Create Bonfire - does it produce light? Heat?

[Miele]

I did a search, I found a long long thread on another board where a few people argued back and forth, one stating that the spell description didn't include the bright light / dim light illumination range.
His argument wasn't even that bad, since he showed a lot of other spells clearly state the bright/dim light range.

I remember in one post on these very boards, someone wrote something along the lines of: - you can keep the bonefire up ahead of the party and move it in front of you while walking/exploring... - not the exact words of course, I'm sure it was meant as - you keep recasting it ahead of the party -. It's a Conjuration spell, so it summons a bonefire, but the fire is magical, stated in the description.

So... Does it shed light or not? Can characters feel the heat radiating in adjacent squares? Officially I mean.
Also, can I cook on it? :D

This question has nothing to do with logic or DM ruling, it's more my curiosity about how strict the interpretation of rules is, say for example in AL games.

Thank you.

[JLandan]

As a DM, I would rule that it absolutely sheds light and heat. It does do fire damage after all. However, it does not move. You could cook, but it is a damaging effect and only lasts a minute. Repeated casting could be done, since it is a cantrip, but each casting would end the previous casting because it's concentration.

There are some players who only use absolute specifications when they play. I had a long discussion over whether an invisible fire elemental could be detected by heat, noise and a fiery trail. Some think it would not. Some think an attack by a water elemental would not cause you to become wet, because it doesn't say so in the stat block. And don't even get it started about the meaning of the word "attack".

These decisions are up to each DM as they see fit. But a DM that said a 5 foot cube of fire doesn't shed light and heat, I would not play with.

[Lunali]

I would rule that it creates light and heat. While technically you could cook over it, the fire disappears for a few seconds every minute and is a massive blaze so you'd need some serious preparations and enough food to make it worthwhile. This is the sort of fire that you'd roast a whole cow over.

While you could use it as a light source, it wouldn't be very effective as you'd need darkvision to target the ground in the first place as the previous bonfire disappears as soon as you start casting and you need to be able to see the ground that you want to target.

[JLandan]

Did some checking. PH, under Adventuring/The Environment/Vision and Light:

Bright light lets most creatures see normally. Even gloomy days provide bright light, as do torches, lanterns, fires, and other sources of illumination within a specific radius.

So, fires provide light, RAW.

[Sigreid]

um, it's literally a bonfire. Nothing in the description indicates it's an illusion of a bonfire.

[Foolwise]

Magical fire sheds light like regular fire unless the spell decription says otherwise. Not listing the radius of bright/dim light in the description is not a confirmation that the magical fire doesn't emit light.

[Segev]

Yeah, it emits whatever light a bonfire emits.

[Schwann145]

Understanding that the rules are not perfectly written, and it's literally the DM's job to decide on anything that is unclear, is a fundamental part of the game.

When people don't respect this, it aggravates me like crazy, lol.
The RAW is nowhere near well-written enough to actually support a playstyle like AL that adheres strictly to it (one of the various problems I have with AL), yet we end up with crazy discussions like "is a bonfire hot?" because there is actually a reason to discuss it... wow, lol.

And that's in no way a dig at you, OP. That's a dig at the entirety of modern D&D gaming culture. :smallsigh:

[Segev]

Understanding that the rules are not perfectly written, and it's literally the DM's job to decide on anything that is unclear, is a fundamental part of the game.

When people don't respect this, it aggravates me like crazy, lol.
The RAW is nowhere near well-written enough to actually support a playstyle like AL that adheres strictly to it (one of the various problems I have with AL), yet we end up with crazy discussions like "is a bonfire hot?" because there is actually a reason to discuss it... wow, lol.

And that's in no way a dig at you, OP. That's a dig at the entirety of modern D&D gaming culture. :smallsigh:

I think this an unfair criticism of 5e. The spell creates a huge bonfire. Fire generates light and heat. We have plenty of guidelines to determine at least a range within which its light radii make sense. It certainly generates at least as much light as a torch, and probably no more than a daylight spell.

[Amnestic]

Yeah, it emits whatever light a bonfire emits.

"And how much light is that?"

I ask, tongue in cheek, because I already know they didn't specify in the rules how much a campfire/bonfire gives out.

Also though I personally do rule that it produces light, there's definitely an argument to be made that it doesn't.

Contrast it to, for example, Produce Flame, another fire-based cantrip. This spell states explicitly it creates light. As does Flame Blade, and Flaming Sphere, and Fire Shield.

Create Bonfire does not say as such. The old mantra of Spells only do what they say they do combined with a number of other fire-spells stating they create light with specific details, while Create Bonfire does not leads me to conclude that, RAW, it does not - at least not light to any mechanically beneficial degree. It creates heat, and if it ignited an object that object would presumably give off light, but it does not provide light.

[RSP]

There have been threads about this in the past: some posters very much adhere to “if it doesn’t state a bright/dim light range, it doesn’t emit light!!”

I disagree with that, however, I do see a difference between “it emits light” and “it emits light enough to illuminate a given area.”

One way to view this spell effect, is that magic contains the effects to that 5’ square. Viewing it this way, there would be no heat or light outside of the AoE, because all the magical effect is contained within that area. This is the case even though heat and light are produced within the 5’ area of the spell.

Compare Create Bonfire (a cantrip) to Flaming Sphere (a 2nd level spell), which states:

“A 5 foot diameter sphere of fire appears in an unoccupied space of your choice within range and lasts for the duration. Any creature that ends its turn within 5 feet of the sphere must make a Dexterity saving throw. The creature takes 2d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.”

Flaming Sphere likewise states: “sheds bright light in a 20 foot radius and dim light for an additional 20 feet.”

So both spells create damaging fire within a 5” area, however, one (the 2nd level FS) has effects beyond that area, and the other (the cantrip) does not.

[Segev]

"And how much light is that?"

I ask, tongue in cheek, because I already know they didn't specify in the rules how much a campfire/bonfire gives out.

Also though I personally do rule that it produces light, there's definitely an argument to be made that it doesn't.

Contrast it to, for example, Produce Flame, another fire-based cantrip. This spell states explicitly it creates light. As does Flame Blade, and Flaming Sphere, and Fire Shield.

Create Bonfire does not say as such. The old mantra of Spells only do what they say they do combined with a number of other fire-spells stating they create light with specific details, while Create Bonfire does not leads me to conclude that, RAW, it does not - at least not light to any mechanically beneficial degree. It creates heat, and if it ignited an object that object would presumably give off light, but it does not provide light.


Compare Create Bonfire (a cantrip) to Flaming Sphere (a 2nd level spell), which states:

“A 5 foot diameter sphere of fire appears in an unoccupied space of your choice within range and lasts for the duration. Any creature that ends its turn within 5 feet of the sphere must make a Dexterity saving throw. The creature takes 2d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.”

Flaming Sphere likewise states: “sheds bright light in a 20 foot radius and dim light for an additional 20 feet.”

So both spells create damaging fire within a 5” area, however, one (the 2nd level FS) has effects beyond that area, and the other (the cantrip) does not.

RSP's analysis is solid, and I'd probably go with that. This happens to match the illumination radii of a torch, too.

(Earlier, I'd posited that we have guidelines in that it can't be less bright than a torch, and almost certainly isn't as bright as daylight, giving us a 20-60 foot bright light radius, and a matching extension of double that dim light.)

Given that all the flame-based spells that give illumination distances seem to mirror torchlight, that seems fitting for the bonfire.


Even with, "Spells do what they say they do," the spell says it creates a bonfire. Fire is fire, unless stated otherwise. Nothing says this fire does not shed light, and fire by default sheds light.

[KorvinStarmast]

So both spells create damaging fire within a 5” area, however, one (the 2nd level FS) has effects beyond that area, and the other (the cantrip) does not.
But the cantrip does more damage than a torch, which does 1 HP of fire damage on a hit, and a torch sheds lite out to 40' (20 bright and 20 dim) ... which suggests that the bonfire has more fire, and thus will shed at least as much light as a torch. You don't need computer coded key words to arrive at a sensible result.
(TBH, I don't know why they didn't specify that as they did with flaming sphere, in terms of consistency, but for some reason I think bonfire was originally not in the PHB but in the Elemental Evil supplement, so maybe it didn't get quite the editorial scrub that flaming sphere did?)
Indeed, it was an EE spell, but if you don't apply a sensible interpretation to it you can make it bigger but not brighter with control flames.


Conjuration cantrip
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 60 feet
Components: V, S
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute
You create a bonfire on ground that you can see within range. Until the spell ends, the magic bonfire fills a 5-foot cube. Any creature in the bonfire’s space when you cast the spell must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or take 1d8 fire damage. A creature must also make the saving throw when it moves into the bonfire’s space for the first time on a turn or ends its turn there. The bonfire ignites flammable objects in its area that aren’t being worn or carried. The spell’s damage increases by 1d8 when you reach 5th level (2d8), 11th level (3d8), and 17th level (4d8).


Transmutation cantrip
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 60 feet
Components: S
Duration: Instantaneous or 1 hour (see below)
You choose a 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:
• You instantaneously expand the flame 5 feet in one direction, provided that wood or other fuel is present in the new location.
• You instantaneously extinguish the flames within the cube.
• You double or halve the area of bright light and dim light cast by the flame, change its color, or both. The
change lasts for 1 hour.
• You cause simple shapes—such as the vague form of a creature, an inanimate object, or a location—to appear
within the flames and animate as you like. The shapes last for 1 hour.
If you cast this spell multiple times, you can have up to three non-instantaneous effects created by it active at a
time, and you can dismiss such an effect as an action.
Pretty sure they were cut and pasted into XGtE without change.

[RSP]

But the cantrip does more damage than a torch, which does 1 HP of fire damage on a hit, and a torch sheds lite out to 40' (20 bright and 20 dim) ... which suggests that the bonfire has more fire, and thus will shed at least as much light as a torch. You don't need computer coded key words to arrive at a sensible result.
(TBH, I don't know why they didn't specify that as they did with flaming sphere, in terms of consistency, but for some reason I think bonfire was originally not in the PHB but in the Elemental Evil supplement, so maybe it didn't get quite the editorial scrub that flaming sphere did?)

Again, because the magic effect is contained within 5’: the magic is producing the fire, light, heat, etc., so all those are contained within 5’.

If you want to say “but a 5’ area bonfire must produce heat and light that extends past the 5’ area”, then use Flaming Sphere as a model. However, this then makes a cantrip as powerful as a 2nd level spell. Both light and heat are effects of real-world fire, so in that regard, it makes sense that a 5’ area fire would produce such effects, however, for game reasons, I’d cap the cantrip effects for spell power reasons.

Both FS and CB magically make a 5’ area of fire: having the cantrip only affect that 5’ area, while allowing the 2nd level spell to affect more than that area, makes sense to me in terms of power differences of a cantrip and 2nd level spell.

[Bobthewizard]

I think it does create heat and light outside the 5' area because it creates something that has a mundane equivalent. A bonfire creates light and heat, and this creates a bonfire. Use whatever light you would use for a bonfire.

The spells that specific the amount of light they produce are for things that don't have a mundane equivalent. There are no natural firebolts, produce flames, or 5' balls of fire, so those light distances need to be spelled out.

[JackPhoenix]

Indeed, it was an EE spell, but if you don't apply a sensible interpretation to it you can make it bigger but not brighter with control flames.

You can't do anything to Create Bonfire with Control Flames, because CF specifically works on nonmagical flame.


I think it does create heat and light outside the 5' area because it creates something that has a mundane equivalent. A bonfire creates light and heat, and this creates a bonfire. Use whatever light you would use for a bonfire.

The spells that specific the amount of light they produce are for things that don't have a mundane equivalent. There are no natural firebolts, produce flames, or 5' balls of fire, so those light distances need to be spelled out.

There's no natural flame that can burn on any surface and doesn't need a source of fuel or air either. Create Bonfire works just fine underwater or in a vacuum.

[Phhase]

Both FS and CB magically make a 5’ area of fire: having the cantrip only affect that 5’ area, while allowing the 2nd level spell to affect more than that area, makes sense to me in terms of power differences of a cantrip and 2nd level spell.

Are people really casting Flaming Sphere because they need more light though?

[RSP]

Are people really casting Flaming Sphere because they need more light though?

FS creates light and heat. The heat is so intense from a 5’ area fire, that it damages any within 5’ of it. The light illuminates out to 40’.

Assuming the 5’ area fire that CB creates likewise creates an equal portion of light and heat, makes CB much more powerful of a spell.

Deciding that CB shouldn’t be as powerful as a 2nd level spell, but should produce something, leaves us with more questions (such as does being within 2.5’ of the bonfire cause damage from the heat? 1’?). If saying “CB doesn’t damage anything at range because the RAW doesn’t say it does”, well, the RAW doesn’t say it produces light either.

It seems arbitrary, to me, to say “CB must create light because real-life fire reasons”; but “CB must not create heat or need fuel, or spread, because game-magic reasons”.

If using real-life fire examples to adjudicate the magical fire of D&D spell effects, great: but consistency is then going to create issues in how spell effects operate, such as CB becoming as powerful as FS, yet being an at-will cantrip.

I propose just having the magic work as it says to keep it simple and spells consistent, but there’s plenty of other ways to play it.

[Segev]

Again, because the magic effect is contained within 5’: the magic is producing the fire, light, heat, etc., so all those are contained within 5’.

If you want to say “but a 5’ area bonfire must produce heat and light that extends past the 5’ area”, then use Flaming Sphere as a model. However, this then makes a cantrip as powerful as a 2nd level spell. Both light and heat are effects of real-world fire, so in that regard, it makes sense that a 5’ area fire would produce such effects, however, for game reasons, I’d cap the cantrip effects for spell power reasons.

Both FS and CB magically make a 5’ area of fire: having the cantrip only affect that 5’ area, while allowing the 2nd level spell to affect more than that area, makes sense to me in terms of power differences of a cantrip and 2nd level spell.

...did you change your argument, or did I misinterpret an earlier post of yours?

Neither spell is about making light. Light is a side-effect. Even were it an important part of the spell's power, flaming sphere is a mobile light source, while create bonfire is not.

It is utter nonsense from a narrative perspective that a spell that creates a bonfire would not create light and heat appropriate to the bonfire. The spell doesn't explicitly exclude light and heat, so it is a matter of DM ruling, but a DM ruling that it doesn't create light and heat (and thus is invisible and undetectable outside it's 5 foot cube) would be as silly as a DM deciding that, since it doesn't say that lions have an ability to roar in their monster manual entry, they clearly cannot make roaring noises.

[RSP]

...did you change your argument, or did I misinterpret an earlier post of yours?

Neither spell is about making light. Light is a side-effect. Even were it an important part of the spell's power, flaming sphere is a mobile light source, while create bonfire is not.

It is utter nonsense from a narrative perspective that a spell that creates a bonfire would not create light and heat appropriate to the bonfire. The spell doesn't explicitly exclude light and heat, so it is a matter of DM ruling, but a DM ruling that it doesn't create light and heat (and thus is invisible and undetectable outside it's 5 foot cube) would be as silly as a DM deciding that, since it doesn't say that lions have an ability to roar in their monster manual entry, they clearly cannot make roaring noises.

My statements were, hopefully, consistent.

The 5’ effect of CB is contained within the 5’ effect of CB: it won’t spread like a normal bonfire, because it’s magic is contained within that 5’ effect (but will burn anything within that 5’ area of effect). It will produce heat, but only within that 5’ area of effect. It will produce light, but only within that 5’ AoE.

It’s visible in normal darkness, but it won’t illuminate past it’s magically created 5’ AoE.

Hopefully that clears up what I was stating, but please let me know if anything seems inconsistent.

Edit: not sure what you’re thinking is non-sensible (“utter nonsense”) about magic fire behaving in magical ways, but feel free to elaborate.

Additional edit: think of it this way, the fire created by CB will not spread along a wooden floor because the magic contains it within its area, however, putting the top end of a torch in the CB flame, will light the torch, which can then be used as any torch could: carried about and even light other things with it; just like a creature is burned by entering the area (and stays damaged even after leaving the area of the spell), even though it won’t be harmed at all being right next to that 5’ area.

[KorvinStarmast]

Again, because the magic effect is contained within 5’: the magic is producing the fire, light, heat, etc., so all those are contained within 5’. I can see where that makes a certain amount of sense, but the light rules in D&D 5e are wonky in a lot of ways ...

If you want to say “but a 5’ area bonfire must produce heat and light that extends past the 5’ area”, then use Flaming Sphere as a model. However, this then makes a cantrip as powerful as a 2nd level spell. Hardly, as it doesn't move and it need not produce as much light as Flaming Sphere, and it's being set in one place avoids it stepping on Dancing Lights and Light cantrips in terms of useful for illumination. With that said, flaming sphere is also mobile and does more damage (potentially to 8 or 9 creatures stuck in a small space).

But in support of your concern, and here I take a look at the Moon Touched blades in terms of light radiance, a 10 bright / 10 dim might be a better choice if you are worried about the power of the cantrip's effect.
(Again, why didn't they specify?)

You can't do anything to Create Bonfire with Control Flames, because CF specifically works on nonmagical flame.
Good Point.

There's no natural flame that can burn on any surface and doesn't need a source of fuel or air either. Create Bonfire works just fine underwater or in a vacuum. That's a different way to approach it, but it makes no sense for it not to give off at least some light. But I am beginning to see what you and RPS are getting at.

Are people really casting Flaming Sphere because they need more light though? No, they are casting it to roast marshmellows. :smallbiggrin:

[Unoriginal]

There is a difference between "producing light" and "producing enough light to have a mechanical effect".

As said above in the thread, a spell only does what the spell's text says it does.

Flamming Sphere produces enough light to illuminate an area.

The Light cantrip produces enough light to illuminate an area.

Shield of Faith produces a shimmering effect (like a recent thread discussed extensively), but it does not produce enough light to illuminate an area.

Fire Bolt can produce light as a byproduct of the fire, but not enough to illuminate an area.

Create Bonfire can produce light as a byproduct of the fire, but not enough to illuminate an area.

[Segev]

My statements were, hopefully, consistent.

The 5’ effect of CB is contained within the 5’ effect of CB: it won’t spread like a normal bonfire, because it’s magic is contained within that 5’ effect (but will burn anything within that 5’ area of effect). It will produce heat, but only within that 5’ area of effect. It will produce light, but only within that 5’ AoE.

It’s visible in normal darkness, but it won’t illuminate past it’s magically created 5’ AoE.

Hopefully that clears up what I was stating, but please let me know if anything seems inconsistent.

Edit: not sure what you’re thinking is non-sensible (“utter nonsense”) about magic fire behaving in magical ways, but feel free to elaborate.

Additional edit: think of it this way, the fire created by CB will not spread along a wooden floor because the magic contains it within its area, however, putting the top end of a torch in the CB flame, will light the torch, which can then be used as any torch could: carried about and even light other things with it; just like a creature is burned by entering the area (and stays damaged even after leaving the area of the spell), even though it won’t be harmed at all being right next to that 5’ area."Magical" fire, like "magical" darkness, behaves like ordinary fire, except as the generating effect specifies. Note that darkness would not block darkvision if the spell didn't say it did. Nothing about it being magical makes darkvision fail by default.

Fire is hot and emits light. Even if the spell did specify that the fire can't light other things on fire (which I do not believe it does), it would have to expressly state that it doesn't shed light outside of the five foot cube for it not to shed light outside of the five foot cube.

The spell says it makes fire. Therefore, the fire behaves like normal fire, except for how the spell specifically states otherwise.

I actually could see a DM ruling that it ignites the floorboards of a wooden building, and that the fire would thus spread out.

[JackPhoenix]

The spell says it makes fire. Therefore, the fire behaves like normal fire, except for how the spell specifically states otherwise.

The spell makes magical fire that disappear if you punch the caster hard enough. What's "normal" fire, anyway? Ethanol fire is a "normal fire", but produces very little visible light.

[Miele]

This is getting heated up! Pun intended, but bear with me, said the Moon Druid...

Ok, ok, I'm done, no more puns!

My curiosity was more towards a lack of official ruling on the topic, say something like Sage Advice. Both sides of the argument have a leg to stand on, I'd personally go with light and heat, but I don't mind twisting things here and there.
Thanks for your opinions on the matter.

[sithlordnergal]

"Magical" fire, like "magical" darkness, behaves like ordinary fire, except as the generating effect specifies. Note that darkness would not block darkvision if the spell didn't say it did. Nothing about it being magical makes darkvision fail by default.

Fire is hot and emits light. Even if the spell did specify that the fire can't light other things on fire (which I do not believe it does), it would have to expressly state that it doesn't shed light outside of the five foot cube for it not to shed light outside of the five foot cube.

The spell says it makes fire. Therefore, the fire behaves like normal fire, except for how the spell specifically states otherwise.

I actually could see a DM ruling that it ignites the floorboards of a wooden building, and that the fire would thus spread out.

The problem is you're now giving it extra things that the spell doesn't specify. Now, if there weren't any fire spells that state they produce light, then I could agree with your argument. The issue is that there are fire spells that produce light, such as Produce Flame, Flame Blade, Flaming Sphere, Fire Shield, Immolation, and Investiture of Flame. They all state they shed bright and dim light within a 5ft to 30ft radius depending on the spell. Interestingly enough, there are also fire spells that don't set things on fire. Produce Flame, Scorching Ray, Wall of Fire, Flame Strike, and Incendiary Cloud cannot set objects on fire, because their spells don't say they can. A few of these state they produce light, like Produce Flame, but others do not, like Wall of Fire.

Its pretty clear that not all magical fire acts like fire and produces light, otherwise they wouldn't have a reason to state that certain fire spells produce light. As for heat, well there aren't any fire spells that state they produce heat. Since there isn't a fire spell that states it produces heat, then you could make the argument that all fire spells produce heat. Sure, none of them say they do, but at the same time none of them say they don't. And that's the key, none of the fire spells mention heat, at all, ever. Meaning it is fully left up to the DM.

[RSP]

Hardly, as it doesn't move and it need not produce as much light as Flaming Sphere, and it's being set in one place avoids it stepping on Dancing Lights and Light cantrips in terms of useful for illumination. With that said, flaming sphere is also mobile and does more damage (potentially to 8 or 9 creatures stuck in a small space).

Mobility is a good property to have, but CB being at will essentially makes it mobile, no?

Also, FS doesn’t really do more damage than CB: from level 5 on, CB is doing 2d8 (obviously more at certain levels) while FS does 2d6 without uocasting. So, if going off those numbers, from 5 on, CB is a more powerful flame than FS, assuming no upcasting (and about the same power level of cast at 3rd, unless caster is 11+).

If using FS, an equally sized magical fire that’s less potent as our barometer, then CB should at least do its damage to all within 5’ (as that’s what the less potent FS does), due to heat out put.

So why wouldn’t equal sized 5’ areas of magical fire give off different levels of light or heat using that logic? Using this thought process, CB is now much more potent a spell: now effecting a 15’ square with Fire damage, rather than a 5’ square.


"Magical" fire, like "magical" darkness, behaves like ordinary fire, except as the generating effect specifies. Note that darkness would not block darkvision if the spell didn't say it did. Nothing about it being magical makes darkvision fail by default.

Fire is hot and emits light.

So does faerie fire burn the targets?


Since there isn't a fire spell that states it produces heat, then you could make the argument that all fire spells produce heat. Sure, none of them say they do, but at the same time none of them say they don't. And that's the key, none of the fire spells mention heat, at all, ever. Meaning it is fully left up to the DM.

I’d argue that the non-fire areas of damage found in CS and WoF are “heat” damage: in game terms, non-fire Fire damage, is “heat”, it just falls under the label of “fire” damage. Kind of like how Heat Metal doesn’t create fire, but does do fire damage.

[JackPhoenix]

As for heat, well there aren't any fire spells that state they produce heat. Since there isn't a fire spell that states it produces heat, then you could make the argument that all fire spells produce heat.

Ashardalon's Stride ruins that argument: "When you move within 5 feet of a creature or an object that isn't being worn or carried, it takes 1d6 fire damage from your trail of heat."
What's interesting that it can't set a dry haystack on fire, but it can melt through stone wall with enough time.

[Foolwise]

So does faerie fire burn the targets?

Faerie Fire is similar to St. Elmo’s Fire in that neither are actual fire despite having “fire” in their names.

[Segev]

The problem is you're now giving it extra things that the spell doesn't specify.Then, it doesn't specify it creates fire?


So does faerie fire burn the targets?It does not. It also doesn't create fire.


Each object in a 20-foot cube within range is outlined in blue, green, or violet light (your choice). Any creature in the area when the spell is cast is also outlined in light if it fails a Dexterity saving throw. For the Duration, Objects and affected Creatures shed dim light in a 10-foot radius.

Any Attack roll against an affected creature or object has advantage if the attacker can see it, and the affected creature or object can't benefit from being Invisible.

[JLandan]

Mobility is a good property to have, but CB being at will essentially makes it mobile, no?

Also, FS doesn’t really do more damage than CB: from level 5 on, CB is doing 2d8 (obviously more at certain levels) while FS does 2d6 without uocasting. So, if going off those numbers, from 5 on, CB is a more powerful flame than FS, assuming no upcasting (and about the same power level of cast at 3rd, unless caster is 11+).

If using FS, an equally sized magical fire that’s less potent as our barometer, then CB should at least do its damage to all within 5’ (as that’s what the less potent FS does), due to heat out put.

So why wouldn’t equal sized 5’ areas of magical fire give off different levels of light or heat using that logic? Using this thought process, CB is now much more potent a spell: now effecting a 15’ square with Fire damage, rather than a 5’ square.



So does faerie fire burn the targets?



I’d argue that the non-fire areas of damage found in CS and WoF are “heat” damage: in game terms, non-fire Fire damage, is “heat”, it just falls under the label of “fire” damage. Kind of like how Heat Metal doesn’t create fire, but does do fire damage.

Since Create Bonfire is save for no damage and immobile, and Flaming Sphere is save for half damage and very mobile (it can jump 10 ft.), I would say FS is an order of magnitude better than CB. Even if CB has a slightly better damage output.

[RSP]

It does not. It also doesn't create fire.

So back to “spells do what they state in their effect”, no? Or do your tables play that CB causes damage to any within 5’ of the fire?


Since Create Bonfire is save for no damage and immobile, and Flaming Sphere is save for half damage and very mobile (it can jump 10 ft.), I would say FS is an order of magnitude better than CB. Even if CB has a slightly better damage output.

It’s better than slightly as levels increase. FS costs a limited resource, CB doesn’t, that’s a huge plus to CB. FS still requires a BA to move.

If you give me the choice between FS and CB, with CB dealing it’s damage to any create within 5’ of it, I’ll take CB every time: an at-will, d8, 15’ cube AoE trumps any other cantrip. It’s double the area of Burning Hands with better range.

[ff7hero]

Faerie Fire is similar to St. Elmo’s Fire in that neither are actual fire despite having “fire” in their names.

By this logic we can just say Create Bonfire does not in fact create a bonfire. It's just a cube of highly agitated molecules. EZ.

[Imbalance]

By this logic we can just say Create Bonfire does not in fact create a bonfire. It's just a cube of highly agitated molecules. EZ.

Congratulations. You've fashioned the Weave into a microwave oven.

[Chronos]

Let's take a step back from the spell, for a moment. Can a ranger, using no magic at all, stack up some pieces of dry wood and light them with a flint and steel, to make a campfire? Of course. Does the campfire shed light? Of course. How much light? Well, the rules don't explicitly say... but that just means that we don't know how much light, not that there isn't any at all. The DM would have to step in and decide how much light a campfire produces.

Well, a bonfire is just a big campfire. And that's what Create Bonfire creates. So it sheds light. How much? As much as a nonmagical bonfire does, however much that is, once the DM decides.

As for the magical fire created by Create Bonfire not spreading, well, I'm not so sure about that. Suppose, for instance, we're in a building with a wooden floor. The spell says that it'll ignite flammable material in its area... so it lights the wooden floor on fire. And the wooden floor will still be on fire, even after the spell ends, and will continue to act like normal nonmagical fire, because that's what it is.

[JLandan]

A lot of people are saying that if an effect is not specifically in a spell's description, then the spell doesn't do it. But not all rules affecting spells are mentioned in each description. For example: Animal Shapes says that you turn others into beasts, but it does not list any beasts. The description assumes the rules of which creatures are beasts and which are not.

Likewise with all spells that create fires. Some descriptions specify fire damage and illumination, some do not. But even those that do not specify must still follow the rules for fires.

I posted this earlier, but I think the drift of this conversation requires re-posting.

PH, under Adventuring/The Environment/Vision and Light:

Bright light lets most creatures see normally. Even gloomy days provide bright light, as do torches, lanterns, fires, and other sources of illumination within a specific radius.
Emphasis on "fires" is mine.

So, fires provide light, RAW. This rule doesn't discriminate between mundane and magical fire. The specific radius of the light is mentioned in some spell descriptions and not in others. Where it is not specified, it becomes the DM's call. But, according to the PH RAW, there IS light.

[Damon_Tor]

Excellent points all around: the spell doesn't have to say the bonfire creates light and heat because creating light and heat is an inherent part of being a fire. Just like a spell that deals doesn't need to say that the damage can kill you: that's already a part of the general rule about damage.

[Bobthewizard]

If you give me the choice between FS and CB, with CB dealing it’s damage to any create within 5’ of it, I’ll take CB every time: an at-will, d8, 15’ cube AoE trumps any other cantrip. It’s double the area of Burning Hands with better range.

CB clearly states it only causes damage in that 5' cube, not adjacent squares. Not sure where that "damage to any creature within 5' of it" is coming from.

Flaming sphere affects 9 squares and can be moved with just a bonus action, instead of the action to recast create bonfire. And creatures can take damage if you bump them with it on your turn and again on their turn. It's definitely a better spell.

[JLandan]

CB clearly states it only causes damage in that 5' cube, not adjacent squares. Not sure where that "damage to any creature within 5' of it" is coming from.

Flaming sphere affects 9 squares and can be moved with just a bonus action, instead of the action to recast create bonfire. And creatures can take damage if you bump them with it on your turn and again on their turn. It's definitely a better spell.

Don't forget the save. Even maxed at 5d8, CB saves for no damage. FS with a minimum 2nd level slot still does 1d6 with a save, with the usual Evasion exception.

[Segev]

So back to “spells do what they state in their effect”, no? Or do your tables play that CB causes damage to any within 5’ of the fire?Technically, depending on how you rule playing on a grid and the rules for a "cube" AoE, the rules actually support doing that.

The spell does specify exactly what its damage is and to where. The rules may permit you to place the cube on a corner of four squares and thus damage up to 4 creatures with it, which could include some outside the five foot cube itself. But regardless of that, the rules spell out what its damaging heat is. They do not say the heat stops right where the damage stops. They do not say that the fire does not emit light. Fire generates heat and light, and so, without rules specifying the contrary, the fact the spell says it creates fire means that there is, necessarily, fire there. Fire creates heat and light far beyond its immediate presence.

A torch does not specify any damage at all, even to the person holding the torch; does this mean the person feels no heat from the torch? Of course not.

[Amnestic]

Technically, depending on how you rule playing on a grid and the rules for a "cube" AoE, the rules actually support doing that.

The spell does specify exactly what its damage is and to where. The rules may permit you to place the cube on a corner of four squares and thus damage up to 4 creatures with it, which could include some outside the five foot cube itself.

While I'm aware this is RAW, I abhor it as a concept - people don't actually move in 5ft grids (indeed, their 5ft occupation is explicitly not "they take up this space" but "they threaten this space"). Placing CB on an intersection to hit 4 squares instead of 1 simply feels, frankly, like cheating.

At the very least doing so should either lessen its damage or give a boost to the dex save (either advantage or equivalent to cover).

[Segev]

While I'm aware this is RAW, I abhor it as a concept - people don't actually move in 5ft grids (indeed, their 5ft occupation is explicitly not "they take up this space" but "they threaten this space"). Placing CB on an intersection to hit 4 squares instead of 1 simply feels, frankly, like cheating.

At the very least doing so should either lessen its damage or give a boost to the dex save (either advantage or equivalent to cover).

Leaving aside the complaint about a grid, it may feel like "cheating," but it actually is directly in line with how the RAW for cubes are written. I have no idea if this was the intent of the writers of create bonfire, but as written, if you line it up with the RAW about cube AoEs, it looks like it is very much meant to hit 4 squares.

[JLandan]

A torch does not specify any damage at all, even to the person holding the torch; does this mean the person feels no heat from the torch? Of course not.

Actually a torch does specify 1 point of fire when used for a melee attack. It would also include Str mod, I suppose. But it would definitely be improvised.

[Unoriginal]

Ashardalon's Stride ruins that argument: "When you move within 5 feet of a creature or an object that isn't being worn or carried, it takes 1d6 fire damage from your trail of heat."
What's interesting that it can't set a dry haystack on fire, but it can melt through stone wall with enough time.

If the DM rules that the heat from this spell can damage a stone wall, they will likely rule that it can damage a dry haystack too. Though it's true that it's a different ruling to make the heat make things catch fire.

[Foolwise]

By this logic we can just say Create Bonfire does not in fact create a bonfire. It's just a cube of highly agitated molecules. EZ.

That doesn’t follow the same logic. I stated there are things that have “fire” in their names, but are not objects of fire. Bonfires are clearly objects of fire and do not fall into that group.


With regards to Flaming Sphere vs. Create Bonfire-
2nd level vs. Cantrip. Bonus action to move vs. Action to recreate (move). Damage scales with upcasting vs. Damage locked to character level. Save for half damage vs. Save for no damage.

Giving CB the same illumination as FS wouldn’t make the cantrip completely outclass the 2nd level spell. It is arguable which is better, but not because of illumination or lack thereof.

[sithlordnergal]

Ashardalon's Stride ruins that argument: "When you move within 5 feet of a creature or an object that isn't being worn or carried, it takes 1d6 fire damage from your trail of heat."
What's interesting that it can't set a dry haystack on fire, but it can melt through stone wall with enough time.

Ohhh, it does mention heat? Hmmm, must have missed that one while looking through the fire based spells. I think its the only spell that deals fire damage and mentions heat. Though at the same time, I wonder if it falls under the Crunch or Fluff bits of the spell, like the shimmer of Shield of Faith versus the 20ft of light from Produce Flame. Which complicates things even further.



A lot of people are saying that if an effect is not specifically in a spell's description, then the spell doesn't do it. But not all rules affecting spells are mentioned in each description. For example: Animal Shapes says that you turn others into beasts, but it does not list any beasts. The description assumes the rules of which creatures are beasts and which are not.


Actually, Animal Shapes does mention the list of Beasts you can use when you cast it. To quote the spell:

Your magic turns others into Beasts. Choose any number of willing Creatures that you can see within range. You transform each target into the form of a Large or smaller beast with a Challenge rating of 4 or lower. On subsequent turns, you can use your action to transform affected Creatures into new forms.

You're allowed to turn any number of willing creatures into a Beast with a CR of 4 or lower, those are all game statistics laid out very plainly. You're not allowed to turn the party into a CR 8 Tyrannosaurus, or a CR 6 Mammoth. Beast is also a creature type, meaning you can't turn creatures into a Displacer Beast despite it having the word "Beast" in its name, because it is a Monstrosity. If we followed your line of reasoning, then Charm Person could be used to Charm a Lich because it uses the term "Humanoid" but doesn't list Humanoids in the spell, and the Charm effect would be meaningless.

You're still stuck doing exactly what the spell says, no more and no less.



Likewise with all spells that create fires. Some descriptions specify fire damage and illumination, some do not. But even those that do not specify must still follow the rules for fires.

I posted this earlier, but I think the drift of this conversation requires re-posting.

PH, under Adventuring/The Environment/Vision and Light:

Bright light lets most creatures see normally. Even gloomy days provide bright light, as do torches, lanterns, fires, and other sources of illumination within a specific radius.
Emphasis on "fires" is mine.

So, fires provide light, RAW. This rule doesn't discriminate between mundane and magical fire. The specific radius of the light is mentioned in some spell descriptions and not in others. Where it is not specified, it becomes the DM's call. But, according to the PH RAW, there IS light.

The problem you're running into is General versus Specific. The rule for Bright Light is a general rule. However, we have specific rules for how much light spells produce, and these rules are found in the spell descriptions. Every single spell that produces light specifies exactly how much light it produces. Moonbeam produces 10ft of Dim Light, Produce Flame creates 10ft of Bright and 10ft of Dim, Flaming Sphere has 20ft of Bright and 20ft of Dim. If it were assumed that all fire spells shed Bright Light then there wouldn't be a need to state this fact, it would fall under the General Rule for Bright Light. By applying that general rule to everything, you end up unintentionally buffing every single fire spell that doesn't state it creates light.

Its sort of like magical darkness. Magical darkness on its own does not prevent creatures with Darkvision from seeing through it. Its why a creature with Darkvision can see through the 5ft cube of darkness created by the Tricksy Fey Spirit, but can't see through the magical darkness created by the Darkness spell.

[Segev]

Actually a torch does specify 1 point of fire when used for a melee attack. It would also include Str mod, I suppose. But it would definitely be improvised.

Right, but does that mean the torch emits no heat except to somebody hit with it? There's no heat to be felt by the person holding it, at all?

Of course not. It only means that the heat isn't enough to cause fire damage unless you're hit with it.

[RSP]

CB clearly states it only causes damage in that 5' cube, not adjacent squares. Not sure where that "damage to any creature within 5' of it" is coming from.


The discussion is if CB should give off heat and light like FS. As FS gives off heat that damages, then CB should give off heat that damages; if one is saying CB should give off heat and light.

[Segev]

The discussion is if CB should give off heat and light like FS. As FS gives off heat that damages, then CB should give off heat that damages; if one is saying CB should give off heat and light.

False equivalency. "Heat that damages" is not the only kind of heat there is. Create bonfire does what it says it does. The fire damage exists in the area affected by a 5 foot cube (which might actually be 10 feet by 10 feet by 5 feet, depending how the cube is placed and the way the DM rules it). That doesn't mean all heat stops at the edge of the cube; it only means the heat is no longer intense enough to do damage outside the specified regions that it does damage.

[RSP]

Technically, depending on how you rule playing on a grid and the rules for a "cube" AoE, the rules actually support doing that.

No, they don’t. The spell specifies a creature has to be within the 5’ area of the bonfire; nothing in the RAW supports taking damage for being within 5’ of the bonfire.



the rules spell out what its damaging heat is. They do not say the heat stops right where the damage stops. They do not say that the fire does not emit light. Fire generates heat and light, and so, without rules specifying the contrary, the fact the spell says it creates fire means that there is, necessarily, fire there. Fire creates heat and light far beyond its immediate presence.

Nothing in the RAW for CB states anything about heat, or where it exists. It states Fire damage occurs when one is within the 5’ of magical bonfire. If you’re argument is that the bonfire must create heat that exists outside of the bonfire, what is the effect of that heat? The bonfire is the same size and, after 5th level, a greater degree of damage than FS.

If the CB fire is more intense than FS’s fire, why would CB produce less heat than FS?


False equivalency. "Heat that damages" is not the only kind of heat there is. Create bonfire does what it says it does. The fire damage exists in the area affected by a 5 foot cube (which might actually be 10 feet by 10 feet by 5 feet, depending how the cube is placed and the way the DM rules it). That doesn't mean all heat stops at the edge of the cube; it only means the heat is no longer intense enough to do damage outside the specified regions that it does damage.

First, you’ll have to explain how “the bonfire fills a 5-foot cube” equals the fire filling a 10’x10’x5’ area. As you say, “Create Bonfire does what it says it does”, so I’m not sure why you think it creates a bonfire outside of the stated 5’ cube.

You’re trying to use real world logic to explain heat from a bonfire. Can the heat from a real bonfire burn someone? Yes. Can the heat from a real bonfire damage items? Yes. (This is all in addition to the standard arguments against trying to use real world logic to explain make belief magic: for starters, real world bonfires aren’t magically contained to a 5’ cube - your argument that while the fire cannot expand beyond that area, but the heat from it must expand beyond that, is already assuming too much about the magic).

I find it odd that you’re arguing that CB must work like real world bonfires, but then saying the heat from CB must not work like real life bonfires.

[Segev]

No, they don’t. The spell specifies a creature has to be within the 5’ area of the bonfire; nothing in the RAW supports taking damage for being within 5’ of the bonfire. I recommend you look up the rules on placement of cubes. I didn't say "within 5 feet." I didn't specify a distance. Though the RAW do wind up specifying 2.5 feet if you do some mathematical inference. Regardless, the larger point is...


Nothing in the RAW for CB states anything about heat, or where it exists. It states Fire damage occurs when one is within the 5’ of magical bonfire. If you’re argument is that the bonfire must create heat that exists outside of the bonfire, what is the effect of that heat? The bonfire is the same size and, after 5th level, a greater degree of damage than FS.

If the CB fire is more intense than FS’s fire, why would CB produce less heat than FS?

The spells do what they say they do. Unless and until you can demonstrate that, in the rules for 5e, fire, by default, does not radiate heat, or that create bonfire does not, in fact, create a fire that fills a five foot cube, or that create bonfire explicitly states that the heat stops at the edge of the cube, then I must conclude that create bonfire does, in fact, create fire, which behaves like normal fire in that it radiates heat.

The spell does specify exactly where and how much damage is dealt by it. It nowhere speaks about non-damaging heat being diminished compared to nonmagical fire.

[ff7hero]

That doesn’t follow the same logic. I stated there are things that have “fire” in their names, but are not objects of fire. Bonfires are clearly objects of fire and do not fall into that group.

Why can things with "Fire" in their names be things other than Fires, but things with "Bonfire" in their name must be Bonfires?

[RSP]

I recommend you look up the rules on placement of cubes. I didn't say "within 5 feet." I didn't specify a distance. Though the RAW do wind up specifying 2.5 feet if you do some mathematical inference.

Regardless of where you place the cube, “the bonfire fills a 5-foot cube.” Arguing that it’s not a 5’ cube is arguing against the RAW.



The spell does specify exactly where and how much damage is dealt by it. It nowhere speaks about non-damaging heat being diminished compared to nonmagical fire.

The spell only states the damage done by creatures within the 5’ cube of the bonfire: it does not state anything about outside of that.

If you’re saying “there must be heat like a real life bonfire” then that heat would do damage, as a real life bonfire would.

Or is your argument that real life bonfires only emit heat that has no affect on creatures and items?

[Tanarii]

Even most moonlit nights are still 5e Darkness, and the most brilliant full moons are still only 5e Dim Light. So I'm fine with a spell with an ongoing effect that does fire damage that doesn't burn bright enough to produce a 5e Bright or Dim light area around it.

[Segev]

Or is your argument that real life bonfires only emit heat that has no affect on creatures and items?

My argument is that the fire does damage where it says it does damage, and that it emits heat like any other fire. If the rules do not specify that it deals damage, that doesn't mean all heat stops. I means that heat is not dealing damage.

Not all heat does damage. For whatever reason, however you want to describe it, it doesn't deal damage if you're not where it says it deals damage, but it still radiates heat. This heat affects things the way heat will affect those things; damage is not part of the effect, however, unless the items being affected are within the area of effect where damage is done.

I am unsure why you're so wedded to the notion that heat must deal damage to exist.

[Foolwise]

Why can things with "Fire" in their names be things other than Fires, but things with "Bonfire" in their name must be Bonfires?

Ask the people responsible for naming them?

Dude, I provided examples. Faerie Fire = Not a fire. St. Elmo’s Fire = Not a fire. Bonfires = Really big fire.

I have no clue how you took my original post and thought I said you can just declare anything with Fire in its name is not an actual fire.

[RSP]

My argument is that the fire does damage where it says it does damage, and that it emits heat like any other fire. If the rules do not specify that it deals damage, that doesn't mean all heat stops. I means that heat is not dealing damage.

Not all heat does damage. For whatever reason, however you want to describe it, it doesn't deal damage if you're not where it says it deals damage, but it still radiates heat. This heat affects things the way heat will affect those things; damage is not part of the effect, however, unless the items being affected are within the area of effect where damage is done.

I am unsure why you're so wedded to the notion that heat must deal damage to exist.

Because your argument for why there’s heat in the first place is because magical D&D fire must act like real life fire, including producing real life heat.

Real life heat burns things and creatures.

Therefore, the argument you’re presenting entails CB creating heat that does damage.

[Tanarii]

My argument is that the fire does damage where it says it does damage, and that it emits heat like any other fire. If the rules do not specify that it deals damage, that doesn't mean all heat stops. I means that heat is not dealing damage.Similarly something that generates light doesn't mean that it creates Bright Light or Dim Light.

As in, someone might be able to see a Create Bonfire in the darkness, but not see see anything around it.

[KorvinStarmast]

Congratulations. You've fashioned the Weave into a microwave oven. Wins thread.

Continual flame specifies that it gives off light but not create heat and does not specify any damage, nor oxygen use if that matters in a world where the laws of physics are dubious at best.

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.
Note that Create Bonfire does not specify what it does not do, unlike Continual flame.

[GooeyChewie]

Why can things with "Fire" in their names be things other than Fires, but things with "Bonfire" in their name must be Bonfires?
Create Bonfire doesn't just have "bonfire" in its name. It has "bonfire" in its description. The spell's name doesn't actually have any impact on its effects (though WotC does usually try to name spells in such a way that you get an idea of the effects based on the name). Create Bonfire could have been named "Ekke Ekke Ekke Ekke Ptang Zoo Boing," and it would still create a bonfire. Faerie Fire could have been named "Literally Creates a Fire" and based on the spell effects it still would not create a fire.



Because your argument for why there’s heat in the first place is because magical D&D fire must act like real life fire, including producing real life heat.

Real life heat burns things and creatures.

Therefore, the argument you’re presenting entails CB creating heat that does damage.

Real life heat might burn things and creatures, depending on how much heat there is and the proximity of the things and creatures to the source. But real life heat does not necessarily burn things and creatures. Think about a campfire, for example. The folks sitting around the campfire can feel the heat coming off the fire, but they aren't burning. They aren't, in D&D terms, taking damage.

[sambojin]

I just figure it's continuous (ie: damages stuff on cast or out-of-turn, on entering, turn start, etc), it says it's a bonfire (even though it's magical), so it would emit the amount of light of at least a torch.

Ie: 20' bright, another 20' dim.

But it's a bonfire, so therefore, lots of torches worth, so 30' Bright, 30' Dim. Done!

It's not overriding a lvl2 spell. You can't move it. It just sits there, on the ground. It also doesn't do much damage, and takes up your concentration. Even if you can recast it as much as you want. It replaces throwing a torch or having another light cantrip or something.

Yeah, sure. Light sources are hard. Really super powerful. Not.

Asking if you can cook on it, or if it sets fire to things, is DM question area. But, yeah, sure. Why not? It actually makes it harder to use, if anything.

[Bobthewizard]

The discussion is if CB should give off heat and light like FS. As FS gives off heat that damages, then CB should give off heat that damages; if one is saying CB should give off heat and light.

Create bonfire doesn't give off heat and light like Flaming sphere. It gives off heat and light like a bonfire. If I were a DM and placed a mundane 5' bonfire in a room, it would be a hazard that the players needed to avoid but it would only do damage if they enters that square. Same with create bonfire.

Based on the spell descriptions, FS can damage the squares next to it, CB cannot. But you could still feel heat (non-damaging) if you were adjacent to a create bonfire. You could use it to dry off clothes, or warm yourself like you would any fire, since it gives off heat. But you only take damage where the spell says you take damage.

[RSP]

Real life heat might burn things and creatures, depending on how much heat there is and the proximity of the things and creatures to the source. But real life heat does not necessarily burn things and creatures. Think about a campfire, for example. The folks sitting around the campfire can feel the heat coming off the fire, but they aren't burning. They aren't, in D&D terms, taking damage.

I remember a friend who left their shoes too close to a campfire and learned the soles had melted. And that was just a campfire.

A bonfire filing a 5’ cube is bigger than a campfire (at least going by those metal rings). If we’re trying to find the heat output of a 5’ cube bonfire in D&D world, a good place to start would be a fire that of similar size and intensity. Hence Flaming Sphere, which is about the same size (5’ cube vs 5’ sphere), and intensity (once the caster is at least 5th level).

So, if a 5’ area fire puts out heat that damages anything within 5’, then a 5’ area fire should put out heat that damages anything within 5’. Assuming the fires are of similar intensity.

As CB cast by an at least 5th level caster is actual more damage than a 2nd level FS (2d8 vs 2d6), it should put out a relative amount of heat vs FS.

The argument that a real life bonfire doesn’t put out heat that can hurt a person or damage items is just wrong: if you’re right next to the bonfire, it very much will burn you. In real life you can be far enough away from a bonfire to just feel some heat, but that’s not going to be that close to the bonfire.

All that said, “real world logic” doesn’t apply to a magically created bonfire that magically fills a 5’ cube. The idea that “heat and light must permeate through the magic that contains the fire” just doesn’t hold up: why can’t the magic contain all effects of the bonfire? Why is it powerless to contain the heat and light, yet capable of holding back the actual fire?

[Unoriginal]

EDIT: never mind, I was wrong

[RSP]

Create bonfire doesn't give off heat and light like Flaming sphere. It gives off heat and light like a bonfire. If I were a DM and placed a mundane 5' bonfire in a room, it would be a hazard that the players needed to avoid but it would only do damage if they enters that square. Same with create bonfire.

Based on the spell descriptions, FS can damage the squares next to it, CB cannot. But you could still feel heat (non-damaging) if you were adjacent to a create bonfire. You could use it to dry off clothes, or warm yourself like you would any fire, since it gives off heat. But you only take damage where the spell says you take damage.

Sounds like an arbitrary decision about how much heat and/or light a fire of that size puts out. And that’s fine, but it’s the same as an arbitrary decision that a fire of that size does produce heat that can damage.

The point being that your end result doesn’t take into account either what a similarly-sized magically created D&D fire produces (as shown with FS), nor what a “real world” fire that size would do (I believe what Segev is arguing should happen).

And again, that’s fine and a DM should rule as is best for their table: but it also is just as logically sound as determining that the heat does do damage. I see no reason why your arbitrarily determined level of light or heat should trump anyone else’s arbitrarily determined level of light or heat.

[Segev]

Similarly something that generates light doesn't mean that it creates Bright Light or Dim Light.

As in, someone might be able to see a Create Bonfire in the darkness, but not see see anything around it.Intersting argument. The implication here, if you are using this argument to support that, because create bonfire does not cause damage outside of its area, it must not radiate heat that has any impact on the world, is that heat must cause damage to have mechanical impact on the world.

Therefore, are you suggesting that you cannot use a mundane fire to keep warm in the cold in D&D 5e, unless you are sitting close enough (possibly inside it) that you are taking fire damage?


Real life heat might burn things and creatures, depending on how much heat there is and the proximity of the things and creatures to the source. But real life heat does not necessarily burn things and creatures. Think about a campfire, for example. The folks sitting around the campfire can feel the heat coming off the fire, but they aren't burning. They aren't, in D&D terms, taking damage.Exactly. Whereas real life light (especially from a bonfire) will generate enough light to see by for some distance.

Where a spell specifies exact mechanics, you use those exact mechanics. Where it does not, but it still specifies effects using real-world terms, you should assume it behaves similarly to a nonmagical version of the same thing. Create bonfire creates a five foot cube of flame that is described as a "bonfire," and it specifies exactly where and how much damage it inflicts. It does not specify that it in any way other than magically springing into existence (and magically being maintained) and how and where it does damage that it is different from a normal bonfire, so we should assume it behaves like a normal bonfire of its given dimensions. This means it radiates light and heat (but its damage profile is modified to match the spell's described mechanics). Since it is possible to have heat that does not deal fire damage, it is not reasonable to say all heat stops at the point the damage profile says it does no damage.

[RSP]

Exactly. Whereas real life light (especially from a bonfire) will generate enough light to see by for some distance.

Where a spell specifies exact mechanics, you use those exact mechanics. Where it does not, but it still specifies effects using real-world terms, you should assume it behaves similarly to a nonmagical version of the same thing. Create bonfire creates a five foot cube of flame that is described as a "bonfire," and it specifies exactly where and how much damage it inflicts. It does not specify that it in any way other than magically springing into existence (and magically being maintained) and how and where it does damage that it is different from a normal bonfire, so we should assume it behaves like a normal bonfire of its given dimensions. This means it radiates light and heat (but its damage profile is modified to match the spell's described mechanics). Since it is possible to have heat that does not deal fire damage, it is not reasonable to say all heat stops at the point the damage profile says it does no damage.

So your argument is “it must emit heat like a real life bonfire” but also “it must not emit heat like a real life bonfire”. Interesting set of conclusions.

How much smoke does CB emit? A real life bonfire puts out a lot of smoke. If a real life bonfire was in a 20’x20’x20’ room, that room would fill up with smoke very quickly.

Does CB do that since it must emulate a real life bonfire?

[JackPhoenix]

Create bonfire doesn't give off heat and light like Flaming sphere. It gives off heat and light like a bonfire. If I were a DM and placed a mundane 5' bonfire in a room, it would be a hazard that the players needed to avoid but it would only do damage if they enters that square. Same with create bonfire.

If you placed a bonfire in a room, it wouldn't be a bonfire, because by definition, bonfire has to be outside. Does that mean the spell doesn't work inside buildings and dungeons either?

[Segev]

So your argument is “it must emit heat like a real life bonfire” but also “it must not emit heat like a real life bonfire”. Interesting set of conclusions.

How much smoke does CB emit? A real life bonfire puts out a lot of smoke. If a real life bonfire was in a 20’x20’x20’ room, that room would fill up with smoke very quickly.

Does CB do that since it must emulate a real life bonfire?

That is not my argument. My argument is that it emits light and heat like a nonmagical bonfire would, with any exceptions spelled out in the spell.

[JackPhoenix]

That is not my argument. My argument is that it emits light and heat like a nonmagical bonfire would, with any exceptions spelled out in the spell.

By the same logic, does being knocked unconscious cause permanent brain damage? After all, that's what happens in real world, even if the rules don't say that, just like with the bonfire.

[Unoriginal]

Worth noting that you can cast Create Bonfire in a room full of inflammable objects and burn nothing but what is in the cube the bonfire fills.

Flaming Sphere or Fireball specifically mentions that if you use them in that context, the stuff will catch fire.

[GooeyChewie]

I remember a friend who left their shoes too close to a campfire and learned the soles had melted. And that was just a campfire.
I’m guessing your friend did not take fire damage when they set their shoes down. Sounds like a great example of a fire still emitting heat despite that heat not doing damage. If I had a character set some candles near a bonfire created by Create Bonfire, I’d expect those candles to melt akin to how your friend’s shoes’ soles melted.


A bonfire filing a 5’ cube is bigger than a campfire (at least going by those metal rings). If we’re trying to find the heat output of a 5’ cube bonfire in D&D world, a good place to start would be a fire that of similar size and intensity. Hence Flaming Sphere, which is about the same size (5’ cube vs 5’ sphere), and intensity (once the caster is at least 5th level).

So, if a 5’ area fire puts out heat that damages anything within 5’, then a 5’ area fire should put out heat that damages anything within 5’. Assuming the fires are of similar intensity.

As CB cast by an at least 5th level caster is actual more damage than a 2nd level FS (2d8 vs 2d6), it should put out a relative amount of heat vs FS.
All you’re really telling me here is that CB and FS are two different spells which work two different ways, and that we shouldn’t make assumptions about the intensity of a fire created by a spell based solely on the damage it might do.



The argument that a real life bonfire doesn’t put out heat that can hurt a person or damage items is just wrong: if you’re right next to the bonfire, it very much will burn you. In real life you can be far enough away from a bonfire to just feel some heat, but that’s not going to be that close to the bonfire.
The argument is not that real life bonfires do not put out enough heat to hurt people. The argument is that with real life bonfires (and other bonfires in D&D) there’s no arbitrary point where the heat goes from “hot enough to do damage” directly to “no effect on the ambient temperature at all.” And nothing in the spell description indicates that this magically created bonfire has such a barrier either.


All that said, “real world logic” doesn’t apply to a magically created bonfire that magically fills a 5’ cube. The idea that “heat and light must permeate through the magic that contains the fire” just doesn’t hold up: why can’t the magic contain all effects of the bonfire? Why is it powerless to contain the heat and light, yet capable of holding back the actual fire?
On the flip side, why can’t the magically created bonfire emit heat and light like any other bonfire? Why is the magic powerless to create such effects? The spell says it creates a bonfire. Why would that bonfire not resemble a real bonfire in any meaningful way?


Sounds like an arbitrary decision about how much heat and/or light a fire of that size puts out. And that’s fine, but it’s the same as an arbitrary decision that a fire of that size does produce heat that can damage.
The spell says it creates a bonfire. Having that bonfire work like a bonfire is not arbitrary. Having that bonfire not work like a bonfire? That’s arbitrary.



Let me use another spell as an example. Wall of Ice creates a wall of ice. It only does damage in two circumstances: it can damage creatures who are in the spaces where it appears when it appears, and it can damage creatures who move through destroyed portions of the wall. If a creature touches the wall after it has been conjured without going through a destroyed portion, they take no damage. Does the wall feel cold? It’s literally made of ice, but nothing in the spell description says that ice is cold.

[RSP]

That is not my argument. My argument is that it emits light and heat like a nonmagical bonfire would, with any exceptions spelled out in the spell.

So an arbitrary Segev rule that CB must create bonfires that produce light and heat because they must conform to real life bonfires, but must not produce damaging heat like real life bonfires, nor produce smoke like real life bonfires?

Why does it have to act like a real life bonfire in regards to emitting heat and light, but not in degree of heat or in production of smoke?

[JackPhoenix]

The spell says it creates a bonfire. Having that bonfire work like a bonfire is not arbitrary. Having that bonfire not work like a bonfire? That’s arbitrary.

On the other hand, having spells do exactly what they say is not arbitrary. Giving them additional effects based on vague idea of what they should do based solely on a word used in the spell's description is arbitrary.

[Segev]

By the same logic, does being knocked unconscious cause permanent brain damage? After all, that's what happens in real world, even if the rules don't say that, just like with the bonfire.Please note that any references to "real" bonfires are more just-for-reference. Are you going to assert that nonmagical bonfires in D&D 5e do not emit light and heat?


So an arbitrary Segev rule that CB must create bonfires that produce light and heat because they must conform to real life bonfires, but must not produce damaging heat like real life bonfires, nor produce smoke like real life bonfires?

Why does it have to act like a real life bonfire in regards to emitting heat and light, but not in degree of heat or in production of smoke?Please cite for me the rules for nonmagical bonfires in 5e that state how much light, heat, and smoke they emit. In particular, to back up your position, you should provide for me evidence that nonmagical bonfires in 5e D&D do not emit light or heat outside of the space the fire itself occupies.

Your attempts to insult me by claiming I am being arbitrary and making things up in a nonsensical fashion all rely on you mischaracterizing my position, which I clearly stated in my last response to you. Note that in that response, I said nothing about "real world" anything. I spoke of nonmagical bonfires.

If you can tell me with a straight face that, in your games, nonmagical bonfires emit no light nor heat - or rather, emit them as little as you wish to assert create bonfire's magical bonfire does - then I will concede that you are being consistent in your interpretation of the RAW.

[JackPhoenix]

Please note that any references to "real" bonfires are more just-for-reference. Are you going to assert that nonmagical bonfires in D&D 5e do not emit light and heat?

Please cite for me the rules for nonmagical bonfires in 5e that state how much light, heat, and smoke they emit. In particular, to back up your position, you should provide for me evidence that nonmagical bonfires in 5e D&D do not emit light or heat outside of the space the fire itself occupies.

Your attempts to insult me by claiming I am being arbitrary and making things up in a nonsensical fashion all rely on you mischaracterizing my position, which I clearly stated in my last response to you. Note that in that response, I said nothing about "real world" anything. I spoke of nonmagical bonfires.

If you can tell me with a straight face that, in your games, nonmagical bonfires emit no light nor heat - or rather, emit them as little as you wish to assert create bonfire's magical bonfire does - then I will concede that you are being consistent in your interpretation of the RAW.

What non-magical bonfires do or don't do has no bearing on what a spell does.

[Segev]

What non-magical bonfires do or don't do has no bearing on what a spell does.

It does when the spell creates a bonfire. The bonfire is magical, yes, but you don't automatically assume that a magical bonfire has zero properties in common with a nonmagical bonfire by default. The nature of the magical bonfire's differences from a nonmagical one have to be spelled out in the spell that creates it.

Otherwise, if all magical versions of nonmagical items have zero properties in common with the nonmagical versions except as explicitly listed, then a conjuror's class feature cannot create usable items:


Starting at 2nd level when you select this school, you can use your action to conjure up an inanimate object in your hand or on the ground in an unoccupied space that you can see within 10 feet of you. This object can be no larger than 3 feet on a side and weigh no more than 10 pounds, and its form must be that of a nonmagical object that you have seen. The object is visibly magical, radiating dim light out to 5 feet.

The object disappears after 1 hour, when you use this feature again, if it takes any damage, or if it deals any damage.
All these rules allow the object to do is exist in your hand or on the ground in an unoccupied space within 10 feet of you, be 3 feet on a side, and no heavier than 10 lbs. Oh, and it glows.

So, if you use this to conjure thieves' tools, the rogue cannot use them as thieves' tools, because they are magical thieves' tools, which have no properties that let them operate like nonmagical ones. If you conjure a stool, you cannot sit on it because it cannot be assumed to support weight. After all, Minor Conjuration doesn't say the object can support weight. If you conjure a paint brush, you cannot paint with it, because it cannot be assumed to be able to pick up or deposit paint; those are, after all, properties of nonmagical paintbrushes, and "what non-magical [paintbrushes] do or don't do has no bearing on what a [class feature-created magical paint brush] does."

The spell, create bonfire, creates a bonfire. What a nonmagical bonfire does absolutely has bearing on what the spell-created bonfire does. The spell tells us it creates a bonfire, and then tells us some specific properties of the bonfire. Where it specifically overrides the general "what a bonfire does" rules, the spell takes primacy for the bonfire created by the spell. But the argument that the bonfire created by the spell is not actually a bonfire, when the spell says it creates a bonfire, is saying the spell doesn't do what it says it does.

[Tanarii]

Intersting argument. The implication here, if you are using this argument to support that, because create bonfire does not cause damage outside of its area, it must not radiate heat that has any impact on the world, is that heat must cause damage to have mechanical impact on the world.

Therefore, are you suggesting that you cannot use a mundane fire to keep warm in the cold in D&D 5e, unless you are sitting close enough (possibly inside it) that you are taking fire damage?My entire post was about D&D light levels, not heat. And how emitting light doesn't require Dim or Bright Light levels.

This is a the same rules-based argument as your argument (not mine) that emitting heat doesn't require Fire Damage. And I was noticing the similarly between the two rules based arguments. That doesn't mean one has implications on the other.

[GooeyChewie]

On the other hand, having spells do exactly what they say is not arbitrary. Giving them additional effects based on vague idea of what they should do based solely on a word used in the spell's description is arbitrary.

Yes, spells should do exactly what they say they do. And this spell says “You create a bonfire on ground that you can see within range.” It should therefore create a bonfire. We should not arbitrarily add an additional effect which prevents the bonfire from emitting heat and light.


What non-magical bonfires do or don't do has no bearing on what a spell does.

If “bonfire” only appeared in the title, I would agree. But this spell’s description specifically states it creates a bonfire. When a spell conjures something, what that something would or would not do has a whole lot of bearing on what the spell does. Otherwise, Conjuration as a school of magic would be pretty useless!

[JackPhoenix]

It does when the spell creates a bonfire. The bonfire is magical, yes, but you don't automatically assume that a magical bonfire has zero properties in common with a nonmagical bonfire by default. The nature of the magical bonfire's differences from a nonmagical one have to be spelled out in the spell that creates it.

Does that mean the spell doesn't work inside buildings? After all, bonfire is "a large fire that is made outside". Does it need a source of fuel and air? The spell doesn't spell that it doesn't, and all nonmagical fire requires that. No more bonfires on a bare ground, I guess.


Yes, spells should do exactly what they say they do. And this spell says “You create a bonfire on ground that you can see within range.” It should therefore create a bonfire. We should not arbitrarily add an additional effect which prevents the bonfire from emitting heat and light.

But, apparently, we need to arbitrarily add additional effects which makes the spell to do things not in its description.


If “bonfire” only appeared in the title, I would agree. But this spell’s description specifically states it creates a bonfire. When a spell conjures something, what that something would or would not do has a whole lot of bearing on what the spell does. Otherwise, Conjuration as a school of magic would be pretty useless!

When a spell conjures something, we have the spell's description, with references to other rules, if necessary, to tell us what it does.

[JLandan]

Actually, Animal Shapes does mention the list of Beasts you can use when you cast it. To quote the spell:

Your magic turns others into Beasts. Choose any number of willing Creatures that you can see within range. You transform each target into the form of a Large or smaller beast with a Challenge rating of 4 or lower. On subsequent turns, you can use your action to transform affected Creatures into new forms.

You're allowed to turn any number of willing creatures into a Beast with a CR of 4 or lower, those are all game statistics laid out very plainly. You're not allowed to turn the party into a CR 8 Tyrannosaurus, or a CR 6 Mammoth. Beast is also a creature type, meaning you can't turn creatures into a Displacer Beast despite it having the word "Beast" in its name, because it is a Monstrosity. If we followed your line of reasoning, then Charm Person could be used to Charm a Lich because it uses the term "Humanoid" but doesn't list Humanoids in the spell, and the Charm effect would be meaningless.

You're still stuck doing exactly what the spell says, no more and no less.

Since the spell doesn't list any Beasts or define what Beasts are, the spell description is reliant on OTHER rules. That's my point, not all rules affecting a spell are in its description.



The problem you're running into is General versus Specific. The rule for Bright Light is a general rule. However, we have specific rules for how much light spells produce, and these rules are found in the spell descriptions. Every single spell that produces light specifies exactly how much light it produces. Moonbeam produces 10ft of Dim Light, Produce Flame creates 10ft of Bright and 10ft of Dim, Flaming Sphere has 20ft of Bright and 20ft of Dim. If it were assumed that all fire spells shed Bright Light then there wouldn't be a need to state this fact, it would fall under the General Rule for Bright Light. By applying that general rule to everything, you end up unintentionally buffing every single fire spell that doesn't state it creates light.

Yes, a specific rule overrides a general rule. But to say a lack of a specific rule also overrides a general rule is a self-defeating argument.

General: Fires emit light.
Specific: Fire from spell doesn't mention light.
Conclusion: Fire from spell doesn't emit light? or Since no mention is made, general rule still holds?

If the spell description said it doesn't emit enough light to affect vision, then that would be an overriding specific rule. But the spell description has no mention of light one way or the other, so the general rule still holds.

Because some spells are specific, does not mean all spells must be specific. If you want to rule as a DM that CB creates a 5x5x5 fire that sheds no light, that's between you and your table.

Calling for exact and specific effects alone with no room for descriptive qualities, whether they affect game mechanics or not, is boring and unimaginative.

I suppose your bonfires are also silent, make no smoke and are undetectable by heat until one is inside its damaging zone. Real bonfires give off heat, smoke and noise as well as light. But the spell description doesn't say that it has those qualities, so the magic bonfire cannot have them. It's like playing monsters as stat blocks with no description. The MM says nowhere that the beating of dragon wings make noise, so they must be too quit to hear, nor does contact with a water elemental cause dampness so they must be dry. I couldn't play that way, and would have to leave your table.

[GooeyChewie]

But, apparently, we need to arbitrarily add additional effects which makes the spell to do things not in its description.
I am not adding anything to the spell description. I’m just also not ignoring that the spell creates a bonfire, nor am I adding anything to the spell that says the bonfire doesn’t act like a bonfire.



When a spell conjures something, we have the spell's description, with references to other rules, if necessary, to tell us what it does.

So if I cast Wall of Ice, the ice it creates is at room temperature? Same with Sleet Storm? If I cast Tidal Wave, none of the creatures affected get wet?

[Tanarii]

Yes, a specific rule overrides a general rule. But to say a lack of a specific rule also overrides a general rule is a self-defeating argument.

General: Fires emit light.
Specific: Fire from spell doesn't mention light.
Conclusion: Fire from spell doesn't emit light? or Since no mention is made, general rule still holds?

Emitting light does not mean it creates Dim or Bright light area in 5e. c.f. moonlit nights, which are still areas of Darkness.

The general rule is that even with something emitting light, it can still count as Darkness.

[JLandan]

Emitting light does not mean it creates Dim or Bright light area in 5e. c.f. moonlit nights, which are still areas of Darkness.

The general rule is that even with something emitting light, it can still count as Darkness.

Again...

Per PH/Adventuring/The Environment/Vision and Light:

Bright light lets most creatures see normally. Even gloomy days provide bright light, as do torches, lanterns, fires, and other sources of illumination within a specific radius.

Emphasis on "fires" mine.

Fires emit BRIGHT light.

Nothing in the Create Bonfire spell description precludes that it is in fact a fire. It says "bonfire", not "illusion of bonfire", not even "magical bonfire". The description has no mention of light, but the general rule for bright light, in the Adventuring section of the PH, does mention fires. The general rule is not overridden by the specific rule in the spell description because there is no specific rule in the spell description. If lack of specific rule overrides as well as specific rule, then there are no general rules.

Fires emit bright light. Bonfires, mundane or magical, ARE fires.

Therefore: The bonfire created by the Create Bonfire spell emits bright light. the radius would be DM's call.

If you still do not comprehend my argument, I cannot help you. If you still disagree, that's fine, but isn't because of logic.

[sithlordnergal]

Since the spell doesn't list any Beasts or define what Beasts are, the spell description is reliant on OTHER rules. That's my point, not all rules affecting a spell are in its description.

The only reason that spell uses other rules is because it specifically calls out those other rules. If Animal Shapes had not mentioned Beasts, then you could not turn into a Beast despite its name.



Yes, a specific rule overrides a general rule. But to say a lack of a specific rule also overrides a general rule is a self-defeating argument.

General: Fires emit light.
Specific: Fire from spell doesn't mention light.
Conclusion: Fire from spell doesn't emit light? or Since no mention is made, general rule still holds?

If the spell description said it doesn't emit enough light to affect vision, then that would be an overriding specific rule. But the spell description has no mention of light one way or the other, so the general rule still holds.

Because some spells are specific, does not mean all spells must be specific. If you want to rule as a DM that CB creates a 5x5x5 fire that sheds no light, that's between you and your table.

Calling for exact and specific effects alone with no room for descriptive qualities, whether they affect game mechanics or not, is boring and unimaginative.

I suppose your bonfires are also silent, make no smoke and are undetectable by heat until one is inside its damaging zone. Real bonfires give off heat, smoke and noise as well as light. But the spell description doesn't say that it has those qualities, so the magic bonfire cannot have them. It's like playing monsters as stat blocks with no description. The MM says nowhere that the beating of dragon wings make noise, so they must be too quit to hear, nor does contact with a water elemental cause dampness so they must be dry. I couldn't play that way, and would have to leave your table.

Tell me, why specify how much light other Fire spells give if all Fire spells were meant to give off Light? The fact that we have a specific rule of multiple spells creating varying levels of Light when they're cast, and others do not pretty clearly shows that Magical Fire does not follow that General Rule. Otherwise WotC wouldn't have had a reason to post how much light a spell gives off. Like it or not, Magical Fire doesn't follow the General Rule because there are Specific Rules that over ride this within certain spell.

And having it that way doesn't change descriptive things at all. There's a difference between the Fluff and Crunch of a spell. Changing the Crunch of Bonfire would involving letting it create Bright Light in some sort of radius, or having it create enough smoke that it could create a smokescreen, or enough heat that it keeps you nice and warm in the winter. The fluff, or descriptive part if you will, is having the Bonfire be orange, red, blue, green, or whatever, shaping it to look like a skull.

And yeah, the Bonfire spell makes no more noise than any other spell, and spells make no more noise than firing a longbow of fighting with a sword and shield, with the exception of spells like Thunderwave. It doesn't make any more heat or light than casting Chromatic Orb. Why? Because it is a spell, its not a real, honest to goodness bonfire.

[Tanarii]

Again...

Per PH/Adventuring/The Environment/Vision and Light:

Darkness creates a heavily obscured area. Characters face darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit nights), within the confines of an unlit dungeon or a subterranean vault, or in an area of magical darkness.

Even most moonlit nights count as darkness. The general rule is things that emit light =/= area of light.

In the case of spells, that means they need to specify it, since there is no general rule that things that emit light create areas of light type.

Furthermore even Bright Light says that for "torches, lanterns, fires, and other sources of illumination" they are within a specified radius. No specification of Bright Light radius from such things, no Bright Light.

[JLandan]

Tell me, why specify how much light other Fire spells give if all Fire spells were meant to give off Light? The fact that we have a specific rule of multiple spells creating varying levels of Light when they're cast, and others do not pretty clearly shows that Magical Fire does not follow that General Rule. Otherwise WotC wouldn't have had a reason to post how much light a spell gives off. Like it or not, Magical Fire doesn't follow the General Rule because there are Specific Rules that over ride this within certain spell.

You would have to ask the game writers why they did that. I only go by what they wrote.


And having it that way doesn't change descriptive things at all. There's a difference between the Fluff and Crunch of a spell. Changing the Crunch of Bonfire would involving letting it create Bright Light in some sort of radius, or having it create enough smoke that it could create a smokescreen, or enough heat that it keeps you nice and warm in the winter. The fluff, or descriptive part if you will, is having the Bonfire be orange, red, blue, green, or whatever, shaping it to look like a skull.

My argument is not about crunch vs. fluff. All my points are crunch, actual rules in the PH and EEPC. I posted my argument. If you cannot understand the rules written by the designers nor simple logic, I cannot help you. If you choose to ignore certain rules when you play that is your business, but is not RAW.


And yeah, the Bonfire spell makes no more noise than any other spell, and spells make no more noise than firing a longbow of fighting with a sword and shield, with the exception of spells like Thunderwave. It doesn't make any more heat or light than casting Chromatic Orb. Why? Because it is a spell, its not a real, honest to goodness bonfire.

The spell description says "bonfire". Not illusion of bonfire, not unreal bonfire, not magical bonfire that emits no bright light though nonmagical bonfires do. The unreality of the bonfire is in your interpretation, not the spell description. In the spell description it is real enough to do damage and ignite flammable objects. Seems quite real to me. Real bonfires emit bright light per the PH.

[Chronos]

The vision rules explicitly say that fires create bright light. They don't say how much, but they're explicit that they do create bright light. If a ranger built a completely nonmagical bonfire from sticks and lit it with flint and steel, it would produce bright light, because that's what the rules say fire does. The fact that the rules don't say how much bright light a bonfire produces doesn't mean that it doesn't produce light; it just means that the DM has to decide how much.

If a description of a room says that a statue is holding a ruby the size of a person's fist, do you think your players would try to take it? Why? The rules don't say anything about how valuable a fist-sized ruby is, after all. Does that mean that it's valueless? Your players probably disagree.

[Segev]

My entire post was about D&D light levels, not heat. And how emitting light doesn't require Dim or Bright Light levels.

This is a the same rules-based argument as your argument (not mine) that emitting heat doesn't require Fire Damage. And I was noticing the similarly between the two rules based arguments. That doesn't mean one has implications on the other.

I suppose the issue I have with ti is that it is, like it or not, juxtaposed against people saying the bonfire must not emit light nor heat because the spell doesnt' spell out exactly the amount of heat and light emitted. My apologies if I read too much into what you said.

The reason light calls for the DM to make a ruling about the bright an dim light radii is because it cannot be said that "it emits light" is meaningful without spelling out the level of light emitted.

This doesn't apply to the heat consideration because "heat" has limited mechanical effects unless it's doing damage, but that doesn't mean that heat doesn't exist if damage isn't being done. Thus, you can have heat without needing a ruling about much at all in game mechanical terms. "It's hot near the bonfire" doesn't require you to specify if it's "bright hot" or "dim hot" or the like, only whether or not damage it is dealing.

[RSP]

I’m guessing your friend did not take fire damage when they set their shoes down. Sounds like a great example of a fire still emitting heat despite that heat not doing damage.

In D&D, objects can, in fact, take damage. So the D&D equivalent to the shoes taking damage is not “heat doesn’t do damage,” it’s “the heat does damage and destroys the object”.



The argument is not that real life bonfires do not put out enough heat to hurt people. The argument is that with real life bonfires (and other bonfires in D&D) there’s no arbitrary point where the heat goes from “hot enough to do damage” directly to “no effect on the ambient temperature at all.” And nothing in the spell description indicates that this magically created bonfire has such a barrier either.

The entirety of the bonfire contained within a 5’ box equals there’s no barrier preventing the fire from spreading huh? So in your estimation the CB bonfire can fill a 10’x10’x10’ area, because no such barrier to the spell effects exists? Interesting observation.



The spell says it creates a bonfire. Why would that bonfire not resemble a real bonfire

So again, the argument that the magically created D&D bonfire has to do what a “real bonfire” would? Then the heat should damage people and objects like a real bonfire would. And the smoke should choke creatures that need to breathe when cast indoors.

[Foolwise]

Darkness creates a heavily obscured area. Characters face darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit nights), within the confines of an unlit dungeon or a subterranean vault, or in an area of magical darkness.

Even most moonlit nights count as darkness. The general rule is things that emit light =/= area of light.


That is a rather large leap to make to declare that the general rule is illumination does not create an area of light. One, you are keying on to an example in parantheses to make this leap. Two, you are perhaps glossing over the key word in that parenthetical example- most. A moonlit night in a forest, sure, that’s darkness. But in an open field, desert, sea or anywhere else that doesn’t provide some cover from that moonlight? Nope, not darkness.

And as I referenced the PHB, I see it agrees, from the immediate sentence before the Darkness rule, which you apparently cherry-picked out:


A particularly brilliant full moon might bathe the land in dim light.

So per PHB, moonlit nights are not always darkness, i.e. sources of light emit areas of light provided conditions allow it.

From my own experience, any half to full moon will provide me with enough dim light to see by on my night hikes. What turns moonlit nights to darkness are tree cover, cloud cover, mountainsides hiding the moon behind them.

[Tanarii]

From my own experience, any half to full moon will provide me with enough dim light to see by on my night hikes. What turns moonlit nights to darkness are tree cover, cloud cover, mountainsides hiding the moon behind them.
Sure. But for 5e rules purposes, if it's not a particularly brilliant moon, that's still Darkness.

I didn't cherry pick anything, I showed where the PHB clearly categorizes something that should be enough light to see by in most people's experience as Darkness. That proves that the previously claimed thesis by other posters which boils down to "emits light = Dim or Bright Light" is not correct. The follow up rule to brilliant full moon isn't ignored, it's just not necessary to disprove that thesis.

Which makes some sort of sense. Darkness in 5e let's you freely move without issue, and potentially even (DMs judgement) just take disadvantage to attack someone in it without having to guess their location first.

[Thunderous Mojo]

If you placed a bonfire in a room, it wouldn't be a bonfire, because by definition, bonfire has to be outside. Does that mean the spell doesn't work inside buildings and dungeons either?

If we take your proposed reductio ad absurdum to the farthest extent it does mean that; which would either result in inhibiting the use of Create Bonfire indoors, or that when using Create Bonfire indoors, it automatically destroys the building due to your definition of Bonfire.

I think either outcome is extreme.

The word ‘Bonfire’ for the purposes of the spell Create Bonfire, effectively means ‘big controlled fire’. The spell, itself, defines a ‘Bonfire’ as a 5’ fire that catches non attached objects on fire, and potentially deals damages to creatures.


By the same logic, does being knocked unconscious cause permanent brain damage? After all, that's what happens in real world, even if the rules don't say that, just like with the bonfire.

Hit Points are such an abstract, gamiest concept, with little to no resemblance to how life actually operates, that I’m genuinely perplexed why you would want to reference hit points at all in an appeal to a sense of reality.

A game that uses Lingering Injuries could actually have a Brain Damage analog.


On the other hand, having spells do exactly what they say is not arbitrary. Giving them additional effects based on vague idea of what they should do based solely on a word used in the spell's description is arbitrary.

I personally find that a spell that creates a Non-Illuminating, 5’ tall and wide, source of Fire damage, (including lighting non attended objects on fire), to be a more disruptive assumption then the alternative and radical idea that Fire produces light.

So would people actually rule that someone could catch an object on fire in an area of natural darkness, and the Create Bonfire spell causes no illumination?

As a player, I could love that ruling!

[Schwann145]

We're not asking the important question yet!

Why is a Conjuration spell creating a magical fire? Conjuration is supposed to magically summon a mundane fire.
Magical fire is the perview of Evocation.

#SpellOverhaulWhen?



I think this an unfair criticism of 5e.
We're on page 4 of this topic at this point. I don't see how it could possibly be an unfair criticism, lol

[SpanielBear]

We're on page 4 of this topic at this point. I don't see how it could possibly be an unfair criticism, lol

Because I suspect (and honestly hope) that four page internet discussions are a feature of the internet and not actual gameplay!

Because this whole conversation in a gaming setting would boil down to-

Player: Hey DM, does this bonfire my character has summoned cast any light?

DM: Yes/No

Player: Cool.

And the game continues.

[Miele]

Because I suspect (and honestly hope) that four page internet discussions are a feature of the internet and not actual gameplay!

Because this whole conversation in a gaming setting would boil down to-

Player: Hey DM, does this bonfire my character has summoned cast any light?

DM: Yes/No

Player: Cool.

And the game continues.

Pretty much :D

[Amnestic]

Because I suspect (and honestly hope) that four page internet discussions are a feature of the internet and not actual gameplay!

Because this whole conversation in a gaming setting would boil down to-

Player: Hey DM, does this bonfire my character has summoned cast any light?

DM: Yes/No

Player: Cool.

And the game continues.

Essentially happened in a game I'm in - it making light was important since it's the Underdark and there's a gloomstalker in the party. DM said it did and that was it.

[RSP]

Please cite for me the rules for nonmagical bonfires in 5e that state how much light, heat, and smoke they emit. In particular, to back up your position, you should provide for me evidence that nonmagical bonfires in 5e D&D do not emit light or heat outside of the space the fire itself occupies.

Your attempts to insult me by claiming I am being arbitrary and making things up in a nonsensical fashion all rely on you mischaracterizing my position, which I clearly stated in my last response to you. Note that in that response, I said nothing about "real world" anything. I spoke of nonmagical bonfires.

It’s not an insult to say you are making an arbitrary decision: if you think making arbitrary decisions is insulting, I guess don’t make arbitrary decisions?

My pointing out that it’s arbitrary is because you arguing the arbitrary line of “only emits so much light, only emits so much heat, only emits so much smoke” is no better an arbitrary decision than any one else stating CB puts out different levels of any of the three.

You state the heat can’t do damage because the spell doesn’t state that, yet say the spell can emit heat even though it doesn’t say that. That’s playing both sides: the spell can do what it doesn’t say when Segev wants it to, but can’t do what the spell doesn’t say when Segev doesn’t want it to. Your argument boils down to Segev determines what spells do.



If you can tell me with a straight face that, in your games, nonmagical bonfires emit no light nor heat - or rather, emit them as little as you wish to assert create bonfire's magical bonfire does - then I will concede that you are being consistent in your interpretation of the RAW.

You have no idea whether I’m straight faced or not, so this is a ridiculous statement.

I also disagree that a bonfire created through non-magical means, and untouched by magic in anyway, is the basis for what CB does. The nonmagical bonfire is burning something for fuel, which determines, in part, how much heat it puts out, how big it gets, etc. other factors weigh in as well of course.

Does dumping water on CB put it out? Does the smoke from CB kill creatures when it’s cast in an enclosed space?

Does your “nonmagical bonfire” expand to fill a 5’ cube, but not exceed those dimensions? Does you “nonmagical bonfire” not require something to burn as fuel?

A 5’ nonmagical bonfire will indeed produce heat enough to damage creatures and objects, where they to be close enough to it. (This is written with a “straight face” if that matters to you for some reason).

As I’ve stated, consistently, I believe the most consistent way to view it the spell is that the effects are contained within the described 5’ cube.

So do you play in your games that the bonfire requires fuel, can’t exist in situations too wet, put out enough smoke to kill creatures requiring clean air to breathe? Because those are all elements of “nonmagical bonfires” (in addition to them putting out heat and expanding past a 5’ cube when circumstances permit).

[GooeyChewie]

I also disagree that a bonfire created through non-magical means, and untouched by magic in anyway, is the basis for what CB does.

I asked these earlier, but got no response. If a character touches a Wall of Ice, does it feel cold? If a creature is hit by Tidal Wave, do they get wet? Please note that Wall of Ice does not say that the ice it creates is cold, nor does Tidal Wave say the water it creates is wet.

If the answer is yes, on account of the fact that ice is cold and water is wet, then the same principle should apply to the bonfire. If those two spells do not need to explicitly say ice is cold and water is wet, Create Bonfire should not need to explicitly say bonfires are hot.

If the answer is no, on account of them being magical and the spell not specifically saying the ice is cold and the water is wet, then you’re basically treating the individual words in the spell description as meaningless. In that case, there’s no way we will come to an agreement on this topic. I hope you enjoy playing the game that way, but I would not; we can agree to disagree and move on with life.

[Segev]

I'm glad we agree that a nonmagical bonfire is the basis for what the magical bonfire created by create bonfire does. No, the magical bonfire does not need fuel, nor does it get extinguished by dousing it in water, because the spell specifies that the five foot cube is filled with the fire as long as the spell is ongoing. No, the spell doesn't persist past the point of your concentration, either, despite the fact that a nonmagical bonfire would keep burning whether you concentrated on it or not. The duration and fuel needs for the magical bonfire are laid out in the spell, by virtue of the spell doing what it says it does and having no hidden "gotchas" that make the spell inherently impossible.

At no point does the spell say, "The magical bonfire emits no light nor heat," nor does it specify, "No heat can be felt beyond the five foot cube," nor, "there is not enough light to see by from this fire." Some variation on one of those would need to be explicitly stated for it to behave differently from a nonmagical bonfire in the fashion you're trying to insist must be the case.

Again: the spell does what it says it does. The attempted counterexamples you list all would prevent the spell from doing things it says it does. You've yet to provide a reason why it emitting light and heat (but not enough heat to do damage) prevents the spell from doing what it says it does. You've yet to counter my assertion that NOT emitting light nor heat beyond its five foot cube would mean it's FAILING to do what it says it does, by virtue of it not creating a bonfire that behaves (save for ways the spell says it doesn't) like a nonmagical bonfire.

For create bonfire to use nonmagical bonfires as its basis, do what it says it does, and not have arbitrary made-up limitations that are not evinced by anything stated in the spell description, it must burn without requiring fuel for and only for the duration of the spell, it must do the damage it says it does where it says it does it, and it must emit light (likely no less than a torch in radius; likely no greater than daylight in radius, but DM's call) and heat (in an amount and distance that is entirely the DM's call, just as it is for a regular bonfire, but which definitely doesn't do damage outside of the five foot cube).

Those qualities meet the description of the spell. Things that violate those qualities, in one way or another, violate the description of the spell.

[Tanarii]

I'm glad we agree that a nonmagical bonfire is the basis for what the magical bonfire created by create bonfire does.I don't see any particular reason to agree with this.

[Thunderous Mojo]

We're not asking the important question yet!

Why is a Conjuration spell creating a magical fire? Conjuration is supposed to magically summon a mundane fire.
Magical fire is the perview of Evocation.


There is no systemic distinction between Magical Fire and Non-Magical Fire in 5e.

The only damage types in which the source of the damage being mundane or magical, might make a difference are the Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing damage types.

It seems to me, you are calling for an overhaul of a system, that one might argue, you lack a full understanding of.🕊

[JackPhoenix]

I am not adding anything to the spell description. I’m just also not ignoring that the spell creates a bonfire, nor am I adding anything to the spell that says the bonfire doesn’t act like a bonfire.

And how does a bonfire act within the context of 5e mechanics?


So if I cast Wall of Ice, the ice it creates is at room temperature?

Maybe? Probably not, but who cares what temperature the ice itself is if you can't do anything with it anyway?


Same with Sleet Storm?

That would be no. "... freezing rain and sleet fall..."


If I cast Tidal Wave, none of the creatures affected get wet?

That's correct.


We're not asking the important question yet!

Why is a Conjuration spell creating a magical fire? Conjuration is supposed to magically summon a mundane fire.
Magical fire is the perview of Evocation.

#SpellOverhaulWhen?

Probably for the same reason summoning a non-magical stone wall is an evocation.


Because I suspect (and honestly hope) that four page internet discussions are a feature of the internet and not actual gameplay!

Because this whole conversation in a gaming setting would boil down to-

Player: Hey DM, does this bonfire my character has summoned cast any light?

DM: Yes/No

Player: Cool.

And the game continues.

Well, of course. I've put light radius on a bonfire token in my last game. But I'm not running a game here, I'm arguing on an internet forum, and only care about what the rules say.

[RSP]

I'm glad we agree that a nonmagical bonfire is the basis for what the magical bonfire created by create bonfire does.

As you go on to answer questions I posed, I wanted to restate here that I do not agree that a nonmagical bonfire is the basis for what CB creates.



No, the magical bonfire does not need fuel, nor does it get extinguished by dousing it in water, because the spell specifies that the five foot cube is filled with the fire as long as the spell is ongoing.

At no point does the spell state it doesn’t need fuel, or that it resists water.



At no point does the spell say, "The magical bonfire emits no light nor heat," nor does it specify, "No heat can be felt beyond the five foot cube," nor, "there is not enough light to see by from this fire."

Nor does it state it does those things. This goes back to you arbitrarily selecting properties that exist with the CB bonfire.



Again: the spell does what it says it does. The attempted counterexamples you list all would prevent the spell from doing things it says it does.

I’m assuming you’re referring to posts I had, as you didn’t cite any posts but are referencing a clear “you”. Please clarify if referring to someone else.

In no way does containing the spell effect to the 5’ cube the spell states exists, prevent the spell from doing what it says.



You've yet to provide a reason why it emitting light and heat (but not enough heat to do damage) prevents the spell from doing what it says it does.

Again, just assuming you’re referencing me here. It has been said, multiple times: the fire fills the cube. It doesn’t go outside of the cube. Please state as such if you believe the fire created goes outside the 5’ cube.



For create bonfire to use nonmagical bonfires as its basis, do what it says it does, and not have arbitrary made-up limitations that are not evinced by anything stated in the spell description…

For CB to do what it says it does, it should do what it says it does. Saying it emits heat, light and/or smoke, are all outside what the spell description says it does. Deciding “the fire created by CB emits X amount of heat, X amount of light, and X amount t of smoke”, is arbitrary. Anyone countering that stance with “no, it emits 2X amount of heat, X-1 amount of light, and X+3 amount of smoke” is on just as equal footing as your assessment is. Hence, those determinations are arbitrary.

Your determinations of how the fire acts like a “nonmagical fire” is also arbitrary: sometimes it has to act like a nonmagical fire and emit light; yet, other times it cannot act like a nonmagical fire and dousing it with water has no effect. Neither example is listed anywhere in the spell effect, so that isn’t anything to go off of.

You vacillate between “needs to be in the description to happen” and “nope, doesn’t need to be in the description to happen”. This is why it’s all arbitrary, because anyone can just decide to go back and forth on that and pick and choose whatever features they want.

[SpanielBear]

Absent of any other light sources, is the flame visible?

[RSP]

Absent of any other light sources, is the flame visible?

Sure. Stuff can be lit without having an area that it makes bright or dim light. Look at the Protector Aasimar:

“Radiant Soul.
Starting at 3rd level, you can use your action to unleash the divine energy within yourself, causing your eyes to glimmer and two luminous, incorporeal wings to sprout from your back.”

Luminous means “full of or shedding light; bright or shining, especially in the dark” (Per a quick Google search).

So they are very much lit up, yet create no area of bright or dim light.

That same Google search gave the example of a luminous watch face: it’s lit up so you can read the watch, but you’re not reading any books by it. Another example I’ve used in the past is seeing fireflies: they light up and you know they’re there, but it’s not a degree of light that illuminates a large area.

[JLandan]

No, the magical bonfire does not need fuel, nor does it get extinguished by dousing it in water, because the spell specifies that the five foot cube is filled with the fire as long as the spell is ongoing.

Here we disagree. I would rule that a sufficient amount of water would extinguish it. After all, conjured creatures are damaged, even killed or destroyed, and a Wall of Stone, though an evocation, can be destroyed with enough damage.

[Dr.Samurai]

The way I read the spell is that you create a bonfire, and the spell tells you exactly how much space it takes, and the amount of damage it deals to creatures. The book assumes you can extrapolate from "bonfire" what else it might do by nature of being a bonfire.

Because the bonfire is magical and lasts for up to 1 minute if you concentrate, I would interpret it as not needing fuel, otherwise it would seem to me more like a flash of flame before sputtering out due to lack of fuel. Water... I can see it both ways. But it seems to me that the caster's concentration is keeping this fire going, so water might not be able to dampen it.

But does it create heat and light? It's a bonfire, yes it does.

[Schwann145]

Because I suspect (and honestly hope) that four page internet discussions are a feature of the internet and not actual gameplay!

Because this whole conversation in a gaming setting would boil down to-

Player: Hey DM, does this bonfire my character has summoned cast any light?

DM: Yes/No

Player: Cool.

And the game continues.

I wasn't aware that Adventure League DMs had that much leeway in rules interpretations. :smallconfused:

[SpanielBear]

Sure. Stuff can be lit without having an area that it makes bright or dim light. Look at the Protector Aasimar:

“Radiant Soul.
Starting at 3rd level, you can use your action to unleash the divine energy within yourself, causing your eyes to glimmer and two luminous, incorporeal wings to sprout from your back.”

Luminous means “full of or shedding light; bright or shining, especially in the dark” (Per a quick Google search).

So they are very much lit up, yet create no area of bright or dim light.

That same Google search gave the example of a luminous watch face: it’s lit up so you can read the watch, but you’re not reading any books by it. Another example I’ve used in the past is seeing fireflies: they light up and you know they’re there, but it’s not a degree of light that illuminates a large area.

Doesn’t say anything about it being luminous in the spell description. Nor bright, nor shining, flickering… no light description whatsoever. So it seems you are porting that over just from the definition of the word bonfire. But not the idea that it’s a bright light.

Seems somewhat… arbitrary.

[SpanielBear]

I wasn't aware that Adventure League DMs had that much leeway in rules interpretations. :smallconfused:

I thought in areas where an explicit ruling was absent, that was exactly the level of leeway they had. Making an at the table ruling is a thing, no?

[Foolwise]

Here we disagree. I would rule that a sufficient amount of water would extinguish it. After all, conjured creatures are damaged, even killed or destroyed, and a Wall of Stone, though an evocation, can be destroyed with enough damage.

So you would not allow a PC to cast CB in heavy rain? Disagree there. Underwater casting that was proposed earlier in the thread, I wouldn’t allow as the spell states it must be cast “on the ground." But as long as the caster maintained their concentration, a waterfall could manifest above CB and the fire would still continue. Prob give creatures adv against the save though thanks to the rain/waterfall.

I also would rule CB doesn’t produce smoke on its own since it doesn’t burn fuel.

[JLandan]

The way I read the spell is that you create a bonfire, and the spell tells you exactly how much space it takes, and the amount of damage it deals to creatures. The book assumes you can extrapolate from "bonfire" what else it might do by nature of being a bonfire.

Because the bonfire is magical and lasts for up to 1 minute if you concentrate, I would interpret it as not needing fuel, otherwise it would seem to me more like a flash of flame before sputtering out due to lack of fuel. Water... I can see it both ways. But it seems to me that the caster's concentration is keeping this fire going, so water might not be able to dampen it.

But does it create heat and light? It's a bonfire, yes it does.

The concentration maintaining the fire is an excellent argument, almost convincing me. But...

A conjured or summoned creature, while requiring concentration, is not solely maintained by the concentration, it has HP and may be killed or destroyed.

I would also point out that I said a sufficient amount of water. Rain probably wouldn't be enough. A bonfire will still burn in the rain, even a campfire if it's large enough. Underwater though, I would have the environment extinguish it at the end of the turn. Some spells could do it, but not all. Create Food and Water doesn't make enough water, but Tidal Wave does, so does Watery Sphere. A bucket would not be enough, maybe a hose with enough pressure.

[Chronos]

Quoth RSP:

So again, the argument that the magically created D&D bonfire has to do what a “real bonfire” would? Then the heat should damage people and objects like a real bonfire would.
Yes, if you get too close to it. How close is too close? The spell specifies that: Within the 5' cube. If you're less close than that, then the heat is low enough that it doesn't do damage, while if you're closer than that, it does deal damage.

No doubt, the spell specifies how close you have to get before you take damage, because combat and damage are the sort of thing that D&D has lots of rules about, and people will quite often be casting this spell in combat in order to deal damage. D&D also has rules about light, which say, among other things, that fires produce bright light. But it has less rules about light than it does about combat, so it's perhaps not surprising that they neglected to say how much bright light fires produce (beyond the fact that it's some nonzero amount).

[RSP]

I asked these earlier, but got no response. If a character touches a Wall of Ice, does it feel cold? If a creature is hit by Tidal Wave, do they get wet? Please note that Wall of Ice does not say that the ice it creates is cold, nor does Tidal Wave say the water it creates is wet.

If the answer is yes, on account of the fact that ice is cold and water is wet, then the same principle should apply to the bonfire. If those two spells do not need to explicitly say ice is cold and water is wet, Create Bonfire should not need to explicitly say bonfires are hot.

I don’t have an issue with bonfires being hot or ice being cold (I don’t think this is the example you believe it is: the spell states it does Cold damage, which we can probably assume has some connection with actually being cold. One could very well say putting your hand inside the area of the Wall of Ice is passing through it and they would therefore take Cold damage, same as if someone decided to put their hand in the cube of fire created by CB and they took Fire damage).

I’ve consistently referred to the fact the described effects of CB are contained with the 5’ cube, therefore, assuming all the effects of CB are contained in that cube is the most consistent way to view it.

DMs can obviously rule it anyway they want, but any degree of heat/light/smoke will be an arbitrary determination, as we don’t know what a magical D&D 5e bonfire contained within a 5’ cube would produce of those things, even if we assumed it did produce those things, and that those things permeated the magic that contains the actual fire within a 5’ cube.

Further, saying the heat emitted by CB is mild and doesn’t damage stuff isn’t based on your argument here of “ice is cold and water is wet”: 5’ bonfires emit heat of a degree that can very much damage creatures and items, so if water is wet, then high enough levels of heat cause damage.


Yes, if you get too close to it. How close is too close? The spell specifies that: Within the 5' cube. If you're less close than that, then the heat is low enough that it doesn't do damage, while if you're closer than that, it does deal damage.


Incorrect reading of the RAW: the fire fills a 5’ cube, so everything within that cube is fire. The RAW says nothing about heat or, if heat is created, how close you have to be to the fire to feel the heat, or how intense the heat would be.



No doubt, the spell specifies how close you have to get before you take damage…

No. It states if you enter the cube, you take damage; it says nothing on if there’s heat and/or what that heat would do.

“Until the spell ends, the magic bonfire fills a 5-foot cube. Any creature in the bonfire’s space when you cast the spell must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or take 1d8 fire damage. A creature must also make the saving throw when it moves into the bonfire’s space for the first time on a turn or ends its turn there.

The bonfire ignites flammable objects in its area that aren’t being worn or carried.”

“In its area” and “the bonfire’s space” is clearly referring to the 5’ cube. The RAW states nothing on what occurs if you’re outside of the cube.

[Dr.Samurai]

The concentration maintaining the fire is an excellent argument, almost convincing me. But...

A conjured or summoned creature, while requiring concentration, is not solely maintained by the concentration, it has HP and may be killed or destroyed.
But does a conjured animal need to do all the things a body does to function (eat, breathe, sleep, metabolize, etc.)? I think fuel isn't needed because it's magic to create the fire and keep it there. Otherwise I would imagine you have to create the fire on a suitable fuel source instead of just "the ground".

I would also point out that I said a sufficient amount of water. Rain probably wouldn't be enough. A bonfire will still burn in the rain, even a campfire if it's large enough. Underwater though, I would have the environment extinguish it at the end of the turn. Some spells could do it, but not all. Create Food and Water doesn't make enough water, but Tidal Wave does, so does Watery Sphere. A bucket would not be enough, maybe a hose with enough pressure.
I am okay with water interacting with it in this way. Maybe a concentration save to see if you can will the fire to remain? I'd be in alignment with a DM saying "you can douse it with enough water" or "it's magical, water can't douse it so long as you concentrate" or "water would normally douse it but in this case it threatens to disrupt your concentration as you struggle to keep the fire going".

[PhoenixPhyre]

No. It states if you enter the cube, you take damage; it says nothing on if there’s heat and/or what that heat would do.

“Until the spell ends, the magic bonfire fills a 5-foot cube. Any creature in the bonfire’s space when you cast the spell must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or take 1d8 fire damage. A creature must also make the saving throw when it moves into the bonfire’s space for the first time on a turn or ends its turn there.

The bonfire ignites flammable objects in its area that aren’t being worn or carried.”


Interestingly, even though the bonfire "fills a 5-foot cube", you can stand in that cube (surrounded by fire, by definition of "fills") and not take any damage by succeeding on a Dexterity saving throw. So you can walk through this bonfire with a 50% (or so) chance of not taking any system-mechanical damage. Not even as much as being struck by a torch (guaranteed 1 damage). Heck, if your dex is good, you can stand there for the entire duration and only expect to take a small amount of damage. If it's good enough (say a monster with 30 dex and proficiency in dex saves vs a low-level caster), you can stand there for its entire duration (never leaving that cube) and take zero damage.

The mind boggles.

I'm not coming down on any side of this debate, merely pointing out some oddities. And I think those oddities apply to just about every position taken here (although I wouldn't bet on every one).

[JLandan]

Interestingly, even though the bonfire "fills a 5-foot cube", you can stand in that cube (surrounded by fire, by definition of "fills") and not take any damage by succeeding on a Dexterity saving throw. So you can walk through this bonfire with a 50% (or so) chance of not taking any system-mechanical damage. Not even as much as being struck by a torch (guaranteed 1 damage). Heck, if your dex is good, you can stand there for the entire duration and only expect to take a small amount of damage. If it's good enough (say a monster with 30 dex and proficiency in dex saves vs a low-level caster), you can stand there for its entire duration (never leaving that cube) and take zero damage.

The mind boggles.

I'm not coming down on any side of this debate, merely pointing out some oddities. And I think those oddities apply to just about every position taken here (although I wouldn't bet on every one).

And THAT is why I say Flaming Sphere is an order of magnitude better than Create Bonfire.

[PhoenixPhyre]

And THAT is why I say Flaming Sphere is an order of magnitude better than Create Bonfire.

And? Flaming Sphere is a 2nd level spell. Create Bonfire is a cantrip. This is, as we say in the business, working as intended.

[JLandan]

And? Flaming Sphere is a 2nd level spell. Create Bonfire is a cantrip. This is, as we say in the business, working as intended.

Somebody earlier posted that CB was the superior spell.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Somebody earlier posted that CB was the superior spell.

Ah. In which case I disagree with that former poster :smallbiggrin:

[JLandan]

But does a conjured animal need to do all the things a body does to function (eat, breathe, sleep, metabolize, etc.)? I think fuel isn't needed because it's magic to create the fire and keep it there. Otherwise I would imagine you have to create the fire on a suitable fuel source instead of just "the ground".

Good question about conjured animals, or other creatures, needing body functions. Summon and conjure are usually around no longer than an hour. Find Familiar and Find Steed are permanent, though.

Those both say the type is celestial, fiend or fey. Fey usually mention that they don't sleep. C and F don't mention sleep anywhere that I know of. The Sleeping Demon would be a great title though. I don't think breathing is mentioned at all either. Fey obviously eat, or they wouldn't bake cookies all the time. C and F don't mention eating.

This question is probably better explored in another thread.

[RSP]

Interestingly, even though the bonfire "fills a 5-foot cube", you can stand in that cube (surrounded by fire, by definition of "fills") and not take any damage by succeeding on a Dexterity saving throw.

I particularly like that you resist the fire with Dexterity: and don’t even have to move to do so. Though this isn’t unique to CB: particularly with Evasion you can have some ridiculous scenarios like walking into a Wall of Fire and being fine.

I’ve commented before that Dex Saves not requiring any movement is one of the more ridiculous aspects of in-game narrative.


Doesn’t say anything about it being luminous in the spell description. Nor bright, nor shining, flickering… no light description whatsoever. So it seems you are porting that over just from the definition of the word bonfire. But not the idea that it’s a bright light.

Seems somewhat… arbitrary.

Are you serious? Here’s the quote, again, with the word you’re saying isn’t there, bolded:

“Radiant Soul.
Starting at 3rd level, you can use your action to unleash the divine energy within yourself, causing your eyes to glimmer and two luminous, incorporeal wings to sprout from your back.”

I’m not sure why you think anything about that is arbitrary, or that there’s nothing about it being luminous.

[SpanielBear]

I particularly like that you resist the fire with Dexterity: and don’t even have to move to do so. Though this isn’t unique to CB: particularly with Evasion you can have some ridiculous scenarios like walking into a Wall of Fire and being fine.

I’ve commented before that Dex Saves not requiring any movement is one of the more ridiculous aspects of in-game narrative.



Are you serious? Here’s the quote, again, with the word you’re saying isn’t there, bolded:

“Radiant Soul.
Starting at 3rd level, you can use your action to unleash the divine energy within yourself, causing your eyes to glimmer and two luminous, incorporeal wings to sprout from your back.”

I’m not sure why you think anything about that is arbitrary, or that there’s nothing about it being luminous.

I apologise for not being clear- I meant that word doesn’t appear in the description for Create Bonfire. I absolutely agree it appears in the Radiant Soul description.

[RSP]

I apologise for not being clear- I meant that word doesn’t appear in the description for Create Bonfire. I absolutely agree it appears in the Radiant Soul description.

So your comment was the word found in RS isn’t in CB…which no one was stating?

Apologies, but I’m not following.


There is no systemic distinction between Magical Fire and Non-Magical Fire in 5e.

Not true. Control Flames has the following in its RAW:

“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”

By this, there has to be a distinction between magical and non-magical fire.

I agree it’s not horribly well-defined. The easy assumption is that any fire created by magic is magical fire. However, this isn’t necessarily a great definition as Prestidigitation has this in its effect:

“This spell is a minor magical trick that novice spellcasters use for practice. You create one of the following magical effects within range:

- You create a nonmagical trinket or an illusory image that can fit in your hand and that lasts until the end of your next turn.”

So apparently magic can magically create nonmagical stuff, which means magic can possibly create nonmagical fire. I’m pretty certain the RAI is that CF cannot snuff out CB or FS, even though those fires would otherwise fit the requirements of what CF can instantly snuff out (I’d say both FS and CB are both magical fires).

So not sure how magical vs nonmagical fire is determined, but it does exist within the 5e system.

Less on topic but also interesting: can Control Flames not put out a candle lit by Prestidigitation?

[Thunderous Mojo]

Not true. Control Flames has the following in its RAW:

“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”

By this, there has to be a distinction between magical and non-magical fire.

The distinction would be in practice, one could not use Control Fire on a concentration based Fire spell, such as Wall of Fire or Bonfire.

Are there any other spells that have a restriction similar to Control Fire?

In terms of damage, there is as of yet, no distinction between magical fire damage and fire damage.

[RSP]

Are there any other spells that have a restriction similar to Control Fire?

Not sure. RAW it looks like Prestidigitation can snuff out a magical candle, flame or small campfire; and that’s probably the only spell that would be similar.

But either way, there doesn’t need to be any other similar spells. All fires that are 5’ cubes or smaller are now either nonmagical and can be affected by CFs, or are magical and cannot be affected by CF.

However, there appears to be no RAW to make that distinction.

[Schwann145]

If Create Bonfire didn't create heat, then it could not burn things, which the spell explicitly says it does do.

A bonfire is a bonfire is a bonfire. The spell creates a bonfire which will do anything and everything one would expect a bonfire to do, including producing light and heat from it's flames.
Anything less would be an illusion, and illusions don't cause damage or burn things.

IMO, anyone who would rule differently is being purposely difficult and a bit obtuse. The game, by design, maps to reality. Art imitates life, and all that. The developers are not attempting to rebuild physics when they design a spell, and pretending that's how it works is... silly.

[JackPhoenix]

The distinction would be in practice, one could not use Control Fire on a concentration based Fire spell, such as Wall of Fire or Bonfire.

Are there any other spells that have a restriction similar to Control Fire?

In terms of damage, there is as of yet, no distinction between magical fire damage and fire damage.

Armor of Invulnerability protects against nonmagical damage.
Vampires in mist form are immune to nonmagical damage.
There are propably other distinctions, those are just the ones I can think of on top of my head.


If Create Bonfire didn't create heat, then it could not burn things, which the spell explicitly says it does do.

A bonfire is a bonfire is a bonfire. The spell creates a bonfire which will do anything and everything one would expect a bonfire to do, including producing light and heat from it's flames.
Anything less would be an illusion, and illusions don't cause damage or burn things.

Well, guess what: It can't burn things. It can set flammable objects on fire, assuming they are not worn or carried by a creature, but it can't cause damage to any object.
And "magical bonfire" is not really a bonfire. I would expect a bonfire to require and consume fuel, and have varying characteristics (including color, temperature and brightness of the flame) based on the fuel it uses, and produce byproducts of the burning process. I would expect bonfire to burn "things", not just creatures, regardless if they are carried or just lying on the ground. I would expect bonfire to stay around for longer than a minute, or if I kill (or just punch hard enough) the one who started it.

[RSP]

If Create Bonfire didn't create heat, then it could not burn things, which the spell explicitly says it does do.

A bonfire is a bonfire is a bonfire. The spell creates a bonfire which will do anything and everything one would expect a bonfire to do, including producing light and heat from it's flames.
Anything less would be an illusion, and illusions don't cause damage or burn things.

IMO, anyone who would rule differently is being purposely difficult and a bit obtuse. The game, by design, maps to reality. Art imitates life, and all that. The developers are not attempting to rebuild physics when they design a spell, and pretending that's how it works is... silly.

I think you’re missing a huge aspect of the spell: it only “explicitly says” it ignites things (note: it doesn’t say burn) in its area, which is the magically contained 5’ cube.

“A bonfire is a bonfire is a bonfire” is all well and good, inside that area. Outside that cube, however, there is no bonfire.


Armor of Invulnerability protects against nonmagical damage.
Vampires in mist form are immune to nonmagical damage.

Nice find: I wasn’t aware there was such a distinction between magical and nonmagical damage. I think I’ve seen the “from nonmagical sources” before, but never categorizing the actual damage types.



Well, guess what: It can't burn things. It can set flammable objects on fire, assuming they are not worn or carried by a creature, but it can't cause damage to any object.

I was wrong in a previous post where I stated the bonfire could light a torch being held. It can only light the torch if the torch is not being held, RAW.

I also like that, RAW, character’s clothes are completely unburnt from the bonfire, assuming they make it out of its area alive.

I’d imagine a nonmagical bonfire would burn clothes within its flames, whether they’re worn or not.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Armor of Invulnerability protects against nonmagical damage.
Vampires in mist form are immune to nonmagical damage.
There are propably other distinctions, those are just the ones I can think of on top of my head.

I would generally categorize these as ‘edge cases’.

The change MPMoM that removes the Magic Weapon trait from creatures and often replaces the prior damage type with Force Damage, could very well augur that the designers want to lessen the distinction between say magical Force damage and non-magical Force damage.

Perhaps the damage reduction from Gaseous Form and Armor of Invulnerability will become Resistance to all damage, instead of a reduction against non-magical damage.

Gaseous Form, in 5e, has quite a few oddities, in terms of system interactions. I expect the Anniversary Edition will redesign some current options for clarity and ease of use.

[Valmark]

If Create Bonfire didn't create heat, then it could not burn things, which the spell explicitly says it does do.

A bonfire is a bonfire is a bonfire. The spell creates a bonfire which will do anything and everything one would expect a bonfire to do, including producing light and heat from it's flames.
Anything less would be an illusion, and illusions don't cause damage or burn things.

IMO, anyone who would rule differently is being purposely difficult and a bit obtuse. The game, by design, maps to reality. Art imitates life, and all that. The developers are not attempting to rebuild physics when they design a spell, and pretending that's how it works is... silly.

It should be pointed out that Create Bonfire only burns creatures and unattended objects.

That already completely defies how a normal bonfire works.

Thinking that it acts like a normal bonfire means either not having red the spell or not knowing how IRL fire behaves. You can be sure that if I put paper in a bonfire while holding it the paper will still catch on fire (unless it's soaked in water. I don't actually know what happens then. Takes longer to catch fire?).

And for whatever it's worth, the game definitely doesn't map to reality. It tries to keep an internal consistency, but there's way too much stuff that makes no sense realistically to even think it's designed to be equivalent to how our physics work.

[GooeyChewie]

And how does a bonfire act within the context of 5e mechanics?
As with many things in 5e, the specifics are up to DM adjudication. But I'm quite the sure answer is not "produces no light or heat."


Maybe? Probably not, but who cares what temperature the ice itself is if you can't do anything with it anyway?
Suppose your party happens upon a strange wall. Unsure of its source, a party member touches it. The DM describes the wall as warm. Your party still isn't sure, but they destroys a section of the wall, walk through the destroyed section and BAM! Save against cold damage! If I were in that situation, and the DM justified it with "but the spell doesn't say the ice is cold," I'd be pretty upset. I frankly wouldn't trust the DM with any narrative aspect of the game from there on out.

Similarly, if I cast Create Bonfire and placed the bonfire right behind an enemy, I would expect that the bonfire would produce enough light and heat to make the enemy aware of its presence. If the DM had the enemy totally ignore the bonfire on the justification of "but the spell doesn't say it does anything that alerts the enemy to a fire being behind them," I would also lose trust with that DM in the narrative aspect of the game.


That would be no. "... freezing rain and sleet fall..."
Nothing in the spell says the "freezing rain" and "sleet" are at any temperature other than the ambient temperature prior to casting the spell. I would agree that we should use our knowledge of "freezing rain" (supercooled liquid precipitation which freeze on contact) and "sleet" (precipitation in the form of frozen pellets) to understand that this spell makes the area cold. Similarly, we should use our knowledge of "bonfire" to understand that creatures within close proximity to the bonfire can feel heat coming off it (even if that heat is at a low enough level not to damage them).


That's correct.
The creatures affected are hit with a wave of water. I'll grant you that it disappears rather quickly, but drying off quickly isn't the same thing as not getting wet. If you maintain that the creatures affected by Tidal Wave do not get wet at all, then you are effectively saying anything in the spell which does not have a direct mechanical impact also does not have logical narrative impacts. Which, that position is consistent with the idea that the bonfire doesn't produce heat and light. And if you and your table want to play in such a way that narrative impacts do not matter, that's fine. But it does mean we won't agree on this point.




I don’t have an issue with bonfires being hot or ice being cold (I don’t think this is the example you believe it is: the spell states it does Cold damage, which we can probably assume has some connection with actually being cold. One could very well say putting your hand inside the area of the Wall of Ice is passing through it and they would therefore take Cold damage, same as if someone decided to put their hand in the cube of fire created by CB and they took Fire damage).
You say you have no issue with bonfires being hot, but you also say that a creature standing next to a bonfire can't feel any heat coming off the bonfire. So why would a creature touching the wall of ice feel any cold? Wall of Ice only does damage if you are in an affected space when it appears or you pass through a destroyed portion of the wall. Touching an undamaged section of the wall does not result in cold damage. If your justification for why creatures next to a bonfire doesn't feel heat is "they don't take fire damage," then surely the justification of "they don't take cold damage" would mean that they don't feel the ice as being cold.


Further, saying the heat emitted by CB is mild and doesn’t damage stuff isn’t based on your argument here of “ice is cold and water is wet”: 5’ bonfires emit heat of a degree that can very much damage creatures and items, so if water is wet, then high enough levels of heat cause damage.
High enough levels of heat would cause damage. The area in which you have high enough levels of heat to cause damage with Create Bonfire are within the 5' cube. These facts do not preclude the existence of levels of heat which are higher than normal but not high enough to do damage. Google "bonfire" and look at the images. True, some images have no people in them, and some images have people who are standing at a distance. But some images have people who are clearly within 5' of the bonfire (in D&D terms, the space adjacent to the 5' cube containing the bonfire) and yet are not taking damage. I'm quite sure they can feel some heat, just not enough heat to get burned.

Create Bonfire says it creates a bonfire, not that it creates a bonfire that produces no heat or light. The spell does not say it creates a facsimile of a bonfire that shares no actual traits with a bonfire. A player should be able to reasonably conclude that the bonfire acts like a normal bonfire except where the spell specifies otherwise. The spell specifies that it does damage in a certain location; the spell does not specify that creatures outside that location cannot sense heat and light coming from the bonfire.

[RSP]

I would generally categorize these as ‘edge cases’.


We can all speculate on what might happen with new rules in the future, but the way the RAW is currently set up, and for the purposes of this thread, there does appear to be a distinction between magic and nonmagic damage.

[Thunderous Mojo]

We can all speculate on what might happen with new rules in the future, but the way the RAW is currently set up, and for the purposes of this thread, there does appear to be a distinction between magic and nonmagic damage.

Of course, but the distinction is only relevant in a handful of cases, and the trend of new rules as shown by the creature design evident in MPMoM or Fizban’s or Witchlight would indicate that ‘magical’ type damage, likely does not have much of a future.

Which leads me to think, that Magical Fire vs Non-Magical Fire damage for example, is not a well thought out part of 5e Design, but more a rules aberration, that will require a DM’s attention from time to time.

Hence, why I characterize these rules phenomena as Corner Cases; small parts of the ruleset that are somewhat muddled, most likely due to the iterative creation process during D&D Next Playtesting.

[RSP]

You say you have no issue with bonfires being hot, but you also say that a creature standing next to a bonfire can't feel any heat coming off the bonfire.

No. This is a completely false statement that you’re making up. Never have I said a creature standing next to a bonfire can’t feel any heat coming off the bonfire.

If you’re going to quote me, at least, please, quote me correctly.

I’ve said the effects of CB are contained within a 5’ box, which, for the purposes of consistency and not having cantrips overpower 2nd level spells, should include all the effects of CB (to include effects of the fire created: if the flames themselves can’t penetrate the 5’ cube, why would it’s heat/light/smoke?).



So why would a creature touching the wall of ice feel any cold? Wall of Ice only does damage if you are in an affected space when it appears or you pass through a destroyed portion of the wall.

WoI doesn’t say it’s contained within a cube, so, again (I’ve already answered these questions), it’s not the same situation as CB.



Touching an undamaged section of the wall does not result in cold damage.

Ask your DM.



If your justification for why creatures next to a bonfire doesn't feel heat is "they don't take fire damage," then surely the justification of "they don't take cold damage" would mean that they don't feel the ice as being cold.

As stated many times in this thread, including direct responses to you, that’s not my justification.

If you want to make stuff up about posters on this site, please don’t include me in that.



High enough levels of heat would cause damage.

I agree: if a DM decides heat is high enough, it’ll cause damage (I believe SKT has this occur in the module).



Create Bonfire says it creates a bonfire, not that it creates a bonfire that produces no heat or light.


The spell says it creates a bonfire that fills a 5’ cube. The spell says that putting clothes within that fiery cube will not result in any damage to those clothes if they’re being worn or held by someone.

That’s not a good basis for comparison to in real life fires.


Overall, it might be better to think of this spell as “Create Box of Magical Fire” in terms of what it’s effect describes.

[Thunderous Mojo]

The spell says it creates a bonfire that fills a 5’ cube. The spell says that putting clothes within that fiery cube will not result in any damage to those clothes if they’re being worn or held by someone.

That’s not a good basis for comparison to in real life fires.

This seems a bit extreme to me. If a player is holding a marshmallow in their hand and then is subjected to a Create Bonfire effect, the rules abstract the damage done as only applying to the PC, for ease of use.

Prior versions of D&D, theoretically, could apply damage to a PC’s worn/carried objects, but in practice applying such damage to carried objects was cumbersome.

Create Bonfire’s Saving Throw presumes a creature is trying to avoid the damage.

If a Player stated their character intentionally jumps into the flames of a fire formed by the Create Bonfire spell, with no attempt to mitigate getting burned, I think it would be reasonable for a DM, in that situation to rule that the PC in question has chosen to Bypass or fail the Saving Throw.

Ruling that a PC holding a Marshmallow on a stick could not roast the marshmallow in the fire generated by Create Bonfire, but the marshmallow would roast if the PC put the stick down into the fire itself, strikes me as an unsound conclusion.

[GooeyChewie]

No. This is a completely false statement that you’re making up. Never have I said a creature standing next to a bonfire can’t feel any heat coming off the bonfire.

If you’re going to quote me, at least, please, quote me correctly.

I’ve said the effects of CB are contained within a 5’ box, which, for the purposes of consistency and not having cantrips overpower 2nd level spells, should include all the effects of CB (to include effects of the fire created: if the flames themselves can’t penetrate the 5’ cube, why would it’s heat/light/smoke?).
What? You tell me that you never claimed that the bonfire doesn't emit heat, tell me that I'm quoting you incorrectly, and then immediately repeat that the heat from the bonfire doesn't penetrate the 5' cube? Do you want a direct quote of you saying that there would be no heat outside the 5' cube? If so, here you go:

"One way to view this spell effect, is that magic contains the effects to that 5’ square. Viewing it this way, there would be no heat or light outside of the AoE, because all the magical effect is contained within that area. This is the case even though heat and light are produced within the 5’ area of the spell." -RSP, page 1 of this thread

And if you want to talk about misquoting people, how about when you claimed I said this: "The entirety of the bonfire contained within a 5’ box equals there’s no barrier preventing the fire from spreading huh? So in your estimation the CB bonfire can fill a 10’x10’x10’ area, because no such barrier to the spell effects exists? Interesting observation." When what I actually said was "The argument is not that real life bonfires do not put out enough heat to hurt people. The argument is that with real life bonfires (and other bonfires in D&D) there’s no arbitrary point where the heat goes from “hot enough to do damage” directly to “no effect on the ambient temperature at all.” And nothing in the spell description indicates that this magically created bonfire has such a barrier either." You tried to claim that I was claiming the bonfire expanded to a larger size when this whole time all I've been saying is that creatures can feel the heat coming off the bonfire.



WoI doesn’t say it’s contained within a cube, so, again (I’ve already answered these questions), it’s not the same situation as CB.
The spell effect of Wall of Ice is contained to "a hemispherical dome or a sphere with a radius of up to 10 feet" or "a flat surface made up of ten 10-foot-square panels" (caster's choice). But the shape of the spell is beside the point in this matter. The point is that you understand that ice is cold because it is ice, not because the spell effect says it is cold. Likewise you should understand that a bonfire is hot because it is a bonfire, and the spell doesn't have to specifically say fire is hot.



Ask your DM.
Here are the parts of the spell which do damage:

"If the wall cuts through a creature’s space when it appears, the creature within its area is pushed to one side of the wall and must make a Dexterity saving throw. On a failed save, the creature takes 10d6 cold damage, or half as much damage on a successful save."

...and...

"Reducing a 10-foot section of wall to 0 hit points destroys it and leaves behind a sheet of frigid air in the space the wall occupied. A creature moving through the sheet of frigid air for the first time on a turn must make a Constitution saving throw. That creature takes 5d6 cold damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one."

If touching a section of the wall which has not been destroyed does damage, that's something you are adding to the spell effect.




As stated many times in this thread, including direct responses to you, that’s not my justification.

If you want to make stuff up about posters on this site, please don’t include me in that.
You have stated several times in this thread that the bonfire created by Create Bonfire cannot emit heat because a real bonfire that fill a 5' cube would do damage to objects and creatures near it. For example:

"So again, the argument that the magically created D&D bonfire has to do what a “real bonfire” would? Then the heat should damage people and objects like a real bonfire would. And the smoke should choke creatures that need to breathe when cast indoors." -RSP, page 3 of this thread

"A 5’ nonmagical bonfire will indeed produce heat enough to damage creatures and objects, where they to be close enough to it. (This is written with a “straight face” if that matters to you for some reason)." -RSP, page 4 of this thread



The spell says it creates a bonfire that fills a 5’ cube. The spell says that putting clothes within that fiery cube will not result in any damage to those clothes if they’re being worn or held by someone.

That’s not a good basis for comparison to in real life fires.
Things conjured by spells act as those things except where the spell effect specifies otherwise. Yes, the spell effect causes limitations which would not be present with a typical bonfire. But "does not emit light and heat" is not among those limitations.


Overall, it might be better to think of this spell as “Create Box of Magical Fire” in terms of what it’s effect describes.

The spell says it creates a bonfire. Changing the title to Create Box of Magical Fire would not change the fact that it says the spell creates a bonfire. Even if you replaced "bonfire" in the spell description with "box of magical fire," fire gives off heat and light. And if we changed it to "box of magical fire which does not emit heat and light beyond the 5' cube which it occupies," then we've made some pretty major changes to the spell.

[RSP]

This seems a bit extreme to me. If a player is holding a marshmallow in their hand and then is subjected to a Create Bonfire effect, the rules abstract the damage done as only applying to the PC, for ease of use.

By all means rule as you want at your table. I’m discussing how the RAW works.



Create Bonfire’s Saving Throw presumes a creature is trying to avoid the damage.

I don’t think that presumption is just for CB, however, the general rules don’t take that into account.



If a Player stated their character intentionally jumps into the flames of a fire formed by the Create Bonfire spell, with no attempt to mitigate getting burned, I think it would be reasonable for a DM, in that situation to rule that the PC in question has chosen to Bypass or fail the Saving Throw.

Ruling that a PC holding a Marshmallow on a stick could not roast the marshmallow in the fire generated by Create Bonfire, but the marshmallow would roast if the PC put the stick down into the fire itself, strikes me as an unsound conclusion.

It strikes me as exactly what the RAW states in an unambiguous way.


What? You tell me that you never claimed that the bonfire doesn't emit heat, tell me that I'm quoting you incorrectly, and then immediately repeat that the heat from the bonfire doesn't penetrate the 5' cube? Do you want a direct quote of you saying that there would be no heat outside the 5' cube? If so, here you go:

"One way to view this spell effect, is that magic contains the effects to that 5’ square. Viewing it this way, there would be no heat or light outside of the AoE, because all the magical effect is contained within that area. This is the case even though heat and light are produced within the 5’ area of the spell." -RSP, page 1 of this thread

And where in that post did I claim that a nonmagical bonfire doesn’t emit heat?!?



And if you want to talk about misquoting people, how about when you claimed I said this: "The entirety of the bonfire contained within a 5’ box equals there’s no barrier preventing the fire from spreading huh? So in your estimation the CB bonfire can fill a 10’x10’x10’ area, because no such barrier to the spell effects exists? Interesting observation." When what I actually said was "The argument is not that real life bonfires do not put out enough heat to hurt people. The argument is that with real life bonfires (and other bonfires in D&D) there’s no arbitrary point where the heat goes from “hot enough to do damage” directly to “no effect on the ambient temperature at all.” And nothing in the spell description indicates that this magically created bonfire has such a barrier either." You tried to claim that I was claiming the bonfire expanded to a larger size when this whole time all I've been saying is that creatures can feel the heat coming off the bonfire.

And again, if you’re saying the 5’ cube doesn’t contain the effects of the bonfire, than the 5’ cube doesn’t contain the effects of the bonfire. So I’m not sure what your issue is?

Do you believe the 5’ box contains the effects of the magically created bonfire?



The spell effect of Wall of Ice is contained to "a hemispherical dome or a sphere with a radius of up to 10 feet" or "a flat surface made up of ten 10-foot-square panels" (caster's choice). But the shape of the spell is beside the point in this matter. The point is that you understand that ice is cold because it is ice, not because the spell effect says it is cold. Likewise you should understand that a bonfire is hot because it is a bonfire, and the spell doesn't have to specifically say fire is hot.

Glad I have you around to tell me what I understand and not.

I responded with “ask your DM” because it’s a DM’s call whether touching the outer extent of an AoE is within that AoE.

That’s all.



Here are the parts of the spell which do damage:

"If the wall cuts through a creature’s space when it appears, the creature within its area is pushed to one side of the wall and must make a Dexterity saving throw. On a failed save, the creature takes 10d6 cold damage, or half as much damage on a successful save."

...and...

"Reducing a 10-foot section of wall to 0 hit points destroys it and leaves behind a sheet of frigid air in the space the wall occupied. A creature moving through the sheet of frigid air for the first time on a turn must make a Constitution saving throw. That creature takes 5d6 cold damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one."

If touching a section of the wall which has not been destroyed does damage, that's something you are adding to the spell effect.

No, if touching the wall is considered the outer edge of the AoE, then damage should apply: but whether or not it is included in the AoE is a DM’s call.

If you touch the wall created by Wall of Fire, do you take Fire damage? If you attempt to climb the wall created by WoF do you take damage?



You have stated several times in this thread that the bonfire created by Create Bonfire cannot emit heat because a real bonfire that fill a 5' cube would do damage to objects and creatures near it. For example:

"So again, the argument that the magically created D&D bonfire has to do what a “real bonfire” would? Then the heat should damage people and objects like a real bonfire would. And the smoke should choke creatures that need to breathe when cast indoors." -RSP, page 3 of this thread

Not an accurate conclusion from what you’re quoting.

We don’t know what a magically created D&D fire that’s contained in a 5’ cube, that doesn’t need any oxygen or fuel to exist, behaves as. We only have the RAW to tell us what CB does.

A real life bonfire does, indeed, emit those things: so arguing CB should do those things is a bad argument, because it’s not a real life bonfire.



"A 5’ nonmagical bonfire will indeed produce heat enough to damage creatures and objects, where they to be close enough to it. (This is written with a “straight face” if that matters to you for some reason)." -RSP, page 4 of this thread

I’m still not sure why you think what a nonmagical bonfire does determines what a magical bonfire contained within a 5’ box does.



Things conjured by spells act as those things except where the spell effect specifies otherwise. Yes, the spell effect causes limitations which would not be present with a typical bonfire. But "does not emit light and heat" is not among those limitations.

Says who? Why can the flames of the bonfire not penetrate the magic cube containing it, but it’s heat and light can?



The spell says it creates a bonfire. Changing the title to Create Box of Magical Fire would not change the fact that it says the spell creates a bonfire. Even if you replaced "bonfire" in the spell description with "box of magical fire," fire gives off heat and light. And if we changed it to "box of magical fire which does not emit heat and light beyond the 5' cube which it occupies," then we've made some pretty major changes to the spell.

The name of the spell, indeed, has no effect on the effect. However, assuming a nonmagical bonfire operates like a magical bonfire contained within a 5’ magic cube, is a bad assumption, and one I’m not making.

I’ll stick to what the RAW states.

[Thunderous Mojo]

By all means rule as you want at your table. I’m discussing how the RAW works.

RAW rests off assumptions. This presumption that what a person contends as RAW, is the sole, unconstructed, and absolute reality is quite a presumption.


It strikes me as exactly what the RAW states in an unambiguous way.

Does it now? Couldn’t by RAW, one also rule that the skewer that is being held by the PC counts as an attended object, while the marshmallow in the fire is a unattended object, and thus subject to the heat from the magical bonfire?

Just like you, I as well, am discussing how RAW works. RAW discussions might not yield be the monolithic binary truth function, that some seemingly want to arrive at.

[Tawmis]

I did a search, I found a long long thread on another board where a few people argued back and forth, one stating that the spell description didn't include the bright light / dim light illumination range.
His argument wasn't even that bad, since he showed a lot of other spells clearly state the bright/dim light range.
I remember in one post on these very boards, someone wrote something along the lines of: - you can keep the bonefire up ahead of the party and move it in front of you while walking/exploring... - not the exact words of course, I'm sure it was meant as - you keep recasting it ahead of the party -. It's a Conjuration spell, so it summons a bonefire, but the fire is magical, stated in the description.
So... Does it shed light or not? Can characters feel the heat radiating in adjacent squares? Officially I mean.
Also, can I cook on it? :D
This question has nothing to do with logic or DM ruling, it's more my curiosity about how strict the interpretation of rules is, say for example in AL games.
Thank you.

I think when it's obvious they don't need to explain. Create Bonfire.
Shouldn't need any real explination.
Yes to fire. Yes to heat. No you can't move it like a light source. Use Light.

[RSP]

This seems a bit extreme to me. If a player is holding a marshmallow in their hand and then is subjected to a Create Bonfire effect, the rules abstract the damage done as only applying to the PC, for ease of use.

…

Ruling that a PC holding a Marshmallow on a stick could not roast the marshmallow in the fire generated by Create Bonfire, but the marshmallow would roast if the PC put the stick down into the fire itself, strikes me as an unsound conclusion.

Reposting this for reference. In your first paragraph you state a PC is holding the marshmallow in their hand.

In the second you again state the PC is holding the marshmallow (did you intend here that the PC is holding the stick, not the marshmallow? I don’t think it matters, but just curious how much you were changing the situation from paragraph 1 to the final paragraph).



Does it now? Couldn’t by RAW, one also rule that the skewer that is being held by the PC counts as an attended object, while the marshmallow in the fire is a unattended object, and thus subject to the heat from the magical bonfire?

Just like you, I as well, am discussing how RAW works. RAW discussions might not yield be the monolithic binary truth function, that some seemingly want to arrive at.

CB doesn’t state “attended objects”, it refers to items that “that aren’t being worn or carried.” If a marshmallow is on a skewer, and that skewer is being carried by a PC, then the marshmallow is also being carried. For instance, if the PC moves 10’ while carrying the skewer, the marshmallow moves as well. Both would also count toward encumbrance to what the PC can carry.

[animorte]

In the words of Lil Wayne, “I don’t go around fire expecting not to sweat.”

Ultimately, it would just make sense to me that the DM allow adjustments for minor purposes. I mean, most things cooking over a fire aren’t being held at the time of cooking. Just concentrate and recast when needed. I call it fluff when your stuff is enough.

This has turned into one of those technicality-of-terminology-and-cross-referencing-for-little-to-no-effect threads. Though at some point, if a thread goes long enough, it tends to do that no matter what the topic with us.

[Dr.Samurai]

As usual, RAW does not cover everything and isn't intended to and so isn't always useful.

RAW doesn't say that a dagger is "sharp". But a dagger only deals damage when you score a hit on an attack roll.

So RAW, I can't use a knife to peel an apple and cut it into bite size pieces unless I attack it first...

Arguing what "RAW" says is not always helpful, nor does the RAW bind us inflexibly to absurdity.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Reposting this for reference. In your first paragraph you state a PC is holding the marshmallow in their hand.

In the second you again state the PC is holding the marshmallow (did you intend here that the PC is holding the stick, not the marshmallow? I don’t think it matters, but just curious how much you were changing the situation from paragraph 1 to the final paragraph).

Indeed, you are correct RSP.


CB doesn’t state “attended objects”, it refers to items that “that aren’t being worn or carried.” If a marshmallow is on a skewer, and that skewer is being carried by a PC, then the marshmallow is also being carried. For instance, if the PC moves 10’ while carrying the skewer, the marshmallow moves as well. Both would also count toward encumbrance to what the PC can carry.

An attended item is an item that is worn and carried. Freely substitute the phrase “carried and worn” wherever in my post you read attended item.

Per the DMG, pg 246:
For the purpose of these rules, an object is a discrete, inanimate item like a window, door, sword, book, table, chair, or stone, not a building or a vehicle that is composed of many other objects.

Marshmallow on a Stick is a compound item. By RAW, since the PC is holding the stick,(in my intended example), only the stick counts as being carried, while the object that is the Marshmallow, gets toasty and gooey.

While, I think this is a valid interpretation of the Rules as Written, I do not think it is the only interpretation.

The thesis statement for the section of the DMG that deals specifically with Objects is: Use common sense when determining a character's success at damaging an object.

As soon as Objects are involved, any RAW discussion becomes a Qualitative discussion. Every DM’s definition of ‘common sense’, is somewhat idiosyncratic, to phrase it politely. 🃏

[GooeyChewie]

I'm


And where in that post did I claim that a nonmagical bonfire doesn’t emit heat?!?
Perhaps I'm not making myself clear. I'm saying that you are claiming that the bonfire created by Create Bonfire does not emit heat. In doing so, you have decided that any knowledge of how nonmagical bonfires work is irrelevant to the bonfire created by Create Bonfire. That position is at odds with using the knowledge that ice is cold to describe the ice created by Wall of Ice as cold.


Not an accurate conclusion from what you’re quoting.

We don’t know what a magically created D&D fire that’s contained in a 5’ cube, that doesn’t need any oxygen or fuel to exist, behaves as. We only have the RAW to tell us what CB does.

A real life bonfire does “, indeed, emit those things: so arguing CB should do those things is a bad argument, because it’s not a real life bonfire.
It's not an accurate conclusion that your persistent arguments that a real 5' bonfire would do damage if it emitted heat was an argument that the bonfire created by Create Bonfire doesn't emit heat on account of it not doing damage? In that case, I'm not sure why you made those arguments?


I’m still not sure why you think what a nonmagical bonfire does determines what a magical bonfire contained within a 5’ box does.

Says who? Why can the flames of the bonfire not penetrate the magic cube containing it, but it’s heat and light can?

The name of the spell, indeed, has no effect on the effect. However, assuming a nonmagical bonfire operates like a magical bonfire contained within a 5’ magic cube, is a bad assumption, and one I’m not making.

I’ll stick to what the RAW states.
These all speak to the same point, so I'm grouping them together. The bonfire created by Create Bonfire works like a standard bonfire outside of the changes described in the spell because the spell says "You create a bonfire on ground that you can see within range," not "You create a bonfire that emits no heat or light on the ground that you can see within range" or "You create an illusion of a bonfire on the ground that you can see within range." You are assuming the magic makes the bonfire not work like a bonfire. If that were true, why bother saying that it's a bonfire in the first place? You say you are sticking the RAW, but RAW says it is a bonfire and you're treating it as an abstract 5' cube of potential fire damage.

[RSP]

Marshmallow on a Stick is a compound item. By RAW, since the PC is holding the stick,(in my intended example), only the stick counts as being carried, while the object that is the Marshmallow, gets toasty and gooey.

No, it doesn’t. Again, think of it in terms of being carried. Does it move with the carrier? Does it count towards the weight limit being carried by the character?

If I pick up and carry a dumbbell with a 25lb plate weight attached to either end of it, am I not carrying that 50lbs as well as the dumbbell bar itself? Aren’t those weights attached to the bar the same way a marshmallow is on a skewer?

Does the weight of objects inside a PC’s backpack not count towards their encumbrance maximum carry because they’re only carrying the backpack, and not what’s inside?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Does the weight of objects inside a PC’s backpack not count towards their encumbrance maximum carry because they’re only carrying the backpack, and not what’s inside?

And more relevantly, do all those objects inside the backpack go up in flames when the owner is hit by a fireball?

[RSP]

It's not an accurate conclusion that your persistent arguments that a real 5' bonfire would do damage if it emitted heat was an argument that the bonfire created by Create Bonfire doesn't emit heat on account of it not doing damage? In that case, I'm not sure why you made those arguments?

A real bonfire emits heat.

We don’t know what a D&D magically created bonfire that is restricted to a 5’ cube and doesn’t burn fuel or require oxygen can do.

For instance, in real life, how much heat a fire emits is based on what it’s consuming as fuel (with potential other factors contributing). As there is no fuel being burned by our imaginary D&D magically created and maintained bonfire, we don’t know what it would emit.



The bonfire created by Create Bonfire works like a standard bonfire outside of the changes described in the spell because the spell says "You create a bonfire on ground that you can see within range," not "You create a bonfire that emits no heat or light on the ground that you can see within range" or "You create an illusion of a bonfire on the ground that you can see within range." You are assuming the magic makes the bonfire not work like a bonfire.

Im not assuming that: the RAW tells us that it doesn’t work like a real bonfire. A real bonfire will expand beyond 5’ if it’s big enough to fill a 5’ cube. A real fire requires fuel to burn. A real fire damages creatures and objects that are to close to it. A real fire affects objects within it regardless of whether or not their being carried by a creature.

So there’s too much of a change to have us expect the magical D&D fire to behave like a real life fire. As stated above, real fire needs fuel, the CB fire does not: you’ve already taken away the single biggest variable in determining what effect a real fire has.



If that were true, why bother saying that it's a bonfire in the first place? You say you are sticking the RAW, but RAW says it is a bonfire and you're treating it as an abstract 5' cube of potential fire damage.

There’s plenty of horrible word choices in the RAW: I’m not sure why you think it’s my responsibility to validate them.

If you want to know why they chose that word, ask the person who wrote it in the EE book.

[GooeyChewie]

A real bonfire emits heat.

We don’t know what a D&D magically created bonfire that is restricted to a 5’ cube and doesn’t burn fuel or require oxygen can do.

For instance, in real life, how much heat a fire emits is based on what it’s consuming as fuel (with potential other factors contributing). As there is no fuel being burned by our imaginary D&D magically created and maintained bonfire, we don’t know what it would emit.
As with any other bonfire in D&D, the DM would need to make some adjudications regarding how far out you can feel the heat or see the light. D&D asks the DM to adjudicate a lot of situations. That's not a reason to think a magical bonfire would emit NO heat.



Im not assuming that: the RAW tells us that it doesn’t work like a real bonfire. A real bonfire will expand beyond 5’ if it’s big enough to fill a 5’ cube. A real fire requires fuel to burn. A real fire damages creatures and objects that are to close to it. A real fire affects objects within it regardless of whether or not their being carried by a creature.

So there’s too much of a change to have us expect the magical D&D fire to behave like a real life fire. As stated above, real fire needs fuel, the CB fire does not: you’ve already taken away the single biggest variable in determining what effect a real fire has.
RAW also tells us a magical +1 longsword doesn't act like a regular longsword. RAW only tells us what's different about a +1 longsword compared to a regular longsword. But we don't take that difference and say that the magical nature of the sword makes it so that we can't be sure it otherwise works like a longsword.


There’s plenty of horrible word choices in the RAW: I’m not sure why you think it’s my responsibility to validate them.

If you want to know why they chose that word, ask the person who wrote it in the EE book.
It became your responsibility to validate RAW in this case when you said "I’ll stick to what the RAW states." Or more precisely, it became your burden of proof to show that your interpretation of the spell effects aligns with RAW when you claimed you would stick with RAW.

[Dr.Samurai]

Lol

"Ask the person that wrote it what it means, I can only tell you what it doesn't mean..."

Yeah, nice argument...

[RSP]

It became your responsibility to validate RAW in this case when you said "I’ll stick to what the RAW states." Or more precisely, it became your burden of proof to show that your interpretation of the spell effects aligns with RAW when you claimed you would stick with RAW.

No.

Just like it’s not your responsibility to tell me why the designers chose to limit the effects to a 5’ cube, or why they chose to have CB not ignite items being carried; because you didn’t decide those things. It’s not my responsibility to answer why the designers chose to use the word bonfire, when what they go on to describe in the spell effect is significantly different than a bonfire. I didn’t write the spell effect.

I can, though, tell you what they describe in the CB effect is not a real life bonfire.



RAW also tells us a magical +1 longsword doesn't act like a regular longsword.

Except it does act like a regular long sword, in every way, other than it adding a +1 to two dice rolls and counting as being magical.

You’re trying to make that mean CB must emit heat is a bad conclusion, because the RAW of CB is so changed from a real life bonfire, that it’s not recognizable as a real life bonfire.

If any of us were walking down the street and saw a 5’ cube of fire, that had no source of fuel, and that wasn’t expanding beyond said cube; I don’t think anyone would say “oh that looks like a bonfire!”

It would look like a really bizarre 5’ cube of fire with no source.

[JLandan]

No.

Just like it’s not your responsibility to tell me why the designers chose to limit the effects to a 5’ cube, or why they chose to have CB not ignite items being carried; because you didn’t decide those things. It’s not my responsibility to answer why the designers chose to use the word bonfire, when what they go in to describe in the spell effect is significantly different than a bonfire. I didn’t write the spell effect.

I can, though, tell you what they describe in the CB effect is not a real life bonfire.

Tell us again, in what way is it different? The spell effect, not fuel consumption, oxygen requirement, etc.

[GooeyChewie]

No.

Just like it’s not your responsibility to tell me why the designers chose to limit the effects to a 5’ cube, or why they chose to have CB not ignite items being carried; because you didn’t decide those things. It’s not my responsibility to answer why the designers chose to use the word bonfire, when what they go on to describe in the spell effect is significantly different than a bonfire. I didn’t write the spell effect.

I can, though, tell you what they describe in the CB effect is not a real life bonfire.
If you are going to claim that your interpretation of the spell effects are RAW, then it is absolutely your responsibility to explain how your interpretation of those spell effects aligns with RAW. RAW says the spell creates a bonfire. RAW does indicate some specific ways in which this bonfire would differ from a mundane bonfire (the duration, the specifics of the damage and what gets burned). Outside of these details, RAW does not state that the bonfire differs from mundane bonfires.



Except it does act like a regular long sword, in every way, other than it adding a +1 to two dice rolls and counting as being magical.
Yes, that's my point. And a magic bonfire created by Create Bonfire acts like a regular bonfire, in every way, other than the fire itself being contained to a specific area, having specific mechanics regarding its damage (both in terms of what it can damage and how much it does), and being sustained by the concentration of the caster.



You’re trying to make that mean CB must emit heat is a bad conclusion, because the RAW of CB is so changed from a real life bonfire, that it’s not recognizable as a real life bonfire.

If any of us were walking down the street and saw a 5’ cube of fire, that had no source of fuel, and that wasn’t expanding beyond said cube; I don’t think anyone would say “oh that looks like a bonfire!”

It would look like a really bizarre 5’ cube of fire with no source.

I'm not sure I agree that a fire with a 5' x 5' base that extends 5' into the air would not be recognizable as a bonfire. But regardless, even if I agreed that the rest of the spell effects made the bonfire created by Create Bonfire very much different from a mundane bonfire, making additional changes that make the spell effect even less like a bonfire goes against RAW stating that the spell effect creates a bonfire. If you and your table want to play this spell as not creating a bonfire, go ahead. Just don't claim that it's RAW.

[Dr.Samurai]

Anyone arguing from "RAW" is always going to be right when they are literally quoting what the books say.

The interpretations and conclusions, however, are a different story.

RAW doesn't say a wagon has 4 wheels, or even wheels actually, but we all play it that way without RAW saying it. Similarly, if I describe my character cutting a hunk of cheese with his knife, the DM isn't going to pause and say "Let me see if RAW says knives are sharp..."

If the DM says "Remember, you just climbed out of the river, so they followed your tracks because you're soaking wet." I don't get to turn around and say "Show me where in the books it says that water is wet and gets things wet..."

RAW says the spell creates a bonfire, and then explains some parameters because combat has those kinds of rules.

Arguing that it says "you create a bonfire" for reasons unknown but you're not actually creating a bonfire is not compelling.

[Segev]

Anyone arguing from "RAW" is always going to be right when they are literally quoting what the books say.

The interpretations and conclusions, however, are a different story.

RAW doesn't say a wagon has 4 wheels, or even wheels actually, but we all play it that way without RAW saying it. Similarly, if I describe my character cutting a hunk of cheese with his knife, the DM isn't going to pause and say "Let me see if RAW says knives are sharp..."

If the DM says "Remember, you just climbed out of the river, so they followed your tracks because you're soaking wet." I don't get to turn around and say "Show me where in the books it says that water is wet and gets things wet..."

RAW says the spell creates a bonfire, and then explains some parameters because combat has those kinds of rules.

Arguing that it says "you create a bonfire" for reasons unknown but you're not actually creating a bonfire is not compelling.
Very well said.

And particularly important in understanding how 5e is written.

[Chronos]

The spell says it creates a bonfire. It doesn't just say that it creates a blarg, or a szyz, or something. If they wanted the only properties of the spell effect to be what it explicitly lays out in the description, then they would have made up a new word for it. A blarg doesn't produce detectable heat outside of itself, because we don't have any knowledge of what a blarg does, outside of the spell, and the spell doesn't say that.

But they didn't do that. They didn't call it a blarg; they called it a bonfire. Because they wanted us to know that it's a bonfire, and therefore has the properties of a bonfire. Like producing heat and light. And, again, it's explicitly stated in the RAW that fires do produce bright light.

[Tanarii]

It quite clearly doesn't create a non-magical bonfire, because it shares very few traits with such a thing. Even just simple things like only doing the fire damage to creatures and working fine under water are enough to disqualify it. So basing the rules on real world bonfires is just adding stuff to the spell.

Furthermore, the 5e rules on bright light for fire to create a bright light area, the radius needs to be specified. None is specified. It's quite easy to imagine a magical bonfire, one that only does fire damage to creatures and burns fine under water, that burns in a way that it doesn't light up the area around it, leaving the surrounding area in 5e darkness. While still emitting enough light that the flames themselves can be seen, which still qualifies for 5e Darkness.

[JLandan]

Very well said.

And particularly important in understanding how 5e is written.

I totally agree. +1 Dr.Samurai.

I am astounded we got 6 pages from "Create Bonfire - does it produce light? Heat?"

[Segev]

It quite clearly doesn't create a non-magical bonfire, because it shares very few traits with such a thing. Even just simple things like only doing the fire damage to creatures and working fine under water are enough to disqualify it. So basing the rules on real world bonfires is just adding stuff to the spell.

Furthermore, the 5e rules on bright light for fire to create a bright light area, the radius needs to be specified. None is specified. It's quite easy to imagine a magical bonfire, one that only does fire damage to creatures and burns fine under water, that burns in a way that it doesn't light up the area around it, leaving the surrounding area in 5e darkness. While still emitting enough light that the flames themselves can be seen, which still qualifies for 5e Darkness.

On the contrary. It creates a bonfire. The spell then specifies ways that the magical bonfire is different from a nonmagical one. It is adding text to the spell to add further restrictions.

As has been pointed out, it says it creates a bonfire. It doesn't say it creates a fnarf, or a blurgle, or a cube containing intense heat. A "bonfire."

Do you assert that a spell that says it creates a sphere of water that can trap somebody inside it does not make those trapped within wet, because the water is obviously magical and the spell doesn't say the water can wet things?

[PhantomSoul]

On the contrary. It creates a bonfire. The spell then specifies ways that the magical bonfire is different from a nonmagical one. It is adding text to the spell to add further restrictions.

As has been pointed out, it says it creates a bonfire. It doesn't say it creates a fnarf, or a blurgle, or a cube containing intense heat. A "bonfire."

Do you assert that a spell that says it creates a sphere of water that can trap somebody inside it does not make those trapped within wet, because the water is obviously magical and the spell doesn't say the water can wet things?

Well obviously they get wet while in it and could drown -- but do they remain wet when they leave the water sphere, that's the real question! (And is a watery sphere like a water sphere in the wetness respect, or is "watery" telling us it's not actually water...)

[RSP]

On the contrary. It creates a bonfire. The spell then specifies ways that the magical bonfire is different from a nonmagical one. It is adding text to the spell to add further restrictions.


The spell says it creates a bonfire. It doesn't just say that it creates a blarg, or a szyz, or something. If they wanted the only properties of the spell effect to be what it explicitly lays out in the description, then they would have made up a new word for it. A blarg doesn't produce detectable heat outside of itself, because we don't have any knowledge of what a blarg does, outside of the spell, and the spell doesn't say that.

But they didn't do that. They didn't call it a blarg; they called it a bonfire. Because they wanted us to know that it's a bonfire, and therefore has the properties of a bonfire. Like producing heat and light. And, again, it's explicitly stated in the RAW that fires do produce bright light.

So does the CB fire have the properties of a real world bonfire, or the properties described in the RAW?

Does it produce smoke and heat that kills living creatures? A real world bonfire does.

Does it extend beyond where it starts if there is amble flammable material? A real world bonfire does.

Do the flames of the fire extend outside a 5’ cube? A real world bonfire that’s large enough to fill a 5’ cube would.

Does it extinguish when exposed to a suitable amount of water? A real world bonfire does.

Does it extinguish if there’s no fuel source for it to burn? A real world bonfire does.

You’re suggesting, of course, that all of these are how the CB created magical 5’ cube of fire works, because those are all properties of a real world bonfire.

[Tawmis]

It quite clearly doesn't create a non-magical bonfire, because it shares very few traits with such a thing. Even just simple things like only doing the fire damage to creatures and working fine under water are enough to disqualify it. So basing the rules on real world bonfires is just adding stuff to the spell.

Furthermore, the 5e rules on bright light for fire to create a bright light area, the radius needs to be specified. None is specified. It's quite easy to imagine a magical bonfire, one that only does fire damage to creatures and burns fine under water, that burns in a way that it doesn't light up the area around it, leaving the surrounding area in 5e darkness. While still emitting enough light that the flames themselves can be seen, which still qualifies for 5e Darkness.

Question.

When someone casts Create Undead (https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/create-undead) - the ghoul they raise and control... does it have legs and arms?
Because... being undead, it may not. And nowhere in the spell description does it say it has arms and legs. You can command it to move. But is it walking? Or crawling? Because... I'm sure you've seen the Walking Dead. Plenty of undead are missing body parts. I guess we can't assume the body is fresh and comes with all apendages. Because the spell doesn't clarify.

Extreme? Yes. Because arguing that it doesn't summon a bonfire that creates heat, fire and light, seems just as extreme.

What else would the bonfire be? It clearly has fire, because it can burn things.

Fire creates light, by default.

So... the bonfire creates light.

Now, there's differnet size bonfires, sure.

But they all create light, regardless.

Because, well, fire.

[Dr.Samurai]

So does the CB fire have the properties of a real world bonfire, or the properties described in the RAW?

Does it produce smoke and heat that kills living creatures? A real world bonfire does.

Does it extend beyond where it starts if there is amble flammable material? A real world bonfire does.

Do the flames of the fire extend outside a 5’ cube? A real world bonfire that’s large enough to fill a 5’ cube would.

Does it extinguish when exposed to a suitable amount of water? A real world bonfire does.

Does it extinguish if there’s no fuel source for it to burn? A real world bonfire does.

You’re suggesting, of course, that all of these are how the CB created magical 5’ cube of fire works, because those are all properties of a real world bonfire.
That will get figured out at the table. There is no reason to outline it here, in a forum post. The DM will decide. But the rules are not going to describe every single thing they reference. We can run through this exercise with all the other things we've mentioned and beyond if we were all so inclined and see that the RAW is absolutely insufficient to simulate the world.

[RSP]

That will get figured out at the table.

We all know the DM can decide whatever they like. But if you’re saying RAW it has to function like a real life bonfire, then you are saying all those things are RAW.

Or are you saying RAW CB doesn’t create a fire that emulates a real life bonfire?


Question.

When someone casts Create Undead (https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/create-undead) - the ghoul they raise and control... does it have legs and arms?

The ghoul gets the stat block of a ghoul if that’s what they create.

[Dr.Samurai]

We all know the DM can decide whatever they like. But if you’re saying RAW it has to function like a real life bonfire, then you are saying all those things are RAW.
I'm saying that RAW tells us a bonfire is created, and there is no expectation that RAW describes every parameter of everything it references. So the DM will determine the heat and light that the bonfire puts out.

But given that bonfires emit heat and light, I would definitely consider it consistent with RAW that Create Bonfire creates something that emits heat and light, because it specifically says it creates a bonfire.

[Tawmis]

The ghoul gets the stat block of a ghoul if that’s what they create.

And yet "Create Bonfire" isn't getting what would be considered normal stats for a bonfire (heat, light, fire)?

Not seeing the irony, I take it?

[Yukito01]

I'm in the "CB doesn't emit dim or bright light, or heat" camp, but perhaps for a different reason. Rather than thinking if it's a "real" bonfire or not, the crucial point is that the magical effect only takes place in the designated area, i.e. 5ft cube.

Maybe inside that area the conjured fire is for all intents and purposes a real bonfire, but outside of it? It may as well not exist. Sure, it may be visible (it probably is; like the firefly example, or maybe even how a gas stove's blue fire is visible in a dark kitchen but doesn't shed much light but also note that not all real-world fires are visible), but any meaningful effect it may have on the world is limited by its area. I mean, it's magic, it makes sense that the reality-bending rules only apply inside the specific designated parameters.

Anyhows, that's my take. Also, on a related point, regardless of how silly it may seem, I have find that for balance purposes, especially in martial-magic mixed parties, it's much better to limit strictly what magic can do to what's written in the spells. Otherwise, a creative player with magic may steal all the spotlight. So, for me, heatless barely glowing bonfires are not all that repulsive.

[RSP]

I'm saying that RAW tells us a bonfire is created, and there is no expectation that RAW describes every parameter of everything it references. So the DM will determine the heat and light that the bonfire puts out.

But given that bonfires emit heat and light, I would definitely consider it consistent with RAW that Create Bonfire creates something that emits heat and light, because it specifically says it creates a bonfire.

Is a 5’ box of fire that doesn’t spread, that doesn’t ignite objects held or worn, or damage nonflammable objects, that isn’t doused by water, that doesn’t burn fuel, what you describe as a bonfire?

We have very different ideas of what constitutes a bonfire.


And yet "Create Bonfire" isn't getting what would be considered normal stats for a bonfire (heat, light, fire)?

Not seeing the irony, I take it?

No: I’m not seeing a bonfire in a 5’ cube of fire that doesn’t flicker, react to wind, etc.

Is that your definition of a bonfire?

Also, please cite the “normal stats” for a magical bonfire.

[JackPhoenix]

And yet "Create Bonfire" isn't getting what would be considered normal stats for a bonfire (heat, light, fire)?

Ignoring (just like people in this thread) that the spell is explicit that it does not create normal bonfire, can you tell me where those "normal stats for a bonfire" are? I can't find them in my book, unlike the ghoul's stat block.

[RSP]

I'm in the "CB doesn't emit dim or bright light, or heat" camp, but perhaps for a different reason. Rather than thinking if it's a "real" bonfire or not, the crucial point is that the magical effect only takes place in the designated area, i.e. 5ft cube.

Maybe inside that area the conjured fire is for all intents and purposes a real bonfire, but outside of it? It may as well not exist…

That’s exactly the reasoning I gave.

Get ready for some rude comments from other posters if you’re looking to defend it.



Anyhows, that's my take. Also, on a related point, regardless of how silly it may seem, I have find that for balance purposes, especially in martial-magic mixed parties, it's much better to limit strictly what magic can do to what's written in the spells. Otherwise, a creative player with magic may steal all the spotlight. So, for me, heatless barely glowing bonfires are not all that repulsive.

Different take, but I tried pointing out that the balance would be thrown off if a cantrip did what a real life bonfire does, showing it would be more equivalent to a 2nd level spell.

[Chronos]

Of course it has heat that kills living things (depending on their HP), and of course it spreads if there's ample fuel: Those are not only properties of ordinary bonfires; those are also explicitly specified in the spell.

[GooeyChewie]

Is a 5’ box of fire that doesn’t spread, that doesn’t ignite objects held or worn, or damage nonflammable objects, that isn’t doused by water, that doesn’t burn fuel, what you describe as a bonfire?

We have very different ideas of what constitutes a bonfire.
Create Bonfire does not create a 5' box of fire. It creates a bonfire that fills a 5' cube. Of the shapes available for spell effects (line, cone, cube, sphere, cylinder), cube is the one used to indicate a spell effect occurs in a single space. Imagining that bonfire as a perfect 5' x 5' x 5' box is akin to imagining player characters as 5' x 5' squares as they occupy spaces on the board.

A bonfire is a controlled flame, and should not be spreading. If it were spreading, it would be less like a mundane bonfire.

Not igniting objects which are held or worn and the specifics of where the bonfire does damage are listed in the spell description, and thus are things which the spell explicitly alters from a mundane bonfire.

Likewise, the spell effect is explicitly sustained by the caster's concentration, rather than a chemical reaction that needs fuel or is doused by water.

Does the magical bonfire created by Create Bonfire work differently in the ways explicitly mentioned in the spell description? Yes, of course it does. That's why it's a spell, and not rules for creating a mundane bonfire. But those differences do not mean the magical bonfire does not act like a mundane bonfire in other ways.


No: I’m not seeing a bonfire in a 5’ cube of fire that doesn’t flicker, react to wind, etc.

Is that your definition of a bonfire?
Who said the bonfire created by Create Bonfire doesn't flicker or react to wind? Sure, the wind doesn't push it out of the 5' cube, but I would describe a bonfire (even one created by Create Bonfire) differently if the wind were blowing than if air was calm (and both descriptions would have the fire flicker).

[RSP]

Of course it has heat that kills living things (depending on their HP), and of course it spreads if there's ample fuel: Those are not only properties of ordinary bonfires; those are also explicitly specified in the spell.

Incorrect. The spell only gives properties inside the 5’ cube. A real life bonfire isn’t contained within a 5’ cube.

Are you really asserting that a real life bonfire, that has at least a 5’ x 5’ base on the ground, and that is all fire (no gaps or flicking flame but all fire) extending up at least 5’ produces no heat or flame outside of an area covered by a 5’ box??? Are you really saying that putting a living creature 5’ above the base of that bonfire would do nothing to that living creature???

[Dr.Samurai]

We have very different ideas of what constitutes a bonfire.
Nice try but... no, we in fact DO NOT have very different ideas of what constitutes a bonfire. You and I and everyone else in this thread knows EXACTLY what a bonfire is.

You want to preserve a RAW argument while simultaneously ignoring or rendering meaningless the first half of the first sentence of the spell. You literally cannot do this. Rules as written includes the first sentence, you don't get to cherry pick parts of it to focus on or ignore as suits your argument.

As we've all heard many times before, spells do what they say. The spell tells you it creates a bonfire. That sentence makes sense to everyone that isn't trying to "prove" that the spell doesn't emit heat and light. You shrug your shoulders and say "ask the developers what they meant by that sentence" but we don't need to because we know what the sentence means. The spell creates a bonfire. The spell doesn't need to tell us that it emits heat and light because it told us that it creates a bonfire.

If you're in the freezing north, this spell will help keep you warm. If you're in the dark, this spell will help illuminate the area. Because it creates a bonfire.

[RSP]

the spell effect is explicitly sustained by the caster's concentration, rather than a chemical reaction that needs fuel or is doused by water.

Where? Where does it explicitly say (as you claim) that the bonfire differs from a real world bonfire in that it doesn’t require fuel, oxygen, or is not doused by water?

(Definition of “explicitly”, per Google dictionary, so we’re on the same page:

“in a clear and detailed manner, leaving no room for confusion or doubt.”

If you’re using some different definition of “explicitly” than please let me know.)

[Valmark]

Create Bonfire does not create a 5' box of fire. It creates a bonfire that fills a 5' cube. Of the shapes available for spell effects (line, cone, cube, sphere, cylinder), cube is the one used to indicate a spell effect occurs in a single space.

Emphasis mine. Just wanted to point out that a 5' feet cube can hit four creatures adjacent to each other (well, put in a 2x2 formation) and even more if you're inventive enough (and the situation gives you the opportunity).

[RSP]

You want to preserve a RAW argument while simultaneously ignoring or rendering meaningless the first half of the first sentence of the spell. You literally cannot do this. Rules as written includes the first sentence, you don't get to cherry pick parts of it to focus on or ignore as suits your argument.

At no point have I ignored the first sentence. However, you’re obviously ignoring that looking at a 5’ cube of fire is not what we would recognize as a real life bonfire.



As we've all heard many times before, spells do what they say. The spell tells you it creates a bonfire.

…And then goes on to state that it’s not actually a real world bonfire, but a magical one, with properties different than a real life bonfire, and modified so much that it doesn’t actually appear to be, nor emulate very well, a real life bonfire. Yet you want to ignore that part of the RAW and put undue weight on the first sentence, so much weight that it nullifies the rest of the RAW.

[Bobthewizard]

Where? Where does it explicitly say (as you claim) that the bonfire differs from a real world bonfire in that it doesn’t require fuel, oxygen, or is not doused by water?

(Definition of “explicitly”, per Google dictionary, so we’re on the same page:

“in a clear and detailed manner, leaving no room for confusion or doubt.”

If you’re using some different definition of “explicitly” than please let me know.)

I'll take this one. "You create a bonfire on ground that you can see within range. Until the spell ends, the bonfire fills a 5-foot cube."

It doesn't say the bonfire requires fuel or oxygen, or can be doused by water. It says it lasts until the spell ends. So normal ways to put out a fire won't work. The bonfire lasts until the spell ends. That is explicit in the spell. So therefore it does not need fuel or oxygen and is not doused by water. To rule so would invalidate the duration listed in the spell.

Outside of these exceptions, it is a bonfire and should act like a normal bonfire. It's not a 5' cube of fire, it's a bonfire that "fills a five-foot cube". With good enough DEX saves, you could stand in that 5' cube and not take damage, so I wouldn't picture a 5' cube of fire. Instead, picture a fire that damages people in a 5' cube. I think "fills" likely refers to the area it can damage, not the shape of the fire.

[RSP]

Also of note, in the differences between a “magical 5e D&D bonfire created by the Create Bonfire spell”, and real life emulating fire, a creature can sit down within the CB bonfire for the entire time it’s in existence and not take damage (assuming Dex Saves are made).

This is absolutely not possible if you also give the CB fire all the properties of a real life bonfire, where this would never be possible (outside possibly having a protective suit - I imagine the technology is available I’m just not aware of it).

(Note: there are spells that don’t allow Dex Saves to avoid fire/heat. Wall of Fire states: “One side of the wall, selected by you when you cast this spell, deals 5d8 fire damage to each creature that ends its turn within 10 feet of that side or inside the wall. A creature takes the same damage when it enters the wall for the first time on a turn or ends its turn there. The other side of the wall deals no damage.” That damage occurs with no save, so clearly degrees of heat and fire that auto-damage those not immune, exist in 5e.)

Also note for all those “it says it creates a “bonfire so it must emulate a real bonfire in every way” crowd, WoF similarly states it creates a wall of fire. So whatever you apply to one I’d imagine applies to the other. So Wall of Fire must emulate a real world wall of fire, and, as such, could then be used as a basis for what D&D imagines a real world wall made out of fire would do; the spells would, then, only be divining the shape of the otherwise “real world emulating” fire.)


I'll take this one. "You create a bonfire on ground that you can see within range. Until the spell ends, the bonfire fills a 5-foot cube."

It doesn't say the bonfire requires fuel or oxygen, or can be doused by water. It says it lasts until the spell ends. So normal ways to put out a fire won't work. The bonfire lasts until the spell ends. That is explicit in the spell. So therefore it does not need fuel or oxygen and is not doused by water. To rule so would invalidate the duration listed in the spell.

Outside of these exceptions, it is a bonfire and should act like a normal bonfire. It's not a 5' cube of fire, it's a bonfire that "fills a five-foot cube". With good enough DEX saves, you could stand in that 5' cube and not take damage, so I wouldn't picture a 5' cube of fire. Instead, picture a fire that damages people in a 5' cube. I think "fills" likely refers to the area it can damage, not the shape of the fire.

So we ignore what “fills” means because it doesn’t fit your argument? Can a real world fire damage creatures outside a 5’ cube if it’s flames exist outside that 5’ cube? Absolutely!

Does CB state it doesn’t damage creatures outside that cube? Nope!

So you’re just picking and choosing elements of a real world fire that only suit your argument and ignore the rest?

[GooeyChewie]

Where? Where does it explicitly say (as you claim) that the bonfire differs from a real world bonfire in that it doesn’t require fuel, oxygen, or is not doused by water?

(Definition of “explicitly”, per Google dictionary, so we’re on the same page:

“in a clear and detailed manner, leaving no room for confusion or doubt.”

If you’re using some different definition of “explicitly” than please let me know.)
The claim is that the spell effect is explicitly sustained by the concentration of the caster. The spell indicates this fact in the "Duration" field, where it says "Concentration" (or has a black diamond with a C in it).


At no point have I ignored the first sentence. However, you’re obviously ignoring that looking at a 5’ cube of fire is not what we would recognize as a real life bonfire.
I totally agree that looking at a 5' cube of fire that doesn't flicker or respond to wind or produce heat or light or have flames or in any other way resemble a bonfire is not what we would recognize as a real life bonfire. That's the point. The spell creates a bonfire. What you are describing is not a bonfire. Therefore, what you are describing is not what the spell creates.



…And then goes on to state that it’s not actually a real world bonfire, but a magical one, with properties different than a real life bonfire, and modified so much that it doesn’t actually appear to be, nor emulate very well, a real life bonfire. Yet you want to ignore that part of the RAW and put undue weight on the first sentence, so much weight that it nullifies the rest of the RAW.
Nobody is saying that we should ignore what the rest of the spell does. Nobody is claiming the spell should not fill a 5' cube; we just recognize that something doesn't have to be a 5' cube to fill a 5' cube. Nobody is claiming the spell should do damage outside of the 5' cube; we just recognize that something can produce heat without damaging objects and creatures. Nobody is claiming the spell gives us a range for bright and dim light; we just recognize that fire does by RAW create bright light and the absent specifics the DM adjudicates the range on that light.



EDIT:


Also of note, in the differences between a “magical 5e D&D bonfire created by the Create Bonfire spell”, and real life emulating fire, a creature can sit down within the CB bonfire for the entire time it’s in existence and not take damage (assuming Dex Saves are made).

This is absolutely not possible if you also give the CB fire all the properties of a real life bonfire, where this would never be possible (outside possibly having a protective suit - I imagine the technology is available I’m just not aware of it).
Actually, D&D does not have specific rules for damage from standing in a fire. If your DM allows saves in such situations, it would be possible. But if even your DM does not allow for such saves, this point is irrelevant. The spell Create Bonfire specifies how it deals damage, which means the damage it does is something which may differ from mundane bonfires.


Also note for all those “it says it creates a “bonfire so it must emulate a real bonfire in every way” crowd, WoF similarly states it creates a wall of fire. So whatever you apply to one I’d imagine applies to the other. So Wall of Fire must emulate a real world wall of fire, and, as such, could then be used as a basis for what D&D imagines a real world wall made out of fire would do; the spells would, then, only be divining the shape of the otherwise “real world emulating” fire.)
There is no "it must emulate a real bonfire in every way" crowd. The argument is that in when a spell conjures something, the conjured thing acts like a mundane version of the thing except where the spell specifies it differs. Everything in the spell description for Wall of Fire indicates ways in which the wall of fire conjured by that spell may not emulate a real world wall of fire.

If I understand your position correctly, you would say the fire created by Wall of Fire produces no light and the heat generated by this fire could not be felt by creatures 11' feet (or more) away from the damaging side of the wall (or at all on the non-damaging side). Is that correct?

[Bobthewizard]

So we ignore what “fills” means because it doesn’t fit your argument? Can a real world fire damage creatures outside a 5’ cube if it’s flames exist outside that 5’ cube? Absolutely!

Does CB state it doesn’t damage creatures outside that cube? Nope!

So you’re just picking and choosing elements of a real world fire that only suit your argument and ignore the rest?

We either have to make an assumption about what "fills" means in this context, or completely ignore the description of the spell. What you are describing isn't a bonfire at all.

CB says it damages people in that cube if they fail their DEX save. That's all it damages. So it does not damage anyone outside of that area. As far as I know, there are no rules for the damage of a mundane bonfire, so the spell gives it one.

I'm not picking and choosing at all. The spell description says it creates a bonfire, so it creates a bonfire. A bonfire is not a 5' cube of flame. It is a bonfire. Therefore, "fills" must refer to the effect not the actual shape of the visible flame. Assuming it is a visual 5' cube of fire invalidates the spell description of creating a bonfire so cannot be the correct interpretation. "Fills" referring to the effect and not the visual flame is a perfectly reasonable interpretation in the English language.

[RSP]

I totally agree that looking at a 5' cube of fire that doesn't flicker or respond to wind or produce heat or light or have flames or in any other way resemble a bonfire is not what we would recognize as a real life bonfire. That's the point. The spell creates a bonfire. What you are describing is not a bonfire. Therefore, what you are describing is not what the spell creates.

Except that’s exactly what the spell states it creates.



Nobody is saying that we should ignore what the rest of the spell does. Nobody is claiming the spell should not fill a 5' cube; we just recognize that something doesn't have to be a 5' cube to fill a 5' cube. Nobody is claiming the spell should do damage outside of the 5' cube; we just recognize that something can produce heat without damaging objects and creatures. Nobody is claiming the spell gives us a range for bright and dim light; we just recognize that fire does by RAW create bright light and the absent specifics the DM adjudicates the range on that light.

So this is yet more selective application of what a real life fire would do vs the effects of the CB spell.

You’re saying CB should create a bonfire that fills the requirements of the spell effect and then is in all ways, emulating a real life fire.

A real life fire doesn’t not hurt creatures with its heat and flames, therefore, since the RAW doesn’t say it doesn’t do that; it would hurt creatures with its fire and flame.

Is your argument then that putting a creature 5’ above the base of a real life bonfire is going to result in that creature unharmed by smoke, heat and flame?

Is your argument that CB creates billowing smoke like a bonfire, that’ll choke and kill living creatures if it’s cast indoors? Because that what happens if you have a bonfire that fills a 5’ cube indoors.

If those aren’t part of your argument, then you’re just selectively choosing what aspects of a real life fire are being implemented by the spell, and not actually having it emulate a real life fire.


We either have to make an assumption about what "fills" means in this context, or completely ignore the description of the spell. What you are describing isn't a bonfire at all.

CB says it damages people in that cube if they fail their DEX save. That's all it damages. So it does not damage anyone outside of that area. As far as I know, there are no rules for the damage of a mundane bonfire, so the spell gives it one.

The spell doesn’t say it doesn’t damage outside that 5’ cube. It only says what occurs within that cube because that’s the area in which it takes effect.

If you’re arguing that the effects of a real life fire extend beyond a 5’ cube, therefore the effects of CB have to extend beyond a 5’ cube; then heat, smoke, and flame that damages living creatures extends beyond that 5’ cube, because those are the effects of a real life bonfire.

Also, deciding “I’m ignoring this part of the RAW” is not an argument that you’re following the RAW.



I'm not picking and choosing at all. The spell description says it creates a bonfire, so it creates a bonfire. A bonfire is not a 5' cube of flame. It is a bonfire. Therefore, "fills" must refer to the effect not the actual shape of the visible flame. Assuming it is a visual 5' cube of fire invalidates the spell description of creating a bonfire so cannot be the correct interpretation. "Fills" referring to the effect and not the visual flame is a perfectly reasonable interpretation in the English language.

Then how does heat and light escape that 5’ cube if the effect of the spell is contained within that 5’ cube?

You can’t have it both ways. Either the effects of the spell are contained by that 5’ cube (my argument all along), or they aren’t.

As you say: “‘Fills’ referring to the effect and not the visual flame is a perfectly reasonable interpretation in the English language.”

Then there are no effects of the spell that escape that 5’ cube. Otherwise, you absolutely are picking and choosing.

(Note: “visual flame” is absolutely an effect as well, hence why the visual is a 5’ cube of fire. You seem to want it to be a real fire within a 5’ cube, and be an illusory fire beyond that. The RAW does not support this.)

[Bobthewizard]

The spell doesn’t say it doesn’t damage outside that 5’ cube. It only says what occurs within that cube because that’s the area in which it takes effect.

If you’re arguing that the effects of a real life fire extend beyond a 5’ cube, therefore the effects of CB have to extend beyond a 5’ cube; then heat, smoke, and flame that damages living creatures extends beyond that 5’ cube, because those are the effects of a real life bonfire.

Damage is explicitly spelled out in the spell description. You can't extend the damage. No spell damages beyond its description.


Also, deciding “I’m ignoring this part of the RAW” is not an argument that you’re following the RAW.

I'm not ignoring any part of RAW.


Then how does heat and light escape that 5’ cube if the effect of the spell is contained within that 5’ cube?

You can’t have it both ways. Either the effects of the spell are contained by that 5’ cube (my argument all along), or they aren’t.

The description doesn't limit light or heat, just the damage effect. You can't extend the damage. But you can absolutely describe light and heat beyond that 5' cube consistent with a bonfire. The heat just can't damage anything.


Then there are no effects of the spell that escape that 5’ cube. Otherwise, you absolutely are picking and choosing.

(Note: “visual flame” is absolutely an effect as well, hence why the visual is a 5’ cube of fire”)

Again, I'm not picking and choosing. The effect that is limited to 5' is the damage. Other effects don't have to be. The most obvious one is light. I think light is an intrinsic part of being a bonfire. Without light, it is not a bonfire but just a magical fire. The spell creates a bonfire. All bonfires give off light, so the spell gives off light, since it doesn't explicitly say it doesn't.

Your examples of smoke and heat I think are actually more debatable than light. A bonfire gives off light. To me, it's silly to say it doesn't. But does it create smoke and use oxygen if it is powered by magic and not fuel and oxygen? Some fuel, like white oak bark, doesn't create hardly any smoke. If it does give off smoke and use oxygen, what are the effects of that? Damage is limited to the 5' cube by the spell description, but what about smoke. I would say no since not all bonfires have to create smoke, but I wouldn't be as sure of that as I am about the light. Feel free to fluff the spell as removing oxygen or creating smoke, but I don't think you can have it cause any detrimental effects beyond the spell description.



(Note: “visual flame” is absolutely an effect as well, hence why the visual is a 5’ cube of fire. You seem to want it to be a real fire within a 5’ cube, and be an illusory fire beyond that. The RAW does not support this.)

That's interesting that you say that, because I see a bonfire that doesn't give off light as being closer to an illusion than one that does. I don't think it's a 5' cube of fire and I think that interpretation is silly. It's a bonfire, not a cube of fire. I think it's likely a 2-3' diameter bonfire that "fills" a 5' cube by damaging creatures in that cube.

[Tanarii]

I'm in the "CB doesn't emit dim or bright light, or heat" camp, but perhaps for a different reason. Rather than thinking if it's a "real" bonfire or not, the crucial point is that the magical effect only takes place in the designated area, i.e. 5ft cube.Also a good point, that the effects that are created explicitly apply to the spell's are of effect.


Ignoring (just like people in this thread) that the spell is explicit that it does not create normal bonfire, can you tell me where those "normal stats for a bonfire" are? I can't find them in my book, unlike the ghoul's stat block.
Good clap back. You got a two for one there. :smallamused:

[RSP]

The description doesn't limit light or heat, just the damage effect. You can't extend the damage. But you can absolutely describe light and heat beyond that 5' cube consistent with a bonfire. The heat just can't damage anything.

Again, I'm not picking and choosing. The effect that is limited to 5' is the damage.

No. The RAW states the following:

“Until the spell ends, the magic bonfire fills a 5-foot cube. Any creature in the bonfire’s space when you cast the spell must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or take 1d8 fire damage.”

The RAW doesn’t state the damage fills a 5’ cube, it states the bonfire does. If you’re arguing the fire expands past that cube, then move onto the next sentence: “Any creature in the bonfire’s space…”

So the damage isn’t contained to the 5’ cube, it’s contained to “the bonfires space.” If you’re arguing the bonfire’s space exceeds the 5’ cube, then so does the damage, as the damage clearly applies to the bonfire’s space.

[Segev]

I have yet to see the "it can't possibly emit light nor heat" side actually rebut the core point of the other side of the argument. I have seen them dance around it, I have seen them deny it, but I have seen no logical rebuttals.

That core point being that a magical bonfire behaves like a nonmagical bonfire except for the specific ways that the spell says it behaves differently.

There's a lot of straw-manning about how that must mean it behaves in every way like a real-world bonfire, or that it must deal damage outside of what the spell says it does, or that that is somehow adding words to the spell (never with any support for any of those claims, just raw assertions). None of that aligns with the model that the "it behaves like a nonmagical bonfire, except where the spell says otherwise" side proposes.

The model that is proposed, which has yet to be logically rebutted either by text of the spell or by attacking the principle, is this:

The spell creates a bonfire whose flames fill a five foot cube. Within that cube, the flames deal damage per the spell. Outside that cube, the flames emit heat and light in a way as much like a nonmagical bonfire that happens to fully occupy a five foot cube would. The heat and light deal no damage outside of that five foot cube.

This argument will continue to go around in fruitless circles as long as the "it doesn't emit heat nor light" side of the argument refuses to address that model, either to point out text in the spell that explicitly states it does not operate that way, or to attack the premise of the principle that it behaves like a nonmagical bonfire except as specified (and selectively reading the text, which is what the "it obviously doesn't behave like a bonfire because the spell text doesn't say that it does, as long as I ignore the part where the spell says it creates a bonfire" argument amounts to, doesn't logically rebut the principle; it simply selectively reads the text).

[RSP]

I have yet to see the "it can't possibly emit light nor heat" side actually rebut the core point of the other side of the argument.

It’s in my previous posts: the spell effects are contained by the 5’ cube.

Arbitrarily deciding certain effects exceed that cube, but not others, is, indeed, arbitrary.

[Segev]

It’s in my previous posts: the spell effects are contained by the 5’ cube.

Arbitrarily deciding certain effects exceed that cube, but not others, is, indeed, arbitrary.

You have not given text that supports your claim. Indeed, I assert there is no such text. Please feel free to prove me wrong by quoting text from the spell that says all effects of the spell are confined to the five foot cube.

[Tanarii]

"it obviously doesn't behave like a bonfire because the spell text doesn't say that it does,
Hey, thanks for countering your own argument properly. :smallamused:

(Edit: had to properly selectively quote your text for my response to make sense :smallbiggrin:)

In all seriousness though, hinging your argument on the spell projecting light on it containing the word bonfire is a perfect example of select text parsing and then adding to the spell.

[RSP]

The argument is that in when a spell conjures something, the conjured thing acts like a mundane version of the thing except where the spell specifies it differs.

And the spell specifies where that conjured thing exists: within the 5’ cube.

Deciding that the effects exceed that, then means the effects exceed that: which includes damage, smoke, heat, light, etc.

Deciding, “well, the damage doesn’t exceed that, and the smoke doesn’t exceed that, but the flames, heat and light do”, is just picking and choosing effects that you want to exceed that cube, and ignoring the ones you want to ignore.


You have not given text that supports your claim. Indeed, I assert there is no such text. Please feel free to prove me wrong by quoting text from the spell that says all effects of the spell are confined to the five foot cube.

Again, if you decide the bonfire exceeds that cube, then so does the damage: RAW, the damage is associated with the bonfire, not the cube.



Within that cube, the flames deal damage per the spell. Outside that cube, the flames emit heat and light in a way as much like a nonmagical bonfire that happens to fully occupy a five foot cube would. The heat and light deal no damage outside of that five foot cube.


Except RAW, the damage is associated with the area of the fire. If that isn’t the cube, then the damage exceeds the cube.

You’re just selecting certain properties of a fire and deciding they fill the cube and others don’t, without anything backing up those selections. Hence why I say they’re arbitrary.

[SpanielBear]

And the spell specifies where that conjured thing exists: within the 5’ cube.

Deciding that the effects exceed that, then means the effects exceed that: which includes damage, smoke, heat, light, etc.

Deciding, “well, the damage doesn’t exceed that, and the smoke doesn’t exceed that, but the flames, heat and light do”, is just picking and choosing effects that you want to exceed that cube, and ignoring the ones you want to ignore.



Again, if you decide the bonfire exceeds that cube, then so does the damage: RAW, the damage is associated with the bonfire, not the cube.



Except RAW, the damage is associated with the area of the fire. If that isn’t the cube, then the damage exceeds the cube.

You’re just selecting certain properties of a fire and deciding they fill the cube and others don’t, without anything backing up those selections. Hence why I say they’re arbitrary.

But wouldn’t that mean that, absent any other light source, the bonfire would be invisible? As the light couldn’t leave the 5’ radius?

[RSP]

But wouldn’t that mean that, absent any other light source, the bonfire would be invisible? As the light couldn’t leave the 5’ radius?

I wouldn’t presume light operates like in our world. If you want to delve into the underlying science of D&D 5e, I’d recommend starting another thread.

The RAW on how darkness (the lighting situation, not the spell) works is enough to tell us light doesn’t work like it does in the real world.

[Segev]

Hey, thanks for countering your own argument properly. :smallamused:

(Edit: had to properly selectively quote your text for my response to make sense :smallbiggrin:)

In all seriousness though, hinging your argument on the spell projecting light on it containing the word bonfire is a perfect example of select text parsing and then adding to the spell.It's not selective. Please show me where the spell says that it creates a bonfire, then restricts the heat and light of the bonfire from existing. I will happily concede the argument about the RAW if you can show me text that says that the bonfire does not emit heat nor light, or that such heat and light are restrained to the area of the five foot cube (as RSP claims, but has not backed up).


And the spell specifies where that conjured thing exists: within the 5’ cube. Then a minor illusion of a coconut is not visible outside of the area the image itself occupies? After all, minor illusion says, "If you create an image of an object--such as a chair, muddy footprints, or a small chest--it must be no larger than a 5-foot cube." Since this image is obviously magically created by a spell, and the spell doesn't say it is visible outside the space the image occupies, by your logic, it must not be visible unless you've got your eyes inside the image!

Similarly, since a bonfire created by create bonfire would not be able to have any effects outside of the five foot cube, it must be invisible if you're not standing in it. Otherwise, it might obscure your vision, and certainly, being visible is an effect taking place outside the cube!


Deciding that the effects exceed that, then means the effects exceed that: which includes damage, smoke, heat, light, etc. So, then, if I create a nonmagical bonfire in 5e D&D, and the bonfire fills a 5 foot cube (because I carefully constructed the kindling et al to get juts the right height and width), you're telling me that the heat will not emit past the flames, and no light will escape the area of the flames?

Note that you haven't quoted text that says "the effects of the bonfire do not emit beyond the cube."


Deciding, “well, the damage doesn’t exceed that, and the smoke doesn’t exceed that, but the flames, heat and light do”, is just picking and choosing effects that you want to exceed that cube, and ignoring the ones you want to ignore.Smoke is not necessarily part of a bonfire. It usually is, due to the fuel, but it isn't required. So whether there's smoke or not is entirely up to the DM, as are the effects thereof.

I am not "picking and choosing." I am doing what the spell says. The spell says that it creates a bonfire. It says the bonfire fills a 5 foot cube. The fire is the flames. Unless you wish to try to argue that a "fire" exists without flame, or that flame exists without fire, nonmagically-speaking? (It doesn't say "heatless flame" or "lightless flame" or "fire without flame" or "flame without fire" anywhere in the text of the spell, so saying the flames and fire have the same relationship as the ywould with a nonmagical bonfire makes perfect sense.)


Again, if you decide the bonfire exceeds that cube, then so does the damage: RAW, the damage is associated with the bonfire, not the cube.You continue to argue a straw man that I am not supporting. Nobody, that I have seen, has suggested the fire must exceed the cube.

You seem to be arguing that a bonfire's heat and light stop where the bonfire's edge is. This is not supported by reality, by any RAW in 5e, nor by the text of the spell.


Except RAW, the damage is associated with the area of the fire. If that isn’t the cube, then the damage exceeds the cube.Happily granted, because I am not arguing the fire must exceed the cube. I am arguing tha the fire emits heat and light beyond the edge of the fire, itself. Just as a nonmagical bonfire would.

You have still failed to show that the spell says that the fire created by it fails to emit heat and light beyond the edge of the fire. You have shown it must fill the cube, and you have argued it must not exceed the cube (though I could make a logical argument against this, I won't, because it's not relevant to my point). You have yet to demonstrate that heat and light are confined to the region the cube the bonfire fills. You've asserted it, but you've offered no support for it beyond the assertion. And since I'm sure we've all felt heat and seen light emit beyond the confines of a fire, I hope you can see why I reject your assertion.


You’re just selecting certain properties of a fire and deciding they fill the cube and others don’t, without anything backing up those selections. Hence why I say they’re arbitrary.Untrue. I am selecting the traits of a bonfire that are not specified as different from a nonmagical one by the spell, and deciding that, since it creates a bonfire, those traits that are not specified by the spell must behave as dictated by the rules for a "bonfire." The traits that may behave differently than a nonmagical bonfire are those which are spelled out as behaving differently in the spell.

You keep asserting I am making arbitrary selections. I'm not. The criterion is simple: is the trait spelled out in the spell? If not, then it must default to how a nonmagical bonfire behaves for that trait. If so, then it does what the spell says, overriding the nonmagical bonfire's default traits.

You're going to have to demonstrate that I am not following that criterion to maintain your argument.

[SpanielBear]

I wouldn’t presume light operates like in our world. If you want to delve into the underlying science of D&D 5e, I’d recommend starting another thread.

The RAW on how darkness (the lighting situation, not the spell) works is enough to tell us light doesn’t work like it does in the real world.

Ah. So to avoid upgrading the spell to a bonfire that is invisible in darkness, we are changing how we need to understand the word “light”.

Obviously I am very stupid, because I would not have thought interpreting the spell description for it’s obvious RAW functionality, out of a rule book, required positing a new set of physical laws.

“First, create your universe” indeed.

[RSP]

You keep asserting I am making arbitrary selections. I'm not. The criterion is simple: is the trait spelled out in the spell? If not, then it must default to how a nonmagical bonfire behaves for that trait. If so, then it does what the spell says, overriding the nonmagical bonfire's default traits.


Is the light and heat produced by a nonmagical fire dependent on the fuel and oxygen it consumes?

This is true of a real world fire.

So, if going off the real world, no fuel or oxygen=no heat or light.

You’re arguing that these these properties exist in the magical bonfire produced by CB, using the argument that a real bonfire would have them, yet ignoring that is only true when a real fire doesn’t produce those things without fuel and oxygen.

In D&D 5e, can you have a nonmagical fire that produces light and heat without having fuel to burn?

[SpanielBear]

Is the light and heat produced by a nonmagical fire dependent on the fuel and oxygen it consumes?

This is true of a real world fire.

So, if going off the real world, no fuel or oxygen=no heat or light.

You’re arguing that these these properties exist in the magical bonfire produced by CB, using the argument that a real bonfire would have them, yet ignoring that is only true when a real fire doesn’t produce those things without fuel and oxygen.

In D&D 5e, can you have a nonmagical fire that produces light and heat without having fuel to burn?

Hmm. But didn’t you just state that a d&d universe can’t have the same physical laws as ours? So it seems there must be a third option then between the binary we’ve been working with.

A “real” bonfire- one that obeys our physical laws

A “D&D” bonfire- one that obeys the physical laws of the D&D universe (tbd)

A “magical” bonfire- one that may have properties of both, either, or neither of the above.

This feels like a lot of effort to answer a question about a cantrip.

[Yukito01]

As we've all heard many times before, spells do what they say. The spell tells you it creates a bonfire. That sentence makes sense to everyone that isn't trying to "prove" that the spell doesn't emit heat and light. You shrug your shoulders and say "ask the developers what they meant by that sentence" but we don't need to because we know what the sentence means. The spell creates a bonfire. The spell doesn't need to tell us that it emits heat and light because it told us that it creates a bonfire.

Maybe the bonfire's effects (light and heat) are severly limited beyond the spell's area of effect? For example, a fireball is (if we go by damage alone) almost an order of magnitude stronger than a bonfire. Should creatures in adjacent spaces to the fireball's area be also hurt a little by it?


If you're in the freezing north, this spell will help keep you warm. If you're in the dark, this spell will help illuminate the area. Because it creates a bonfire.

I mean, I get it; it makes sense. On the other hand, if you are playing an adventure in the freezing north, a simple cantrip completely trivialized one important aspect of surviving there. A cantrip that can also be used to light dark caves and also be used in combat. Just from a balance perspective, that's too much for a single cantrip, imo.

Also, by extension of the argument that a bonfire will keep you hot in the freezing winter, just how hot it will? Will you need to wear a coat? Will it dry wet shoes? Do all pcs need to be adjacent to it, or 5ft away will also work? I guess the answer is: it depends. And yes, it depends on the table. But for RAW argument, the fact that it has so many unknowns in what should be a reproducible and stable magic spell makes it easier to default to doing exactly what it says, nothing more nothing else. A "real" (in-game real) bonfire's heat output would probably depend on fuel, weather, etc. But for a spell I would expect something constant.

But, in any case, I would just like to insist in the area of effect argument. Who knows, maybe the bonfire is not really a 5ft cube-big flame but a smaller fire (say 1 or 2ft cube) and it's the radiating heat what damages creatures in the rest of tie 5ft cube area. Would that make more sense?


Another point for me as to why CB doesn't create dim/bright light (though again, in DnD terms this does not necessarily mean the fire is invisible) is because so many other spells or effects include that in their description. The fact that CB doesn't could indeed mean that it was never intended to be used as a light source. (Though, I admit that Wizard's editing in this edition is less than ideal, and it could just be an error, which somehow has evaded being errata'ed.)

[Tanarii]

It's not selective. Please show me where the spell says that it creates a bonfire, then restricts the heat and light of the bonfire from existing. I will happily concede the argument about the RAW if you can show me text that says that the bonfire does not emit heat nor light, or that such heat and light are restrained to the area of the five foot cube (as RSP claims, but has not backed up).
It's selective parsing then adding to the spell. Spells do what they say. In this case it creates a bonfire with traits x,y,z, which are spelled out in the spell.

It doesn't create a bonfire, full stop. Then add traits based on what you think a bonfire should do IRL.

It's no different than claiming Ray of Frost can freeze water.

[Tawmis]

Also, please cite the “normal stats” for a magical bonfire.

Ignoring (just like people in this thread) that the spell is explicit that it does not create normal bonfire, can you tell me where those "normal stats for a bonfire" are? I can't find them in my book, unlike the ghoul's stat block.

Hold on.
So if the party goes to eat dinner.
And one of them says, "I cut the steak with my knife."

Are you going to tell your player that they can't?
Because there's no stats for a knife in D&D?
Because according to this it's just something in the Scholar Pack: https://www.dndbeyond.com/equipment/small-knife
But doesn't have any damage on it.
So how can it cut if it doesn't have damage?
Or, will you logically accept - hey, a knife can cut through steak.
Maybe, like how a bonfire emits heat, fire, and light.

Or... is that too much?

[Thunderous Mojo]

It's selective parsing then adding to the spell. Spells do what they say. In this case it creates a bonfire with traits x,y,z, which are spelled out in the spell.

It doesn't create a bonfire, full stop. Then add traits based on what you think a bonfire should do IRL.

It's no different than claiming Ray of Frost can freeze water.

Prestidigitation, Druidcraft, and Elemental Attunement all reference being able to instantly light or snuff out a campfire, yet there are no statics for a campfire.

“Spells do what spells say they do”…yet somehow, RSP, Tanarii, or JackPhoenix’s arguments never seem to account that by Rules as Written, the DM has to determine some of the parameters of spells..such as what constitutes a campfire.

Since the word ‘Bonfire’ lacks defined 5e statics, RSP, Tanarii, and JackPhoenix, seemingly, determined that the word has no value, in their evaluation process.

This is an error, in reasoning.

A Qualitative examination can allow us to infer information about use of the word “bonfire” in the spell.


We know that a Torch provides Illumination, and does 1 point of damage when used as a weapon.


A campfire, can be as small or smaller than a torch, it also can be larger.


We know that a “Bonfire”, (from a 5e systematic standpoint), potentially, is a separate phenomenon from a “Campfire”.


We also know the designers chose to use the word “Bonfire” at least twice when writing up the spell called Create Bonfire.

The spell could, just as easily, been called Create Flame Spout, for example. The spell’s author(s), however, intentionally referenced ‘Bonfire’, twice.

Politely, I think this thread would be well served at this point, to dispense with the petty bickering, and gettin down to the fruitful work of determining what the points of agreement are.

I think Tanarii provided an excellent working definition upthread:

The conjured bonfire is itself illuminated without necessarily providing further illumination, similar to a dying roadflare, or glowstick.

Can we agree that the bonfire is itself illuminated?

[RSP]

“Spells do what spells say they do”…yet somehow, RSP, Tanarii, or JackPhoenix’s arguments never seem to account that by Rules as Written, the DM has to determine some of the parameters of spells..such as what constitutes a campfire.

Since the word ‘Bonfire’ lacks defined 5e statics, RSP, Tanarii, and JackPhoenix, seemingly, determined that the word has no value, in their evaluation process.

Wherever did you come up with that conclusion?

Do you just completely ignore what I actually write and post, and just make up whatever you want and attribute it to me?

CB makes a magical bonfire.

Fires that don’t have fuel produce no heat and no light. Those are both reactions from the burning fuel.

So what evidence do you have that a magical bonfire created by CB, with no fuel to burn, creates light and heat?

None. You’ve just decided you want to take part of a property of a real life fire and apply it to the magical bonfire created by CB in 5e D&D.

All this is is you (and others, you’re not alone in this) deciding that the magic bonfire created by CB has certain traits of a real life fire, and not other traits of a real life fire or the requirements needed to produce the wanted traits of a real life fire, and trying to call it RAW.


Hold on.
So if the party goes to eat dinner.
And one of them says, "I cut the steak with my knife."

Are you going to tell your player that they can't?
Because there's no stats for a knife in D&D?

First, I’d imagine a knife qualifies as a dagger, per the IW rules: “In many cases, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such.” You may see that differently though.

Secondly, I have no issue with a D&D 5e knife having properties similar to a real life knife, and playing it in-game as such.

That, however, isn’t a good condition to determine what a magical bonfire that fits in a 5’ cube and has no fuel does.

If someone can legitimately show me what a real life fire that has no fuel puts out in terms of heat and light, I’ll gladly add that info into my consideration of what a D&D fire can do with no fuel.

[SpanielBear]

Wherever did you come up with that conclusion?

Do you just completely ignore what I actually write and post, and just make up whatever you want and attribute it to me?

CB makes a magical bonfire.

Fires that don’t have fuel produce no heat and no light. Those are both reactions from the burning fuel.

So what evidence do you have that a magical bonfire created by CB, with no fuel to burn, creates light and heat?

None. You’ve just decided you want to take part of a property of a real life fire and apply it to the magical bonfire created by CB in 5e D&D.

All this is is you (and others, you’re not alone in this) deciding that the magic bonfire created by CB has certain traits of a real life fire, and not other traits of a real life fire or the requirements needed to produce the wanted traits of a real life fire, and trying to call it RAW.



First, I’d imagine a knife qualifies as a dagger, per the IW rules: “In many cases, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such.” You may see that differently though.

Secondly, I have no issue with a D&D 5e knife having properties similar to a real life knife, and playing it in-game as such.

That, however, isn’t a good condition to determine what a magical bonfire that fits in a 5’ cube and has no fuel does.

If someone can legitimately show me what a real life fire that has no fuel puts out in terms of heat and light, I’ll gladly add that info into my consideration of what a D&D fire can do with no fuel.

But a “real life” fire is restricted by physical laws.

You have said these do not apply in D&D reality (the example you gave was the properties of light).

So surely we should be asking, what are the properties of D&D fires.

Agreed, a “real life” fire needs fuel, etc. That stems from the interaction of real life physical laws.

What are the properties of a D&D fire, if they are not arbitrary?

[RSP]

But a “real life” fire is restricted by physical laws.

You have said these do not apply in D&D reality (the example you gave was the properties of light).

So surely we should be asking, what are the properties of D&D fires.

Agreed, a “real life” fire needs fuel, etc. That stems from the interaction of real life physical laws.

What are the properties of a D&D fire, if they are not arbitrary?

Again, if you want to discuss how 5e D&D’s “physical laws” are different from real life physics, I suggest starting a new thread. Based on my experience, you’ll get responses. Discussing it here, however, will just risk derailing this thread.

Relevant to this thread: my understanding of the arguments for “CB creates heat and light” is that it’s because CB creates a bonfire, and bonfires create heat and light.

I’m saying that’s a false conclusion: bonfires only produce heat and light when they have fuel to burn.

I’m not arguing that in-game world non-magical fires should appear to act different than real world fires.

[JLandan]

Perhaps the spell Create Bonfire creates the entire bonfire; fuel, flame, heat, light and smoke, not just flames.

The spell description says it creates a bonfire, not just its parts.

It doesn't say magically sustained smokeless, heatless and less than dimly lit flames that still do fire damage and ignite objects in its area.

[RSP]

Perhaps the spell Create Bonfire creates the entire bonfire; fuel, flame, heat, light and smoke, not just flames.

The spell description says it creates a bonfire, not just its parts.

It doesn't say magically sustained smokeless, heatless and less than dimly lit flames that still do fire damage and ignite objects in its area.

If you consider all those the “parts” of the magic bonfire, then everything is contained in the 5’ cube:

“Until the spell ends, the magic bonfire fills a 5-foot cube.”

Note: I don’t necessarily have an issue with this interpretation of the spell, though I think the usual interpretation is that it’s just the fire. You’d run into issues having the effect of CB happen in an occupied space though, as now you have a creature and a big ol pile of wood in that same physical space (that is, actually in the same space, not just sharing a grid square).

[Schwann145]

For the "it's effects are limited specifically to the 5ft square" people:

A Light cantrip causes an object touched to shed bright light in a 20ft radius and dim light an additional 20ft beyond that, for a total area of a 40ft radius of light.

Is this Light spell visible outside of that area? If you are standing 100ft away from the object the Light spell was cast upon, could you see the light? Or will you be looking into darkness until you move within the 40ft radius of the source?

[RSP]

For the "it's effects are limited specifically to the 5ft square" people:

A Light cantrip causes an object touched to shed bright light in a 20ft radius and dim light an additional 20ft beyond that, for a total area of a 40ft radius of light.

Is this Light spell visible outside of that area? If you are standing 100ft away from the object the Light spell was cast upon, could you see the light? Or will you be looking into darkness until you move within the 40ft radius of the source?

No one’s questioning the visibility of the fire, so I’m not sure what you’re trying to accomplish with this.

[Schwann145]

No one’s questioning the visibility of the fire, so I’m not sure what you’re trying to accomplish with this.

If light doesn't escape the area of the spell, then visibility is impossible because of exactly what "sight" is; a refraction of light off the lens of an eyeball.

---

We're still torn between two positions, fundamentally, in this topic:
A) A small knife (https://www.dndbeyond.com/equipment/small-knife) can cut butter because that's something a knife can do.
B) A small knife (https://www.dndbeyond.com/equipment/small-knife) cannot cut butter because it's write up doesn't explicitly say it can.

[RSP]

If light doesn't escape the area of the spell, then visibility is impossible because of exactly what "sight" is; a refraction of light off the lens of an eyeball.

I’d suggest not looking for our physics in the D&D world.



We're still torn between two positions, fundamentally, in this topic:
A) A small knife (https://www.dndbeyond.com/equipment/small-knife) can cut butter because that's something a knife can do.
B) A small knife (https://www.dndbeyond.com/equipment/small-knife) cannot cut butter because it's write up doesn't explicitly say it can.

If you’re torn on it, I’d suggest starting a new thread appropriate to that topic.

[Schwann145]

I’d suggest not looking for our physics in the D&D world.



If you’re torn on it, I’d suggest starting a new thread appropriate to that topic.

If you're going to take a hard stance on this, then you have to be able to defend that hard stance.
You can't opt out of defending your position that D&D physics are/must be different than IRL physics, and then insist this isn't the place to discuss that.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Wherever did you come up with that conclusion?

Do you just completely ignore what I actually write and post, and just make up whatever you want and attribute it to me?

CB makes a magical bonfire.

Fires that don’t have fuel produce no heat and no light. Those are both reactions from the burning fuel.

So what evidence do you have that a magical bonfire created by CB, with no fuel to burn, creates light and heat?

None. You’ve just decided you want to take part of a property of a real life fire and apply it to the magical bonfire created by CB in 5e D&D.

All this is is you (and others, you’re not alone in this) deciding that the magic bonfire created by CB has certain traits of a real life fire, and not other traits of a real life fire or the requirements needed to produce the wanted traits of a real life fire, and trying to call it RAW..

To be completely clear, I find the discussion of fuels and so forth to be a dead end. We know that the conjuration Cantrip is summoning a lit Bonfire…
….the implications of this is going to depend upon the DM in question.

By RAW.

As a DM concerned with pragmatic results, an opinion that states that a conjured bonfire, emits no light, and is itself not luminous, and one could not cook a marshmallow on stick with it..strains the credulity of players.

A ruling requiring a DM to tortuously explain to a 10 year old player, how they can and can not cook a marshmallow over a magically created Fire (🔥), is a needless expenditure of time, and of a player’s limited supply of credulity and suspension of disbelief.

Control Fire allows quite a few fire shenanigans…one can make a black flame that sheds a dark colored light..perfect for fiery ambushes.

A Non-Luminous bonfire from a Create Bonfire spell, just super charges the ambush/stealth potential of the Cantrip. Essentially, Create Bonfire is incorporating an effect from Control Fire…despite being a magical flame.

Snare + Create Bonfire, is a Q.E.D. Situation…the trapped creature is likely going to die.

[RSP]

To be completely clear, I find the discussion of fuels and so forth to be a dead end.

Then feel free not to participate in it if you don’t think there’s anything to discuss about it (I’m assuming that’s what you mean by “dead end”), but it’s obviously relevant to this thread.

The RAW doesn’t say the fire created by CB emits heat or smoke, regardless of whether you feel that’s a dead end.

[Schwann145]

Fires that don’t have fuel produce no heat and no light. Those are both reactions from the burning fuel.
Fire itself is a reaction from burning fuel. There is no fire if there is no burning fuel. Heat and light are byproducts of fire, not separate from it. Smoke is also a byproduct.

The spell description doesn't say that smoke is produced from the created Bonfire. It also doesn't say that there is no smoke produced either. RAW is wholly insufficient to decide whether the presence of smoke from the Bonfire exists or not, and not all fires create smoke.
All fires do, however, create heat and light. Maybe the amount of heat isn't enough to cause damage outside of the 5ft area, but it will exist. Maybe the light isn't enough to illuminate a significant area around the 5ft space, but the light will exist. Because Fire causes heat and light. And this spell causes a bonfire.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Then feel free not to participate in it if you don’t think there’s anything to discuss about it (I’m assuming that’s what you mean by “dead end”), but it’s obviously relevant to this thread.

This statement, strikes me as being perilously close to asking a fellow poster to stay silent or asking them to leave the thread.


The RAW doesn’t say the fire created by CB emits heat or smoke, regardless of whether you feel that’s a dead end.

The Poison rules in the DMG do not specify that poisons have physical characteristics such as smell, taste, or odor. Are all poisons Iocane Powder from Princess Bride?

The conjuration Cantrip creates a bonfire. As I and others have stated before, the exact ramifications of this, are up to each particular DM.

The discussion does not seem to be able to advance, unless some common ground is established. Fighting over Fire Fuels, is going to lead this thread to a flame out..

[Segev]

The spell does what it says it does. It creates a bonfire that, amongst other things, fills a five foot cube until the end of the spell. That specific text overrides the need for fuel or oxygen: the fire fills that cube for the duration.

I continue to be consistent in only giving the magical bonfire properties distinct from a nonmagical bonfire when the spell says it has such distinct properties.

You continue to try to find ways to make up new parts of the spell to justify your version, which is entirely nonsensical if we step back and look at what is expected if you tell somebody "there is a magical bonfire over there."

You also keep trying to add text to the spell that limits the effects of the bonfire to being entirely contained in the five foot cube, in ways that, if you were consistent, would make all illusion spells invisible outside of the area their images occupy.

Heck, since you're saying that only the properties specifically outlined in the spell belong to the magical bonfire, we cannot even be sure that a Wall of Ice spell's magical ice actually blocks movement, since it never says it does! And obviously, we cannot assume that magical ice cannot simply be walked through. That's a property of nonmagical ice, and assuming the magical ice created by the spell has that property is arbitrarily adding things to the spell.

[Tanarii]

The spell does what it says it does. It creates a bonfire with the properties outlined in the spell, and no others that are being added because you think that's how bonfires should work IRL.

[Dr.Samurai]

At no point have I ignored the first sentence. However, you’re obviously ignoring that looking at a 5’ cube of fire is not what we would recognize as a real life bonfire.
Yes, actually you have. Recall when someone made the logical point of "Bonfires emit heat and light --> the spell creates a bonfire --> if the spell didn't emit heat and light why would the writers write that it creates a bonfire?" you said "not my problem to resolve, go ask them".

That's why others have made the point that the spell doesn't say it creates a "insert nonsense word here". Because we are taking the RAW to mean that a bonfire is created, and the following text in the spell provides clarification on some aspects of what we all understand a bonfire to be.

You, on the other hand, are using the following sentences in the spell description to override the first sentence and say "whatever this spell creates, it cannot be a bonfire". See below.

…And then goes on to state that it’s not actually a real world bonfire, but a magical one, with properties different than a real life bonfire, and modified so much that it doesn’t actually appear to be, nor emulate very well, a real life bonfire. Yet you want to ignore that part of the RAW and put undue weight on the first sentence, so much weight that it nullifies the rest of the RAW.
Firstly, case in point. Here you are saying it's not actually a real bonfire. So let's be precise later on and make sure we all know what we're saying. You're ignoring the first sentence and then claiming some sort of "RAW" position while doing so. I know, not a strong position to take, but here we are...

Secondly, nothing in what I and others is saying "nullifies" the rest of the spell description. We can understand that there is a bonfire that emits heat and light and works like a normal bonfire, but for the specific qualities that the spell describes. The spell gives us the base thing that we are working with, a bonfire, and then goes on from that starting position. How long it burns is clarified, how much space it takes up is clarified, how it hurts people and things is clarified.

None of this is mutually exclusive with it being a bonfire.

Our position accepts the entire spell description, whereas yours needs to erase part of the first sentence to remain consistent.

I have yet to see the "it can't possibly emit light nor heat" side actually rebut the core point of the other side of the argument. I have seen them dance around it, I have seen them deny it, but I have seen no logical rebuttals.

That core point being that a magical bonfire behaves like a nonmagical bonfire except for the specific ways that the spell says it behaves differently.

There's a lot of straw-manning about how that must mean it behaves in every way like a real-world bonfire, or that it must deal damage outside of what the spell says it does, or that that is somehow adding words to the spell (never with any support for any of those claims, just raw assertions). None of that aligns with the model that the "it behaves like a nonmagical bonfire, except where the spell says otherwise" side proposes.

The model that is proposed, which has yet to be logically rebutted either by text of the spell or by attacking the principle, is this:

The spell creates a bonfire whose flames fill a five foot cube. Within that cube, the flames deal damage per the spell. Outside that cube, the flames emit heat and light in a way as much like a nonmagical bonfire that happens to fully occupy a five foot cube would. The heat and light deal no damage outside of that five foot cube.

This argument will continue to go around in fruitless circles as long as the "it doesn't emit heat nor light" side of the argument refuses to address that model, either to point out text in the spell that explicitly states it does not operate that way, or to attack the premise of the principle that it behaves like a nonmagical bonfire except as specified (and selectively reading the text, which is what the "it obviously doesn't behave like a bonfire because the spell text doesn't say that it does, as long as I ignore the part where the spell says it creates a bonfire" argument amounts to, doesn't logically rebut the principle; it simply selectively reads the text).
Quoted for truth.

In all seriousness though, hinging your argument on the spell projecting light on it containing the word bonfire is a perfect example of select text parsing and then adding to the spell.
I'm surprised by this. It's not that the spell "contains" the word bonfire. The spell could have easily been called "Eruption of Flame" or "Call Forth Fire" or something. But the spell lets you create a bonfire and that's the first thing in the spell description. So you may not agree with the position but it's unfair to act like we're grasping for straws here when the spell literally tells you it creates the bonfire you're referring to. Bonfires are fires and the RAW says fires emit light.

Maybe the bonfire's effects (light and heat) are severly limited beyond the spell's area of effect? For example, a fireball is (if we go by damage alone) almost an order of magnitude stronger than a bonfire. Should creatures in adjacent spaces to the fireball's area be also hurt a little by it?
I am not suggesting that Create Bonfire's damage should extend beyond the 5ft cube. I am saying that the spell tells us the starting default position; a bonfire is created. Let's stop right there. If this is the ONLY thing the spell description said, no one would be arguing that it doesn't emit heat and light. Not a single soul, in any sample of the infinite parallel universes, would think for a second to say "well, actually, it doesn't say it emits heat and light, it only says it creates a bonfire".

Because the spell explains how big it is, and how it damages creatures and objects, some people appear confused about whether it creates a bonfire or not.

I mean, I get it; it makes sense. On the other hand, if you are playing an adventure in the freezing north, a simple cantrip completely trivialized one important aspect of surviving there. A cantrip that can also be used to light dark caves and also be used in combat. Just from a balance perspective, that's too much for a single cantrip, imo.

A perfectly reasonable position in my opinion. But remember, it's a 1 minute concentration spell. So it's not something you're going to be sleeping next to, and lighting your way as you travel will require constantly having to recast it as you walk.

Also, by extension of the argument that a bonfire will keep you hot in the freezing winter, just how hot it will? Will you need to wear a coat? Will it dry wet shoes? Do all pcs need to be adjacent to it, or 5ft away will also work? I guess the answer is: it depends. And yes, it depends on the table. But for RAW argument, the fact that it has so many unknowns in what should be a reproducible and stable magic spell makes it easier to default to doing exactly what it says, nothing more nothing else. A "real" (in-game real) bonfire's heat output would probably depend on fuel, weather, etc. But for a spell I would expect something constant.
I don't think the DM having to answer these questions means anything about the intentions of the spell. This position is untenable, as we can comb the RAW for all sorts of examples of "gotcha" questions for the DM to conclude "it must not be possible in the game". I mean... there are no rules for a real bonfire/campfire in the game so does that mean a player can't make one?

But, in any case, I would just like to insist in the area of effect argument. Who knows, maybe the bonfire is not really a 5ft cube-big flame but a smaller fire (say 1 or 2ft cube) and it's the radiating heat what damages creatures in the rest of tie 5ft cube area. Would that make more sense?
I don't find the "space' argument that compelling. If we conjure a wagon for 1 minute and that wagon takes up a 10ft space, can we pile stuff on top of that wagon outside of the 10ft cube? Is the wagon not allowed to "impact" things outside of the 10ft? Can we hitch things to it outside of the 10ft cube and pull/drag it behind us?

If we use Create Bonfire and a tree bough is hanging low and within the 5ft cube, won't it ignite and won't that fire spread to the tree? Or does only the part of the branch in the 5ft cube burn?

When creatures attack other creatures, don't their weapons or limbs impact things outside of the space they occupy when those attacks land?

Aren't we being a little rigid in how we're interpreting the RAW here? (I imagine someone will ignore everything else I have said in this post and this will be the one sentence that gets quoted lol.)


Another point for me as to why CB doesn't create dim/bright light (though again, in DnD terms this does not necessarily mean the fire is invisible) is because so many other spells or effects include that in their description. The fact that CB doesn't could indeed mean that it was never intended to be used as a light source. (Though, I admit that Wizard's editing in this edition is less than ideal, and it could just be an error, which somehow has evaded being errata'ed.)
I would argue that by referring to a real world object that creates heat and light, they DID tell us it is supposed to create heat and light. But it's 1 minute duration with concentration, so it's not nearly the total utility cantrip that it could be. And anyone can build a bonfire in D&D so it's not replacing some critical skill.

Prestidigitation, Druidcraft, and Elemental Attunement all reference being able to instantly light or snuff out a campfire, yet there are no statics for a campfire.

“Spells do what spells say they do”…yet somehow, RSP, Tanarii, or JackPhoenix’s arguments never seem to account that by Rules as Written, the DM has to determine some of the parameters of spells..such as what constitutes a campfire.

Since the word ‘Bonfire’ lacks defined 5e statics, RSP, Tanarii, and JackPhoenix, seemingly, determined that the word has no value, in their evaluation process.

This is an error, in reasoning.

A Qualitative examination can allow us to infer information about use of the word “bonfire” in the spell.

We know that a Torch provides Illumination, and does 1 point of damage when used as a weapon.

A campfire, can be as small or smaller than a torch, it also can be larger.

We know that a “Bonfire”, (from a 5e systematic standpoint), potentially, is a separate phenomenon from a “Campfire”.

We also know the designers chose to use the word “Bonfire” at least twice when writing up the spell called Create Bonfire.



The spell could, just as easily, been called Create Flame Spout, for example. The spell’s author(s), however, intentionally referenced ‘Bonfire’, twice.
Agreed.

As a DM concerned with pragmatic results, an opinion that states that a conjured bonfire, emits no light, and is itself not luminous, and one could not cook a marshmallow on stick with it..strains the credulity of players.

A ruling requiring a DM to tortuously explain to a 10 year old player, how they can and can not cook a marshmallow over a magically created Fire (🔥), is a needless expenditure of time, and of a player’s limited supply of credulity and suspension of disbelief.
A great point, and often overlooked in these hyper-technical "RAW" discussions.

We're still torn between two positions, fundamentally, in this topic:
A) A small knife can cut butter because that's something a knife can do.
B) A small knife cannot cut butter because it's write up doesn't explicitly say it can.
Indeed. The RAW fundamentalists cannot answer this question.

The spell does what it says it does. It creates a bonfire that, amongst other things, fills a five foot cube until the end of the spell. That specific text overrides the need for fuel or oxygen: the fire fills that cube for the duration.

I continue to be consistent in only giving the magical bonfire properties distinct from a nonmagical bonfire when the spell says it has such distinct properties.

You continue to try to find ways to make up new parts of the spell to justify your version, which is entirely nonsensical if we step back and look at what is expected if you tell somebody "there is a magical bonfire over there."

You also keep trying to add text to the spell that limits the effects of the bonfire to being entirely contained in the five foot cube, in ways that, if you were consistent, would make all illusion spells invisible outside of the area their images occupy.

Heck, since you're saying that only the properties specifically outlined in the spell belong to the magical bonfire, we cannot even be sure that a Wall of Ice spell's magical ice actually blocks movement, since it never says it does! And obviously, we cannot assume that magical ice cannot simply be walked through. That's a property of nonmagical ice, and assuming the magical ice created by the spell has that property is arbitrarily adding things to the spell.
There's literally nothing that can be said to rebut any of these points. I leave this thread in Segev's capable and brutal hands lol...

[RSP]

Fire itself is a reaction from burning fuel. There is no fire if there is no burning fuel. Heat and light are byproducts of fire, not separate from it. Smoke is also a byproduct.

The spell description doesn't say that smoke is produced from the created Bonfire. It also doesn't say that there is no smoke produced either.

Almost, like, it would say it created heat and light if the magical fire created by CB produced those things. Like, we can’t know how the physics in the in-game world work, so we can only go off the specifics cited in the spell.


The spell does what it says it does…

…and it doesn’t say it produces heat or light.

Deciding that a magical “bonfire” produces other effects because it says “bonfire” is just wrong.

Based on that logic, anything that says “protective magical force” should do what a “protective magical force” does. So Mage Armor also does what Armor of Agathys does, and vice versa, because both say they create a “protective magical force”

“A protective magical force surrounds you, manifesting as a spectral frost that covers you and your gear. You gain 5 temporary hit points for the duration. If a creature hits you with a melee attack while you have these hit points, the creature takes 5 cold damage.”

“You touch a willing creature who isn’t wearing armor, and a protective magical force surrounds it until the spell ends. The target’s base AC becomes 13 + its Dexterity modifier. The spell ends if the target dons armor or if you dismiss the spell as an action.”

Interesting!

[Segev]

…and it doesn’t say it produces heat or light.

It does say so, actually. It says it creates a bonfire. Bonfires emit light and heat.

We can continue to go around in these circles if your next claim is that the magical bonfire doesn't emit light and heat because the spell doesn't say it does, because a magical bonfire as far as you're concerned has zero properties in common with a nonmagical bonfire except those the spell describes. (If that is not your next claim, I look forward to seeing what your next claim is.)

Edit: A suggestion: if you wish to try to actually persuade anybody that your point is valid, perhaps it would help if you outlined, in your own words, what my position is, and THEN addressed why it is wrong.

I will then either explain how your explanation of my position is wrong (in which case we can hammer it out until you understand my position), or I will address your arguments for why my position is wrong.

If you would like, I will do you the same courtesy, and try to outline your position as I understand it. (I believe I already have, since you've not once told me I'm misrepresenting your position as I offer my rebuttals, but I am willing to do an explicit outline of what I believe your position and argument to be, then rebut it directly.)

[RSP]

It does say so, actually. It says it creates a bonfire. Bonfires emit light and heat.

And nothing RAW says the magical bonfire created by CB creates light and heat: deciding it has some properties of a real life bonfire, and not others, is just arbitrarily deciding those things.

Just to clarify: do you think the spell creates two separate and distinct bonfires? The one stated in the first sentence, and the magical one stated in the second sentence?

“You create a bonfire on ground that you can see within range. Until the spell ends, the magic bonfire fills a 5-foot cube.”

Do you believe the bolded bonfires in the RAW are two separate things?

Because, if not, then both bonfires are magical bonfires. And we only know what magical 5e D&D bonfires created by CB can do based on what the RAW of CB tells us.

[Segev]

And nothing RAW says the magical bonfire created by CB creates light and heat: deciding it has some properties of a real life bonfire, and not others, is just arbitrarily deciding those things.

Then, do you believe that there is no evidence that a wall of ice impedes movement? Because it is magical ice, and deciding magical ice has the same properties as real ice (e.g. that it cannot be walked through) when the spell doesn't say it has those properties "is just arbitrarily deciding those things."

[RSP]

Then, do you believe that there is no evidence that a wall of ice impedes movement?

You mean evidence like this: “The wall is an object that can be damaged and thus breached. It has AC 12 and 30 hit points per 10-foot section, and it is vulnerable to fire damage.”

That seems like it’s an object, with the dimensions selected by the spell.

I’d say that’s evidence that it impedes movement, yes.

[Segev]

You mean evidence like this: “The wall is an object that can be damaged and thus breached. It has AC 12 and 30 hit points per 10-foot section, and it is vulnerable to fire damage.”

That seems like it’s an object, with the dimensions selected by the spell.

I’d say that’s evidence that it impedes movement, yes.

I don't see anything saying it can't be walked through. Are you saying objects can't be walked through? Because that isn't in the spell, and you're arbitrarily deciding to add that to the spell in order to make this magical object share that trait with a nonmagical object, even though the spell doesn't say this magical object obstructs movement.

[RSP]

I don't see anything saying it can't be walked through. Are you saying objects can't be walked through? Because that isn't in the spell, and you're arbitrarily deciding to add that to the spell in order to make this magical object share that trait with a nonmagical object, even though the spell doesn't say this magical object obstructs movement.

You asked for evidence from the WoI spell effect, I gave it, and you completely ignored said evidence. Now you want me to explain objects to you? You’ll find further RAW for objects in the DMG.

If you want to play it that way at your table, that characters can walk through walls, go for it. But don’t expect me to defend your houserules.

[Segev]

You asked for evidence from the WoI spell effect, I gave it, and you completely ignored said evidence. Now you want me to explain objects to you? You’ll find further RAW for objects in the DMG.

If you want to play it that way at your table, that characters can walk through walls, go for it. But don’t expect me to defend your houserules.

You asked for evidence that create bonfire gives light and heat. I gave it. You completely ignored said evidence. Now you want me to explain bonfires to you? You'll find further RAW for fires in the PHB and DMG.

[RSP]

You asked for evidence that create bonfire gives light and heat. I gave it. You completely ignored said evidence. Now you want me to explain bonfires to you? You'll find further RAW for fires in the PHB and DMG.

First, I didn’t ask you to give evidence that CB gives light and heat. I also don’t need you to explain bonfires to me. I don’t need you to tell me what bonfires do.

You asked for evidence of why a wall can’t be walked through, I gave it and you ignored it.

The question of this thread isn’t what do bonfires do. It’s what does the magical bonfire created by CB do.

The first sentence of CB is clarified by the second sentence: it’s a magical bonfire (again, unless you believe CB creates two separate bonfires, one magical and one nonmagical).

If you want to arbitrarily select traits for that magic bonfire that aren’t listed in the RAW, go ahead. But all you’re doing in arbitrarily giving it traits.

I can say I’ve seen a bonfire with a 15’x15’ base: that doesn’t mean CB makes a magical bonfire with a 15’x15’ base.

You can say CB creates a magical bonfire that puts out 200’ of bright light and enough heat to do 8d8 fire damage out 20’ feet. But those are just arbitrary traits you’ve decided to give it that aren’t in the RAW.

[GooeyChewie]

First, I didn’t ask you to give evidence that CB gives light and heat. I also don’t need you to explain bonfires to me. I don’t need you to tell me what bonfires do.

You asked for evidence of why a wall can’t be walked through, I gave it and you ignored it.

The question of this thread isn’t what do bonfires do. It’s what does the magical bonfire created by CB do.

The first sentence of CB is clarified by the second sentence: it’s a magical bonfire (again, unless you believe CB creates two separate bonfires, one magical and one nonmagical).

If you want to arbitrarily select traits for that magic bonfire that aren’t listed in the RAW, go ahead. But all you’re doing in arbitrarily giving it traits.

I can say I’ve seen a bonfire with a 15’x15’ base: that doesn’t mean CB makes a magical bonfire with a 15’x15’ base.

You can say CB creates a magical bonfire that puts out 200’ of bright light and enough heat to do 8d8 fire damage out 20’ feet. But those are just arbitrary traits you’ve decided to give it that aren’t in the RAW.
Look, I'm no longer going to try to convince you that the bonfire created by CB produces light and heat. You've clearly decided that the word "bonfire" in the spell description is meaningless, and nothing I can say can convince you otherwise. But can you knock it off with these bogus strawman arguments? Nobody is saying you can use CB to make a 15'x15' base bonfire, or that you can alter the damage amount or area. The traits which people are saying the bonfire should have are not arbitrary; they are traits which: (a) would be associated with mundane bonfires, and (b) do not go against the remainder of the spell description.

[Tanarii]

I don't see anything saying it can't be walked through. Are you saying objects can't be walked through? Because that isn't in the spell, and you're arbitrarily deciding to add that to the spell in order to make this magical object share that trait with a nonmagical object, even though the spell doesn't say this magical object obstructs movement.
Agreed btw. That's why I was looking up objects. I couldn't find a definition of something that's used repeatedly in the text (far and above spell text) as if a game term, similar to a condition name. They seem to be solid things that occupy some amount of space, but that's not defined anywhere. It's entirely possible that a pool of water counts as an object, and that objects may be passed through in some cases.

[RSP]

Nobody is saying you can use CB to make a 15'x15' base bonfire, or that you can alter the damage amount or area. The traits which people are saying the bonfire should have are not arbitrary; they are traits which: (a) would be associated with mundane bonfires, and (b) do not go against the remainder of the spell description.

So applying one degree of heat is not arbitrary, but applying a different degree of heat is arbitrary?

Applying light that extends out to X distance isn’t arbitrary but extending out to Y distance is?

Another poster claimed the fire created by CB was bigger than the 5’ cube. So size of the fire has been brought up and any size given other than the 5’ cube, is arbitrary. Discount that poster, if that’s what you want to do, but it was brought up.

You can say “the bonfire emits light because real life bonfires emit light” and I can say “real life bonfires are 15’x15’.” Neither is in the RAW.

Claiming CB’s magically created bonfire has to have some properties of real life bonfires, but not others, is just arbitrarily picking properties to give the CB fire, that aren’t in the RAW.

[Segev]

So applying one degree of heat is not arbitrary, but applying a different degree of heat is arbitrary?

The rules state, "Any creature in the bonfire’s space when you cast the spell must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or take 1d8 fire damage." Is the bonfire's space outside that five foot cube it occupies? One could construct an argument in favor of the strawman you're ascribing to us, but no, nobody on our side of this discussion is claiming it does. I hope we can all agreed that the bonfire's space is a five foot cube. Those within the bonfire's space take the damage.

It is not, however, "arbitrary," to claim that a bonfire radiates heat outside of its space. You can, if you wish, lean on the lack of any statement in 5e that a bonfire does radiate heat (I, at least, don't have a citation where it does), but then you're claiming that, by the RAW in 5e D&D, normal, nonmagical bonfires do not radiate heat beyond their space. Is that a claim you wish to make? I will assume not until you tell me otherwise.

If a bonfire radiates heat outside of its space, but the spell specifies that damage is only dealt within the space, that means that the bonfire radiates heat outside of its space, but that it does not deal damage when it does so.

The only arbitrary thing in this argument is your arbitrary claim that the bonfire inherits zero properties from nonmagical bonfires.

Especially when you wish to assert that a magical object that is a wall of magical ice does inherit the nonmagical ice property of being something you can't walk through.

I have used your exact arguments to spell out how wall of ice, by your method of reading the rules, does not actually block people from passing through the wall. You gave a very cogent and well-reasoned argument for why the magical wall of ice should, in fact, inherit the properties of nonmagical walls of ice where the spell doesn't specify it behaves differently. I used your exact argument to show why, by the logic of the argument you used to prove that a wall of magical ice does, inf fact, block passage, to show that a bonfire created by a spell that makes a magical bonfire does, in fact, radiate heat just like a nonmagical bonfire does.

Then, you try to claim you never asked me to provide evidence that create bonfire radiates light and heat. I'm sorry, but when you tell me that the RAW do not support my claims, you HAVE asked me to provide evidence. Or at least, you've required that I do.

If I am to take your "I never asked you..." line at face value, it seems to me that you are conceding the argument. You don't get to have special privilege to have the only argument on the table. And I never asked you to define for me what a wall of ice does, any more than you asked me to define what a bonfire does. You made assertions about what a wall of ice does, and I used your own arguments against you.

Your own arguments prove that create bonfire radiates heat and light, if your arguments are not arbitrarily inconsistent between wall of ice and create bonfire.

[Tanarii]

Let's be clear here, there's nothing that says that objects block passage through them anywhere, except in specific cases. Not just in the one spell.

That's not a defense of Create Bonfire, it's finding something that should have been defined, given that it's clearly used as a game term repeatedly.

[Marcelinari]

I would argue it is a defense of Create Bonfire actually, since it can be taken that simple language within spell descriptions was intended by the designers to be understood in terms of having actual in-game relevance. 5e is well known for using simple language within its rule set, and does not require every term used to be carefully defined with in-game mechanics.

The fact that ‘Walls are objects that impede movement’ was not defined is evidence that simple language is meant to be taken at face value, since a ‘Wall’ in English has the commonly understood meaning of ‘a barrier that impedes movement’. Likewise, a ‘Bonfire’ in English is commonly understood to mean ‘a large, deliberate, and open fire’. By extension, since fires are understood to emit heat and light, it is perfectly consistent to assume that Create Bonfire creates a bonfire that emits heat and light.

[Dr.Samurai]

The opposing position is that nothing in the game works the way it would normally work in real life unless it explicitly says so in the RAW somewhere.

The ONLY reason we know that wagons have wheels in the game is because under Improvised Weapons in the PHB it references a wagon wheel. Otherwise, it would be a valid question. But even still, we don't know how that wagon wheel is attached to the wagon, how many there might be, or even what function it serves because, well, the RAW doesn't tell us. To speculate on this is to arbitrarily add traits to an object in the game. Which is fine, but don't expect me to defend your houserule. For all we know, there might be six wheels, three on each side, mounted parallel to the ground, spinning really fast to provide lift, so when the book says "wagon", you'd be a fool to think it is referencing a real life wagon. It's more of a medieval hovercraft that sustains a height of 1ft off the ground.

You are free to play the game having wagons with four wheels mounted perpendicular to the ground that go round and round to facilitate motion if that's what makes you happy. But don't try to force other people to play this way and don't you DARE try to say you're playing by RAW!

#ThereIsOnlyRAW

[GooeyChewie]

You quoted a Google definition to me earlier, so let me respond in kind. According to Google, "arbitrary" means "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system." The system for determining what the CB bonfire does or does not do is that the bonfire has traits which: (a) would be associated with mundane* bonfires, and (b) do not go against the remainder of the spell description.


So applying one degree of heat is not arbitrary, but applying a different degree of heat is arbitrary?

Applying light that extends out to X distance isn’t arbitrary but extending out to Y distance is?
Strawman. Nobody is arguing that there's an exact degree of heat and light which must be used and that all other degrees of heat and light are arbitrary. Mundane bonfires would produce heat and light in degrees adjudicated by the DM. The spell description says nothing about preventing this trait of bonfires.


Another poster claimed the fire created by CB was bigger than the 5’ cube. So size of the fire has been brought up and any size given other than the 5’ cube, is arbitrary. Discount that poster, if that’s what you want to do, but it was brought up.
That argument was a strawman introduced by you. I pointed out that nothing in the spell description indicated the level of heat from the bonfire went directly from "hot enough to do damage" to "no effect on the ambient temperature at all." On the final post of page 3 of this thread, you claimed that this point meant that in my estimation "the CB bonfire can fill a 10’x10’x10’ area, because no such barrier to the spell effects exists," which isn't at all what I said.


You can say “the bonfire emits light because real life bonfires emit light” and I can say “real life bonfires are 15’x15’.” Neither is in the RAW.
Both of these traits can be associated with mundane bonfires. But while nothing in the spell description speaks to the light emitted by the bonfire, the spell description does give the dimensions of the bonfire. Thus the statement about light is consistent with the system described above, while the statement about 15'x15' is not consistent with the system described above. Treating the two statements as equivalent and then arguing against the latter is a clear example of the strawman fallacy.


Claiming CB’s magically created bonfire has to have some properties of real life bonfires, but not others, is just arbitrarily picking properties to give the CB fire, that aren’t in the RAW.
As mentioned above, it's only arbitrary if there's no reason or system behind why the bonfire has certain traits and not others. As long as your arguments ignore half that system (part b), they will be strawman arguments.


*I have at times used the term "real life," but "mundane" is more accurate. The comparison is a non-magical D&D bonfire, not a bonfire that exists in our world.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Well, I can't say much for create bonfire[1], but I can say that this thread certainly has produced significant heat. Not much light, but...

[1] pet peeve: the style guide says that spell names are italicized, not Title Case. Class and racial features are Title Case.

[animorte]

Well, I can't say much for create bonfire[1], but I can say that this thread certainly has produced significant heat. Not much light, but...

[1] pet peeve: the style guide says that spell names are italicized, not Title Case. Class and racial features are Title Case.

First, the truth has been spoken. That's why I haven't contributed.

Second, you are correct. I apologize and I will try to work on that. I tend to save all my italics for inflection and Title Case anything with a Name.

[Tanarii]

The fact that ‘Walls are objects that impede movement’ was not defined is evidence that simple language is meant to be taken at face value, since a ‘Wall’ in English has the commonly understood meaning of ‘a barrier that impedes movement’.
Then a Wall of Water should block movement or shouldn't? Assuming it's not specified.

[Marcelinari]

Then a Wall of Water should block movement or shouldn't? Assuming it's not specified.

A Wall of Water impedes the movement of creatures by making it difficult terrain, and impedes the movement of projectiles by imposing disadvantage. The understanding of “water” modifies the understanding of “wall” - water is liquid, and liquids permit the passage of solid objects, albeit slowly.

[RSP]

Create Bonfire does not create a 5' box of fire. It creates a bonfire that fills a 5' cube.


It's not a 5' cube of fire,


A bonfire is not a 5' cube of flame.


Perhaps the spell Create Bonfire creates the entire bonfire; fuel, flame, heat, light and smoke, not just flames.

The spell description says it creates a bonfire, not just its parts.


Since JLandan’s post, I’ve thought this over and their view is probably accurate to the RAW.

Any image of a bonfire includes it’s fuel (wood of some type for a bonfire), therefore, that should be considered an intrinsic part of a bonfire and part of what separates “a fire” from “a bonfire”.

So let’s list what’s needed for “a bonfire”:

Wood fuel
Flames
Heat that can harm/kill creatures
Smoke that can harm/kill creatures
Light

Feel free to suggest any others I might have omitted.

So when the spell creates a bonfire, we need to account for the above listed aspects. *(ask your DM what impact the manifested wood has on any creatures in the space where the bonfire is created)*

However, as those are all parts of the bonfire, they are all contained in the 5’ box (if any of it is).

Deciding the bonfire doesn’t have fuel goes against what it is to be a bonfire, so wood should be in that 5’ cube.

Deciding any of the parts of the bonfire exceed the cube, but not others, is arbitrary, because they’re all part of the bonfire.

If the bonfire’s light escapes the cube, why not the smoke, harmful heat, flame or fuel?

Giving off light isn’t any more or less a property of a bonfire than giving off harmful heat or smoke, or needing fuel, or flames. Deciding light escapes the cube, and not the others is just an arbitrary decision.

“But it doesn’t say it gives off damaging heat!!!” Yeah, it doesn’t say it gives off light either.

Edit: “comfortable heat” or “ heat that doesn’t damage/kill” really shouldn’t be on the list, as that’s not a property of the bonfire, but rather the diminishing of its harmful heat. It’s been removed.

[Dr.Samurai]

I would argue it is a defense of Create Bonfire actually, since it can be taken that simple language within spell descriptions was intended by the designers to be understood in terms of having actual in-game relevance. 5e is well known for using simple language within its rule set, and does not require every term used to be carefully defined with in-game mechanics.

The fact that ‘Walls are objects that impede movement’ was not defined is evidence that simple language is meant to be taken at face value, since a ‘Wall’ in English has the commonly understood meaning of ‘a barrier that impedes movement’. Likewise, a ‘Bonfire’ in English is commonly understood to mean ‘a large, deliberate, and open fire’. By extension, since fires are understood to emit heat and light, it is perfectly consistent to assume that Create Bonfire creates a bonfire that emits heat and light.

A Wall of Water impedes the movement of creatures by making it difficult terrain, and impedes the movement of projectiles by imposing disadvantage. The understanding of “water” modifies the understanding of “wall” - water is liquid, and liquids permit the passage of solid objects, albeit slowly.
Agreed, wholeheartedly.

If someone's position requires that they no longer understand what certain words mean... it's a strong clue that something is amiss.


Since JLandan’s post, I’ve thought this over and their view is probably accurate to the RAW.

Any image of a bonfire includes it’s fuel (wood of some type for a bonfire), therefore, that should be considered an intrinsic part of a bonfire and part of what separates “a fire” from “a bonfire”.

So let’s list what’s needed for “a bonfire”:

Wood fuel
Flames
Heat that can harm/kill creatures
Heat that won’t harm/kill creatures
Smoke that can harm/kill creatures
Light

Feel free to suggest any others I might have omitted.

So when the spell creates a bonfire, we need to account for the above listed aspects. *(ask your DM what impact the manifested wood has on any creatures in the space where the bonfire is created)*

However, as those are all parts of the bonfire, they are all contained in the 5’ box (if any of it is).

Deciding the bonfire doesn’t have fuel goes against what it is to be a bonfire, so wood should be in that 5’ cube.

Deciding any of the parts of the bonfire exceed the cube, but not others, is arbitrary, because they’re all part of the bonfire.

If the bonfire’s heat escapes (but not the harmful kind), why not the smoke, harmful heat, flame or fuel?

Giving off comfortable heat isn’t any more or less a property of a bonfire than giving off harmful heat or smoke, or needing fuel, or flames. Deciding comfortable heat escapes the cube, and not the others is just an arbitrary decision.

“But it doesn’t say it gives off damaging heat!!!” Yeah, it doesn’t say it gives off light or comfortable heat either.
You have provided absolutely ZERO reasoning to prevent the bonfire from emitting things outside of the space that it occupies. Major Image can be as large as a 20ft cube and can create scents. According to your logic, the scent created by a Major Image cannot leave its space, and therefore you couldn't even be fooled by the scent until you're already interacting with the image and realize it's an illusion. Saying that a spell effect takes up some amount of space is not the same thing as saying that spell effect cannot impact things outside of that space. Those are two different things and you are treating them as one.

The bonfire occupies a 5ft space. That's fine. No one is disputing that. But nothing in the RAW supports your position, which is to conflate the effect of the spell (the bonfire you create) with the traits of a bonfire (illumination, heat, etc).

[RSP]

The bonfire occupies a 5ft space. That's fine. No one is disputing that. But nothing in the RAW supports your position, which is to conflate the effect of the spell (the bonfire you create) with the traits of a bonfire (illumination, heat, etc).

A real-world bonfire doesn’t create “mild warmth” (or whatever you want to call the non-damaging heat you believe it creates): it creates heat that’s harmful to living creatures. That heat disperses over time/distance to become a comfortable temperature when the surrounding area is colder than the bonfire.

However, if the temperature around the real-world bonfire is already consistently hot, the bonfire isn’t going to create an area of mild warmth.

The mild warmth isn’t part of the bonfire.

So now how does that translate to magic 5e D&D bonfires? Why would mild warmth escape the 5’ cube if the deadly heat cannot?

If your PC is in a giant furnace, where the area is already doing Fire damage due to heat, will CB create a pocket of comfortable mild warmth (as you say it should as part of the spell)?

To put it another, simpler way: the damaging heat of the bonfire cools off as it gets farther from the bonfire. How does the damaging heat get far enough from the CB bonfire to cool off, if the damaging heat cannot escape the 5’ cube of the CB bonfire?

[Marcelinari]

A real-world bonfire doesn’t create “mild warmth” (or whatever you want to call the non-damaging heat you believe it creates): it creates heat that’s harmful to living creatures. That heat disperses over time/distance to become a comfortable temperature when the surrounding area is colder than the bonfire.

However, if the temperature around the real-world bonfire is already consistently hot, the bonfire isn’t going to create an area of mild warmth.

The mild warmth isn’t part of the bonfire.

So now how does that translate to magic 5e D&D bonfires? Why would mild warmth escape the 5’ cube if the deadly heat cannot?

If your PC is in a giant furnace, where the area is already doing Fire damage due to heat, will CB create a pocket of comfortable mild warmth (as you say it should as part of the spell)?

To put it another, simpler way: the damaging heat of the bonfire cools off as it gets farther from the bonfire. How does the damaging heat get far enough from the CB bonfire to cool off, if the damaging heat cannot escape the 5’ cube of the CB bonfire?

I can’t help but wonder if you are operating under a fundamentally different set of assumptions as I am. I do not believe anyone has made the claim that Create Bonfire creates a pocket of comfortable heat which specifically overrides other hotter conditions.

The answer to your simplified question is that your assumptions appear to be wrong. Please, do correct me if I’m misrepresenting you - you seem to be suggesting that our position is that there is a specific level of damaging heat within the 5ft cube that the bonfire fills, and that if this heat escapes the bounds of that cube, it will necessarily be hot enough to damage creatures it touches. However, you yourself have conceded that the non-damaging heat produced by the bonfire is just the damaging heat allowed to pass far enough from the source to cool to a comfortable level.

Therefore, instead of the question ‘how can damaging heat move far enough away to be considered non-damaging?’, instead use the framework that ‘Since a fire gives off heat at a to a damaging degree, and the spell gives parameters for what that degree is (I.e. 1d8 damage to creatures occupying the same 5ft cube), the when the heat from that fire escapes the 5ft cube, then that is the range at which the damaging heat becomes non-damaging.’ The heat is a gradient - while sharing the same 5ft cube as the bonfire, the heat is damaging, and when outside of that cube, the heat is not damaging.

I would briefly like to address the aspect of smoke that you keep bringing up - I think it reasonable to assume that if the spell creates fuel for the fire, that fire will emit smoke. However, woodsmoke from a bonfire, while unhealthy to breathe, is not damaging in the way that DnD generally cares about. Thus, specifying that a bonfire emits harmful smoke is overstating the issue somewhat - the bonfire emits smoke, and the degree of harm is sufficiently abstract to a DnD character that the designers chose not to include the mechanical effects in the body of the spell. The difference between ‘harmful smoke’ and ‘harmless smoke’ is null, and the whole thing can be simplified down to ‘smoke’.

[RSP]

…instead use the framework that ‘Since a fire gives off heat at a to a damaging degree, and the spell gives parameters for what that degree is (I.e. 1d8 damage to creatures occupying the same 5ft cube),

I’m not assuming the damage from the bonfire’s 5’ cube is heat. The game calls it Fire damage, so it’s Fire damage.



…the when the heat from that fire escapes the 5ft cube, then that is the range at which the damaging heat becomes non-damaging

How does the heat escape the bonfire if it’s part of the bonfire? Why does a 5’ cube of magic instantly cool any damaging heat that passes through it?

Again, “comfortable heat” isn’t a property of a bonfire, so why are you attributing it as a property to a magical bonfire created by CB?



I would briefly like to address the aspect of smoke that you keep bringing up - I think it reasonable to assume that if the spell creates fuel for the fire, that fire will emit smoke. However, woodsmoke from a bonfire, while unhealthy to breathe, is not damaging in the way that DnD generally cares about. Thus, specifying that a bonfire emits harmful smoke is overstating the issue somewhat - the bonfire emits smoke, and the degree of harm is sufficiently abstract to a DnD character that the designers chose not to include the mechanical effects in the body of the spell. The difference between ‘harmful smoke’ and ‘harmless smoke’ is null, and the whole thing can be simplified down to ‘smoke’.

If you have a 5’ cube bonfire in an enclosed room, it will definitely fill that room up with smoke.

I imagine a firefighter isn’t going to agree with you that a 5’x5’x5’ bonfire indoors is going to be filling up the room with “harmless smoke” (whatever that is).

I mean people literally die from smoke inhalation: I’m legitimately baffled you think it’s “harmless.”

[Damon_Tor]

Fires that don’t have fuel produce no heat and no light. Those are both reactions from the burning fuel.

You're arguing strict gamist RAW out of one side of your mouth while making a real-world simulationist argument with the other. By RAW, fires do not require fuel to produce light:


Even gloomy days provide bright light, as do torches, lanterns, fires, and other sources of illumination within a specific radius.

No mention of fuel: fires produce bright light. That's the RAW of fire in 5e. Absent of any rule which creates an exception, a fire produces bright light. There's nothing that says that magical fire doesn't produce light. Nowhere. The spell "bonfire" does not provide such an exception. Ergo, bonfire produces bright light.

[RSP]

You're arguing strict gamist RAW out of one side of your mouth while making a real-world simulationist argument with the other. By RAW, fires do not require fuel to produce light:

I don’t think you understand my position correctly.

Also, please cite the RAW where it says non-magical fires do not require fuel, or do not require fuel to produce light.



No mention of fuel: fires produce bright light. That's the RAW of fire in 5e. Absent of any rule which creates an exception, a fire produces bright light. There's nothing that says that magical fire doesn't produce light. Nowhere. The spell "bonfire" does not provide such an exception. Ergo, bonfire produces bright light.

Bonfires require fuel to be a bonfire (otherwise, they’re just fire). The spell Create Bonfire creates a bonfire. Ergo, the bonfire created by CB, includes fuel.

Please tell me what makes a bonfire different from any other fire, if it’s not the huge stacks of wood used, and the overall size of the fire?

The spell CB also says it’s magical bonfire fills a 5’ cube. Why does light pass through that cube and not all the other effects of a bonfire? The RAW doesn’t make an exception for light, heat, smoke, flame. So if the bonfire is bound to that cube, it’s all bound to that cube.

As you say, “You're arguing strict gamist RAW out of one side of your mouth while making a real-world simulationist argument with the other”: if the spell creates a bonfire, then it creates a bonfire. If it doesn’t, then it only does whatever it says it does. You’re arguing both: it creates a bonfire for the purposes of producing light, and doesn’t create a bonfire in any other regard.

Please note: the spell effect doesn’t refer to a “fire” being created, but only a “bonfire”.

[GooeyChewie]

If your PC is in a giant furnace, where the area is already doing Fire damage due to heat, will CB create a pocket of comfortable mild warmth (as you say it should as part of the spell)?

I see that instead of cutting out the strawman arguments, you're doubling down on them. In this case you have proposed a hypothetical situation which nobody has assumed up to this point (the PC being in a giant furnace), put forth a claim that nobody has made (that CB creates a pocket of comfortable mild warmth within the giant furnace), and just to make sure that it's a strawman and not a hypothetical question you ascribed the argument to somebody ("as you say it should as part of the spell").

Nobody is arguing that the create bonfire[1] bonfire creates a pocket of comfortably warm air. The actual argument is that since create bonfire creates a bonfire and the remainder of the spell does not say otherwise, the create bonfire bonfire produces heat consistent with a mundane bonfire. A mundane bonfire's heat would not cool down a furnace, so nobody has said that create bonfire should create a pocket of comfortable mild warmth inside a giant furnace where the area is already doing Fire damage due to heat.

[1]Thank you @PhoenixPhyre for the style guide guidance.


Please note: the spell effect doesn’t refer to a “fire” being created, but only a “bonfire”.
This sort of statement is why I'm sticking to calling out strawman arguments rather than trying to convince you that the create bonfire bonfire produces heat and light. You've decided the word "bonfire" in the spell is meaningless, even to the point of not accepting it as being a form of fire.

[Damon_Tor]

Please note: the spell effect doesn’t refer to a “fire” being created, but only a “bonfire”.

I see. Your position is that a bonfire is not a fire. I don't think we have anything left to discuss.

[RSP]

Nobody is arguing that the create bonfire[1] bonfire creates a pocket of comfortably warm air. The actual argument is that since create bonfire creates a bonfire and the remainder of the spell does not say otherwise, the create bonfire bonfire produces heat consistent with a mundane bonfire.

Okay, so heat consistent with a mundane bonfire is damaging/harmful heat. No?

We agree, apparently, that bonfires do not create an area of comfortable warmth. So why are you giving that property to the bonfire created by CB?



This sort of statement is why I'm sticking to calling out strawman arguments rather than trying to convince you that the create bonfire bonfire produces heat and light. You've decided the word "bonfire" in the spell is meaningless, even to the point of not accepting it as being a form of fire.

You can try to insult me and ignoring my arguments under the guise of claiming they’re “strawmen”, but ignoring my points doesn’t actually change them.

The word “bonfire” is not meaningless: you’re lying when you say that’s what I’m saying

My last three posts just went into detail on what the aspects of a bonfire are.

I find it ridiculous you claim bonfires have to produce light, but ignore the smoke, heat, and flame; and the fact that what makes a bonfire a bonfire, and not just “fire”, is the large source of fuel.

Do you really imagine a bonfire sans fuel? If your friends say “we had a bonfire at the beach last night”, do you honestly think they had a big fire with no fuel?

Fuel is part of a bonfire.

You can go ahead and keep ignoring that and calling it a straw man, but all you’re really doing is ignoring that fact.


I see. Your position is that a bonfire is not a fire. I don't think we have anything left to discuss.

That’s not what I said (which I’m sure you know). I won’t miss you trying to mischaracterize my posts, if you truely feel we have nothing left to discuss.

If, on the other hand, you decide to continue our discussion, please don’t blatantly mischaracterize my arguments.

[Imbalance]

Not to throw more fire on this topic, but 200-some posts of meaningless circular arguing could have easily been avoided if we had only referenced the officially licensed miniature that represents this spell:

https://52f4e29a8321344e30ae-0f55c9129972ac85d6b1f4e703468e6b.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.c om/products/pictures/1655389.jpg

There, see? Not a cube. Case closed.