Fireball and unattended objects

[Tanarii]

How often have you not cast Fireball because it would set a bunch of unattended objects on fire? Furniture, walls of adjacent buildings, trees and other plant life, etc.

How often have you have fireball result in a grass/forest fire, a burned down building, or even a burned down chunk of town?

Basically, I'm wondering how often the "unattended objects" rule of Fireball constitutes as limiting ability to use the spell, in folks experience. It's generally regarded as a top notch spell despite not being friendly fire friendly. But if you're regularly risking large fires it's a different matter.

(Side/bonus question: anyone else every had a DM that rules a missed Firebolt set the undergrowth on fire?)

[JackPhoenix]

I'm an eternal GM, so I'll skip the first question. From the GM's perspective, few times, but not often enough.

For the 2nd question, about every time it gets used, which is about every other session. There's a reason why one of the party fighters keeps his Frostbrand ready to use as a fire extinguisher, and why I strongly suggested the fire-happy mage takes Control Flames....

[HappyDaze]

It can be fun to have other damage types cause unintended damage from time to time. Had a cavern with a bridge of subterranean fungus that blackened where light touched it. Radiant damage cut right through it, as the party and their foes discovered when the Druid's moonbeam caused the whole thing to collapse.

[Unoriginal]

How often have you not cast Fireball because it would set a bunch of unattended objects on fire? Furniture, walls of adjacent buildings, trees and other plant life, etc.

How often have you have fireball result in a grass/forest fire, a burned down building, or even a burned down chunk of town?

Basically, I'm wondering how often the "unattended objects" rule of Fireball constitutes as limiting ability to use the spell, in folks experience. It's generally regarded as a top notch spell despite not being friendly fire friendly. But if you're regularly risking large fires it's a different matter.

(Side/bonus question: anyone else every had a DM that rules a missed Firebolt set the undergrowth on fire?)

I haven't witnessed it at my tables due to a variety of reasons, but DMs tend to remember that kind of things when the PCs are fighting on boats.

On a related matter, Waterdeep: Dragon Heist shows how utterly terrifying using Fireball in a crowded street is. Doesn't affect the buildings much due to how large the street is, though.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Our Wizard took the wand of fireballs we had from the hands of our cleric after the cleric fireballed a necromancer and the spell book that was on the table.

The cleric never saw the wand again.

In the last Encounter I run to my players they removed some wizards cover by fireballing the wodden ceiling of the wizards building. They used two fireballs with ready action and suprise.

[Xetheral]

Since Fireball in 5e is incapable of dealing even a single HP of fire damage to inanimate objects, I only let it ignite objects that a match could ignite. It can singe things like wooden walls and furniture, but I assume those require more than 0 HP of fire damage to actually ignite.

Note that at various points in 5e I've run this differently. Early on I assumed Fireball worked like it did in past editions and could deal fire damage to objects, so I let it ignite flammable objects that weren't already destroyed by the HP damage (or seriously scorch objects that were only lightly damaged, percentage wise). Since learning otherwise, I've occasionally houseruled damage to objects back in, but I've (reluctantly) concluded that letting Fireball destroy structures is too powerful for a 3rd level spell.

[JackPhoenix]

I haven't witnessed it at my tables due to a variety of reasons, but DMs tend to remember that kind of things when the PCs are fighting on boats.

On a related matter, Waterdeep: Dragon Heist shows how utterly terrifying using Fireball in a crowded street is. Doesn't affect the buildings much due to how large the street is, though.

That illustration work well, even if it doesn't quite represent what happens in the module:

Problem is that Fireball isn't an explosion, it just fills its area with fire. Also, I would be careful about the site sourcing the image... that's copyrighted content.

[Tanarii]

Since Fireball in 5e is incapable of dealing even a single HP of fire damage to inanimate objects, I only let it ignite objects that a match could ignite. It can singe things like wooden walls and furniture, but I assume those require more than 0 HP of fire damage to actually ignite.

It states unattended flammable objects catch fire. And wooden walls, furniture, trees, and undergrowth are all flammable objects. Fireball may not do initial damage to flammable objects in the initial flash of fire, but setting fire to them is pretty destructive.

Now if you want to argue those things aren't really 'flammable' ... uh, I guess we'll just have to disagree.

OTOH since so many DMs IMX just forget about the spell setting things on fire in the first place, it's not like it's a ruling that's changes the spell more significantly that those DMs games.

[Unoriginal]

Since Fireball in 5e is incapable of dealing even a single HP of fire damage to inanimate objects, I only let it ignite objects that a match could ignite. It can singe things like wooden walls and furniture, but I assume those require more than 0 HP of fire damage to actually ignite.

Fireball's text specifically says that every unattended object that is flammable ignites.

Problem is that Fireball isn't an explosion, it just fills its area with fire.

While it does only fills its area with fire and there is no meaningful air displacement, a rapidly expanding burst of flame from a smaller source can be described as an explosion.

Like in the PHB's Fireball text:

A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame.

[Xetheral]

It states unattended flammable objects catch fire. And wooden walls, furniture, trees, and undergrowth are all flammable objects. Fireball may not do initial damage to flammable objects in the initial flash of fire, but setting fire to them is pretty destructive.

Now if you want to argue those things aren't really 'flammable' ... uh, I guess we'll just have to disagree.

OTOH since so many DMs IMX just forget about the spell setting things on fire in the first place, it's not like it's a ruling that's changes the spell more significantly that those DMs games.

Fireball's text specifically says that every unattended object that is flammable ignites.

"Flammable" isn't a binary. It's left up to the DM (because the spell text is silent) to determine which materials are sufficiently flammable to be ignited by Fireball. Wood is commonly considered flammable in the abstract, but the difficulty of igniting wood depends greatly on the shape, hardness, and thickness of the wood (and the local environmental conditions). Case in point: a dry twig can sometimes be ignited by a match, but most dry logs can't, even if they're the same species of tree. And a living tree is comparatively much less flammable than a dry log cut from the same species. (You'd have a hard time igniting a living hardwood tree with a basic blowtorch, even though the blowtorch would destroy the part of the tree it's in contact with.)

Personally speaking, I'd rule that a dry twig is sufficently flammable to be ignited by Fireball under any interpretation of the spell. Similarly, I would never rule that a living tree is sufficiently flammable to be ignited by Fireball, even in previous editions where the spell dealt Fire damage to the tree. (You'd probably destroy the leaves and ignite the smaller branches though.) For dry logs (or doors or heavy furniture) that's where my ruling becomes dependent on how much Fire damage the spell can deal to objects. (Basically, I'm using the Fire damage as a proxy for the intensity of the heat.) If I'm going to follow RAW and say that a Fireball is not hot enough to deal Fire damage to objects, then I'm also going to rule that objects that can only be ignited with difficulty (like most dry logs, wooden doors, or heavy furniture) aren't "flammable" for purposes of being ignited by Fireball. By contrast, if I'm houseruling that Fireball is hot enough to deal damage to objects, then I'm necessarily going to conclude that a wider range of objects are sufficiently "flammable" to be ignited by the spell.

[Unoriginal]

"Flammable" isn't a binary. It's left up to the DM (because the spell text is silent) to determine which materials are sufficiently flammable to be ignited by Fireball. Wood is commonly considered flammable in the abstract, but the difficulty of igniting wood depends greatly on the shape, hardness, and thickness of the wood (and the local environmental conditions). Case in point: a dry twig can sometimes be ignited by a match, but most dry logs can't, even if they're the same species of tree. And a living tree is comparatively much less flammable than a dry log cut from the same species. (You'd have a hard time igniting a living hardwood tree with a basic blowtorch, even though the blowtorch would destroy the part of the tree it's in contact with.)

Personally speaking, I'd rule that a dry twig is sufficently flammable to be ignited by Fireball under any interpretation of the spell. Similarly, I would never rule that a living tree is sufficiently flammable to be ignited by Fireball, even in previous editions where the spell dealt Fire damage to the tree. (You'd probably destroy the leaves and ignite the smaller branches though.) For dry logs (or doors or heavy furniture) that's where my ruling becomes dependent on how much Fire damage the spell can deal to objects. (Basically, I'm using the Fire damage as a proxy for the intensity of the heat.) If I'm going to follow RAW and say that a Fireball is not hot enough to deal Fire damage to objects, then I'm also going to rule that objects that can only be ignited with difficulty (like most dry logs, wooden doors, or heavy furniture) aren't "flammable" for purposes of being ignited by Fireball. By contrast, if I'm houseruling that Fireball is hot enough to deal damage to objects, then I'm necessarily going to conclude that a wider range of objects are sufficiently "flammable" to be ignited by the spell.

What is your reasoning for saying "Fireball is not hot enough to deal Fire damage to objects"?

A basic Fireball deals 24 times the damage of a torch, that seems pretty hot to me.

[jas61292]

How often have you have fireball result in a grass/forest fire, a burned down building, or even a burned down chunk of town?

Rarely has a fireball ever set anything on fire. But that's largely due to the fact that it absolutely would. In my games, its not that players are not thinking about the side effects and throwing fireballs around only for it to ignite everything. Rather, they know very well that is what would happen, and so Fireball ends up being infrequently used. When played out properly, imo, this downside is a great tradeoff for Fireball being deliberately overtuned for its level otherwise.

[Tanarii]

If I'm going to follow RAW and say that a Fireball is not hot enough to deal Fire damage to objects, then I'm also going to rule that objects that can only be ignited with difficulty (like most dry logs, wooden doors, or heavy furniture) aren't "flammable" for purposes of being ignited by Fireball. By contrast, if I'm houseruling that Fireball is hot enough to deal damage to objects, then I'm necessarily going to conclude that a wider range of objects are sufficiently "flammable" to be ignited by the spell.

If you're following the RAW, it damages them by setting them on fire. Just not by the initial flash of flame.

I think of it like quick application of a strong blowtorch: sets objects on fire, leaving them to burn, but does massive damage to flesh almost instantly.

IMO there's no conceptual problem with not initially damaging flammable objects, but rather setting them aflame, after which they burn and take damage,

[Xetheral]

What is your reasoning for saying "Fireball is not hot enough to deal Fire damage to objects"?

A basic Fireball deals 24 times the damage of a torch, that seems pretty hot to me.

Because if it were hot enough to damage objects then the objects would take the fire damage, the same way creatures do. I mean, I'm assuming that it is the blast of flame that is responsible for the ignition. That's not the only possibility: one could also interpret Fireball as a blast of flame hot enough to damage objects, but for magical reasons fails to do so, and confines it's destructive potential to creatures. But then the ignition effect would be a separate effect of the spell, rather than a logical consequence of the blast of flame.

If you're following the RAW, it damages them by setting them on fire. Just not by the initial flash of flame.

I think of it like quick application of a strong blowtorch: sets objects on fire, leaving them to burn, but does massive damage to flesh almost instantly.

IMO there's no conceptual problem with not initially damaging flammable objects, but rather setting them aflame, after which they burn and take damage,

The spell still doesn't answer the question of how flammable an object has to be to be ignited by Fireball. So the DM needs to decide on some method to determine how flammable is flammable enough. Your "quick application of a strong blowtorch" example works just fine as a metric. (Although I note that under that metric trunks of living trees and even some hardwood logs and furniture won't ignite. And things that do ignite may gutter out quickly.) Personally, the blowtorch metric is too strong for me, since I can't reconcile how the initial blast can be at blowtorch intensity while still failing to deal any damage to objects (other than by subsequent ignition).

[Bardon]

If your GM allows the UA Sorcerer metamagic "Elemental Spell" you can bypass that by changing the damage type. It's really a beneficial change to the Sorcerer, given the limited spell selection, allowing you to free up more spell slots for non-damage spells and making them a more rounded character than just a blaster.

[sithlordnergal]

How often have you not cast Fireball because it would set a bunch of unattended objects on fire? Furniture, walls of adjacent buildings, trees and other plant life, etc.

How often have you have fireball result in a grass/forest fire, a burned down building, or even a burned down chunk of town?

Basically, I'm wondering how often the "unattended objects" rule of Fireball constitutes as limiting ability to use the spell, in folks experience. It's generally regarded as a top notch spell despite not being friendly fire friendly. But if you're regularly risking large fires it's a different matter.

(Side/bonus question: anyone else every had a DM that rules a missed Firebolt set the undergrowth on fire?)

Only a few times...I've been pleased with my work though. This includes, but is not limited to:

- Burning/destroying hundreds of GP worth of priceless art, thereby losing it all

- Causing a massive forest fire that changed quite a bit of Curse of Strahd

- Burning down several evil people's homes in Curse of Strahd, including burning part of his castle in a rescue operation

- Burning down an evil Giant's home in Storm King's Thunder

- Burning one particular Merchant Prince's home in Tomb of Ahnniliation, thereby making it so I was not allowed to by potions in Port Nyanzaru. (I later stabbed the same Merchant Prince in the back by letting a different Merchant Prince know that she was targeting their son, thereby ruining that one Prince's life)

- I used a Necklace of Fireballs in the home of the Cassalanters during a big party, thereby killing their guards, summoning the City Watch, revealing their plot, and setting fire to their mansion because SCREW THEM

- I cast Fireball centered on my self while playing as a Paladin/Sorcerer, catching myself, my foes, and a bunch of explody barrels in the blast, kill a lot of people.

- I used a Wand of Wonder that cast Lightning Bolt, which has a similar thing to Fireball where it sets stuff on fire, and blew a hole in the side of the wall of the storage building we were guarding, and set fire to a few boxes of expensive trade goods. I tried the Wand of Wonder again to summon a mini-rain storm...but it just turn an ally blue for several days.


This wasn't exactly DnD, but I also did a homebrew star wars game where I played a Pilot Droid with a minigun. We were tasked with stealing a bunch of highly explosive materials, and things had gone south. So, my with my fire grenades and minigun fired at some Dark Troopers, missed and set off a bunch of barrels. This caused a small chain reaction that blew up the back third of the hanger we were in. So, brilliant idea time, I told my allies to run, then proceeded to blow up EVERY SINGLE BARREL OF HIGH EXPLOSIVES IN THE IMPERIAL HANGER!!! We got away, had enough of the stuff to finish the job, and left an Imperial Hanger in smoking ruins. ^_^


TLDR: I do that frequently. If I see something that might be capable of exploding, there is a 95% chance I WILL set it off on purpose,, 4% chance I will do so by accident, and a 100% chance of my setting it off as soon as my allies are clear so I don't hurt any of them.

...Needless to say my DM doesn't allow me to own Wands of Fireball...

[Tanarii]

The spell still doesn't answer the question of how flammable an object has to be to be ignited by Fireball. So the DM needs to decide on some method to determine how flammable is flammable enough. Your "quick application of a strong blowtorch" example works just fine as a metric. (Although I note that under that metric trunks of living trees and even some hardwood logs and furniture won't ignite. And things that do ignite may gutter out quickly.) Personally, the blowtorch metric is too strong for me, since I can't reconcile how the initial blast can be at blowtorch intensity while still failing to deal any damage to objects (other than by subsequent ignition).

Okay, how about: it's magic. Creature take damage instantly but don't catch on fire, flammable objects take no damage but catch on fire. That's fine for magic to do.

If your GM allows the UA Sorcerer metamagic "Elemental Spell" you can bypass that by changing the damage type. It's really a beneficial change to the Sorcerer, given the limited spell selection, allowing you to free up more spell slots for non-damage spells and making them a more rounded character than just a blaster.

Technically changing the damage type wouldn't stop it from setting flammable objects on fire?
Neat trick for a Coldball spell.

[Xetheral]

Okay, how about: it's magic. Creature take damage instantly but don't catch on fire, flammable objects take no damage but catch on fire. That's fine for magic to do.

Sure, that works. (Although every DM still needs to decide how flammable an object must be to ignite.) I just have no interest in interpreting the spell that way at my table. I prefer the magic to create the fire, which then goes on to cause fire damage and ignition, rather than the magic causing fire damage and ignition directly, and just happens to be fluffed as a ball of fire.

Technically changing the damage type wouldn't stop it from setting flammable objects on fire?
Neat trick for a Coldball spell.

For the same reasons I described above, at my table I would not permit a Fireball spell that dealt cold damage to ignite flammable objects. Interpreting the ignition as an entirely separate effect from the fire works, but stylistically that's not how I want to treat magic at my table.

[TigerT20]

For the same reasons I described above, at my table I would not permit a Fireball spell that dealt cold damage to ignite flammable objects. Interpreting the ignition as an entirely separate effect from the fire works, but stylistically that's not how I want to treat magic at my table.

What if it was fire that dealt cold damage? Or a spreading frost?

[HappyDaze]

What if it was fire that dealt cold damage? Or a spreading frost?

There's a given way to put out burning objects. How do you stop creeping cold, or lingering acid, or residual sparks of lightning, or hanging resonance of thunder? I'm not saying that this could/should not be done, but the answers to the above should already be familiar to those versed in Arcana, so have them figured out well in advance.

[Tanarii]

Sure, that works. (Although every DM still needs to decide how flammable an object must be to ignite.) I just have no interest in interpreting the spell that way at my table. I prefer the magic to create the fire, which then goes on to cause fire damage and ignition, rather than the magic causing fire damage and ignition directly, and just happens to be fluffed as a ball of fire.

Okay. Stylistically I prefer spells to do exactly what they say, no less and no more, and not to be 'extended' by attempting to apply real world physics.

That helps keep the numerous anomalies (like why so many damaging spells only affect creatures) to a minimum, and also helps encourage players to spend time thinking about mundane inventiveness/creativity/planning.

[Hytheter]

Okay, how about: it's magic. Creature take damage instantly but don't catch on fire, flammable objects take no damage but catch on fire. That's fine for magic to do.

Especially considering we're talking about an effect that ignites unattended objects only while mysteriously leaving worn or carried objects unharmed. If it can deal the Wizard 8d6 fire damage while having no effect on the scroll he's holding then it might as well ignite the parchment at his feet without instantly disintegrating it as well.

But that still doesn't answer the question of what flammable actually means. Ever been camping? Even dead dry wood can be difficult to set on fire if you don't know what you're doing - you've gotta start with kindling, work your way up to the bigger sticks and get some high sustained heat going before you can set a log on fire. If you want to get technical, "flammable" refers only to materials that readily ignited under normal ambient temperatures, but even a blowtorch won't easily set a living tree or wooden table aflame.

[Tanarii]

But that still doesn't answer the question of what flammable actually means. Ever been camping? Even dead dry wood can be difficult to set on fire if you don't know what you're doing - you've gotta start with kindling, work your way up to the bigger sticks and get some high sustained heat going before you can set a log on fire. If you want to get technical, "flammable" refers only to materials that readily ignited under normal ambient temperatures, but even a blowtorch won't easily set a living tree or wooden table aflame.

Wood is flammable. Cloth is flammable. Plants are flammable. Stone and metal are not flammable. Done and done.*

I mean, I find it hard to understand how there a question about what is flammable and what's not. We all know what burns and what doesn't.

*except that technically, people are flammable too. But magic /shrug

[NorthernPhoenix]

I definitely enjoy having spells interact with the environment when it seems fun. Stuff like a missed firebolt are a great example. Definitely on a case by case basis though. If it doesn't add to the scene, nothing special happens.

[Tanarii]

Thanks for all the little stories guys! Enjoying reading them.

For the 2nd question, about every time it gets used, which is about every other session. There's a reason why one of the party fighters keeps his Frostbrand ready to use as a fire extinguisher, and why I strongly suggested the fire-happy mage takes Control Flames....

Yeah I've recommended Control Flames before for similar reasons.

In the last Encounter I run to my players they removed some wizards cover by fireballing the wodden ceiling of the wizards building. They used two fireballs with ready action and suprise.

It seems like it'd take some time for the ceiling to burn through, since fireballs don't blast it open.

When played out properly, imo, this downside is a great tradeoff for Fireball being deliberately overtuned for its level otherwise.

Potentially. Personally I'd be happy if it still expanded to fill the same volume. But that's because it was getting used a lot in underground stone/earth corridors a lot IMC and I'm an evil bastard.

TLDR: I do that frequently. If I see something that might be capable of exploding, there is a 95% chance I WILL set it off on purpose,, 4% chance I will do so by accident, and a 100% chance of my setting it off as soon as my allies are clear so I don't hurt any of them.

...Needless to say my DM doesn't allow me to own Wands of Fireball...

lol pretty sure you win as the resident pyro.

I definitely enjoy having spells interact with the environment when it seems fun. Stuff like a missed firebolt are a great example. Definitely on a case by case basis though. If it doesn't add to the scene, nothing special happens.

That could work with the right players, ones that value narrative and interesting events over mechanical consistency.

The thing is technically a missed Firebolt doesn't do that. But for DMs that like extending spells "because physics" it seems like an obvious one.

[Mellack]

Wood is flammable. Cloth is flammable. Plants are flammable. Stone and metal are not flammable. Done and done.*

I mean, I find it hard to understand how there a question about what is flammable and what's not. We all know what burns and what doesn't.

*except that technically, people are flammable too. But magic /shrug

According to a quick check online, flammable means "easily set on fire." Most wood is not easily set on fire, especially when it is still a living tree. The same with many plants.

[Unoriginal]

*except that technically, people are flammable too. But magic /shrug

Inanimate corpses would certainly burn. IMO.

[HappyDaze]

According to a quick check online, flammable means "easily set on fire." Most wood is not easily set on fire, especially when it is still a living tree. The same with many plants.

But the real question is: what does flammable mean in D&D?

[stoutstien]

But the real question is: what does flammable mean in D&D?

Anything with fire vulnerability?

[HappyDaze]

Anything with fire vulnerability?

That applies to creatures, but I'm not familiar with any objects that have vulnerabilities listed.