Control Flames + Flame Tongue

[nickl_2000]

Our parties Paladin has a Flame Tongue Longsword, were I to cast Control Flame to increase the light distance would it make it bright light of 80 feet and Dim of an additional 80 feet?

[stoutstien]

Our parties Paladin has a Flame Tongue Longsword, were I to cast Control Flame to increase the light distance would it make it bright light of 80 feet and Dim of an additional 80 feet?
AFB but doesn't control flame specify non-magical flame. Not like it's overwhelming to allow it.

[nickl_2000]

AFB but doesn't control flame specify non-magical flame. Not like it's overwhelming to allow it.

Yup, you are completely right. I missed that piece of it.

"You choose nonmagical flame that you can see within range and that fits within a 5-foot cube. You affect it in one of the following ways:"


Sounds like it wouldn't work for Continual Flame either then.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Is the grease created by a Grease spell, inherently magical, by being engendered through magic?

I think it is a very "open" question, wether the flames on an ignited Flame Tongue are magical, or just created by magic.

I agree with Stoutstein, no harm in allowing the Cantrip and the Flames to interact.

The illumination provided by a FT Sword is fairly large, using Control Flames as a dimmer switch, or to put a skull of flames in the fiery emanation of the sword, doesn't seem game breaking...in fact they seem to be game enhancing, to me.

[JNAProductions]

By RAW, I don’t think so. Has to be non-magical, and a Flametongue’s flames are pretty magical.

Would I allow it? Probably. Seems fun, doesn’t seem like it’d break anything.

[Sigreid]

Yup, you are completely right. I missed that piece of it.

"You choose nonmagical flame that you can see within range and that fits within a 5-foot cube. You affect it in one of the following ways:"


Sounds like it wouldn't work for Continual Flame either then.

Isn't continual flame not a real fire? I mean it doesn't burn or light anything, etc.

[nickl_2000]

Is the grease created by a Grease spell, inherently magical, by being engendered through magic?

I think it is a very "open" question, wether the flames on an ignited Flame Tongue are magical, or just created by magic.

I agree with Stoutstein, no harm in allowing the Cantrip and the Flames to interact.

The illumination provided by a FT Sword is fairly large, using Control Flames as a dimmer switch, or to put a skull of flames in the fiery emanation of the sword, doesn't seem game breaking...in fact they seem to be game enhancing, to me.

Okay, the skull in the flames is sweet. I'm totally going to try doing that because I want my Paladin friend to look even more beastly than he does currently.




Isn't continual flame not a real fire? I mean it doesn't burn or light anything, etc.

I mean it's kind of fire...
"A flame, equivalent in brightness to a torch, springs forth from an object that you touch. The effect looks like a regular flame, but it creates no heat and doesn't use oxygen. A continual flame can be covered or hidden but not smothered or quenched."
But it's very arguable is to whether something is "fire" if it doesn't create heat or burn.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Has to be non-magical, and a Flametongue’s flames are pretty magical.


The magical component of a Flame Tongue, (outside having a magic blade), could easily be described as the magic of the sword being able to pull an endless supply of butane from the para-elemental plane of flammable gasses.

The Bonus Action, 'Flame On', activation could be described as pushing a button on the tang of the sword, and a twist on a revolving ring surrounding the button, to summon the flames...just like a gas stove or barbecue.

The Flame Tongue item description does not state that magical flames erupt from the magic sword's blade. Indeed, the description only states that "flames erupt from the blade".

The only mechanical distinction between Magic Flames, and regular Flames are Dispel Magic/AMF interactions, and Control Flame.

[Sigreid]

The magical component of a Flame Tongue, (outside having a magic blade), could easily be described as the magic of the sword being able to pull an endless supply of butane from the para-elemental plane of flammable gasses.

The Bonus Action, 'Flame On', activation could be described as pushing a button on the tang of the sword, and a twist on a revolving ring surrounding the button, to summon the flames...just like a gas stove or barbecue.

The Flame Tongue item description does not state that magical flames erupt from the magic sword's blade. Indeed, the description only states that "flames erupt from the blade".

The only mechanical distinction between Magic Flames, and regular Flames are Dispel Magic/AMF interactions, and Control Flame.

Well, sure if you're looking for a way to make this idea work.

[Segev]

Perhaps we might benefit from a discussion of why control flames specifies "nonmagical" fire. Remember, this is 5e, so a combination of understanding what a rule is trying to achieve and what the fluff it represents is can be as important as the precise denotation of the text, when it comes time for a DM to rule.

I think the main concern is that it not be possible for a cantrip to shut down a high-level fire spell, or to spread fire with properties beyond the norm to places the magical effect creating the unusual fire can't normally reach. I'm drawing a blank on examples of magical fire it obviously shouldn't be able to extinguish nor spread, but I'm sure some exist.

Well, no, I take that back: it shouldn't be able to spread continual flame, because that magical flame has properties that are very useful to be able to spread around for no cost! Imagine moving it off of one target and onto another. There's also no reason to allow a cantrip to extinguish it. Or to cause it to spread from one target to another until you have a raging bonfire of heatless flame engulfing a house.

It definitely affects any fires ignited by fireball, produce flame, or prestidigitation. Those are not magical despite being lit by magic. It wouldn't, though, affect the active flame held in-hand by a druid who is wielding produce flame.

From a balance standpoint, I don't see a lot of difference between a Flame Tongue's fires and a torch's, wrt control flames. Nor do I see much difference from a thematic standpoint, honestly. It's not like a Flame Tongue's flames are given special properties beyond "they do damage." (I think it's even the same 1d6 that a torch is recommended to do.)

So as a DM, I would rule that, if the fire has no special properties, then control flames can affect it.

On the other hand... should a cantrip enable a sorcerer to extinguish the fighter's Flame Tongue and force him to use his bonus action to re-ignite it? Might seem okay, since it's an action to force a new bonus action...except if it can affect one Flame Tongue, it could affect up to 4 if they're clustered together.

So, as a DM, I modify my thoughts on this: I would rule that it can't extinguish fires that have a magical source, though it can still extinguish fires lit from those fires. I would also still probably allow it to change color of flames, make shapes in them, or the like. (I might even permit shapes in continual flame.) I'd also probably allow a caster controlling a magical fire source to resist his flames being influenced if he wanted to. An opposed casting stat check, or a save on his casting stat vs. the DC of the caster of control flames, perhaps.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Well, sure if you're looking for a way to make this idea work.

LOL, my prior post is a (rough) description of a Flame Tongue, from my Gamma World/Numenera inspired game that used 5e rules. That game ran from 2015 to 2017, and ended before Xanathar's Guide came out, (or ended shortly thereafter).

Control Flames was never even a consideration, for that description, as nobody had the Cantrip. 😃

(Also the para-elemental planes were not involved, [that is me having fun with an old school reference point], the butane was created by a matter transducer in the hilt)

[Sigreid]

LOL, my prior post is a (rough) description of a Flame Tongue, from my Gamma World/Numenera inspired game that used 5e rules. That game ran from 2015 to 2017, and ended before Xanathar's Guide came out, (or ended shortly thereafter).

Control Flames was never even a consideration, for that description, as nobody had the Cantrip. 😃

(Also the para-elemental planes were not involved, [that is me having fun with an old school reference point], the butane was created by a matter transducer in the hilt)

Oh, yeah. I get it. There's an excellent example in Fallout 4 as well.

[Lord Vukodlak]

From a balance standpoint, I don't see a lot of difference between a Flame Tongue's fires and a torch's, wrt control flames. Nor do I see much difference from a thematic standpoint, honestly. It's not like a Flame Tongue's flames are given special properties beyond "they do damage." (I think it's even the same 1d6 that a torch is recommended to do.)
.
Flame tongue 2d6
Torch one singular point of damage

[altasilvapuer]

A different, but possibly relevant question is "What happens if a flame tongue sword is inserted into an anti-magic shell, or if dispel magic is cast upon it?"

If the sword is affected by either of these, then I would argue that the flames are magical.

If it persists regardless, then the flames are not magical.

-asp

[JackPhoenix]

A different, but possibly relevant question is "What happens if a flame tongue sword is inserted into an anti-magic shell, or if dispel magic is cast upon it?"

If the sword is affected by either of these, then I would argue that the flames are magical.

If it persists regardless, then the flames are not magical.

-asp

For the first, it stops working. AMF supresses magic items. Whether the flame is magical, or the sword magically summons non-magical flammable gas from elsewhere, the operation mechanism is suppressed. For the second, nothing. Dispel Magic only interacts with spells.

[Segev]

Flame tongue 2d6
Torch one singular point of damage
I stand corrected. Doesn’t really change much else in my post.

A different, but possibly relevant question is "What happens if a flame tongue sword is inserted into an anti-magic shell, or if dispel magic is cast upon it?"

If the sword is affected by either of these, then I would argue that the flames are magical.

If it persists regardless, then the flames are not magical.

-asp
If it weren’t for the fact that fire goes away without a fuel source and swords aren’t typically going to burn, I’d agree. Argument could be made that the flames are sustained magically without being magic.

Though in truth, it’s likely evocation magic, so they probably are magical. Even so, aside from preventing control flames from extinguishing a flame tongue, I see nothing that keeping it from doing cool things with the fire adds and much that it subtracts from the game. So I’d probably rule it can do anything but extinguish it.