Grease spell confusion

[Pielorinho]

Fair enough. The simplest example is oil. I have added oil to fires to burn it off. In small fires it didn't catch, but in larger fires there was a sudden flare up for a few moments. Another example was cooking sausages out on a grill. Squeeze the saussage and they light on fire. You have burned saussage for dinner, but that is another problem. Finally, multiple years of boyscouts has taught me that lots of grease+open fire = problems. I watched a guy name Andy scorch his hand adding butter to a meal.

Now we're cooking!

You'll notice that all your examples share two traits:
1) A small amount of fuel is added to an existing, large fire.
2) The fuel isn't sitting on a large cool surface that can absorb heat.

With a grease spell, you'll usually have:
1) A relatively large amount of fuel is subjected to a brief flare of flame.
2) The fuel is sitting on a large cool surface that can absorb heat.

In your examples, because of the two traits, the oil absorbs a lot of heat from the fire until it reaches its combustion point. With the grease spell, in most cases, there's not much energy to absorb (because the fire appears and disappears instantaneously), and even if there is a lot of heat, it'll usually be conducted rapidly from the grease into the ground beneath the grease.

Now, if you cast grease on a person, spattering their bone-dry robes with grease, and then cast a fireball on them, it might be reasonable for their robes to burn with extra intensity (although it's not out of the question that the grease would actually protect the robes from burning: greaes takes a fair amount of energy to heat up, and that's energy that won't be devoted to heating the robes to the burning point). And there's a vague possibility that grease cast on a wooden or asbestos floor would catch on fire: you no longer have it sitting on a cool surface that easily absorbs heat (although you still have a large quantity of fuel subjected to a brief bout of heat).

But it's a major departure from physics to suggest that grease from a grease spell would catch on fire if it's sitting on a stone floor.

Daniel

 

[Camarath]

With no definition besides "paper" you should conclude that it is flamable. Only if the spell states that it is not flamable do you assume it isn't.

Magical paper could be inflammable or even an approximation of paper with no real chemical structure. You can not just make these assumptions.

If your fantasy setting has silicone gel, no the spell is not inherantly flamable.

Why shouldn't a fantasy setting have silicone grease? It is a real substance and everyone is always talking about realism. Magic is not possible in the real world so I find it odd to demand that its effects function according to real world physics (or at least peoples perceptions of real world physics).

Everything burns. Everything.

This is not true. "Burning" is an exothermic oxidation reaction and many oxidation reactions are endothermic. Also Helium cannot be made to chemically combine with oxygen by the aplication of heat and pressure.

Some greases are flamable. By that definition, by the way, paper is not flamable, neither are cotton balls or lint. In short, that definition isn't useful for showing "flamable".

It is a legal definition of the word flammable (with a double m so it is a real word) and serves as a resonables guide for if a substance can be ignited quickly.

The circumstance is a "a large puddle". Grease is flamable, iron isn't. I am not arguing every possible circumstance, only the ones mentioned by grease and iron body.

I am saying that you are making assumptions that are not backed by either in game mechanics or real world physics. Yes grease will burn but most will only ignite at temperatures greater than a normal party of adventures could mundanely apply especially in a short period of time (2 minutes at level 20). You also can not assume the nature of substances and effects created by spells beyond what the spells and supporting rules specify.

It isn't a house rule? Great, so you agree. Thanks for clearing that up.

It is a house rule. I have no problem with it as a house rules. But, I find it distasteful that it should be presented as normal (non-house ruled) game mechanic since it is based on supposition.

Your example of iron body obuscates the point. A large mass of solid iron will not burn. A large mass of many "greases" will. A torch will never light a piece of iron. It might light a pile of grease. Most any grease that fits in a fantasy setting will ignite with enough heat, in the manor of crisco or lard.

A torch will also not be able to light most greases. Larger or higher temperature fire might be able to quickly ignite grease. But with small low temperature fires, such as a torch, most greases would be very hard to ignite.

There is no balance issue with saying grease emulates crisco. It makes the spell more interesting. It allows the players to be inventive. And it reflects a realism that helps the game.

It adds new functions to the spell so should be a house rule. It is also is a very large simplification of "realism". I agree that it could be a good addition to the spell and the game but I don't think the rules as written cover it.

 

[WattsHumphrey]

This is called a House Rule. IMO if a spell does not say the substance it creates is flammable then it is not flammable by default. If you wish to add properties to a spell or alter the properties of a spell then this is a house rule.

No, this is called an interpretation.

A house rule would involve throwing out the rules. As there is an argument in this thread as to how the spell works, I don't think anyone here is throwing out the rules so much as merely interpreting them in different ways.

 

[Saeviomagy]

It's an interpretation that requires a ruling on way or the other in order to avoid arguments and inconsistencies every time the spell is cast.

Since this ruling is being made by a playing group, it is a "house rule".

Oh, incidentally any spell with a duration of instantaeneous doesn't set fire to things, so we might not want to be discussing fireball and igniting peoples clothes. I agree it's a bit ridiculous, but anything else would be a house rule...

 

[Camarath]

No, this is called an interpretation.

A house rule would involve throwing out the rules. As there is an argument in this thread as to how the spell works, I don't think anyone here is throwing out the rules so much as merely interpreting them in different ways.

House Rules involve addition or alterations to the rules. There is an argument in this thread on the fundamentals of physics and how they should be applied to a magical effect. Some people are in favor of a mechanic that can not be supported either from a strict game rules standpoint or a real world physics standpoint. Grease can not be assume to be flammable unless the spell stipulates that it is. Even if one choses to add this property to the grease the spell generates you could not normally ignite it with a tourch, if you go by normal physics. So for the mechanic to function as presented you must first use "interpretation" (based on the fact real world fats burn) to impart flammability to the grease created by the spell, and second you must ingore the difficulties that would accompany setting an actule puddle of grease on fire. It seems odd that people would re"interpret" a spell to be so unrealistically realistic. Real grease can be very hard to ignite if it is combustible at all. Magical grease (that is not said by the spell description to function like normal grease and that disaperes when the spells duration ends) can not (with in the scope of the existing rule) be resonably interpreted inherently flammable. The mechanics and logic governing this effect are so mirky and inscrutable as to be indefensible except by DM decree.

 

[Camarath]

Oh, incidentally any spell with a duration of instantaeneous doesn't set fire to things, so we might not want to be discussing fireball and igniting peoples clothes. I agree it's a bit ridiculous, but anything else would be a house rule...

Oh by the way Lightning Bolt is Instantaneous and sets fire to combustible materials (appropriate sections in bold).

Lightning Bolt
Evocation [Electricity]
Level: Sor/Wiz 3
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level) or 50 ft. + 5 ft./level
Area: 5 ft. wide to medium range (100 ft. + 10 ft./level); or 10 ft. wide to 50 ft. + 5 ft./level
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Reflex half
Spell Resistance: Yes
The character releases a powerful stroke of electrical energy that deals 1d6 points of damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to each creature within its area. The bolt begins at the character's fingertips.
The lightning bolt sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in its path. It can melt metals with a low melting point, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, or bronze. If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the bolt may continue beyond the barrier if the spell’s range permits; otherwise, it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does.

 

[WattsHumphrey]

It's an interpretation that requires a ruling on way or the other in order to avoid arguments and inconsistencies every time the spell is cast.

Since this ruling is being made by a playing group, it is a "house rule".

All right, if we're house ruling to say that this works, or house ruling to say that it doesn't, then I agree.

 

[WattsHumphrey]

House Rules involve addition or alterations to the rules. There is an argument in this thread on the fundamentals of physics and how they should be applied to a magical effect. Some people are in favor of a mechanic that can not be supported either from a strict game rules standpoint or a real world physics standpoint. Grease can not be assume to be flammable unless the spell stipulates that it is. Even if one choses to add this property to the grease the spell generates you could not normally ignite it with a tourch, if you go by normal physics. So for the mechanic to function as presented you must first use "interpretation" (based on the fact real world fats burn) to impart flammability to the grease created by the spell, and second you must ingore the difficulties that would accompany setting an actule puddle of grease on fire. It seems odd that people would re"interpret" a spell to be so unrealistically realistic. Real grease can be very hard to ignite if it is combustible at all. Magical grease (that is not said by the spell description to function like normal grease and that disaperes when the spells duration ends) can not (with in the scope of the existing rule) be resonably interpreted inherently flammable. The mechanics and logic governing this effect are so mirky and inscrutable as to be indefensible except by DM decree.

I strongly dislike physics, and believe the rules should only be based conceptually on them, as beyond that magic breaks down. Some grease burns. I don't think very many people here will argue with that.

Simple choice: if my wizard is creating grease, it's going to be the kind that burns. Beyond that, all I can say is that your reasonable interpretation of the rules is significantly different than my reasonable interpretation, and until a rules reference can be cited one way or the other, that's fine with me.

 

[Camarath]

I strongly dislike physics, and believe the rules should only be based conceptually on them, as beyond that magic breaks down. Some grease burns. I don't think very many people here will argue with that.

Simple choice: if my wizard is creating grease, it's going to be the kind that burns. Beyond that, all I can say is that your reasonable interpretation of the rules is significantly different than my reasonable interpretation, and until a rules reference can be cited one way or the other, that's fine with me.

Answers from Grease spell in the SRD

Question: What does the spell say it does?
"A grease spell covers a solid surface with a layer of slippery grease."

Question: What in game effect does this grease have?
"Any creature entering the area or caught in it when the spell is cast must make a successful Reflex save or slip, skid, and fall. Those that successfully save can move at half speed across the surface. However, those that remain in the area must each make a new saving throw every round to avoid falling and to be able to move. The DM should adjust saving throws by circumstance."

Question: What other options does the Grease spell give the caster?
"The spell can also be used to create a greasy coating on an item. Material objects not in use are always affected by this spell, while objects wielded or employed by creatures receive a Reflex saving throw to avoid the effect. If the initial saving throw fails, the creature immediately drops the item. A saving throw must be made each round the creature attempts to pick up or use the greased item."

Question: How long does the spell and it grease last?
"Duration: 1 round/level (D)"

Question: What area does the spell effect and what is it's range?
"Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target or Area: One object or a 10-ft. x
10-ft. square"

Question: Is the grease flammable?
Not Covered In The Spell

Question: How much damage does this grease deal?
Not Covered In The Spell

Question: Is burning grease consumed in the fire?
Not Covered In The Spell

Question: Is the grease a real chemical substance or is it a magical simulation of a known substance only demonstrating the specified properties?
Not Covered In The Spell

Question: Can I create any type of grease I want?
Not Covered In The Spell

Question: Can I create a grease containing Uranium isotope 235 and use the fabrication spell to form it into a small sphere?
Not Covered In The Spell

Question: Would this sphere undergo a self-sustaining fission reaction resulting in a nuclear explosion?
Not Covered In The Spell

Not Covered In The Spell = House Rule

Things not covered in the spell or the rules can not and should not be assumed to be possible. And by defualt are not possible unless the rules are added to, changed or bent. These are House Rules. Can I use the spell as written with out needing a house rule? Yes, I can because the spell does what it says it does. Can you use the spell to cause damage with out a house rule? No you can't because you are acting beyond the bounds and provisions of the spell and the existing rules. Can you extrapolate that it might be possible to interpret the spell in such a way that it can be used to cause damage? Yes sure you can its your game. Can you honestly claim that this is Core Rule and not a House Rule? You might but I don't think so since you would be wrong. Do the rules say that player may enter combat and say "I win" and all the monsters die? No they don't. Do they say player can't do so? No they don't, but one can not claim that by the core rules these choices are equally valid. The rules provide means for killing monsters, for preforming actions, and for the effects of magic. This by default exclude means not covered in the rules form being condidered to be in the rules. The game assumes that the DM will use house rules (or rulings if you prefer). This does not mean his rulings are sacrosanct or a part of the core rules. The core rules must be interpted strictly to counteract the natural tendency to twist and abuse them. Flavor text preferences and bad science should not be allowed to dictate core rule mechanics. Leniency and free form interptation are the DM poragative in-game, out of game the rules are as they are written. The rules do not need to make external sense only internal sense.

p.s. I hope this post is not to flammable. No hostility is directed at anyone. I just get frustanted when people use metagame logic to justify effects not covered by the rules.

 

[Darklone]

I said it already and I said it again: If you want it flammable, a good idea might be the Glue spell in Rituals&Relics I. (reversed Grease)

Rules for igniting it are covered.