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

[raleel]

I'll also point out that Flaming Sphere is conjuration. Virtually all other conjuration spells conjure something tangible (even smoke or clouds), or a spirit (elementals), or provide passage to a plane (dimension door, demiplane, etc). The only sort-of exception to this is produce flame.

evocation kind of has the market on making energy appear from nothing, even at long duration (fire shield, continual flame, flame blade, faerie fire, light, dancing lights, moonbeam, wall of fire - which allows folks to walk through it). It's not super clear cut, by any means (wall of ice and wall of stone are evocation, forcecage, Otto's RS, and wall of force are tangible energy) but it definitely leans towards evocation being the "produce energy".

That tends to make me go with the "giant sponge ball soaked with gasoline" variant. YMMV, of course.

 

[KarinsDad]

I'll also point out that Flaming Sphere is conjuration. Virtually all other conjuration spells conjure something tangible (even smoke or clouds), or a spirit (elementals), or provide passage to a plane (dimension door, demiplane, etc). The only sort-of exception to this is produce flame.

evocation kind of has the market on making energy appear from nothing, even at long duration (fire shield, continual flame, flame blade, faerie fire, light, dancing lights, moonbeam, wall of fire - which allows folks to walk through it). It's not super clear cut, by any means (wall of ice and wall of stone are evocation, forcecage, Otto's RS, and wall of force are tangible energy) but it definitely leans towards evocation being the "produce energy".

That tends to make me go with the "giant sponge ball soaked with gasoline" variant. YMMV, of course.

You mean like Cure Wounds is evocation and Mass Cure Wounds is conjuration?

Flame is actually heated gas or plasma. It's actually something physical, just not solid. Put your hand in a flame and let us know if it is not tangible.

 

[raleel]

lol, yes, just like that Maybe with mass cure wounds you are opening a door to a positive energy plane!

 

[77IM]

Anyone else have these issues? Anyone have an easy solution - because I'm apprehending a good deal of note taking required to keep all my calls coherent...

Two-part solution that works for me, YMMV:

1) Realize that there will ALWAYS be edge cases that need a DM ruling. The PHB is 256 pages of rules for you to use, do you really want it having even more? Or forcing out useful rules so that other rules can be better specified?

Instead of having guidelines for specific cases have general guidelines that you can apply. How would you determine the answers to your own questions? If you have a consistent process then you can apply it the same way every time and get the same answer every time and not have to keep detailed notes.

Worst case scenario, have the wizard make an Int check, DC 10, to have the sphere be solid enough to block movement if that's what he wants.

2) Let your players keep you coherent. If no-one notices an inconsistent ruling it really, really doesn't matter.

 

[Celebrim]

I thought about all the ways this could be called.

For me, the answers to how you interpret the vague spaces in the rules have to conform to three guidelines.

1) Never something for nothing. Generally this means that you can never 'creatively' use a spell to avoid the existence of a fortune mechanic, or to change the level of effect of a spell. You can't creatively use a ray of frost to become a sleet storm or a freezing sphere. You might could creatively use it to become equivalent effects, but probably only by accepting some additional risk of failure. True creativity is always defined by making use of what you have.
2) What must be good for the goose, must also be good for the gander. Any attempt by a player to use a spell in a certain way implies the spell can be used against them in that way. As such, any uses of a spell that PC's would object too if used against them, must not be allowed used against NPCs.
3) The interpretation must conform to and support the narrative created by the spell. We must answer the question, "Just what is the spell?"

Flaming sphere is generally seen as a spongy semi-solid ball of fire, considerably smaller in its solid form than 5' in diameter and so not filling up a space. It burns whatever it is brought in contact with. Depending on which edition you are talking about, it may or may not exude heat beyond its surface.

I prefer to think of flaming sphere as being a somewhat viscous ooze of fire that prefers to retain a ball shape. IT's effectively weightless. It exerts insufficient force on an object bigger much than an insect or heavier than a feather to move it or harm it, save by the flames it exudes. If pushed against an unyielding surface, it simply squashes a little. If an unyielding object is pushed against it, it relatively easily pierces the surface just as the same sort of object would penetrate say newly stirred peanut butter. It thus provides no real shield or obstacle to fire, though it of course could ignite objects that penetrate it and conceivably do enough damage to destroy small flammable objects before they went very far. No significant strength is required to do this - though it might be an act of will power or courage if you track such things.

Objects that touch the sphere are burnt. Normally this happens as a result of a moving sphere impacting an object, but logically voluntary or involuntary movement to the location of the sphere produces the same effect - in terms of the fictional space the contact has still occurred and the object doesn't know how it occurred. The sphere doesn't wink out of existence when it isn't its turn. Thus, if you have to pass near the sphere, a reflex save is in order. If you actually must move through the sphere - say the corridor is only 2' wide and 4' high - then logically you must touch the sphere and so forgo the save. In general, if you are thrown or grappled into the sphere, the reflex save is not provided but the grappler must make a fortune test (probably contested). If you are shoved or otherwise have some opportunity to control your movement, then the reflex save would be allowed.

Anyone else have these issues?

All the time.

Anyone have an easy solution - because I'm apprehending a good deal of note taking required to keep all my calls coherent...

The total rules in use at a table are always much larger than the formally written down rules. The fewer formally written down rules you have, the more the actual rules of the game exist in the head of the GM. Formally written down rules are simply rules that the GM has communicated to the players (or sometimes just to themselves!) in a contractual form. Some GMs prefer this, both for their own sanity and that of the players. Other GMs prefer to keep the rules secret and fluid.

The corollary to this is that in actual play, 'Rules Lite' is entirely hypothetical. RPGs with small numbers of rules exist only in a hypothetical state.

 

[Celebrim]

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.

You always have a crushing weight of rules in any game that has as a goal simulating a reality of some sort. Some people are just more cognizant of that than others. Rulings are rules. The more rulings you have, the more rules you have. Contradictory and situational rulings don't reduce the size of rules, but greatly increase them. Keeping the rules secret from the players doesn't reduce the size of the rules in play either. Not writing your rulings down doesn't decrease the size of the rules either.

Good rules help you simulate the reality that you wish to have. This reduces the amount of mental overhead that the GM needs to have. In a sense, you write rules down in part just so you won't have to remember all the details regarding how your reality works. For example, sharing the rules with the players means that the players can help you remember how your reality is supposed to work, and reference that reality even when you as a GM have your attention elsewhere. Hopefully you create rules that are well written in that they have few edge cases yet still are relatively easy to remember and quickly applied and resolved.

The most complex rules heavy game possible is one with no written rules. In that game, you are appealing almost everything to 'reality', which has rules far too complex to apply in play.

 

[MoutonRustique]

Thank you for the reflections

Two-part solution that works for me, YMMV:

1) Realize that there will ALWAYS be edge cases that need a DM ruling. The PHB is 256 pages of rules for you to use, do you really want it having even more? Or forcing out useful rules so that other rules can be better specified?

I agree with you with regards to edge cases. I do not believe the nature of flaming sphere to be one of them. It's a low level spell (so likely to see frequent use in-play) with obvious tactical applications that vary wildly in their nature and effectiveness in function with the spell's definite nature.

I do not believe it to be clear-cut in its interpretation (as evidenced by the opposing rulings suggested in good-faith in this thread).

I'll not tear my hair out over this (what little there is left :sad, it's just something that is bothering me for which I sought the suggestions the wisdom of the forums could offer. My final take-away is : there is no solution, create one that suits you and your group.

Instead of having guidelines for specific cases have general guidelines that you can apply. How would you determine the answers to your own questions? If you have a consistent process then you can apply it the same way every time and get the same answer every time and not have to keep detailed notes.

Worst case scenario, have the wizard make an Int check, DC 10, to have the sphere be solid enough to block movement if that's what he wants.

I have an intense dislike of trying to apply logic to magic - since it immediately becomes "logic" (which I abhor).

My stance goes a little like this : for magic to be magic, logic (i.e. physics) can't apply - otherwise it's another form of science. If magic is another form of science, then that universe clearly doesn't share our physics (i.e. logic) - so it would be an error to apply them to it.

Note that I'm using logic and physics interchangeably in the previous statement as they are, in most respects, the same process. I understand that logic and physics are not the same concept - but for the purpose of this, very specific situation, I believe they are interchangeable in a vulgar discussion format.

I understand that your idea of applying a process is a different thing, but for me, it would probably always devolve into trying to explain how the spell is working and... well, see the lines above.

2) Let your players keep you coherent. If no-one notices an inconsistent ruling it really, really doesn't matter.

I will underline this part - so much truth here. Thank you for this reminder - it is so self-evident that I sometimes overlook its application. I sometimes overemphasis my "in a vacuum" comfort-level while forgetting that, come game time, I don't really much care as long as people are having a good game. Thank you for this reminder.

[MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] (your last two posts) - are almost exactly my opinions on the matter : hence my consulting the forum sages to see if I was missing something that would magically (hehehe, I made a pun) solve my dilemmas.

 

[77IM]

I agree with you with regards to edge cases. I do not believe the nature of flaming sphere to be one of them. It's a low level spell (so likely to see frequent use in-play) with obvious tactical applications that vary wildly in their nature and effectiveness in function with the spell's definite nature.

Well, it's just one spell out of, like, 300? Seems narrow enough to be an "edge case" to me.

Granted, they could have fixed this particular goof with one sentence. "The sphere's space counts as difficult terrain, and any creature entering the space or touching the sphere must make a saving throw against its damage, as though rammed."

I have an intense dislike of trying to apply logic to magic - since it immediately becomes "logic" (which I abhor).

I totally agree, but you still have to make a decision somehow and with zero process or guidelines for yourself you will always be lost and relying on the designers to solve as many edge cases as possible.

For example, how do you decide how NPCs act and what their attitude is? That's not logical and scientific, but with a halfway-decent grasp of human nature, you can decide what the NPCs do. When I am not sure what an NPC would do (people are complex and mysterious) then I just decide the Charisma check DC for the players to convince the NPC to do what they want instead of the alternative.

So, the nature of magic. If magic is not science, what is it? I've thought about this quite a bit. Here are some options I've seen used in fantasy books, and how I would use them as guidelines:

1. Magic is emotion. What desire fuels the flaming sphere? Would such a desire obstruct passage or not? (A flaming sphere is a slow burn. I'd say anyone who enters the sphere's space has their speed reduced to 0 until the end of the turn.)

2. Magic is metafiction. Would it make for a better story to allow the sphere to block passage? (Yes, but it's even better if the sphere is easy to push -- but you get burned automatically.)

3. Magic is power, and its cost. What does the PC gain if the sphere is solid? What do they risk by having such a flaming sphere? (Maybe the sphere has a mind of its own, or becomes insubstantial when it's least convenient.)

4. Magic is patterns or attributes, transferred to a different subject. What does a flaming sphere resemble? What concepts is it made of? This is the most scientific option, but it's really more philosophical, and is the closest to real-world views on magic. (I'd say the sphere is like a rolling boulder, VERY solid.)

5. Magic is inherently mysterious. If the characters in the story accept this, it's a fairy tale; if they fear it, it's supernatural horror. What could make the sphere more creepy and ominous? (Maybe each creature the sphere kills makes it more solid and harder to push past. Maybe you just randomly roll to see how the sphere works. Each time you cast it. Maybe if yo do a certain thing the sphere becomes solid, and if you forget, then when the spell ends it comes after you.)

My point is, having a coherent set of guidelines goes a lot farther than specific rules. In fact I tend to view rules largely in terms of how well they serve as guidelines. The combat maneuvers Grapple and Shove are fantastic examples of guidelines disguised as rules -- you can extrapolate the results of a lot of improvised actions from those two skill contests.

 

[Li Shenron]

Very complicated topic...

I would totally like to play a game of D&D where creative uses of spells are encouraged. However in that case, you have to acknowledge that creativity works much more in favor of the players than the monsters.

This means for instance, a player using Prestidigitation to impress an audience or scare some critters with a puff of sulphur always expects at least a chance of success. The same tactic would NEVER work the other way tho.

Just to say that if you declare that in your game creativity will be rewarded, people expect creative ideas to work. Not necessarily always, but at least have a chance to. And since it's much easier to find non-canonical uses for spells rather than for mundane abilities, this means that spellcasters in such game have a much higher chance to find an insta-win idea.

Yes the Rogue can swing from the chandelier and the Fighter can whirlwind its weapon and the Barbarian can put up a show with her rage, but typically in all these cases it's automatic to require a check. Creative uses of spells (like using a spell to start a fire, or try to affect an object with a spell) are typically just adjudicated subjectively by the DM with a "can/cannot" decision.

I think this is something to keep in mind as it can cause unwanted consequences on intra-party balance.

 

[Manbearcat]

And since it's much easier to find non-canonical uses for spells rather than for mundane abilities, this means that spellcasters in such game have a much higher chance to find an insta-win idea.

Yes the Rogue can swing from the chandelier and the Fighter can whirlwind its weapon and the Barbarian can put up a show with her rage, but typically in all these cases it's automatic to require a check. Creative uses of spells (like using a spell to start a fire, or try to affect an object with a spell) are typically just adjudicated subjectively by the DM with a "can/cannot" decision.

I think this is something to keep in mind as it can cause unwanted consequences on intra-party balance.

This is a good, thoughtful post. However, I think that there may be an answer to your problem here available within the 5e ruleset by taking a cue from 4e's improvised action/stunt system.

I don't believe that 5e has an analog (as of yet - may be in the DMG) for the level/tier based DCs of 4e, 13th Age (and other systems). However, it does posses the Arcana, Nature, and Religion skills. In 4e, if a Wizard (Arcana), Druid (Nature), or Cleric (Religion) wish to invoke their spells (typically Cantrips, but sometimes other) for creative effects (that fit with the mechanical profile of the spell and its interactions with the rest of the system - in 4e that is keyword tech), the GM consults the DC/effect-by-level chart and they negotiate the effect (if any negotiation is required). So, in 5e, if a player proposes a declared action of "lifting up the skirt of the noblewoman in the direction of <some guy they want in trouble or reputation sullied>" with Mage Hand, have the player roll an Arcana check to resolve the action just as you might have your Rogue roll an Acrobatics check to do the bannister/chandelier move.

To your (very legitimate) last concern about intra-party balance, these are two archetypical shticks for the two classes. Consequently, it would be nice if they were performing them on the same DC schedule such that success ratio is fairly congruent.