Flaming arrows

[Dmdork]

Player wants to know about flaming arrows. How would you guys handle that?

[Blood of Gaea]

They can light flammable objects they hit on fire.

[Quoz]

Aside from igniting fires, they could offer some benefit to targets vulnerable to fire or resistant to nonmagic weapons. Maybe turn the weapon die into fire damage instead of piercing.

To do real extra damage get magic arrows. Maybe a small benefit for using alchemist fire as a poison, smear it on arrows before you fire or craft hollow glass arrowheads to fill.

Also note that most methods of transporting fore via arrow are not very aerodynamic. Disadvantage or halving range are perfectly valid.

[Unoriginal]

Player wants to know about flaming arrows. How would you guys handle that?

They're regular arrows, except they can set things on fire.

Unless you're talking about magic fire arrows.

[lperkins2]

So, assuming you're talking non-magical flaming arrows, I'd go the way the torch handles it: they light unattended, non-magical, combustible items on fire, they provide light in a small area, and they do 1 point of fire damage to a target. Note that it is not one bonus point of fire damage, it is one point of fire damage total, why? Because to make an arrow head that will stay burning when accelerated by a bow requires making it big (and usually hollow), which means it won't stick into whatever it hits very well. At least, unless you have access to modern petrol.

[Paeleus]

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ArrowsOnFire

[A Fat Dragon]

I’d say -2 to the total damage, but lights any flammable objects it hits on fire (regardless of if it is carried or not).

[sir_argo]

I wouldn't make the arrow better than it was without the fire. If you do, every archer will jump on the bandwagon and start firing off these new, improved arrows. So let's say you make the rule, "Flaming arrows get +1 fire damage." Why wouldn't every archer now use flaming arrows?

From a gameplay issue, give an advantage and a disadvantage. Honestly, IRL flaming arrows suck in combat. Their only real value is to set things on fire. But this is a fantasy setting and maybe you want to go with the rule of cool. I'd go with something like this:

Flaming Ranged Weapon: Range and damage dice cut in half (so 1d8 becomes 1d4). Add +1 fire damage. Adds the loading property to the weapon.

[Unoriginal]

From a gameplay issue, give an advantage and a disadvantage. Honestly, IRL flaming arrows suck in combat. Their only real value is to set things on fire. But this is a fantasy setting and maybe you want to go with the rule of cool.

To my knowledge, the only time flaming arrows are mentioned in 5e is to say Gnolls use them to set fire to settlements.

[JellyPooga]

Player wants to know about flaming arrows. How would you guys handle that?

The same way I handle players who ask about making molotovs out of lamp oil, or dual-wielding greatswords..."Nope. Not without magic. Let's move on, shall we?"

[The Jack]

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ArrowsOnFire

Essentially, it's a rule of cool feature without magic.

Shoot a hundred arrows into a settlement and one of them will start a fire. Roll a d100 to see if you fire that arrow. Otherwise reduce the damage by 2 dice. Also add the loading property because it's a pain to use.

Magic? Cool. Go nuts.

[FreddyNoNose]

They may or may not set things on fire. The tendency is to assume things catch on fire more easily than they do.

[Unoriginal]

They may or may not set things on fire. The tendency is to assume things catch on fire more easily than they do.

Pseudo-medieval buildings often had more flamable parts than modern ones, tbf

[FreddyNoNose]

Pseudo-medieval buildings often had more flamable parts than modern ones, tbf

^see what I mean.

[The Jack]

The Japanese, who made a lot out of wood or paper, still had to fire a hundred arrows for a good chance to set something on fire. Now granted, they had some building techniques to make their stuff less flamable, but it was still a concentrated effort to set something on fire with arrows; Most would fizzle out in flight, or land in a way that doesn't bother anything, like they'd probably bounce. The fires were slow growing, so even if one did ignite, it was easy to put it out before it became a problem.

Shogun 2's fire arrows look cool and are fun, but they're not there for historical accuracy.

They did way less damage because the fire-rag slowed the arrow down, changed weight distribution,

Of course, you're in a fantasy world; Enchantments, spells, weird alchemy; I'd simply use an alchemical fire that could be applied to metal in the same way some'd use a weapon poison, doing an extra Dice of fire damage and looking cool, maybe damaging the ammunition (but you lose half arrows anyway) Maybe the flames would be strangely coloured too. Be thoros of myr, buy cheap swords, and charge with your green flaming blade... which may or may not be related to the cantrip.

[Unoriginal]

^see what I mean.

[Insert eye roll here]

Yes, things are usually less flamable than assumed. It doesn't chance that medieval buildings are on average far more flamable than more modern constructions. Since, you know, wood and straw were much more core components than later on.

Of course it'd still be hard to burn it down using only one arrow with a small flame.

[Grod_The_Giant]

On the other hand, this is D&D. Rule of cool is what it's all about. I like "half range, 1 fire damage and Dex save or catch on fire," or something to that effect.

[smcmike]

I would definitely allow them for special situations where you want to light something on fire, regardless of historical accuracy. I would not make them a viable option for normal combat, sans magic. So, specially prepared arrows, the loading property, disadvantage, and reduced piercing damage.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

Having to spend an action setting your arrow on fire then another shooting it like someone mentioned above probably nerfs flaming arrows enough that they are mostly useful for that first volley in defensive battles or as a tool against fortifications.