A DM ruled that fire isnt hot because it is only in terms of damaging creatures

[mehs]

specifically burning skeletons. They are ruling that there is no heat (they dont affect the surrounding temperature at all) from being near a burning skeleton as long as you are not within 5 ft which would have you take the 1d6 fire damage.




HOW?!?!!?!?

[RNightstalker]

There are some spells/effects that don't create fire that does damage; Faerie Fire comes to mind.

[Vizzerdrix]

Sounds like a dm you can talk into drown healing, and never eating. Rejoice!

[upho]

HOW?!?!!?!?I'd ask your GM if campfires work the same way. I mean, there's really nothing in the rules which explicitly says campfires provide any heat unless you stand in one and take fire damage from it. I'd estimate a burning skeleton gives off at least as much heat as a decent campfire does, considering the amount of fire damage they cause.

I also believe you should show your GM these (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/environment/environmental-rules#TOC-Heat-Dangers) environment rules for heat dangers and fire, which clearly state that non-instantaneous fires can and will ignite flammable nearby material. In addition, there are rules for things like forest fires or streams of molten lava, and they could certainly produce heat dangers even to creatures near but not inside the area actually burning. By extension, I'd ask your GM from where heat dangers originate if not from things able to cause fire damage (forest fires, volcanoes, the sun, etc).

TL/DR: Things in the game generally work like they do in our world unless otherwise noted. Water in a kettle hung over a campfire will soon start to boil, even though there's little to nothing in the rules to suggest this is the case, and despite the fact that there's plenty in the rules to suggest both the kettle and the water is completely immune to any fire damage the fire may cause.

So yes, you could use tame burning skeletons for BBQ parties as well as campfires to keep you warm and snug at night. :smalltongue:

[Yogibear41]

Build a man a fire, he will be warm for several hours.
Set a man on fire, he will be warm for the rest of his life.


I recommend taking your DM's extremely flawed logic/knowledge of physics and turning it against him. Be sure to keep written notes so you can cite all the things that he specifically says when you turn it against him to your benefit.

[Jack_Simth]

specifically burning skeletons. They are ruling that there is no heat (they dont affect the surrounding temperature at all) from being near a burning skeleton as long as you are not within 5 ft which would have you take the 1d6 fire damage.




HOW?!?!!?!?

Perhaps the heat is coming from the surrounding environment - they're sucking heat out of a wide area to concentrate it on themselves, thus creating the heat damage... but neutral total heat generation (keeps to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, tells the 2nd to go cry in a corner).

[False God]

Set a man on fire, he will be warm for the rest of his life.
Anakin would disagree.


I recommend taking your DM's extremely flawed logic/knowledge of physics and turning it against him. Be sure to keep written notes so you can cite all the things that he specifically says when you turn it against him to your benefit.
But this is sound advice. Whenever a DM makes a non-sensical ruling, roll with it, and note it for later. Then in a similar situation go "You said...."

I guarantee your DM won't like you.

But he'll start making more internally consistent rulings.

[RNightstalker]

Anakin would disagree.


But this is sound advice. Whenever a DM makes a non-sensical ruling, roll with it, and note it for later. Then in a similar situation go "You said...."

I guarantee your DM won't like you.

But he'll start making more internally consistent rulings.

Anakin...hah!

But honestly though I think there are some details being left out that could help clarify the situation, as to how the skeletons were set on fire, and what is keeping them aflame as well.

[Jack_Simth]

Anakin...hah!

But honestly though I think there are some details being left out that could help clarify the situation, as to how the skeletons were set on fire, and what is keeping them aflame as well.

The thread is tagged Pathfinder. it's a standard monster (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/undead/skeleton-medium/skeleton-burning/) that's a variation on the standard skeleton template (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/templates/skeleton/#Burning_Skeleton).

[RNightstalker]

The thread is tagged Pathfinder. it's a standard monster (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/undead/skeleton-medium/skeleton-burning/) that's a variation on the standard skeleton template (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/templates/skeleton/#Burning_Skeleton).

Thanks for the heads up as I did pass by that one. Now I'm just questioning the OP: what's the significance? Warm air rises, so if you're 10+ feet out, you're not going to get much warmth from 1D6 damage at 5ft.

[upho]

Thanks for the heads up as I did pass by that one. Now I'm just questioning the OP: what's the significance? Warm air rises, so if you're 10+ feet out, you're not going to get much warmth from 1D6 damage at 5ft.You're sitting on a large iron chest in which a "burnin' bony" is trying to hide? You're out of fuel for a regular fire and you really need to keep a nice campfire or sauna going in order to not catch a cold or to get clean? :smallamused:

If I had to guess, I believe this has to do with whether the heat generated by a burning skeleton might give away it's existence or approximate position, in case it cannot be detected through a more commonly used sense (vision, scent, blindsight etc). Though there are no specific rules for this, I'd personally rule that most creatures would certainly be able to feel the heat generated by a burning skeleton within 10' or so if given a few seconds, just as they most likely wouldn't walk straight into large campfires even when blind and deaf if being careful. I'd probably also grant a creature who spends a full round action an easy Perception check to pinpoint a burning skeleton within 10 ft. (if they cannot detect the skeleton with any other senses for some reason).

[Malphegor]

in case it cannot be detected through a more commonly used sense (vision, scent, blindsight etc). .

Darkvision was once described in like, AD&D or something, I forget, as being like heat vision, I believe, so there's probably an argument one could make that creatures with darkvision in 3e and later can see heat signatures a bit?

maybe? it's a wording on the darkvision that's never been brought up since afaik.

[upho]

Darkvision was once described in like, AD&D or something, I forget, as being like heat vision, I believe, so there's probably an argument one could make that creatures with darkvision in 3e and later can see heat signatures a bit?

maybe? it's a wording on the darkvision that's never been brought up since afaik.Last seen in 2.5e IIRC? Maybe darkvision isn't described in enough detail in 3e to tell whether this could be the case (I can't remember), but the PF description relevant for the OP's game does say otherwise:

"Darkvision is the extraordinary ability to see with no light source at all, out to a range specified for the creature. Darkvision is black-and-white only (colors cannot be discerned). It does not allow characters to see anything that they could not see otherwise—invisible objects are still invisible, and illusions are still visible as what they seem to be. Likewise, darkvision subjects a creature to gaze attacks normally. The presence of light does not spoil darkvision."


So even if an ability to "see with no light source" of course suggests something other than light-based vision according RL physics, the above basically says darkvision works just like a light-based monochrome vision with a (usually) limited range for all intents and purposes. IOW, if you for example make a dirty trick and throw sand into a creature's eyes to blind them, their darkvision will be disabled along with their normal vision, and darkvision makes creatures just as susceptible to gaze attacks in darkness as normal vision in normal light.

Versions of "heat vision" would be categorized as either blindsight or blindsense (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/Gamemastering/special-abilities/#TOC-Blindsight-and-Blindsense) in PF (depending on the specific ability's capabilities).

[RNightstalker]

Darkvision was once described in like, AD&D or something, I forget, as being like heat vision, I believe, so there's probably an argument one could make that creatures with darkvision in 3e and later can see heat signatures a bit?

maybe? it's a wording on the darkvision that's never been brought up since afaik.

It was called Infravision, being able to see in the heat spectrum.

[mehs]

You're sitting on a large iron chest in which a "burnin' bony" is trying to hide? You're out of fuel for a regular fire and you really need to keep a nice campfire or sauna going in order to not catch a cold or to get clean? :smallamused:

If I had to guess, I believe this has to do with whether the heat generated by a burning skeleton might give away it's existence or approximate position, in case it cannot be detected through a more commonly used sense (vision, scent, blindsight etc). Though there are no specific rules for this, I'd personally rule that most creatures would certainly be able to feel the heat generated by a burning skeleton within 10' or so if given a few seconds, just as they most likely wouldn't walk straight into large campfires even when blind and deaf if being careful. I'd probably also grant a creature who spends a full round action an easy Perception check to pinpoint a burning skeleton within 10 ft. (if they cannot detect the skeleton with any other senses for some reason).

Was walking over a snowy mountain and I made a note that the snow in front of us would be mush because of the 6 burning skeletons walking in front of us. At which point the gm said no because the skeletons dont generate heat.

[upho]

Was walking over a snowy mountain and I made a note that the snow in front of us would be mush because of the 6 burning skeletons walking in front of us. At which point the gm said no because the skeletons dont generate heat.Well, assuming we're talking about a layer of snow at least about an inch thick or so (and an ambient temperature below freezing), then I believe you'd both be wrong. Yes, I'd estimate the skeletons would easily be hot enough to melt away a several feet thick layer of snow within at least a few feet from where they stand for more than a minute or so, but they're not nearly hot enough to do so instantly simply by walking through the snow. I'm certain the tracks would show clear signs of the heat of course, just not anything that obvious.

As a comparison, you yourself can likely walk stark naked across a ten feet wide tray full of embers hot enough to melt solid metals, without being hurt the slightest (though you probably wouldn't have much hair left on your legs). You certainly would find it very painful to stop for a few seconds half-way through though...

[heavyfuel]

The skeletons are considerably hotter than a bonfire. A bonfire doesn't generate enough heat to kill an average human standing 5ft from it in 6 seconds, yet, the skeletons do. Dealing 1d6 points of fire damage to anyone adjacent means a decent chance of killing your average 4HP human standing who stood by it for 1 round.

And have you seen how hot a bonfire gets? Like, seriously. Those things get really hot.

If the heat is enough to potentially kill a human in 6 seconds, it's definitely enough to leave markings in the snow.

The DM is correct by RAW. It's stupid raw, but it is RAW. As Vizzerdrix said, you can probably talk him into stupid RAW that is beneficial to you

[Gallowglass]

What's the context here?

DM: "You are facing a burning skeleton."

P1: "Oh great, lets capture him and shackle him then we can sit around him at 10-20 feet and recover from all the hypothermia damage we've been getting."

DM: "That won't work.

P1: "well I can at least pull out my hotdog and a stick and cook it for dinner."

DM: "No."

...

I mean, what's the context where this is a meaningful ruling by the DM versus the DM simply ignoring an inconsequential detail.

I am guessing its something actually like...

DM: "As you creep through the sewage tunnel, suddenly a burnign skeleton springs around the corner and attacks."

P1: "How did we not know he was around the corner?"

DM: "His Stealth beat your passive perception.

P1: "Yeah but, couldn't we see the light from the fire glinting off the wall. Or feel the heat or see steam from the boiling sewage water?"

DM: "Yeah, his fire just does damage. It doesn't actually work like normal fire.

P1: "OMG what a N00b, I'm totally gonna complain about you on my message board!"



EDIT: Just noticed that the OP already answered this. Answer is. inconsequential detail.