Shooting arrows through a Wall of Fire

[werk]

Something, something, the wood BURNS you!

 

[Nail]

The fact that wall of fire doesn't affect objects by description or by the stormwrack table is an interesting addition to the argument.

What's also piqued my interest this time is the phrase in the spell description "The wall deals double damage to undead creatures."

Note that being undead doesn't usually make you more suseptible to fire. So the fire in the Wall of Fire is special in some way...perhaps it's charged with positive energy? Speculation aside, it is strange that the description says "creatures", and maKes no reference to unattended objects.

....like arrows.

 

[phindar]

It is strange that it doesn't mention unattended objects, but its not that strange. Fireball says it affects creatures and unattended objects, but most other spells including Flame Strike and Scorching Ray just mention creatures. What I was alluding too earlier is that if every spell that didn't mention objects was listed in Stormwrack as not starting fires, it would make sense. But it doesn't work out quite that neatly; the Stormwrack is a lot more random than that, and in any event the list is to check if the spell sets the ship on fire, the spells still deal hit point damage to the areas of the ship within the AoE unless the spell description specifically calls out it doesn't effect objects.

(Personally, I don't particularly care for the Fire Starting list in Stormwrack, because there has to be an easier way than to list a bunch of spells and determining individually if one starts a fire or not. What's wrong with just saying Fire Spells have a chance to start fires? I can remember that. Percentage chance equal to damage taken.)

I still say Opaque means you can't see through it. As in:

1. not transparent or translucent; impenetrable to light; not allowing light to pass through.

I'd say Transparent, No Miss Chance. Translucent, 20% Miss Chance. Opaque, 50% Miss Chance (blind fire). (Though I'll admit that "4. hard to understand; not clear or lucid; obscure: The problem remains opaque despite explanations." seems applicable as well.)

I'd say absent of something specific in the book, that dealing the spell damage to the objects passing through seems to be as by-the-book as you can make it. I'd deal half damage to objects, but to each his own. Non-magical arrows probably wouldn't make it through (but hey, they're cheap), magical arrows and beefier weapons (spears, daggers, hand axes) probably would, but they'd come out pretty singed.

 

[IanB]

Realistically speaking, it seems to me the fact that you can't see through it and the air convection caused by the intense heat would be more likely to cause problems shooting through a wall of fire than any damage to the arrow itself.

...but since when has realism been a concern with regard to D&D archery?

IMC, the arrow would not take significant damage from the wall, unless it was made of ice or coated in flamable oil or something. The 50% miss chance and the need to pinpoint your opponent to shoot at him at all are significant enough defenses against ranged attacks for a 4th level spell (which has plenty of other great uses) without also adding in 'destroys missiles shot through it.'

 

[Nail]

...but since when has realism been a concern with regard to D&D archery?

Right.

The fire in the Wall of Fire is clearly not "real" fire. It only gives off heat in one direction. It does more damage to ghosts than to animated candlesticks (or even Frost Giants!). It is an opaque sheet, rather than flickering flames. It has no appreciable thickness. Etc.

Given all of that, it seems reasonable to conclude that whatever Real World experience or intuition we may have with fire can be thrown out.

 

[Patlin]

Wood is not vulnerable to fire. Have you ever lit a bonfire? It takes real effort to get it going! And wood can char/blacken on the surface for a long time before being singnificantly damaged.

Now if they were metal arrows...


glass.

Woods vulnerability to fire depends on the thickness of the wood... and the relationship by my estimation isn't linear. An 8 inch think log will take a lot of fire damage before it burns... but an arrow is a lot closer to kindling than it is to an 8" log! You can light kindling with flint and steel fairly easilly, but there's no way in heck you'll ever light up a 8" log directly that way.

 

[KarinsDad]

Right.

The fire in the Wall of Fire is clearly not "real" fire. It only gives off heat in one direction. It does more damage to ghosts than to animated candlesticks (or even Frost Giants!). It is an opaque sheet, rather than flickering flames. It has no appreciable thickness. Etc.

Given all of that, it seems reasonable to conclude that whatever Real World experience or intuition we may have with fire can be thrown out.

Not quite.

The type of spell is Evocation [Fire] and the effect is Opaque sheet of flame.

It it real fire.

The DMG states what heat and flame exposure does:

Characters exposed to burning oil, bonfires, and noninstantaneous magic fires might find their clothes, hair, or equipment on fire.

This explicitly indicates that objects exposed to non-instaneous magic fires can catch on fire.

Flame Blade, Flaming Sphere, Incendiary Cloud, Produce Flame, Wall of Fire, Flaming Weapons and Flame Burst Weapons are the only non-instantaneous magic fires (TMK, not counting Fire Trap and Fire Seed which are effectively instantaneous) in the core rules.

So, what is special about Wall of Fire that it's flames are not hot? Sure, it has a built in protection that the caster typically uses on his side of the wall, but that hardly qualifies as ignoring the DMG rule about creatures and equipment catching on fire when exposed to non-instantaneous magical fire.

 

[Jondor_Battlehammer]

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.)

Two thoughts.

1) Speed is not an issue. A Monk could move faster than an arrow in game if you get him the right level/items/spells. Its like hit points. Don't think about it too much.

2) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087262/

 

[DreadArchon]

So, what is special about Wall of Fire that it's flames are not hot? Sure, it has a built in protection that the caster typically uses on his side of the wall, but that hardly qualifies as ignoring the DMG rule about creatures and equipment catching on fire when exposed to non-instantaneous magical fire.

I actually agree here. That the Wall of Fire is opaque, can't spread, and is heated only on one side doesn't prevent you from applying "real-world" logic to it to some degree.

But as to your quote, you've conspicuously edited out the next line:

Characters exposed to burning oil, bonfires, and noninstantaneous magic fires might find their clothes, hair, or equipment on fire. Spells with an instantaneous duration don’t normally set a character on fire, since the heat and flame from these come and go in a flash.

(Emphasis mine.)

On a similar note, there's:

1) Speed is not an issue. A Monk could move faster than an arrow in game if you get him the right level/items/spells. Its like hit points. Don't think about it too much.

In both cases, you're missing the point. Even allowing for the house rule that Wall of Fire can damage objects (which makes even less sense given that it can't spread to nearby areas or re-light extinguished sections, the entire point of the spell being to protect yourself without burning down your own house, but I digress), something can take fire damage without being lit on fire. Neither the Monk who jumps through the wall nor the arrow that's shot through the wall is lit on fire, regardless of whether or not they take damage from the wall.

Obviously, though, there'd be Total Concealment shooting through the wall, since they went out of their way to specify Opaque. (Which, incidentally, has come up in my game during a fight with Salamanders.)

 

[Nail]

So, what is special about Wall of Fire that it's flames are not hot?

We know the wall causes [Fire] damage to creatures that pass through it, or come within a certain distance of one side of the Wall. So it's definitely hot.

That's not the point I was trying to make. The point: Deciding if an arrow takes [Fire] damage does not depend on our Real World knowledge of fire. In fact, a real world fire would do few of the things the Wall of Fire does. What we should base our decisions on is rules text....the rest is just idle (and demonstratively wrong) speculation.