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

[The_Jette]

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

[Yakk]

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

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

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

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

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

[Snails]

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

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

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

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

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

[Valmark]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Witty Username]

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

[Asisreo1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Witty Username]

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

[Asisreo1]

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

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

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

[Segev]

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

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

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

[ProsecutorGodot]

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

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

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

[Witty Username]

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

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

[Thunderous Mojo]

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

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

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

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

[Snails]

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

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

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

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

[mistajames]

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

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

[Segev]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Darth Credence]

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

The spell’s magic ends on the piece of ammunition when it hits or misses, and the spell ends when twelve pieces of ammunition have been drawn from the quiver.

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

[MaxWilson]

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

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

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

[Thunderous Mojo]

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

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

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

(Quote edited by me).

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

[mistajames]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Darth Credence]

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

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

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

[mistajames]

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

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

Also:

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

This is really obvious IMO.

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

[Thunderous Mojo]

Again, you are mixing up condition precedent and condition subsequent.

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

This is really obvious IMO.

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

It has been decades since I have done any symbolic notation, but I would certainly be interested in seeing what you come up with.

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

[ProsecutorGodot]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Thunderous Mojo]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ProsecutorGodot]

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

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

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

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

[dreast]

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

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

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

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

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

-as part of the attack-

Would have to follow

-drawn from the quiver-

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

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

[Hytheter]

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

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

[MaxWilson]

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

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

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

[Rara1212]

Just wanna post an RPG stack exchange lin which discusses this already: https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questi...the-spell-ends

Main parts are:

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

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

[Valmark]

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

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

Concentration can easily be to limit it's use mid-fight, like it has been said.

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

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

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

Just wanna post an RPG stack exchange lin which discusses this already: https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questi...the-spell-ends

Main parts are:

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

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

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