Is Flame Arrows even worse than it initially appears to be?

[ATHATH]

You touch a quiver containing arrows or bolts. When a target is hit by a ranged weapon attack using a piece of ammunition drawn from the quiver, the target takes an extra 1d6 fire damage. The spell’s magic ends on the piece of ammunition when it hits or misses, and the spell ends when twelve pieces of ammunition have been drawn from the quiver.
Suppose that Larry McRangerFace casts Flame Arrows (as a 3rd level spell) on his quiver, then fires 11 fiery arrows using ammunition from his quiver (as expected). When he draws his 12th arrow from his quiver in preparation for firing it, won't his Flame Arrows spell immediately end, meaning that he can't possibly get the bonus damage on his 12th arrow (from that casting of Flame Arrows, anyway)?

[ATHATH]

The alternative explanation is that the listed duration of the spell is for the enchantment on the quiver, not the enchantments on the ammunition that the quiver bestows upon the arrows, meaning that you could cast this spell on a quiver, draw 12 pieces of ammunition from it (ending the spell on the quiver), optionally put those pieces of ammunition back in the very same quiver they came from, wait an arbitrary amount of time (well beyond the 1 hour normal maximum duration of the spell), and still get the bonus damage from your casting of Flame Arrows when/if you eventually fire those pieces of ammunition.

[Wizard_Lizard]

RAW it seems that way. Probably RAI it means twelve arrows. But.. yeah. pretty much.

[Jerrykhor]

Flame Arrows is still terrible even if you could fire the 12th arrow. Even if you could fire 30 Arrows. Its a 3rd level Hunters Mark that deals fire damage.

[Segev]

Flame Arrows is still terrible even if you could fire the 12th arrow. Even if you could fire 30 Arrows. Its a 3rd level Hunters Mark that deals fire damage.

It does kind-of suffer from the same problems as magic stone, compounded by taking Concentration and being third level, for some strange reason. I doubt the intended use was having the necromancer have twelve (or eleven) skeletons draw a like number of arrows from the enchanted quiver in one turn and fire them.

It's clear to me that the hour long duration is meant to let you pre-cast it and not have to take the action to cast it when a fight starts, but even that's not very good considering what else you might be wanting to Concentrate on.

It's not quite hunter's mark, though: it can be used to buff an ally's ranged attacks rather than your own. Still not a great use of a third level spell slot. Let alone your Concentration.

[Garfunion]

There is at least one way to make it better. A Sorcerer can change the damage type with Transmuted Spell metamagic.

[Valmark]

The alternative explanation is that the listed duration of the spell is for the enchantment on the quiver, not the enchantments on the ammunition that the quiver bestows upon the arrows, meaning that you could cast this spell on a quiver, draw 12 pieces of ammunition from it (ending the spell on the quiver), optionally put those pieces of ammunition back in the very same quiver they came from, wait an arbitrary amount of time (well beyond the 1 hour normal maximum duration of the spell), and still get the bonus damage from your casting of Flame Arrows when/if you eventually fire those pieces of ammunition.

This is my interpretation, yes.

In general it's up to the DM to decide wether the spell's magic ends when the spell ends or not- if they end together you don't get to shoot the 12th arrow, if they end separately then you can even store your flame arrows.

[Waazraath]

I think the spell is underrated here. No, it's not great, but in certain parties I can imagine it is decent. It has a long duration, so can be cast pre-combat, and it's extra damage on attacks. So from an action economy point of view, its great, since it is extra damage that doesn't even cost a bonus action.

Of course, there are other perspectives (resource management: it does cost a spell slot), and flexibility (it does cost a caster a concentration slot). But it's not all bad.

Regarding the OP: yeah, I guess you can read it like that if you want to, but the intention is pretty clear imo.

[Jerrykhor]

I think the spell is underrated here. No, it's not great, but in certain parties I can imagine it is decent.

I'm not seeing it, looks like trash to me. What kind of party makeup with make this decent?


It has a long duration
It has the same duration as Hunters Mark, but very likely to end early as it only buffs 12 shots. If you share it with allies, its going to exhaust faster. Hunters Mark wins easily.


and it's extra damage on attacks
Same damage as Hunters Mark, but its wasted when it miss. So its less than 12d6 extra damage. No matter how many people you share it with, 12d6 is the maximum. Not even counting damage type as i think its fairly negligible. But still, Hunters Mark wins.


doesn't even cost a bonus action.
A very minor benefit that hardly matters unless you have something important to use your BA on. But on the other hand, you didn't note that Flame Arrows is worse if you don't have prep time to pre-cast it.

In the end, Flame Arrows uses a level 3 slot, too expensive and still worse than a level 1 spell.

[Amnestic]

I'm not seeing it, looks like trash to me. What kind of party makeup with make this decent?

I wouldn't say 'decent' but since you can hand off arrows to others, you could use it to add a pseudo-nova. If you happen to have 11 archers lying around and they all hit, well hey, that's 11d6 extra fire damage from a 3rd level spell slot! That's...still not that great honestly, but it's the best I can come up with for it.

[Dark.Revenant]

Suppose that Larry McRangerFace casts Flame Arrows (as a 3rd level spell) on his quiver, then fires 11 fiery arrows using ammunition from his quiver (as expected). When he draws his 12th arrow from his quiver in preparation for firing it, won't his Flame Arrows spell immediately end, meaning that he can't possibly get the bonus damage on his 12th arrow (from that casting of Flame Arrows, anyway)?

You draw a piece of ammunition as part of attacking with the ranged weapon. Thus, the attack resolves and then the spell's effects end. If you draw the 12th piece of ammunition for any reason that's not immediately as part of an attack, however, that last d6 is lost forever.

This spell is the only worth it superior in any way whatsoever over Hunter's Mark (ironically) for a Hunter, because you can do an AOE volley shot and apply the bonus damage to a bunch of dudes.

[Waazraath]

I'm not seeing it, looks like trash to me. What kind of party makeup with make this decent?

It has the same duration as Hunters Mark, but very likely to end early as it only buffs 12 shots. If you share it with allies, its going to exhaust faster. Hunters Mark wins easily.

Same damage as Hunters Mark, but its wasted when it miss. So its less than 12d6 extra damage. No matter how many people you share it with, 12d6 is the maximum. Not even counting damage type as i think its fairly negligible. But still, Hunters Mark wins.

A very minor benefit that hardly matters unless you have something important to use your BA on. But on the other hand, you didn't note that Flame Arrows is worse if you don't have prep time to pre-cast it.

In the end, Flame Arrows uses a level 3 slot, too expensive and still worse than a level 1 spell.

The comparison with Hunters Mark is off the mark, cause you don't cast it on yourself (like hunters mark) but on an ally. It doesn't compete with it, it adds up to it. Take a party with (among others) a blaster sorcerer and a ranger archer. The sorcerer casts FA on the ranger, long before combat starts. In combat, the ranger makes ranged attacks, just like it would have done without FA, using Hunter's Mark if he wants. Same for the Socrerer: he blasts, like he normally does. During this combat, even if only half the shots of the ranger hit, the spell will have done 6d6 damage without having cost any action.

This latter part is decent. And of course FA is bad if you don't have prep time to cast it (which I implied in my post by saying it can be decent from an action economy perspective if you have time to cast it before combat) - its only good thing is action economy / hour long duration.

It shouldn't be used as a self buff, it's a buff for your archer buddy, if you don't use many other concentration spells and have time to prepare. Situational, yes, but "damage that doesn't cost any action resources" is decent when it applies.

[Silpharon]

This is my interpretation, yes.

In general it's up to the DM to decide wether the spell's magic ends when the spell ends or not- if they end together you don't get to shoot the 12th arrow, if they end separately then you can even store your flame arrows.

My RAW reading aligns with the latter, which allows you to store up fire arrows with unused spell slots before a long rest. That said, it doesn't make sense to me why this would be a concentration spell or even have a quiver involved if that was the intent.

[stoutstien]

its not a good spell but it is one of the few ways to stack extra damage on ammunition that is already magical.

[MaxWilson]

I'm not seeing it, looks like trash to me. What kind of party makeup with make this decent?

An 11th level party with two Alert Dex 20 Battlemaster Sharpshooters, one squishy Dex 11 Scribe wizard, and a Moon Druid. Having the Scribe pre-cast Flame Arrows (optionally with lightning damage) is a decent idea if they're expecting to encounter solo monsters or small groups, since there's a good chance the Battlemasters can use up all 12d6 of arrows before the wizard even gets a turn and needs his concentration anyway. The Moon Druid can also Flame Arrows before Wildshaping, if there isn't another long-duration concentration spell like Conjure Elemental or Conjure Animals V that he wants even more (because awesome is better than decent).

[Damon_Tor]

Flame Arrows is still terrible even if you could fire the 12th arrow. Even if you could fire 30 Arrows. Its a 3rd level Hunters Mark that deals fire damage.

There are some edge cases. In a build like a Gloomstalker/Echo Knight/Assassin archer that's designed to wreck an encounter on the first round with an insane alpha strike using ton of attacks, the benefits of Flame Arrows over Hunter's Mark are numerous: you can pre-cast it before combat begins, you aren't limited by range (attacking from beyond 120 feet is an important to way to ensure stealth vs truesight/blindsight) and you can attack multiple targets per round without issue. It's only inferior in a white room where things like that don't matter, but they do.

[Segev]

There are some edge cases. In a build like a Gloomstalker/Echo Knight/Assassin archer that's designed to wreck an encounter on the first round with an insane alpha strike using ton of attacks, the benefits of Flame Arrows over Hunter's Mark are numerous: you can pre-cast it before combat begins, you aren't limited by range (attacking from beyond 120 feet is an important to way to ensure stealth vs truesight/blindsight) and you can attack multiple targets per round without issue. It's only inferior in a white room where things like that don't matter, but they do.

Is the character "designed to wreck an encounter on the first round with an insane alpha strike" going to be better off using fireball as his action rather than using flame arrows? If he's got 9 or more attacks and is attacking only a single target, he gets more dice of damage out of it, I suppose. And I shouldn't ignore that this would let him be doing whatever his base archery damage is with each attack. But to match even the base 8d6 a fireball does, a longbow-using Dex-18 archer would need to hit with 3 to 4 attacks, base (no spell buffing). He's doing a little more than that with 3 attacks with this spell. Except he's doing that to a single target. Fireball hits the whole enemy group.

I suppose the specific combination of Gloomstalker, Echo Knight, and Assassin means he's getting 6 attacks in the opening round at level 9, so he's doing a bit more than twice fireball damage. 4x if he can go before his target (hardly a guarantee in 5e) and his target is surprised (meaning his target didn't detect ANYBODY in the party before initiative was rolled, which is the biggest weakness of Assassin).

Which now makes it better single-target damage than fireball if everything goes right on a very particular build that relies on an ally to cast the spell for it.

[Waazraath]

Is the character "designed to wreck an encounter on the first round with an insane alpha strike" going to be better off using fireball as his action rather than using flame arrows? If he's got 9 or more attacks and is attacking only a single target, he gets more dice of damage out of it, I suppose. And I shouldn't ignore that this would let him be doing whatever his base archery damage is with each attack. But to match even the base 8d6 a fireball does, a longbow-using Dex-18 archer would need to hit with 3 to 4 attacks, base (no spell buffing). He's doing a little more than that with 3 attacks with this spell. Except he's doing that to a single target. Fireball hits the whole enemy group.

I suppose the specific combination of Gloomstalker, Echo Knight, and Assassin means he's getting 6 attacks in the opening round at level 9, so he's doing a bit more than twice fireball damage. 4x if he can go before his target (hardly a guarantee in 5e) and his target is surprised (meaning his target didn't detect ANYBODY in the party before initiative was rolled, which is the biggest weakness of Assassin).

Which now makes it better single-target damage than fireball if everything goes right on a very particular build that relies on an ally to cast the spell for it.

I think 1) that ally that casts FA can just also cast FB that first round, so there is no comparison there, 2) FB is dependend on the tactical situation (loose initiative and the enemy can be among your midst, allowing you to only hit 1 or even 0 targets without damaging your own 3) the post you replied to was to illustrate where FA could be better than HM, if I'm reading it correctly. Of course FB is a better spell than FA, but that doesn't mean the latter is without uses.

[Damon_Tor]

Which now makes it better single-target damage than fireball if everything goes right on a very particular build that relies on an ally to cast the spell for it.

Which is why I called it an "edge case".

[Segev]

I think 1) that ally that casts FA can just also cast FB that first round, so there is no comparison there, 2) FB is dependend on the tactical situation (loose initiative and the enemy can be among your midst, allowing you to only hit 1 or even 0 targets without damaging your own 3) the post you replied to was to illustrate where FA could be better than HM, if I'm reading it correctly. Of course FB is a better spell than FA, but that doesn't mean the latter is without uses.Even granting this, this:


Which is why I called it an "edge case".

...means that it takes an edge case to make your choice to learn or prepare flame arrows as a third level spell, rather than something else that is as good or better in most circumstances, is making a choice for an edge case that takes work to arrange and even then isn't always applicable. And it's not a huge advantage even when it does work.

[micahaphone]

Now I'm picturing a VERY weirdly shaped quiver such that a dozen archers can retrieve arrows from it at once. Just a few inches thick but 30 feet wide, it'd look like some weird wings on someone's back.

[Dr. Cliché]

The only use I've thought of for this spell is for a caster boss or mini-boss.

Basically as a way for them to influence a fight without revealing themselves (cast Flame Arrows on an archer-minion and then withdraw into the next room or somewhere out of sight).

Admittedly, I'm doubtful that this would be a better use of their resources than, say, casting Summon Fey or Summon Shadowspawn (which would not only add additional damage but also a whole other creature for the PCs to have to deal with).

But maybe if there's a strong fire theme, or if there's an archer mini-boss you want to enhance without giving him magical gear?

Blimey, even as I write this I realise how much I'm reaching to try and think of a niche for this spell. :smalltongue:

[MaxWilson]

The only use I've thought of for this spell is for a caster boss or mini-boss.

Basically as a way for them to influence a fight without revealing themselves (cast Flame Arrows on an archer-minion and then withdraw into the next room or somewhere out of sight).

Admittedly, I'm doubtful that this would be a better use of their resources than, say, casting Summon Fey or Summon Shadowspawn (which would not only add additional damage but also a whole other creature for the PCs to have to deal with).

But maybe if there's a strong fire theme, or if there's an archer mini-boss you want to enhance without giving him magical gear?

Blimey, even as I write this I realise how much I'm reaching to try and think of a niche for this spell. :smalltongue:

Go the other way and make it an offscreen ally. "You shared your bread with me as a beggar so I reveal my true nature and grant you a boon: Flame Arrows for an hour!"

[Segev]

My armchair analysis (which I won't say is the best in the world) suggests to me that the spell could most easily be fixed by removing the Concentration requirement. Then it doesn't cost anything but the spell slot if you have advanced warning of the combat. (Well, and clarifying whether it's supposed to be 11 or 12 arrows; it probably should say the first 12 arrows drawn from this quiver and fired during the spell's duration get the benefit, for clarity and precision.)

[HPisBS]

My armchair analysis (which I won't say is the best in the world) suggests to me that the spell could most easily be fixed by removing the Concentration requirement. Then it doesn't cost anything but the spell slot if you have advanced warning of the combat. (Well, and clarifying whether it's supposed to be 11 or 12 arrows; it probably should say the first 12 arrows drawn from this quiver and fired during the spell's duration get the benefit, for clarity and precision.)

Seconded.

But "remove concentration" is a buff that a multitude of spells need lol

[Dr. Cliché]

My armchair analysis (which I won't say is the best in the world) suggests to me that the spell could most easily be fixed by removing the Concentration requirement. Then it doesn't cost anything but the spell slot if you have advanced warning of the combat. (Well, and clarifying whether it's supposed to be 11 or 12 arrows; it probably should say the first 12 arrows drawn from this quiver and fired during the spell's duration get the benefit, for clarity and precision.)

I mean, this certainly seems to fall into the ever-expanding category of 'spells that are crippled by the Concentration mechanic'. However, even if you removed that restriction, I'm still not sure it would help enough. I mean, even without Concentration, you're still having to have this as a know/prepared spell and using a 3rd level spell slot on it.

[Segev]

I mean, this certainly seems to fall into the ever-expanding category of 'spells that are crippled by the Concentration mechanic'. However, even if you removed that restriction, I'm still not sure it would help enough. I mean, even without Concentration, you're still having to have this as a know/prepared spell and using a 3rd level spell slot on it.

Granted, but it means it's more useful to pre-cast because you can have other exploration-helpful spells that take Concentration active. You're not forced to choose between letting the archer keep his flame arrows for the first few rounds and putting up a sickening radiance, for example. Or whether to let the archer also fly or not.

[MaxWilson]

I mean, this certainly seems to fall into the ever-expanding category of 'spells that are crippled by the Concentration mechanic'. However, even if you removed that restriction, I'm still not sure it would help enough. I mean, even without Concentration, you're still having to have this as a know/prepared spell and using a 3rd level spell slot on it.

How ubiquitous are you trying to make the spell? 3rd level slot, no concentration, for 12d6 damage (times hit rate), no in-combat action economy cost is already good enough that any given Moon Druid will probably get begged by the party archer to prepare it every single day. Are we getting to make it so good that the Moon Druid never says "No, I'd rather a save a slot for Conjure Animals"? What's the goal here?

[stoutstien]

i would say keep the concentration and allow some elemental shift in the damage type.

i have seen it used with good effect in adventuring days that have lots of smaller but tougher encounters spaced relatively close together. not a bad option for artificers or rangers looking to stretch slots out

[Tvtyrant]

I think of it as an army spell instead of an adventure spell. 12 folks draw from the quiver and fire in one turn, so it deals up to 12d6 damage in a turn.

[Segev]

i would say keep the concentration and allow some elemental shift in the damage type.

i have seen it used with good effect in adventuring days that have lots of smaller but tougher encounters spaced relatively close together. not a bad option for artificers or rangers looking to stretch slots outI don't see the damage type as being the limiting factor, here. It's the multiple other things that need to stack up to make it even start to compete with other third level spells. I've never seen "lots of smaller but tougher encounters spaced" within an hour of each other. At most, I've seen two, because parties don't tend to rush through exploration. It takes time.


I think of it as an army spell instead of an adventure spell. 12 folks draw from the quiver and fire in one turn, so it deals up to 12d6 damage in a turn.

That is one use for it, but making it be cast on a quiver makes that awkward and suggests the intent was never for it to be used that way, but rather to be used by a single character who may well not be the wizard.

[stoutstien]

I don't see the damage type as being the limiting factor, here. It's the multiple other things that need to stack up to make it even start to compete with other third level spells. I've never seen "lots of smaller but tougher encounters spaced" within an hour of each other. At most, I've seen two, because parties don't tend to rush through exploration. It takes time.


even at 2 encounters that a lot of mileage out of slot. if we assume approximately 3 rounds per encounter and extra attack(1) that is 12 arrows right there.

[Segev]

even at 2 encounters that a lot of mileage out of slot. if we assume approximately 3 rounds per encounter and extra attack(1) that is 12 arrows right there.

And if you're not using up your Concentration on it, that's probably a reasonbly good use of it. But if you're using your Concentration, you're buffing nothing else for those two fights, and there are better buffs you could be spending that third level slot and Concentration on.

[HPisBS]

That is one use for it, but making it be cast on a quiver makes that awkward and suggests the intent was never for it to be used that way, but rather to be used by a single character who may well not be the wizard.

Well, there's gotta be something to unite them. The spell couldn't just say "Target: 12 arrows; Range: 10 ft."

The magic remains until the arrows are used or the 12th one is drawn, so cast it out of combat, pass out ≤11 to your archers, which then either hold them or just place them in their own quivers (if they have some way of telling them apart from their other arrows).

Edit:

And if you're not using up your Concentration on it, that's probably a reasonbly good use of it. But if you're using your Concentration, you're buffing nothing else for those two fights, and there are better buffs you could be spending that third level slot and Concentration on.

Sure, but, playing devil's advocate, you're then also down an extra slot. And if these encounters are just the lead-up to the adventuring day's main event, it may be preferable to space out one's slots where reasonable.

[stoutstien]

And if you're not using up your Concentration on it, that's probably a reasonbly good use of it. But if you're using your Concentration, you're buffing nothing else for those two fights, and there are better buffs you could be spending that third level slot and Concentration on.

true but there always probably a better spell. doesn't make all the other spells bad just because there is a best spell to use. a ranger could use conjure X but flame arrow isn't going to feel like a waste of a slot. its no fireball but its not find trap either.

[MaxWilson]

I don't see the damage type as being the limiting factor, here. It's the multiple other things that need to stack up to make it even start to compete with other third level spells. I've never seen "lots of smaller but tougher encounters spaced" within an hour of each other. At most, I've seen two, because parties don't tend to rush through exploration. It takes time.

That is one use for it, but making it be cast on a quiver makes that awkward and suggests the intent was never for it to be used that way, but rather to be used by a single character who may well not be the wizard.

Think of it as an hour-long Haste with no movement benefits and no action economy penalty when the spell ends.

Using Haste for an extra Attack is both meh and surprisingly popular in some quarters. Those people should be using Flame Arrow.

Bonus points if you precast it against something immune to normal weapons, e.g. a weretiger.

[Tvtyrant]

I don't see the damage type as being the limiting factor, here. It's the multiple other things that need to stack up to make it even start to compete with other third level spells. I've never seen "lots of smaller but tougher encounters spaced" within an hour of each other. At most, I've seen two, because parties don't tend to rush through exploration. It takes time.



That is one use for it, but making it be cast on a quiver makes that awkward and suggests the intent was never for it to be used that way, but rather to be used by a single character who may well not be the wizard.

Agreed, it was designed to do something it is not for. I do see a value in it as being better statistically then other blasting spells in massed combat.

[Dr. Cliché]

How ubiquitous are you trying to make the spell? 3rd level slot, no concentration, for 12d6 damage (times hit rate), no in-combat action economy cost is already good enough that any given Moon Druid will probably get begged by the party archer to prepare it every single day. Are we getting to make it so good that the Moon Druid never says "No, I'd rather a save a slot for Conjure Animals"? What's the goal here?

If the only criteria is that the party archer will beg the druid to prepare it, then clearly the spell is fine as it is. :smallconfused:

[Snails]

I think the spell is underrated here. No, it's not great, but in certain parties I can imagine it is decent. It has a long duration, so can be cast pre-combat, and it's extra damage on attacks. So from an action economy point of view, its great, since it is extra damage that doesn't even cost a bonus action.

Of course, there are other perspectives (resource management: it does cost a spell slot), and flexibility (it does cost a caster a concentration slot). But it's not all bad.


I agree. People are panning it as not as good as, say, Hunter's Mark, which is certainly true from a narrow point of view. But it is useful in situations where Hunter's Mark (or similar alternatives) are either unavailable or this can be stacked as a cherry on top. It is useful where you have more limitations with Action Economy, than with Concentration.

That said, I am confident that the majority of Parties will not benefit from this spell. I advise understanding why that is before taking it.

[Segev]

I agree. People are panning it as not as good as, say, Hunter's Mark, which is certainly true from a narrow point of view. But it is useful in situations where Hunter's Mark (or similar alternatives) are either unavailable or this can be stacked as a cherry on top. It is useful where you have more limitations with Action Economy, than with Concentration.

That said, I am confident that the majority of Parties will not benefit from this spell. I advise understanding why that is before taking it.

"It's useful [when] Hunter's Mark...can be stacked...on top," is a little bit damning anyway: this is a third level spell, and unless two separate casters are buffing the same person, the Concentration requirements mean they can't both be used. I mean, you could have the party Ranger have hunter's mark active, flame arrows on his quiver, and magic weapon on his bow, but now probably 3/4 of the party are spending their concentration on buffing his damage rather than literally anything else. Not to mention at least one third-level spell slot and two at-least-first-level spell slots.

When you're comparing a third level spell to a first level spell and saying the third level spell is roughly as good if you meet certain conditions and perhaps already HAVE the first level spell active, that's indicative that the third level spell is a little underpowered.

[ATHATH]

Maybe we could get a Sage Advice response to this question? I'd submit it myself, but I don't have a Twitter account...

[Silpharon]

Maybe we could get a Sage Advice response to this question? I'd submit it myself, but I don't have a Twitter account...

I can add it to my list. I made a Twitter account to ask JC questions. The rest of mine are Tasha's related, but I think this is good too.

[dreast]

The alternative explanation is that the listed duration of the spell is for the enchantment on the quiver, not the enchantments on the ammunition that the quiver bestows upon the arrows, meaning that you could cast this spell on a quiver, draw 12 pieces of ammunition from it (ending the spell on the quiver), optionally put those pieces of ammunition back in the very same quiver they came from, wait an arbitrary amount of time (well beyond the 1 hour normal maximum duration of the spell), and still get the bonus damage from your casting of Flame Arrows when/if you eventually fire those pieces of ammunition.

ItÂ’s better than that. The spellÂ’s magic works on the ammunition indefinitely until used (the concentration is for the spell on the quiver, not the subsequent effect on the arrows), by its own wording, AND thereÂ’s no stacking limit. RAW (and IÂ’m not arguing RAI, but itÂ’s never been errataÂ’d that I can find, and as a DM IÂ’d allow it), you could conceivably burn, say, 14 3rd level spell slots over a week of downtime and head into battle with your team armed with 168 arrows doing 1d6 bonus fire damage each... at no cost in actions or concentration.

How can people think this is a bad spell?

[Valmark]

ItÂ’s better than that. The spellÂ’s magic works on the ammunition indefinitely until used (the concentration is for the spell on the quiver, not the subsequent effect on the arrows), by its own wording, AND thereÂ’s no stacking limit. RAW (and IÂ’m not arguing RAI, but itÂ’s never been errataÂ’d that I can find, and as a DM IÂ’d allow it), you could conceivably burn, say, 14 3rd level spell slots over a week of downtime and head into battle with your team armed with 168 arrows doing 1d6 bonus fire damage each... at no cost in actions or concentration.

How can people think this is a bad spell?

Because this is an interpretation that most people don't share (I think). While personally I agree with you if a DM rules the other way Flame Arrows becomes much worst.

[Snails]

When you're comparing a third level spell to a first level spell and saying the third level spell is roughly as good if you meet certain conditions and perhaps already HAVE the first level spell active, that's indicative that the third level spell is a little underpowered.

Yes, that is fair.

But let's keep in mind that Hunter's Mark is an extraordinarily strong 1st level, easily good enough to compare with weaker 2nd level spells. It is a class defining spell that is allowed to be over the top, and it so much better than Divine Favor (another class specific spell that we expect to be better than average).

EDIT: Honestly, I think that both Flame Arrow and Protection From Energy seem like 2nd level spells to me. The Concentration requirement is limiting enough that there is no fear of abuse.

[Segev]

Because this is an interpretation that most people don't share (I think). While personally I agree with you if a DM rules the other way Flame Arrows becomes much worst.

I understand the urge to exploit wording in this fashion, but the spell does not describe itself in a manner that support this. The central theorem of this interpretation–that the arrowsemain enchanted after the spell is over–contradicts the way spells typically work.

It is clearly an exploit rather than a faithful interpretation of the spell; if a DM rules that it works that way, great for his players (at least until the DM uses it against them), but it is not likely to gain majority support nor be permitted by most DMs.

The interpretation that treats the text as if it were not containing hidden exploits is fairly weak, but has edge case uses. The strict reading reveals a deceptive one-fewer-than-it-seems arrow, which is likely an error by the writers, but is part of the spell. The interpretation that the magic of the spell lasts beyond the spell duration is unlikely to persuade people because spells don't do that in D&D.

[Valmark]

I understand the urge to exploit wording in this fashion, but the spell does not describe itself in a manner that support this. The central theorem of this interpretation–that the arrowsemain enchanted after the spell is over–contradicts the way spells typically work.

It is clearly an exploit rather than a faithful interpretation of the spell; if a DM rules that it works that way, great for his players (at least until the DM uses it against them), but it is not likely to gain majority support nor be permitted by most DMs.

The interpretation that treats the text as if it were not containing hidden exploits is fairly weak, but has edge case uses. The strict reading reveals a deceptive one-fewer-than-it-seems arrow, which is likely an error by the writers, but is part of the spell. The interpretation that the magic of the spell lasts beyond the spell duration is unlikely to persuade people because spells don't do that in D&D.

I'd agree if there weren't already spells whose effect lasts beyond the spell's duration and if the spell didn't make an explicit distinction between the two. But since those two factors exist I really can't read it another way without thinking that's a somewhat pointless nerf.

[Amnestic]

I'd agree if there weren't already spells whose effect lasts beyond the spell's duration and if the spell didn't make an explicit distinction between the two. But since those two factors exist I really can't read it another way without thinking that's a somewhat pointless nerf.

It creates a situation where any force or army with access to 5th level spellcasters should, reasonably, have their entire force outfitted permanently with fire arrows that the casters make during downtime. This, clearly, isn't the case, or it'd show up in modules at some point (which I don't think it has).

It also would call into question why it's a concentration spell at all if you could simply tap a quiver, pull 12 fire arrows out and then immediately put them straight back in, letting you retain the fire-arrow-ness of it indefinitely.

[Valmark]

It creates a situation where any force or army with access to 5th level spellcasters should, reasonably, have their entire force outfitted permanently with fire arrows that the casters make during downtime. This, clearly, isn't the case, or it'd show up in modules at some point (which I don't think it has).

It also would call into question why it's a concentration spell at all if you could simply tap a quiver, pull 12 fire arrows out and then immediately put them straight back in, letting you retain the fire-arrow-ness of it indefinitely.

The fact that it hasn't happened doesn't mean that it cannot happen. How many npc druids in modules have Goodberry reserves from converting the spell slots the previous night?

Clearly it limits the usage mid fight. That's pretty much the only point to requiring Concentration that I can see.

[Silpharon]

The fact that it hasn't happened doesn't mean that it cannot happen. How many npc druids in modules have Goodberry reserves from converting the spell slots the previous night?

Clearly it limits the usage mid fight. That's pretty much the only point to requiring Concentration that I can see.
Yeah, I think this interpretation makes the spell much more meaningful. It might not be RAI, but it seems a plausible RAW interpretation. At the end of the day, DM interpretation will reign, but I'd advocate for this too.

[Snails]

The interpretation that the magic of the spell lasts beyond the spell duration is unlikely to persuade people because spells don't do that in D&D.

Agree strongly. Reading a pseudo-permanence into this spell is an impressive feat of careful text analysis and ruleslawyering, but no one will ever believe it is RAI. The spell text just does not need to be so complicated as to involve a quiver at all, if the designers intended this; just target 12 pieces of ammo and make the duration more clear.

[Snails]

Clearly it limits the usage mid fight. That's pretty much the only point to requiring Concentration that I can see.

Which boils down to a very strong RAI argument against the indefinite duration for the arrows. If the spell is intended to have limited usage mid fight, which must be the case because of the Concentration requirement, then it is a contradiction to have nigh unlimited benefit mid fight via pre-casting.

I acknowledge the cleverness of the textual analysis in seeing this possibility within a spell that should have been written more clearly. But in terms of RAI, there is really no argument at all.

As for Goodbery, it seems to be intended to be a good spell that bends the norms for spells that has the downside of being nearly worthless during a combat.

[Valmark]

Which boils down to a very strong RAI argument against the indefinite duration for the arrows. If the spell is intended to have limited usage mid fight, which must be the case because of the Concentration requirement, then it is a contradiction to have nigh unlimited benefit mid fight via pre-casting.

I acknowledge the cleverness of the textual analysis in seeing this possibility within a spell that should have been written more clearly. But in terms of RAI, there is really no argument at all.

As for Goodbery, it seems to be intended to be a good spell that bends the norms for spells that has the downside of being nearly worthless during a combat.

Your example of Goodberry could be applied exactly as is to Flame Arrows just by changing the name of the spell- if you recognize that as intended ruling out Flame Arrows's relative permanence as strongly as that seems exaggerated.

[HPisBS]

Your example of Goodberry could be applied exactly as is to Flame Arrows just by changing the name of the spell- if you recognize that as intended ruling out Flame Arrows's relative permanence as strongly as that seems exaggerated.

Uh... wut?

Sorry, that's worded poorly. Idk what you're trying to communicate lol

[Valmark]

Uh... wut?

Sorry, that's worded poorly. Idk what you're trying to communicate lol

Your example for Goodberry applies as-is to Flame Arrows too.

If Goodberry is intended like that then saying that there is no support at all for Flame Arrows' intended permanency is dubious.

[Rara1212]

Your example for Goodberry applies as-is to Flame Arrows too.

If Goodberry is intended like that then saying that there is no support at all for Flame Arrows' intended permanency is dubious.

Good berry explicitly says that they become non magical after 24h, and has a duration of instantaneous. It is clearly intended to last for 24 hours after you create them. Flame arrow does not say anything nearly a clear as that on what happens after the duration is done.

[LordShade]

Is there a use case for a necromancer using flame arrows to boost the damage of skeleton archer minions?

[MaxWilson]

ItÂ’s better than that. The spellÂ’s magic works on the ammunition indefinitely until used (the concentration is for the spell on the quiver, not the subsequent effect on the arrows), by its own wording, AND thereÂ’s no stacking limit.

"You can use a weapon that has the Ammunition property to make a ranged Attack only if you have Ammunition to fire from the weapon. Each time you Attack with the weapon, you expend one piece of Ammunition. Drawing the Ammunition from a Quiver, case, or other container is part of the Attack (you need a free hand to load a one-handed weapon)."

"When a target is hit by a ranged weapon attack using a piece of ammunition drawn from the quiver, the target takes an extra 1d6 fire damage."

It looks to me as if you don't get the bonus damage if you draw the ammunition from some other quiver besides an enchanted one. So no caching large numbers of arrows, only individual arrows, and if you don't draw them from a quiver as part of the attack you need to use your object interaction, so you won't get multiple attacks per round (would require multiple object interactions per round).

Therefore, doesn't scale well enough to bother, except for maybe a Necromancer who gives each archer a few enchanted arrows.

[Valmark]

Good berry explicitly says that they become non magical after 24h, and has a duration of instantaneous. It is clearly intended to last for 24 hours after you create them. Flame arrow does not say anything nearly a clear as that on what happens after the duration is done.
Which is part of why it can be interpreted as lasting indefinitely, yes.

"You can use a weapon that has the Ammunition property to make a ranged Attack only if you have Ammunition to fire from the weapon. Each time you Attack with the weapon, you expend one piece of Ammunition. Drawing the Ammunition from a Quiver, case, or other container is part of the Attack (you need a free hand to load a one-handed weapon)."

"When a target is hit by a ranged weapon attack using a piece of ammunition drawn from the quiver, the target takes an extra 1d6 fire damage."

It looks to me as if you don't get the bonus damage if you draw the ammunition from some other quiver besides an enchanted one. So no caching large numbers of arrows, only individual arrows, and if you don't draw them from a quiver as part of the attack you need to use your object interaction, so you won't get multiple attacks per round (would require multiple object interactions per round).

Therefore, doesn't scale well enough to bother, except for maybe a Necromancer who gives each archer a few enchanted arrows.

Yes and no. The ammunition requires to be initially drawn from the quiver but then it says that the spell's magic ends when it hits or misses (basically when you attack with it)- no indication is given on what happens if you put the arrow back in the quiver after it's not enchanted anymore.

[Xetheral]

Think of it as an hour-long Haste with no movement benefits and no action economy penalty when the spell ends.

Using Haste for an extra Attack is both meh and surprisingly popular in some quarters. Those people should be using Flame Arrow.

Bonus points if you precast it against something immune to normal weapons, e.g. a weretiger.

If that extra attack is a GWM/SS (against easy-to-hit-enemies), or Shadow Blade (particularly upcast), Haste can outshine Flame Arrow very quickly despite being used merely to grant an extra attack.

Haste also shines when the recipient uses their action to cast a spell (or some other unique action, like Whirlwind or Volley), and then uses the Attack Action granted by Haste to enable an Attack-Action-dependent Bonus Action attack. Enabling a leveled spell + two attacks every round makes Haste vastly better than Flame Arrow, even though it's still being used to grant an extra attack.

Finally, some special abilities that trigger on a hit but allow a save are number-of-attacks dependent. For example, a Monk with 5 attacks per round instead of 4 has a noticably higher chance of getting enough hits (and therefore stun attempts) to ensure a failure on the save (or burn through the target's legendary resistance uses). This makes alpha strikes against level-inappropriate foes more feasible. For monsters with a key weapon, a Battlemaster's Disarming Strike can be similar, albeit much more niche. In such cases, however, the additional attack granted by Haste can drastically increase the odds of pulling off a game-changing alpha strike, even though it is again only being used to grant an extra attack.

If you're seeing Haste being used to grant a featless Champion archer another longbow attack, however, then I agree with you that Flame Arrow would be the superior option in such cases, since the extra attack from Haste is just being used for a comparable damage increase, rather than for its any of its high-damage or transformative applications.

[The_Jette]

Quick side question: if the person casting FA had the Elemental Adept feat, and chose fire, would that allow all the arrows to ignore fire resistance? Or, would it only allow the arrows that they fire to ignore fire resistance, but not if someone else fired them?
Also, I don't really see Flame Arrows as a terrible 3rd level spell. Other spells do more damage, or last longer. But, every spell has its use. Fireball is only useful if the enemy are bunched up. Haste is useful for late game class ability abuse. Hunters Mark is good for an individual. But, FA seems to be pretty good for buffing an ally if you don't have anything taking up your concentration slot at the moment, and the enemies aren't all bunched up, or are interspersed among your allies/ some people you don't want killed. That's just my opinion, though.

[Yakk]

Flame Arrows
Level 3 Bonus action
Range: touch
Duration: 1 minute

You enchant a quiver so that arrows drawn from it light on fire when shot. They deal an additional 1d6 fire damage when they hit a target. Only the first creature to draw arrows from the quiver gains this advantage, and the spell ends after 12 arrows have been lit on fire by this spell.

At higher levels: If cast at 4th level or higher, the spell duration becomes 1 hour. If cast at 5th or higher level, for every 2 levels above 3rd the arrows deal an addional 1d6 damage.

I think this becomes a solid spell this way. By stzcking more damage instead of more arrows I make the higher level slots at least tempting to use.

The hour duration shows up at 4th level; at 3rd it is a single-combat buff. 5th doubles damage to 24d6. So both of those are tempting upcasts.

[Snails]

Your example of Goodberry could be applied exactly as is to Flame Arrows just by changing the name of the spell- if you recognize that as intended ruling out Flame Arrows's relative permanence as strongly as that seems exaggerated.

What I recognize is that:
(1) every Goodberry interpretation I know of falls within what I expect of an "Instantaneous" spell
(2) the non-hoardable Flame Arrow interpretation falls within what I expect of a "1 Hour (Concentration)" spell

Again, while I admire the cleverness of seeing a possible legalistic argument within the language the FA text to allow hoarding, IMO it is about as perfectly not compelling an RAI as I have ever seen on these boards.

That fact that there is sloppiness in the body text is not a good reason to believe that the Designers actually meant the spell to function like an Instantaneous spell. In the same style as a number of other spells, they appear to be adding conditions under which the spell effect is shorter (or shorter for one piece of ammo), not creating a path by which the Duration ceases to matter. The presumption should be that the Duration is correct, unless very explicit language tells us something else about the duration.

The language around the quiver seems to encourage the image of granting this boon to one archer who gains better arrows for 1 hour, albeit in an admittedly sloppily worded way -- I do not like how they worded this, even as I do not think the language is terrible. And, yes, there appear to be ways to share the bounty of arrows that do not contradict the text. But if they intended the indefinite duration arrows, the spell should have simply been Instantaneous and targeted 12 arrows. Or there should be clear language around the duration on the arrows, as Goodberry has for its berries.

[Valmark]

What I recognize is that:
(1) every Goodberry interpretation I know of falls within what I expect of an "Instantaneous" spell
(2) the non-hoardable Flame Arrow interpretation falls within what I expect of a "1 Hour (Concentration)" spell

Again, while I admire the cleverness of seeing a possible legalistic argument within the language the FA text to allow hoarding, IMO it is about as perfectly not compelling an RAI as I have ever seen on these boards.

That fact that there is sloppiness in the body text is not a good reason to believe that the Designers actually meant the spell to function like an Instantaneous spell. In the same style as a number of other spells, they appear to be adding conditions under which the spell effect is shorter (or shorter for one piece of ammo), not creating a path by which the Duration ceases to matter. The presumption should be that the Duration is correct, unless very explicit language tells us something else about the duration.

The language around the quiver seems to encourage the image of granting this boon to one archer who gains better arrows for 1 hour, albeit in an admittedly sloppily worded way -- I do not like how they worded this, even as I do not think the language is terrible. And, yes, there appear to be ways to share the bounty of arrows that do not contradict the text. But if they intended the indefinite duration arrows, the spell should have simply been Instantaneous and targeted 12 arrows. Or there should be clear language around the duration on the arrows, as Goodberry has for its berries.

Small detail: it's "Concentration (1 hour)", rather then the opposite (it doesn't matter in this case, just being precise).

Nobody is saying that the Duration doesn't matter or that it works like an Istantaneous spell though. There are some defined issues with this spell due to those factors regardless of interpretation- and we have clear duration on the arrows. Wether it's clear enough for a given person it depends on the taste, though.

[Witty Username]

I think 12 flame arrows for 3rd level slot that last 24 hours would be pretty reasonable.
Then again I might be happier with arrows of fire returning as an uncommon magic item.

[Asisreo1]

People are getting too bogged down by concentration to begin with.

The common argument is that it limits a better option that the caster could be concentrating on instead, but is that really how it works?

Let's take a 11th level Wizard who took Flame Arrows amongst popular spells like Haste, Wall of Force, Irresistible Dance, and Polymorph.

Sure, the Wizard could use their concentration on any one of these. In fact, there's many situations where it may be optimal to concentrate on these spells, but that doesn't mean you're losing anything by concentrating on something else when that something else differs in effect from the other effects.

So, if a Wizard uses Flame Arrows, they very well may want to concentrate on something that can enhance the damage of a martial-type for several reasons that the other spells can't imitate.

Flame Arrows at 11th-level means a bow fighter gets to do about 3d6 extra fire damage every turn. This is a good boost in damage to a class that isn't struggling with damage at all, really. Flame Arrow on a 11th-level hunter ranger can extend their damage capacity with Horde Breaker and Volley if a formation of 2 or more enemies appear.

There's probably even more application which can be better than it being on a wizard that decided to take every concentration spell known to man, too.

[Witty Username]

I think this is more about the ranger than the wizard, where hunter's mark makes this a weird spell, since +2 levels for fairly small gains, but fair point that wizard doesn't lose by using this so much as having options. I would say when to use flame arrows on a wizard is still limited, since you are probably better off with debuffs like hypnotic pattern or slow. I would think if you have two or more archers then flame arrows can be a lot of damage in a short enough time for efficient combat. It does have a frustration with fireball, if you can hit 2 enemies fireball is better, one enemy fireball is less damage but is immediate. In short flame arrows requires a fairly specific party composition and semi-specific situation.

[Asisreo1]

I think this is more about the ranger than the wizard, where hunter's mark makes this a weird spell, since +2 levels for fairly small gains, but fair point that wizard doesn't lose by using this so much as having options. I would say when to use flame arrows on a wizard is still limited, since you are probably better off with debuffs like hypnotic pattern or slow. I would think if you have two or more archers then flame arrows can be a lot of damage in a short enough time for efficient combat. It does have a frustration with fireball, if you can hit 2 enemies fireball is better, one enemy fireball is less damage but is immediate. In short flame arrows requires a fairly specific party composition and semi-specific situation.
I definitely agree, though I think a spell that does well on certain party compositions is actually a fairly decent trade-off. Not every spell can be said to naturally be a generalist spell and having an option that boosts the synergy is something I consider as a good option. Of course, your party doesn't build around Flame Arrow, but if you have a party of a Ranger, Rogue, Bard, and Fighter where each relies on ammunition to deal their best at-will attacks, you'll find that its a really decent spell.

Naturally, if you're the only one in the party with any reliable ranged weapon(Ranger, Barbarian, Paladin, Cleric), you'll find Hunter's Mark more reliable.

[Segev]

I definitely agree, though I think a spell that does well on certain party compositions is actually a fairly decent trade-off. Not every spell can be said to naturally be a generalist spell and having an option that boosts the synergy is something I consider as a good option. Of course, your party doesn't build around Flame Arrow, but if you have a party of a Ranger, Rogue, Bard, and Fighter where each relies on ammunition to deal their best at-will attacks, you'll find that its a really decent spell.

Naturally, if you're the only one in the party with any reliable ranged weapon(Ranger, Barbarian, Paladin, Cleric), you'll find Hunter's Mark more reliable.

This is, at the least, revealing a flaw in the design: the spell is clearly intended as a buff to a single character. The fact that its best use requires multiple characters drawing from the quiver demonstrates that it's poorly designed for what was in mind.

[ProsecutorGodot]

This is, at the least, revealing a flaw in the design: the spell is clearly intended as a buff to a single character. The fact that its best use requires multiple characters drawing from the quiver demonstrates that it's poorly designed for what was in mind.

Who's to say it is clearly intended for that. A rather interesting use case would be enchanting a stationary quiver in an outpost, each archer stationed there can draw an arrow from that quiver

To be clear, this isn't an argument that the spell is any good, just that it's intended use case isn't defined as "only one person is supposed to draw from this quiver".

[Witty Username]

I don't like arguing from intention as a general rule, arguments like "the ranger doesn't get much use from this" or "a specific party and encounter is needed to make this effective" are more testable.
I personally think that Flame arrows could use a broadened scope or more power within that scope. Or possibly the better solution is to make a ranger specific spell that they can take in place of flame arrows that is a better fit for their spell list. Hm

Fire Bow
3rd level-conjuration/evocation
Casting time: 1 bonus action
Range: self
Components V,S,M(a wooden arrow which the spell consumes)
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute
The wooden arrow bursts into flames which take the shape of a shortbow or longbow. These flames do not harm you and can be used to make weapon attacks as a standard bow. This bow produces its own arrows made of flame which appear as you make an attack and disappear on a hit or a miss. whenever you hit a target with an arrow from this bow they take 2d6 fire damage, in addition to the damage they would normally take (for example a fire bow in the shape of a longbow the target would take 1d8 piercing damage plus your dexterity bonus and 2d6 fire damage). Unattended flammable objects struck by an arrow from this bow are set on fire. If the bow leaves your hands it disappears but the spell doesn't end, you may re-summon the bow as a bonus action, and the new bow may persist for the remainder of the spells duration.

[Thunderous Mojo]

This is, at the least, revealing a flaw in the design: the spell is clearly intended as a buff to a single character. The fact that its best use requires multiple characters drawing from the quiver demonstrates that it's poorly designed for what was in mind.

I'm not at all sure that the above is the design intent of the spell.

What I do think is design intent, is the quiver that is enchanted is meant to produce up to 12 usable pieces of ensorcelled ammunition. Thus the timer on the quiver is separate from the ensorcelled ammunition...the ammunition remains ensorcelled even after the spell ends.

That seems the simplest means to read the spell text, with the assumed intention that all ensorcelled ammunition can be used.

[Snails]

...the ammunition remains ensorcelled even after the spell ends.

That seems the simplest means to read the spell text, with the assumed intention that all ensorcelled ammunition can be used.

A spell that creates a magical change that lasts past its duration, especially one that is less than explicit on that point (compare with Goodberry, which has very explicit language), cannot be reasonably argued as a simple means to read the spell, as it appears to contradict the meaning of the PHB text on durations.

And if you are really really serious about this non-magical arrow having a property granted via employment of this spell that persists past the time the magic is over, then I would happily rape your campaign by stacking this up, to have +100d6 fire damage on the arrows of the party archer.

[mistajames]

Yes, Flame Arrows is not really worth casting under any circumstances. Best possible circumstances, you cast it as an Action in advance (using your concentration), give them to a L20 Fighter, and attack 9 times for a total of +9d6 fire damage with a L3 slot. As opposed to, let's say, just casting Fireball.

Or, y'know, your cleric can cast Holy Weapon on the same fighter, adding +18d8 radiant damage. And the spell doesn't end after 12 shots are fired.

[Segev]

Who's to say it is clearly intended for that. A rather interesting use case would be enchanting a stationary quiver in an outpost, each archer stationed there can draw an arrow from that quiver

To be clear, this isn't an argument that the spell is any good, just that it's intended use case isn't defined as "only one person is supposed to draw from this quiver".


I'm not at all sure that the above is the design intent of the spell.

What I do think is design intent, is the quiver that is enchanted is meant to produce up to 12 usable pieces of ensorcelled ammunition. Thus the timer on the quiver is separate from the ensorcelled ammunition...the ammunition remains ensorcelled even after the spell ends.

That seems the simplest means to read the spell text, with the assumed intention that all ensorcelled ammunition can be used.

Sure, you can make that argument. I'm not going to argue intent of the writers too strenuously; none of us can read their minds. I could argue just as strongly that they "clearly intended" it to only affect 11 arrows, since it ends when the 12th is drawn. Someone else could argue they clearly intended it to operate per the clever rules lawyering that makes stockpiles of permanently-flaming arrows without need for Concentration.

I base my own guess on intent on the fact that common use for a single quiver is as a personal stock of arrows or bolts, and that D&D was generally not written by writers intending there to be unorthodox uses of spells. Not that they intended there never to be such, but they wrote the spells with pretty clear imagery in their own minds, whether they successfully conveyed it to us or not. Typically, if a spell has a deliberately-unusual application, some mention of it will be made in the description.

That said, I have no way of knowing what they actually were thinking.

[Darth Credence]

Flame arrows absolutely by RAW last an indefinite amount of time. From the spell text on dndbeyond:

The spell’s magic ends on the piece of ammunition when it hits or misses, and the spell ends when twelve pieces of ammunition have been drawn from the quiver.
(Emphasis mine).
The spell's magic ends on the arrow when it hits or misses. The spell may end when the ammunition has been drawn from the quiver, or when the duration ends, but the magic on the arrow lasts until it hits or misses. Looking at Goodberry for comparison, the duration is instantaneous, but the berries continue to exist after that instant, so we know that the spell's magic doesn't have to end just because the duration is over. Sticking with Goodberry, it specifies that the potency ends after 24 hours, so we can see that the spell text tells us the time when the spell's magic ends if it extends beyond the duration. There are certainly other spells you can look at that do the same thing - take Ceremony, for example. Duration is instantaneous, and if you use bless water, it becomes holy water and remains holy water forever.
Flame Arrow says that the spell ends when twelve pieces have been drawn, or when the duration ends. But that is not when the spell's magic on the arrows ends. That only end's once the arrow has either hit or miss. So, create your arrows, pull them from the quiver, and you now have 12 fire arrows that will be fire arrows until you shoot them. I don't see how you can get any other interpretation. Maybe by focusing quite a bit on the "drawn from" language, and saying that it only works if someone draws it and immediately uses it to attack. I think that would cause other problems, such as not being able to draw the arrow and hold the attack action for someone to come out from behind cover or the like.
This also eliminates the question of whether the 12th arrow can be used. It clearly is supposed to by RAI, right? I think we can agree on that, but maybe not. For it to work that way, though, it has to mean that the magic on the arrows is different than the spell - the spell ends after that arrow is removed, but the arrow is already enchanted and stays that way until it hits or misses.

[MaxWilson]

Yes, Flame Arrows is not really worth casting under any circumstances. Best possible circumstances, you cast it as an Action in advance (using your concentration), give them to a L20 Fighter, and attack 9 times for a total of +9d6 fire damage with a L3 slot. As opposed to, let's say, just casting Fireball.

Or, y'know, your cleric can cast Holy Weapon on the same fighter, adding +18d8 radiant damage. And the spell doesn't end after 12 shots are fired.

These things aren't exclusive. You can give the Fighter 9d6 (and maybe another 3d6 to someone else), while the cleric grants 18d8, and STILL cast Fireball on round 1 of the fight.

[Thunderous Mojo]

A spell that creates a magical change that lasts past its duration, especially one that is less than explicit on that point (compare with Goodberry, which has very explicit language), cannot be reasonably argued as a simple means to read the spell, as it appears to contradict the meaning of the PHB text on durations.

This isn't the first time, this topic has come up on this board. Valmark has made some rather persuasive arguments regarding spell durations. I will cede any rejoinders to Valmark....(I'm really not that interested in arguing the point, no offense intended).


And if you are really really serious about this non-magical arrow having a property granted via employment of this spell that persists past the time the magic is over, then I would happily r@## your campaign by stacking this up, to have +100d6 fire damage on the arrows of the party archer.
(Quote edited by me).

Ahhh, you could purchase or make fire arrows in most of my campaigns that largely do the same thing. More DPR output by the PCs, isn't something that frightens me as a DM. If you want to expend the resources to amass a hoard of fire arrows, I will gladly support you in your war of terror.

[mistajames]

Flame arrows absolutely by RAW last an indefinite amount of time. From the spell text on dndbeyond:

(Emphasis mine).
The spell's magic ends on the arrow when it hits or misses. The spell may end when the ammunition has been drawn from the quiver, or when the duration ends, but the magic on the arrow lasts until it hits or misses. Looking at Goodberry for comparison, the duration is instantaneous, but the berries continue to exist after that instant, so we know that the spell's magic doesn't have to end just because the duration is over. /snip

This is not correct RAW - there is a difference between "The spell’s magic ends on the piece of ammunition when..." and "The spell’s magic only ends on the piece of ammunition when...". In logical terms, one phrasing is a condition subsequent, the other is a condition precedent.

Flame Arrows does not have an instantaneous duration - it's a concentration (1 hour) spell. Break concentration and the spell ends. When the ammo hits or misses a target, the spell no longer applies to that piece of ammo. No contradiction there.


These things aren't exclusive. You can give the Fighter 9d6 (and maybe another 3d6 to someone else), while the cleric grants 18d8, and STILL cast Fireball on round 1 of the fight.

Indeed. My point wasn't that these abilities can't be stacked, but rather to point out how atrociously weak Flame Arrows is compared to similar concentration spells, even when you optimize it. In reality, comparisons to Hunter's Mark are probably a lot more apt.

[Darth Credence]

This is not correct RAW - there is a difference between "The spell’s magic ends on the piece of ammunition when..." and "The spell’s magic only ends on the piece of ammunition when...". In logical terms, one phrasing is a condition subsequent, the other is a condition precedent.

Flame Arrows does not have an instantaneous duration - it's a concentration (1 hour) spell. Break concentration and the spell ends. When the ammo hits or misses a target, the spell no longer applies to that piece of ammo. No contradiction there.

The spell, as written, says that the magic ends when the arrow hits or misses. That's rules as written.
The spell ends. But the magic from a spell can absolutely persist beyond the end of the spell. That has been addressed in sage advice. If you can point out somewhere that it says that a spell with a duration longer than instantaneous means that the magic of the spell cannot stick around after the duration, then OK. But Banishment has a duration longer than that, and something banished to its home plane stays banished after that duration. Dispel Good and Evil has a duration other than instantaneous, and it sends creatures back to their home plane and they don't come back when the spell ends. Earthquake lasts a minute, but the fissures that open up last forever. Flesh to Stone, if you maintain concentration for the entire time, the petrified person remains stone until dispelled.
In addition, Lightning Arrow is a similar spell, and 3rd level. It specifically calls out that it only works during the spell's duration. Flame Arrow does not - it simply says when a creature is hit by an arrow drawn from the quiver. Why would Lightning Arrow specifically say that it is confined to the duration of the spell, while Flame Arrow does not, unless there is a difference between the two?

[mistajames]

The spell, as written, says that the magic ends when the arrow hits or misses. That's rules as written.
The spell ends. But the magic from a spell can absolutely persist beyond the end of the spell. That has been addressed in sage advice. If you can point out somewhere that it says that a spell with a duration longer than instantaneous means that the magic of the spell cannot stick around after the duration, then OK. But Banishment has a duration longer than that, and something banished to its home plane stays banished after that duration. Dispel Good and Evil has a duration other than instantaneous, and it sends creatures back to their home plane and they don't come back when the spell ends. Earthquake lasts a minute, but the fissures that open up last forever. Flesh to Stone, if you maintain concentration for the entire time, the petrified person remains stone until dispelled.
In addition, Lightning Arrow is a similar spell, and 3rd level. It specifically calls out that it only works during the spell's duration. Flame Arrow does not - it simply says when a creature is hit by an arrow drawn from the quiver. Why would Lightning Arrow specifically say that it is confined to the duration of the spell, while Flame Arrow does not, unless there is a difference between the two?

Again, you are mixing up condition precedent and condition subsequent. Sage Advice addresses the issue as it relates to spells with an instantaneous duration. It doesn't address the issue of a spell with a set duration. Effects can last longer than the spell's duration if it specifically says so, but this is not the default.

Also:


Dispel Good and Evil doesn't persist after its effects end. It gives you an ability for 1 minute, which allows you to send creatures to their home plane if you hit and if they fail a save. Them remaining in the said home plane is not a continuous effect, any more than Misty Step is.
Ditto with Banishment.
Earthquake opens fissures - the fissures are the result of the spell, but they are not in-and-of-themselves magical

This is really obvious IMO.

The spell says that it ends when an arrow hits or misses. The spell doesn't say that it can't end for other reasons (i.e. - concentration is dropped, or it is dispelled).

[Thunderous Mojo]

Again, you are mixing up condition precedent and condition subsequent.
5e rules are not written with Wittgenstein-like precession. 5e rules are a tangled web of technical terms and 'natural language', combined in such a way that neither approach is adequately served, and clarity is the first casualty.


This is really obvious IMO.

The spell says that it ends when an arrow hits or misses. The spell doesn't say that it can't end for other reasons (i.e. - concentration is dropped, or it is dispelled).
It has been decades since I have done any symbolic notation, but I would certainly be interested in seeing what you come up with.

In my, very non-expert opinion the Flame Arrows spell has Hegelian like ambiguity which means the 'P's' and 'Q's' of classical analytics is not going to handle it.
To accurately reflect the ambiguity in the text, one will need to use current logical analytical methods and notations...which can handle ambiguous and fluid categories.

[ProsecutorGodot]

5e rules are not written with Wittgenstein-like precession. 5e rules are a tangled web of technical terms and 'natural language', combined in such a way that neither approach is adequately served, and clarity is the first casualty.

Except in this case, all endings are true. The ammo is rendered non-magical again in all 3 cases, the final one being once the spells duration has ended.

There shouldn't be confusion here, there's no contradicting or overlapping timings.

If you want to be exceptionally picky, the ammunition only does its extra damage when drawn from the quiver, which is done as part of the attack.

Arrows are used with a weapon that has the ammunition property to make a ranged attack. Each time you attack with the weapon, you expend one piece of ammunition. Drawing the ammunition from a quiver, case, or other container is part of the attack (you need a free hand to load a one-handed weapon). At the end of the battle, you can recover half your expended ammunition by taking a minute to search the battlefield.

Taking ammunition out of the quiver to hold in another container or simply in your hand doesn't grant it any magical properties, as the bonus damage is entirely predicated on it being drawn directly from the quiver this spell is cast on.

This follows RAW concisely on how you're allowed to interact with arrows drawn from a quiver. The spell is even less appealing as a consequence, however it is very clear that the ammunition doesn't hold its magic indefinitely as you are unable to take arrows out of the quiver in a way that they become magical without subsequently triggering the "ends on a hit or miss" clause.

[Thunderous Mojo]

If you want to be exceptionally picky, the ammunition only does its extra damage when drawn from the quiver, which is done as part of the attack.

Taking ammunition out of the quiver to hold in another container or simply in your hand doesn't grant it any magical properties, as the bonus damage is entirely predicated on it being drawn directly from the quiver this spell is cast on.


This will be my last post on this thread, as I'm not very keen to spend time discussing Flame Arrows, when I could be reading the Witcher book that just opened up on my library queue....😃

That said...I would contend the above is a grand example of how 5e fails to serve neither technical nor natural language. Clearly, in real life, one could quite easily remove 11 arrows out of an enchanted quiver and stick those arrows into the ground to shoot later. No attack roll is needed to do this, thus no hit nor miss occurs, at this time.

I freely concede a finicky RAW interpretation could invalidate this tactic, but surely, most would also concede this strictest of RAW adjudication undercuts the simulationist/verisimilitude/immersion goals also present in a Roleplaying game like Dungeons and Dragons.

My inner Alvin Iverson is screaming out right now:
"We are talking about Flame Arrows"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tknXRyUEJtU

In 6 years, I've only witnessed the spell being cast from scrolls, or a magic item that I as the DM have placed for the players to find. Frankly, sometimes even then the players just elected to sell the scrolls...

.......We are talking about Flame Arrows, after all.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Clearly, in real life, one could quite easily remove 11 arrows out of an enchanted quiver and stick those arrows into the ground to shoot later. No attack roll is needed to do this, thus no hit nor miss occurs, at this time.

I freely concede a finicky RAW interpretation could invalidate this tactic, but surely, most would also concede this strictest of RAW adjudication undercuts the simulationist/verisimilitude/immersion goals also present in a Roleplaying game like Dungeons and Dragons.

I would rather this be the "simulationist" and nearly inconsequential line drawn than the one that enables infinite magical ammunition to be stockpiled during downtime. The latter seems significantly more harmful to immersion.

There is no consequence to using bog standard ammunition that you picked up haphazardly off the floor as part of your movement, it functions identically to one drawn from a quiver. For Flame Arrows though, the distinction is important, it's a function of the spell.

[dreast]

"You can use a weapon that has the Ammunition property to make a ranged Attack only if you have Ammunition to fire from the weapon. Each time you Attack with the weapon, you expend one piece of Ammunition. Drawing the Ammunition from a Quiver, case, or other container is part of the Attack (you need a free hand to load a one-handed weapon)."

"When a target is hit by a ranged weapon attack using a piece of ammunition drawn from the quiver, the target takes an extra 1d6 fire damage."

It looks to me as if you don't get the bonus damage if you draw the ammunition from some other quiver besides an enchanted one. So no caching large numbers of arrows, only individual arrows, and if you don't draw them from a quiver as part of the attack you need to use your object interaction, so you won't get multiple attacks per round (would require multiple object interactions per round).

Therefore, doesn't scale well enough to bother, except for maybe a Necromancer who gives each archer a few enchanted arrows.

In order for RAW (again, I make no RAI argument) to match that interpretation, the words

-as part of the attack-

Would have to follow

-drawn from the quiver-

This would be the most obvious errata to make RAI match RAW.

I am sorry for the dash quotes, trying to avoid the “ problem.

[Hytheter]

This whole "the arrows keep the fire regardless of the spell's duration" strikes me as blatantly disingenuous, and I would invite those arguing for it to explain what they think the point is of the spell being concentration otherwise. It's pretty obvious that if they had meant for the spell to instantly create 12 flaming arrows of indefinite duration, they wouldn't have made it last for an hour or require concentration.

The line in question is an alternate situation for the spell to end. The spell still ends if its duration expires, as per the normal rules of spellcasting. If the arrows were intended to last beyond that, the spell would say so.

[MaxWilson]

There is no consequence to using bog standard ammunition that you picked up haphazardly off the floor as part of your movement, it functions identically to one drawn from a quiver. For Flame Arrows though, the distinction is important, it's a function of the spell.

"You can use a weapon that has the Ammunition property to make a ranged Attack only if you have Ammunition to fire from the weapon. Each time you Attack with the weapon, you expend one piece of Ammunition. Drawing the Ammunition from a Quiver, case, or other container is part of the Attack (you need a free hand to load a one-handed weapon)."

It's not identical by RAW: if it's not coming from a quiver or other container you don't get to draw the ammunition as part of your attack. You'll have to spend object interactions on each arrow you pick up off the floor, which is considerably slower if you've got Extra Attack.

[Rara1212]

Just wanna post an RPG stack exchange lin which discusses this already: https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/125956/does-the-flame-arrows-magic-end-on-the-piece-of-ammunition-when-the-spell-ends

Main parts are:

Since the spell has a duration that is not Instantaneous, it will cease to persist when the spell ends, causing the effects to end.
>A spell's duration is the length of time the spell persists
Spells like True Polymorph say they stay until Dispelled in the text specifically, if they are intended to last longer than the duration.

The 12th piece of ammo is drawn as part of the attack, so it'd still do extra damage, even as the spell ends

[Valmark]

This whole "the arrows keep the fire regardless of the spell's duration" strikes me as blatantly disingenuous, and I would invite those arguing for it to explain what they think the point is of the spell being concentration otherwise. It's pretty obvious that if they had meant for the spell to instantly create 12 flaming arrows of indefinite duration, they wouldn't have made it last for an hour or require concentration.

The line in question is an alternate situation for the spell to end. The spell still ends if its duration expires, as per the normal rules of spellcasting. If the arrows were intended to last beyond that, the spell would say so.
Concentration can easily be to limit it's use mid-fight, like it has been said.

The fact that the spell doesn't say anything in favor or against it doesn't mean that the effect lasts until the spell ends forcibly.

Like someone else pointed out, there is a similar spell of the same level which is much more precise in its wording.

(Also I recall another thread where someone explained that "disingenuous" is actually pretty insulting on this site. I don't see why's that but you could want to use another word, in case some others do see that way.)

Just wanna post an RPG stack exchange lin which discusses this already: https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/125956/does-the-flame-arrows-magic-end-on-the-piece-of-ammunition-when-the-spell-ends

Main parts are:

Since the spell has a duration that is not Instantaneous, it will cease to persist when the spell ends, causing the effects to end.
>A spell's duration is the length of time the spell persists
Spells like True Polymorph say they stay until Dispelled in the text specifically, if they are intended to last longer than the duration.

The 12th piece of ammo is drawn as part of the attack, so it'd still do extra damage, even as the spell ends

That would be true if we didn't already have spells with Concentration Duration whose effects can last beyond the spell's end, like Conjure Elemental.

[Rara1212]

That would be true if we didn't already have spells with Concentration Duration whose effects can last beyond the spell's end, like Conjure Elemental.

"The elemental disappears when it drops to 0 hit points or when the spell ends."
"If your concentration is broken, the elemental doesn’t disappear. Instead, you lose control of the elemental, it becomes hostile toward you and your companions, and it might attack. An uncontrolled elemental can’t be dismissed by you, and it disappears 1 hour after you summoned it"


Edit: Just wanna specify, I wish the spell let you permanently buff 12 arrows, but it's now how it works right now.

[Valmark]

"The elemental disappears when it drops to 0 hit points or when the spell ends."
"If your concentration is broken, the elemental doesn’t disappear. Instead, you lose control of the elemental, it becomes hostile toward you and your companions, and it might attack. An uncontrolled elemental can’t be dismissed by you, and it disappears 1 hour after you summoned it"

Yes and when Concentration is lost a spell ends. Thus, when the elemental isn't disappearing but chasing the party that pissed it off the spell has ended but the effect is still around.

[HPisBS]

Yes and when Concentration is lost a spell ends. Thus, when the elemental isn't disappearing but chasing the party that pissed it off the spell has ended but the effect is still around.

Yes.

The difference, though, is that the effect sticking around is spelled out in the description. Contrast that with Flame Arrows, which makes zero mention of any effect outlasting the caster's concentration, let alone the spell's maximum duration.

[Valmark]

Yes.

The difference, though, is that the effect sticking around is spelled out in the description. Contrast that with Flame Arrows, which makes zero mention of any effect outlasting the caster's concentration, let alone the spell's maximum duration.

Which is why it's up to debate, instead of being clear. They make an explicit separation between a spell's effect and spell, but leave it up in the air regarding what else happens.

[ProsecutorGodot]

It's not identical by RAW: if it's not coming from a quiver or other container you don't get to draw the ammunition as part of your attack. You'll have to spend object interactions on each arrow you pick up off the floor, which is considerably slower if you've got Extra Attack.

I should have specified, but I meant in regards to damage. If you dump the quiver you cast the spell on out, or put them into a separate container, they function identically to normal arrows for damage.

The spell only affects arrows that are drawn directly from the quiver the spell was cast on, which is done as part of the attack.

[Snails]

That would be true if we didn't already have spells with Concentration Duration whose effects can last beyond the spell's end, like Conjure Elemental.

Spells like Conjure Elemental and Goodberry are very explicit about the fact that magic happens beyond the duration of the spell itself, and what exactly the effects would be.

Flame Arrow is very vague about what you are suggesting. In fact, it looks like an additional condition for the spell ending (i.e. a specific that overrides in general in the sense of narrowing under certain conditions), rather than a specific that is supposed to nullify the general.