inherently broken about the mechanic of adv/dis?

[Zalabim]

More seriously, I think spells like Faerie Fire drop off in use as spells like Entangle and Web have similar results.

[the secret fire]

I don't think anyone is denying that adv/dis are significant. I'm not sure what we're arguing at this point. I'm not denying those are good spells. Are you suggesting they're broken or that there is something inherently broken about the mechanic of adv/dis?

I'm suggesting that advantage/disadvantage is the single most significant combat mechanic in the game, and that spells which get you or your party on the right side of that equation are widely underrated. I don't think Blur is broken so much as under-appreciated, though Faerie Fire is, indeed, pushing the envelope of brokenness, imo.

[Dalebert]

I'm suggesting that advantage/disadvantage is the single most significant combat mechanic in the game, and that spells which get you or your party on the right side of that equation are widely underrated. I don't think Blur is broken so much as under-appreciated, though Faerie Fire is, indeed, pushing the envelope of brokenness, imo.

Don't disagree with the first part. Just pointing out that there are a lot of balancing forces at work. I think FF is an excellent first level spell when you don't have stronger options but at higher levels, it still seems like a rare choice when stronger spells are available that require concentration so I don't think it's broken. I do, however, think it can be balanced out somewhat by having it simply nullify the benefits of invisibility and only provide advantage when a creature is visible, which I also think is the most logical reading of the description.