D&D 5E Rulings, Not Rules vs Cool spell usage

[MoutonRustique]

The fact that two completely opposite (and still acceptable) conclusions can be drawn by reasonable people about the same situation is exactly what I'd like to avoid.

I understand that we can accept the DMs judgment and call it a day - and in fringe cases, I'm of the opinion that this is fine as the opposite would require a crushing weight of rules. My worries arise when this happens in situations which are likely to be common enough for me to think of them as soon as I read a spell.

The best analogy I can come up with is if the regular rules for pushing another creature said something like : "you push the target for a couple of feet." or "... from 5 to 10 feet depending on the circumstances." I'm quite certain we would be able to call it and negotiate acceptable solutions at the table. But, you know, why leave that hassle there? (This is a rhetorical question - I'm pretty sure I know the answer, it's more a question of not liking them and hiding that fact as a question.)

In any case, thank you all for the discussion - in a sense, it has answered my questions.

Have a great one!

 

[Tanaka Chris]

Our campaign actually rules that the sphere is solid. After all the spell is called Flaming Sphere, not Flame Sphere, so it implies that it's a sphere on fire, not a sphere made of fire.

Also a sphere fully made of fire should not have weight so when there's a restriction on how it traverses over objects and holes, it's pretty clear to us that it's a solid object and cannot be passed through. As as other people have already said, it shouldn't stop when it rams someone unless it was solid.

So yeah, it's used for tactical purposes in our campaigns. After all, DM is able to use the same abilities with his own wizard NPCs

 

[Celtavian]

I think people pull the "I still remember the old school of D&D" way too often here on the boards to justify subpar wording in 5E.

In 2E (i.e. old school), Flaming Sphere stated "Flammable substances are set afire by contact with the sphere. Creatures in contact with the globe must successfully save vs. spell or suffer 2d4 points of fire damage.".

I suspect that "old school" was not quite as dumbed down and required DM adjudication as many people claim. Spells said what they did. 5E Flaming Sphere, not so much.

We should quit justifying poorly worded or designed 5E spells with the generic "the DM can adjudicate that" types of explanations. How hard was it to put a phrase "anything in contact with the sphere" into the spell? Sorry, this is a 5E designer minor fail. We should stop justifying it when 5E designers put vague or incomplete rules or spells into the game system.

Old school was not always as open ended and up to DM interpretation as people here claim either.

The wording is clear. It does exactly what it says it does.

There wasn't a concern about obstacles in 2E. That became part of D&D in 3E. Where you had to designate everything as to whether it would obstruct or not. Flaming Sphere has a clear meaning. You can use it exactly as it says without a battle mat. The only problem with Flaming Sphere is for those accustomed to using a battle mat or map requiring that you know whether something is an obstacle. Apparently they have left that open for individual DMs to decide.

Some may go spongy ball, some may use ball of flame, some may have another interpretation. If you are running the game only using narrative tools, then it won't matter. If you are using a battle mat, you will have to decide how you will handle it and maintain consistency. Once you decide how you plan to run it, I suggest writing it down to maintain consistency for your group. I get that most are still accustomed to this from 3E. Even I'm still accustomed to this. I'm leaning more towards it as a ball of flame you can run through.

I also very much remember editions prior to 3E that used purely narrative methods for spells. You didn't have to worry about whether Flaming Sphere was an obstacle. You played and did your actions without concern for such minutiae. I can see why they didn't bother to mention it in 5E.

 

[Celtavian]

OSR: Where rules are a feature, not a bug!

It's not that most DMs are capable of deciding what a spell can do, it's that the DM must decide what a spell can do. DMs are busy people who must, while running a game, prioritize what they will focus their attention on. A DM that stops play to figure out how a spell works or to analyze the various potential consequences of a ruling is not being well served by the rules.

Also, using snide grognardisms just make you sound like a doofus.

The comment was not meant to be snide, but a response to your assumption that the spell needed a few extra lines. It does not for all people. Your last comment was boorish and childish.

I do not see why a DM would have such a problem deciding how the spell works. It is not a game breaking issue. I do believe 5E's stated goal is to get back to narrative play (older editions) where minutiae such as what is or is not an obstacle is not necessary. Make a decision on Flaming Sphere and stay consistent with it. Your problem is solved.

If this is a major issue, I welcome you to do as you encouraged me: play an edition where minutiae such as this is spelled out for you.

 

[Celtavian]

I don't see what's lame about it. It ignores those things because those things are not part of the spell's effects or interactions. I see no reason to assume this was an oversight or mistake, or even sloppy editing.

The fact that it must be conjured into an unoccupied space, plus the word choice in the phrase "ram the sphere into a creature" implies at least semi-solidity. This is further supported by the fact that the sphere cannot move through creatures; it stops moving if you hit someone with it.

However, the 5e basic rules already allow you to move through a "nonhostile creature's space," and that's the most sensible position to take with this spell: You can move through its space, but not stop there. (As a nonsentient object, I don't think the sphere can reasonably be counted hostile, even if it's under the control of an enemy.)

Not that magic should mirror real life, but I'll point out that in the real world it's possible to run or leap through a small fire without being burned. It takes a certain amount of time for the cells in your body and the molecules in your clothing to absorb enough heat to ignite or be damaged. Apparently, the flaming sphere is not hot enough to transmit the necessary heat unless you pause (end your turn) near it. So I don't agree that common sense indicates damage. The author of this spell must have decided that damage in such a case would be unbalanced and unwarranted.

The sphere is obviously subject to gravity since it cannot float across empty space; it has to "jump." But there's no reason to believe it has enough weight to cause extra damage when dropped on someone. It if did, we have to assume that would be noted in the description.

Prone opponents are covered by the "ramming" rule. If you hit any opponent, standing or prone, the sphere must stop. You cannot "roll over" someone.

Doesn't the spell occupy the space of the creature you rammed without displacing the creature from the space? If it does, that would imply that the sphere and the creature can occupy the same space? I'll check the text when I arrive home. That's what I thought it did.

 

[Celtavian]

The fact that two completely opposite (and still acceptable) conclusions can be drawn by reasonable people about the same situation is exactly what I'd like to avoid.

This is why I love 5E. Even a simple spell like Flaming Sphere is getting the creative juices flowing as to how it works. Each person can have it function in the fashion they wish in their world or even from wizard to wizard. I would have absolutely no problem if a player said to me "My Flaming Sphere does this..." as far as to whether it's an obstacle or how it is held together. I'd tell them write it down for consistency. Creative play that doesn't break the game I'm all for.

 

[Joe Liker]

Doesn't the spell occupy the space of the creature you rammed without displacing the creature from the space? If it does, that would imply that the sphere and the creature can occupy the same space? I'll check the text when I arrive home. That's what I thought it did.

I assume the sphere stops in the adjacent space. Normal combatants ram into each other all the time without occupying the same space.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

There wasn't a concern about obstacles in 2E. That became part of D&D in 3E. Where you had to designate everything as to whether it would obstruct or not. Flaming Sphere has a clear meaning. You can use it exactly as it says without a battle mat. The only problem with Flaming Sphere is for those accustomed to using a battle mat or map requiring that you know whether something is an obstacle. Apparently they have left that open for individual DMs to decide.

I don't get why you would say that. Even if you don't have a battle mat with a big orange d20 to represent the Flaming Sphere, you can still have a purely narrative situation where the fire is in a doorway or narrow hall and you need to resolve whether or not you can move through it.

 

[Celtavian]

I don't get why you would say that. Even if you don't have a battle mat with a big orange d20 to represent the Flaming Sphere, you can still have a purely narrative situation where the fire is in a doorway or narrow hall and you need to resolve whether or not you can move through it.

I would let them move through it since nothing states they can't. I would have them take damage. I wouldn't complain too much if someone decided they couldn't move through it. I like Flaming Sphere as a ball of fire created and moved by magic with no solidity.

The main point though is that leaving up to each group and DM is not necessarily a failure of the rules. I like having a little room left for deciding something like this. I get tired of being told exactly how something works without any possible alternative viewpoints allowed with players trying to use the rules as a way to control the DM. In my experience spells that say too much cause more problems than spells that say too little. At least if the spell text is light, you can come to a reasonable and interesting choice for how to handle it usually allowing the player and DM to work towards that outcome in a cooperative manner rather than one trying to force the other to capitulate with an intractable rule interpretation.

 

[KarinsDad]

I don't see what's lame about it. It ignores those things because those things are not part of the spell's effects or interactions. I see no reason to assume this was an oversight or mistake, or even sloppy editing.

The fact that it must be conjured into an unoccupied space, plus the word choice in the phrase "ram the sphere into a creature" implies at least semi-solidity. This is further supported by the fact that the sphere cannot move through creatures; it stops moving if you hit someone with it.

However, the 5e basic rules already allow you to move through a "nonhostile creature's space," and that's the most sensible position to take with this spell: You can move through its space, but not stop there. (As a nonsentient object, I don't think the sphere can reasonably be counted hostile, even if it's under the control of an enemy.)

Not that magic should mirror real life, but I'll point out that in the real world it's possible to run or leap through a small fire without being burned. It takes a certain amount of time for the cells in your body and the molecules in your clothing to absorb enough heat to ignite or be damaged. Apparently, the flaming sphere is not hot enough to transmit the necessary heat unless you pause (end your turn) near it. So I don't agree that common sense indicates damage. The author of this spell must have decided that damage in such a case would be unbalanced and unwarranted.

The sphere is obviously subject to gravity since it cannot float across empty space; it has to "jump." But there's no reason to believe it has enough weight to cause extra damage when dropped on someone. It if did, we have to assume that would be noted in the description.

Prone opponents are covered by the "ramming" rule. If you hit any opponent, standing or prone, the sphere must stop. You cannot "roll over" someone.

This all seems to be a justification for your particular interpretation and has nothing to do with what the spell actually states.

The spell states that it is fire. No more. No less.

Fire is not semi-solid.

The phrase "ramming" is not used elsewhere in the rules, so nothing special can be attributed to that.

Conjurations often have to be cast into an unoccupied square.

And it is totally reasonable, even expected, for people to wonder what would happen if a creature or object touches this fire.


I could state, for example, that the phrase "If you ram the sphere into a creature" means into a creature, not adjacent to a creature.
I could state, for example, that the phrase "If you ram the sphere into a creature" means the same as "If you ram a creature into the sphere", the direction shouldn't matter.

But what I state here is no better or worse of an interpretation than what you are stating. So the only obvious thing here is that clarification is required.


Bottom line: WotC should have clarified better here. The fact that people are on all sides of this issue illustrates that.