D&D 5E Charm, the evil spells

[Crimson Longinus]

What fire spells say they don't set stuff on fire? Also, why wouldn't a fireball totally wreck the entire room and all possessions of the targets that weren't particularly fireproof? Of course it would!

 

[Maxperson]

What fire spells say they don't set stuff on fire? Also, why wouldn't a fireball totally wreck the entire room and all possessions of the targets that weren't particularly fireproof? Of course it would!

Almost all, if not all 5e fire spells do not set flammable things on fire unless they are unattended. I don't like that. A PC can be holding an gasoline soaked piece of paper in his hand and it won't catch fire if he's hit by a fireball, but the wooden log 2 inches away from his hand would be.

 

[Voadam]

What fire spells say they don't set stuff on fire? Also, why wouldn't a fireball totally wreck the entire room and all possessions of the targets that weren't particularly fireproof? Of course it would!

5e Fireball 5e PH page 242

"It ignites flammable objects in the area that aren't being worn or carried."

 

[Blue Orange]

What fire spells say they don't set stuff on fire? Also, why wouldn't a fireball totally wreck the entire room and all possessions of the targets that weren't particularly fireproof? Of course it would!

Ironically, if you believe some old school blogs, the reason fireball is 3rd level and not higher is that it did expand uncontrollably and destroy all the treasure (remember those item saving throw tables in the 1e DMG?). Cone of Cold was invented as a fireball without this disadvantage, and when the treasure-destruction was removed in the transition to CRPGs (which the computer power of the 1980s wouldn't have been able to handle on top of the other stuff they were trying to keep track of), people got used to mages spamming fireball and influenced the idea of mages as glass-cannon artillery. The whole course of RPGs was affected by a single overpowered spell.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

5e Fireball 5e PH page 242

"It ignites flammable objects in the area that aren't being worn or carried."

Well, that's insane if you interpret this to be absolute. I think it is just for ease of gameplay so that you don't need to worry about every separate item every time someone is targeted by a fire spell, or having people argue that the target should take some ongoing damage from being on fire. But I say that if the hobgoblin is toast, hobgoblin's cool designer threads are toast as well.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

What fire spells say they don't set stuff on fire? Also, why wouldn't a fireball totally wreck the entire room and all possessions of the targets that weren't particularly fireproof? Of course it would!

Aside from the 5E source already mentioned, I know the 3.5 book Stormwrack had an entire section on which fire spells would cause a fire on a seafaring vessel and which wouldn't.

 

[Fanaelialae]

What fire spells say they don't set stuff on fire? Also, why wouldn't a fireball totally wreck the entire room and all possessions of the targets that weren't particularly fireproof? Of course it would!

Most fire spells do affect (unattended) objects, but (for example) Flame Strike only affects creatures.

 

[SkidAce]

Sure, I'd probably run it as something like that. But then again, wording is nebulous. Can a person you don't even remember meeting qualify as 'friendly acquaintance'?

They may not actually be a "friendly acquaintance" but as a result of the magic I would treat them as so...

 

[Baron Opal II]

Ironically, if you believe some old school blogs, the reason fireball is 3rd level and not higher is that it did expand uncontrollably and destroy all the treasure (remember those item saving throw tables in the 1e DMG?). Cone of Cold was invented as a fireball without this disadvantage...

Oh, it wasn't just treasure. You could find yourself throwing a fireball into a room and have it engulf the room, the next room, and partway down the hall. You had to be judicious with AoE. And cone of cold was just a damage spray that didn't fill to volume or back blast the party.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

They may not actually be a "friendly acquaintance" but as a result of the magic I would treat them as so...

But only emotionally? It doesn't actually say that. 'Acquaintance' by definition implies familiarity. So is are the target's memory altered in a way that they actually think that they know the caster?