Shooting arrows through a Wall of Fire

[starwed]

When using a "common sense" argument here, keep in mind exactly how much faster an arrow is moving than a person. According to this, arrows travel at about 56.7 m/s. (That's 127 mph.) I'm not so sure a heat source will ignite even the fletching on the arrow with such a fleeting time of contact... (It's in the same square as the wall of fire for .02 seconds.)

 

[Bagpuss]

With your "common sense" it might not burn the arrow shaft but if the flights are even briefly in a fire they are going to be ruined and so the arrow won't fly true any more.

 

[phindar]

I'm not so sure on that. The fletchings will spend so little time in the fire (1/50 of a second), that I think it would be unlikely they would combust. If we were to build a bonfire and sit around firing arrows through the flames, I guess we'd have better data. I'm not exactly sure what temperature 2d6+8 points of damage represents, but its probably not high enough to vaporize something in .02 seconds. (Any experts on combustion out there want to weigh in?)

 

[TheGogmagog]

I'll drop my 2cp.
You have total concealment behind a wall of fire.
You have the choice of halving the fire damage to an arrow or doubling it. There arn't examples of what objects are vulnerable, so it's DM's choice. Both make some sense when you consider it is wood, but not splintered wood and not in the effect very long, which isn't a factor to how much damage is actually applied by a spell effect. But when I consider the fletching feathers, I'd have to say they are destroyed ruining the effectiveness of the arrows.

 

[TheGogmagog]

I'm not so sure on that. The fletchings will spend so little time in the fire (1/50 of a second), that I think it would be unlikely they would combust. If we were to build a bonfire and sit around firing arrows through the flames, I guess we'd have better data. I'm not exactly sure what temperature 2d6+8 points of damage represents, but its probably not high enough to vaporize something in .02 seconds. (Any experts on combustion out there want to weigh in?)

The 'don't use real world' group would point out the spell effect doesn't mention time spent in the wall of fire, you take the same damage whether you 5' step, walk, run, or are shot through a cannon. So it still all falls back to DM's balance between "common sense" and RAW. Even within RAW the decision is debatable.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I think that the total concealment due to the opaqueness is plain within the rules, so I'd use that.

The spell doesn't call out any defensive ability against missile weapons, and my logic says that an arrow spending 1/50th of a second in a fire can't get burnt (remember that old trick of moving your hand quickly through the bunsen burner flame in science labs?).

If you want to stop arrows, wall of ice is a heck of a lot better!

 

[Plane Sailing]

The idea that wood is more vulnerable to flame is a bit silly. All fire doors I've ever seen are made of solid wood because it is excellent protection against fire!

Tiny twigs, leaves, paper, cloth - now *those* should be more vulnerable to fire, sure. But not wood just by default. After all, that is why you need kindling to start a fire in the woods.

 

[Nail]

The wall is opaque...and apparently only damages creatures that pass through it or stand near (on the "hot side", and only between turns).

 

[Gregor]

I like the idea of a wall of fire damaging arrows that are fired through it.

In fact, why not rule that if the arrow takes any damage as a result of soaring through the flames, it is set on fire and acts as a flame arrow (as per the spell). Thats cool.

 

[TheGogmagog]

The fact that wall of fire doesn't affect objects by description or by the stormwrack table is an interesting addition to the argument. (I saw the comment but then forgot to factor it in my reply earlier) In that light, I'll change my opinion to not affecting the arrow. But if there were a readied fireball or the like, to affect a fired arrow mid flight, I'd rule with the double fire damage to vulerable objects.