|
Was wanting to have a caster that can light a torch (or candle) with a spell. Spark would be the ideal spell, but that's advanced player's guide, so since that spell doesn't exist in the Core Campaign, can I use Prestidigitation to light a torch or candle in my possession?
Any other suggestions?
In particular, I'm thinking about wielding the torches as weapons, so the Light Spell doesn't really help for my intended function.
|
Was wanting to have a caster that can light a torch (or candle) with a spell. Spark would be the ideal spell, but that's advanced player's guide, so since that spell doesn't exist in the Core Campaign, can I use Prestidigitation to light a torch or candle in my possession?
Any other suggestions?
In particular, I'm thinking about wielding the torches as weapons, so the Light Spell doesn't really help for my intended function.
Burning is damage. Prestidigitation can not do damage. The spell does not list any ability that can do what you are asking, unfortunately.
"Prestidigitation can create small objects, but they look crude and artificial. The materials created by a prestidigitation spell are extremely fragile, and they cannot be used as tools, weapons, or spell components. Finally, prestidigitation lacks the power to duplicate any other spell effects. Any actual change to an object (beyond just moving, cleaning, or soiling it) persists only 1 hour."
|
|
Burning is damage. Prestidigitation can not do damage. The spell does not list any ability that can do what you are asking, unfortunately.
"Prestidigitation can create small objects, but they look crude and artificial. The materials created by a prestidigitation spell are extremely fragile, and they cannot be used as tools, weapons, or spell components. Finally, prestidigitation lacks the power to duplicate any other spell effects. Any actual change to an object (beyond just moving, cleaning, or soiling it) persists only 1 hour."
That's half of the description.
Prestidigitations are minor tricks that novice spellcasters use for practice. Once cast, a prestidigitation spell enables you to perform simple magical effects for 1 hour. The effects are minor and have severe limitations. A prestidigitation can slowly lift 1 pound of material. It can color, clean, or soil items in a 1-foot cube each round. It can chill, warm, or flavor 1 pound of nonliving material. It cannot deal damage or affect the concentration of spellcasters. Prestidigitation can create small objects, but they look crude and artificial. The materials created by a prestidigitation spell are extremely fragile, and they cannot be used as tools, weapons, or spell components. Finally, prestidigitation lacks the power to duplicate any other spell effects. Any actual change to an object (beyond just moving, cleaning, or soiling it) persists only 1 hour.
Regarding the torch, you don't really need fire damage to light one, as they are soaked in oil and made to be easy to light (unless you are suggesting that flint and steel can deal fire damage...).
I'm not creating anything other than a small spark, a quick bit of friction, or a brief increase in heat. Not suggesting I could light normal wood on fire like this, but lighting candles or torches seems pretty reasonable.
Says it can warm things (aka, it can add heat), torches are 1 lb of non-living material, and torches only burn for 1 hour. And although it would duplicate Spark, since Spark doesn't exist in Core, it seems reasonable.
Plus, wizards lighting candles with magic is totally the petty magic prestidigitation is supposed to do.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
as stone is removed, to sculpt a statue
so possibilities removed, to sculpt a system
the sculptor, is praised for the beauty
the writer, is paid by the word
which is most likely, to carve too deep?
Of course a magician can light a purpose-built flame-dependant object. To mirror an earlier post, if anyone can do it with flint and steel, why deny it to the mage? Because a later text includes a stronger argument? What about earlier texts that include pipes lit with the first draw on them, or candlewicks whispered white with wyrd words?
No, the evidence is there, it's possible. The question is, cantrip or spell? And if it's one step up from flint-and-steel, that's a cantrip, and presti is the catch-all.
they publish because we pay by the word.
Presti could light, until Spark
|
|
Presti could light, until Spark
That's part of it. I recall this spell covering more things prior to the release of the later books (back when pathfinder was new).
As per the spell, it can't mimic other spells which is kinda the grey in all this, as the Core Campaign creates an artificial lack of spells.
|
|
Finally, prestidigitation lacks the power to duplicate any other spell effects.
Since spark does what you want you can not do it with prest.
If you are arguing spark is not in core. That is not correct either. Spark is in core, but not a legal option for PCS. Spark is not core legal without a chronicle.
The arguments for not allowing it are sound but I would allow it if Spark was not allowed under the condition it was not abused. If it's use was abused e.g. you tried to extend the argument beyond lighting a torch to remotely detonating a flask of oil or alchemist's fire then I would reconsider my opinion.
|
|
The arguments for not allowing it are sound but I would allow it if Spark was not allowed under the condition it was not abused. If it's use was abused e.g. you tried to extend the argument beyond lighting a torch to remotely detonating a flask of oil or alchemist's fire then I would reconsider my opinion.
The problem I have with this approach is what happens when you've been playing that way for a while, and then you encounter a scenario that introduces spark? Do the casters suddenly lose one of the abilities they've been relying on? That doesn't seem fair.
|
they publish because we pay by the word.
Presti could light, until Spark
Actually, Presti couldn't, even before Spark.
How do you justify allowing its use for anything more than cleaning clothes and changing colors and flavors?
Not to mention, as someone else pointed out, how do you justify allowing it to light torches but not flasks of oil? And, indeed, if it can light torches, does that mean that a torch lighted in that fashion cannot do any damage either?
they publish because we pay by the word.
Presti could light, until Spark
Actually, Presti couldn't, even before Spark.
How do you justify allowing its use for anything more than cleaning clothes and changing colors and flavors?
Not to mention, as someone else pointed out, how do you justify allowing it to light torches but not flasks of oil? And, indeed, if it can light torches, does that mean that a torch lighted in that fashion cannot do any damage either?
I don't have to justify it to people who game with me. They either rode along through the history of cantrips ("Firefinger", would be the topical citation, but cantrips then were 4-to-a-lvl-1-slot, so it actually did damage) or they just respect reason. We aren't trying to earn or defend stars, though.
There's a real-world tool with a spring handle and a bit of flint rubbing on a striker-file, and so we don't imagine the two-handed flint-and-steel as the only way to light a thing. And the leap from that spring-flint tool (which can do no damage) to letting Presti do the same is not burdensome to us.
Presti inherited all the homeless cantrip functions because we like for our old stories to still be possible, regardless of ruling-of-the-month and nerf-this-so-we-can-sell-it-again.
We let it light things that are ready to light, at no range, while Spark has a range. And no, we don't interpret 'this cantrip does no damage' to mean 'no damage can result from any application of this cantrip, plus fuel, plus standard action, plus attack roll...'.
Again, we don't need to be strictly canonical. We're here to have fun, and we've found we have more fun when we don't engage in that kind of legalistics.
We also let illusions provide flank and rough ground.
|
This is on the PFS board (and Core only at that) so house rules are out and prestidigitation cannot light torches.
That said, if you are dead set on doing so I'd expect many GMs would allow it with specially prepared torches/alchemy. There are any number of logical ways this could be accomplished, but the easiest way to comply with PFS rules would probably be to embed a tindertwig in the head of the torch and use prestidigitation to move some rough surface object (e.g. sand paper) over the tindertwig. Prestidigitation moves object, object lights tindertwig, tindertwig lights torch. Voila!
|
|
Can't move an object with prestidigitation, due to Mage Hand
"A prestidigitation can slowly lift 1 pound of material. ... Any actual change to an object (beyond just moving, cleaning, or soiling it) persists only 1 hour."
Prestidigitation cannot "duplicate" the effects of another spell... that doesn't mean it can't do lesser similar effects. Otherwise, it couldn't do ANYTHING because there are spells which provide more powerful versions of everything it can do... Limited Wish alone would invalidate it.
|
|
they publish because we pay by the word.
Presti could light, until Spark
Actually, Presti couldn't, even before Spark.
How do you justify allowing its use for anything more than cleaning clothes and changing colors and flavors?
Not to mention, as someone else pointed out, how do you justify allowing it to light torches but not flasks of oil? And, indeed, if it can light torches, does that mean that a torch lighted in that fashion cannot do any damage either?
I don't have to justify it to people who game with me. They either rode along through the history of cantrips ("Firefinger", would be the topical citation, but cantrips then were 4-to-a-lvl-1-slot, so it actually did damage) or they just respect reason. We aren't trying to earn or defend stars, though.
There's a real-world tool with a spring handle and a bit of flint rubbing on a striker-file, and so we don't imagine the two-handed flint-and-steel as the only way to light a thing. And the leap from that spring-flint tool (which can do no damage) to letting Presti do the same is not burdensome to us.
Presti inherited all the homeless cantrip functions because we like for our old stories to still be possible, regardless of ruling-of-the-month and nerf-this-so-we-can-sell-it-again.
We let it light things that are ready to light, at no range, while Spark has a range. And no, we don't interpret 'this cantrip does no damage' to mean 'no damage can result from any application of this cantrip, plus fuel, plus standard action, plus attack roll...'.
Again, we don't need to be strictly canonical. We're here to have fun, and we've found we have more fun when we don't engage in that kind of legalistics.
We also let illusions provide flank and rough ground.
So your argument is... "I play this way at home, so that means its the rule for everyone"?
That is NOT how things work. The rule IS the rule. The GM can CHANGE the rule. But that doesn't mean what the GM changed the rule to is now the REAL rule in the book.
That being said, the spell lists what it can do. But, it does read as if might be able to more than listed. That is up to the GM to decide.
|
|
Can't move an object with prestidigitation, due to Mage Hand"A prestidigitation can slowly lift 1 pound of material. ... Any actual change to an object (beyond just moving, cleaning, or soiling it) persists only 1 hour."
Prestidigitation cannot "duplicate" the effects of another spell... that doesn't mean it can't do lesser similar effects. Otherwise, it couldn't do ANYTHING because there are spells which provide more powerful versions of everything it can do... Limited Wish alone would invalidate it.
Exactly. It can't exactly duplicate a spell. But it doesn't, as mage hand is more powerful than the lifting function of prestidigitation.
And it can do exactly what the prestidigitation says it can.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So your argument is... "I play this way at home, so that means its the rule for everyone"?
That is NOT how things work. The rule IS the rule. The GM can CHANGE the rule. But that doesn't...
No, my argument is "The rule for everyone is 'we are here to have fun' and 'do not be a dick'."
So if a guy comes to the table wanting to fight with torches and ignite them with a cantrip, we look for a path toward 'yes', rather than a position from which to shout 'no'.
It's obvious to all of us at the table, mages have a way to light their cigarettes. So any other reading seems willfully uncharitable. We'd be surprised at the desire to limit the new guy's cool idea. We'd rather cool than optimized.
But let's say this is all just the learned caution of the lifeguard, no running near the pool, no towels left out near paths. I DO agree, there are redoubts from which you can shout 'no'. We're just playing over here, instead.
If the OP is still listening, put tindertwigs on your torches, and keep them in scabbards lined with whatever's rough enough to scratch the twig when they are drawn.
|
|
So your argument is... "I play this way at home, so that means its the rule for everyone"?
That is NOT how things work. The rule IS the rule. The GM can CHANGE the rule. But that doesn't...
No, my argument is "The rule for everyone is 'we are here to have fun' and 'do not be a dick'."
So if a guy comes to the table wanting to fight with torches and ignite them with a cantrip, we look for a path toward 'yes', rather than a position from which to shout 'no'.
It's obvious to all of us at the table, mages have a way to light their cigarettes. So any other reading seems willfully uncharitable. We'd be surprised at the desire to limit the new guy's cool idea. We'd rather cool than optimized.
But let's say this is all just the learned caution of the lifeguard, no running near the pool, no towels left out near paths. I DO agree, there are redoubts from which you can shout 'no'. We're just playing over here, instead.
If the OP is still listening, put tindertwigs on your torches, and keep them in scabbards lined with whatever's rough enough to scratch the twig when they are drawn.
And that is perfectly fine. It is a game, we are all here to have fun. Just don't phrase your answer as the definitive 'yes you can' answer unless the rule, without changes, says you can. Because that is the incorrect and misleads the readers.
The game has rules. When you go outside those rules... well, that's fine. That's what homebrew rules are for, to increase the fun by expanding or changing the rules. But you must acknowledge that you are doing so.
Especially since this is the PFS core forum, and it is decidedly more strict than a home game. As the GM can not just allow anything they like.
|
|
No, my argument is "The rule for everyone is 'we are here to have fun' and 'do not be a dick'."If the OP's concept doesn't work as a Core character he can simply make it a Standard PFS character. If he can't make it work as a Standard PFS character he can save the concept to use in a campaign mode AP for PFS credit or a home game. Telling someone what the rules are is not being a jerk.
The concept of GMs and players ignoring a whole bunch of rules to make a round peg fit in a square hole, for the sake of fun, does not fit into Organized Play. By choosing to play in PFS you agree to play by PFS rules. You do not have to play PFS in order to play Pathfinder.
If you find that you have to drastically change how Pathfinder works, or ignore rules, in order for you and your group to have fun. You're better off finding a different rpg that fits your play style. There are dozens of different ones available.
Telling me what the rules are is not inherently being a jerk. That said, this whole "my way or the highway attitude" is rude at best. And the rules are not as clear cut as you indicate. Please, don't be a jerk.
|
|
ray of frost or acid splash from a Fire Elemental Bloodline Sorcerer... unless you can't actually light a torch after doing 1d3 fire damage to it... which some judges would rule.
Good luck with your "Torch Fighter"!
Yeah, never equated fire damage to lighting things on fire. Flint and Steel do no fire damage, so I don't think there's an inherent connection between fire damage (in PFS) and things igniting. That's why most spells that ignite things have to specify it. So, no, don't think the other Core Cantrips could ignite things without the GM modifying the rules (not unlike allowing prestidigitation to light cigarettes).
Regarding the Torch Fighter, I don't really like building characters concepts that generate lots of flak from rude players, so I went another direction and took a Druid with the Fire Domain. No access to prestidigitation, but it makes for a fun character.
On a side note, torches are 1 copper piece each. I just bring enough torches for the entire session, refueling in towns if needed, and the GM really doesn't care. If anything, I got praise for the unique character concept. There's nothing unbalanced about how little damage the torches do...though I did get some lucky hits on kobolds.
Mind you, as a druid, I'm not exactly a combat character. Would have been less so as a wizard or sorcerer.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ray of frost or acid splash from a Fire Elemental Bloodline Sorcerer... unless you can't actually light a torch after doing 1d3 fire damage to it... which some judges would rule.
Good luck with your "Torch Fighter"!
Yeah, never equated fire damage to lighting things on fire. Flint and Steel do no fire damage, so I don't think there's an inherent connection between fire damage (in PFS) and things igniting. That's why most spells that ignite things have to specify it. So, no, don't think the other Core Cantrips could ignite things without the GM modifying the rules (not unlike allowing prestidigitation to light cigarettes).
Regarding the Torch Fighter, I don't really like building characters concepts that generate lots of flak from rude players, so I went another direction and took a Druid with the Fire Domain. No access to prestidigitation, but it makes for a fun character.
On a side note, torches are 1 copper piece each. I just bring enough torches for the entire session, refueling in towns if needed, and the GM really doesn't care. If anything, I got praise for the unique character concept. There's nothing unbalanced about how little damage the torches do...though I did get some lucky hits on kobolds.
Mind you, as a druid, I'm not exactly a combat character. Would have been less so as a wizard or sorcerer.
Many spells that do fire damage actually do have a note like this:
"The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area...."And from burning hands "Flammable materials burn if the flames touch them...."
Many other fire spells have notes like that.
So I really don't think it would be much of reach to say that something that does fire damage could be used to light a torch. The un-modified ray of frost wouldn't have that note - but then it doesn't do fire damage. A ray that did fire damage? Yeah, I could easily see it being used to set a torch on fire. If I were the judge - I'd give it to you with out even a second thought. Setting something other than a torch on fire? Maybe spilled (unattended) oil on fire. Maybe even oil thrown on a creature. But could you use it to set a creature itself on fire? Or a door? Maybe not... Unless the creature/door was made of "Flammable materials..." Which a torch is.
Could I see a judge ruling that you COULDN'T set a torch (in your possession) on fire with a ray that did 1d3 fire damage? (In PFS? In the Standard Campaign?) Yeah. But then I've seen some pretty convoluted rulings before. (My Crypt Braker Alchemist often sets creatures on fire with his Explosive Bomb Discovery - realizing that his bombs do acid damage, not fire.... ). But I think the majority of CORE judges (say 9.9 out of 10) would be fine with you setting fire to a torch with a ray of frost/fire.
Ray of Frost is core but Ray of Fire isn't
|
|
Ray of Frost is core but Ray of Fire isn't
From my post four posts up...
"ray of frost or acid splash from a Fire Elemental Bloodline Sorcerer..."
This would be a spell that did 1d3 fire damage... So what would you call it? A burning ray of frost?
And you are right, there actually is no spell ray of fire ... At least none that I know of... At least none that I know of (Core or otherwise).
Edit:
I just realized that CrystalSeas may be a beginner and I came off kind of snotty. Sorry about that! Here's the part you might not have known....
From Elemental Bloodline Sorcerer -
Bloodline Arcana: Whenever you cast a spell that deals energy damage, you can change the type of damage to match the type of your bloodline. This also changes the spell's type to match the type of your bloodline.
So an Elemental Bloodline (Fire) Sorcerer has the option to make his spells do Fire damage, "...change the type of damage to match the type of your bloodline". Hope that helps!
|
|
So I really don't think it would be much of reach to say that something that does fire damage could be used to light a torch. The un-modified ray of frost wouldn't have that note - but then it doesn't do fire damage. A ray that did fire damage? Yeah, I could easily see it being used to set a torch on fire. If I were the judge - I'd give it to you with out even a second thought. Setting something other than a torch on fire? Maybe spilled (unattended) oil on fire. Maybe even oil thrown on a creature. But could you use it to set a creature itself on fire? Or a door? Maybe not... Unless the creature/door was made of "Flammable materials..." Which a torch is.
See the problem here is that the goal isn't to combust the entire torch, but just ignite the top. The entire torch is definitely a combustible, as would any dry wood, so I don't think a spell that ignites all combustibles is really the answer.
But I digress. So you are saying that fire damage, even if it doesn't say it combusts things, will combust them? So, can I ignite my Torches with the Fire Domain power (Firebolt Sp)? Does like d6 fire damage, but doesn't ignite things....
|
|
So I really don't think it would be much of reach to say that something that does fire damage could be used to light a torch. The un-modified ray of frost wouldn't have that note - but then it doesn't do fire damage. A ray that did fire damage? Yeah, I could easily see it being used to set a torch on fire. If I were the judge - I'd give it to you with out even a second thought. Setting something other than a torch on fire? Maybe spilled (unattended) oil on fire. Maybe even oil thrown on a creature. But could you use it to set a creature itself on fire? Or a door? Maybe not... Unless the creature/door was made of "Flammable materials..." Which a torch is.See the problem here is that the goal isn't to combust the entire torch, but just ignite the top. The entire torch is definitely a combustible, as would any dry wood, so I don't think a spell that ignites all combustibles is really the answer.
But I digress. So you are saying that fire damage, even if it doesn't say it combusts things, will combust them? So, can I ignite my Torches with the Fire Domain power (Firebolt Sp)? Does like d6 fire damage, but doesn't ignite things....
Elemental Ray (Sp): Starting at 1st level, you can unleash an elemental ray as a standard action, targeting any foe within 30 feet as a ranged touch attack. This ray deals 1d6 points of damage of your energy type + 1 for every two sorcerer levels you possess. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Charisma modifier.
Would I (as a judge in a Core game) let someone (with Fire Elemental Bloodline) light a torch with this type of attack? Sure! Have I met judges who wouldn't? Yes. I am sorry to say I have. The note above "...targeting any foe within 30 feet...", and I know judges who would not let you target an object with it - they would say a torch is not a "foe".
That said, those same judges would allow you to target an object (torch) with a ray of frost as the spell does not list a "Target" and actually says:
"freezing air and ice projects from your pointing finger. You must succeed on a ranged touch attack with the ray to deal damage to a target. The ray deals 1d3 points of cold damage."
As to setting the entire torch on fire? Yeah... Maybe. I would think the judge was really streaching things. After all, the entire torch is not "flamable" - just the head (even though the handle might be wood, it is not "treated" to burn and will not normally burn even when the torch burns down. This is why we often read about finding "burt out torch stubs"...
But I guess this all is mote. After all - you didn't build this guy... Though come to think of it, I need an Arcane Caster in Core, so maybe I'll build one (Fire Blooded Sorcerer...).
|
|
@FF: A couple of issues, though. Since certain fire spells specify that they do set things on fire, the default assumption would probably be that, if it doesn't say it does, it doesn't. YMMV.
And, again, using a fire-based attack against, say, a torch, might fall into a couple of rules where the attack does double damage and can ignore the object's hardness, since fire is so appropriate to do damage to wood....
More seriously, there are ways, I am sure, to do this in Core, even if they are not as simpel as just pulling the Spark cantrip from whatever book it comes from, as a known/prepared spell.
I wonder if that cantrip is on a chronicle sheet, somewhere. Might be amusing to do it with a Rogue using the Minor Magic talent...
|
|
@FF: A couple of issues, though. Since certain fire spells specify that they do set things on fire, the default assumption would probably be that, if it doesn't say it does, it doesn't. YMMV.
And, again, using a fire-based attack against, say, a torch, might fall into a couple of rules where the attack does double damage and can ignore the object's hardness, since fire is so appropriate to do damage to wood....
More seriously, there are ways, I am sure, to do this in Core, even if they are not as simpel as just pulling the Spark cantrip from whatever book it comes from, as a known/prepared spell.
I wonder if that cantrip is on a chronicle sheet, somewhere. Might be amusing to do it with a Rogue using the Minor Magic talent...
So perhaps I was optimistic with my assessment of 9.9 out of 10 judges would let someone light a torch with a spell that did 1d3 in fire damage (without setting the entire torch - handle included - on fire).
I'm not sure if the reverse of this - say a water elemental bloodline Sorcerer switching his burning hands to cold damage and the judge having it set papers on fire, would sit well with me. Yes, I know the spell says:
"A cone of searing flame shoots from your fingertips.
Any creature in the area of the flames takes 1d4 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 5d4).
Flammable materials burn if the flames touch them. A character can extinguish burning items as a full-round action."
But if they do COLD damage now and not FIRE - I am not sure if I (as a judge) would be comfortable saying "the Cold damage set the papers on fire".
But (shrug) whatever. Not worth debating at this point. The OP decided to move on with another idea.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just realized that CrystalSeas may be a beginner and I came off kind of snotty. Sorry about that! Here's the part you might not have known....
From Elemental Bloodline Sorcerer -
Bloodline Arcana: Whenever you cast a spell that deals energy damage, you can change the type of damage to match the type of your bloodline. This also changes the spell's type to match the type of your bloodline.
So an Elemental Bloodline (Fire) Sorcerer has the option to make his spells do Fire damage, "...change the type of damage to match the type of your bloodline". Hope that helps!
Yes, actually that does help, thanks.
So much to read. So much to learn.
|
|
I just realized that CrystalSeas may be a beginner and I came off kind of snotty. Sorry about that! Here's the part you might not have known....
From Elemental Bloodline Sorcerer -
Bloodline Arcana: Whenever you cast a spell that deals energy damage, you can change the type of damage to match the type of your bloodline. This also changes the spell's type to match the type of your bloodline.
So an Elemental Bloodline (Fire) Sorcerer has the option to make his spells do Fire damage, "...change the type of damage to match the type of your bloodline". Hope that helps!Yes, actually that does help, thanks.
So much to read. So much to learn.
welcome!
And welcome to PFS too!
|
|
@FF: A couple of issues, though. Since certain fire spells specify that they do set things on fire, the default assumption would probably be that, if it doesn't say it does, it doesn't. YMMV.
And, again, using a fire-based attack against, say, a torch, might fall into a couple of rules where the attack does double damage and can ignore the object's hardness, since fire is so appropriate to do damage to wood....
More seriously, there are ways, I am sure, to do this in Core, even if they are not as simpel as just pulling the Spark cantrip from whatever book it comes from, as a known/prepared spell.
I wonder if that cantrip is on a chronicle sheet, somewhere. Might be amusing to do it with a Rogue using the Minor Magic talent...
So perhaps I was optimistic with my assessment of 9.9 out of 10 judges would let someone light a torch with a spell that did 1d3 in fire damage (without setting the entire torch - handle included - on fire).
...snipping to save space...
I got to thinking about this last night, and it caused me to wonder.
Is there anyone on here that would NOT let a Fire Bloodline Sorcerer use a ray of frost that did fire damage to light a torch? (and if so, do you judge games in the Core Campaign?) Just in the interest of figuring out better percentages to correct my assessment of "9.9 out of 10".
|
|
I got to thinking about this last night, and it caused me to wonder.
Is there anyone on here that would NOT let a Fire Bloodline Sorcerer use a ray of frost that did fire damage to light a torch? (and if so, do you judge games in the Core Campaign?) Just in the interest of figuring out better percentages to correct my assessment of "9.9 out of 10".
By strict RAW, no. Fire damage alone does not ignite things. It would reasonably char up the torch, as it cuts through the hardness and deals HP damage to the torch. There is a metamagic feat, Burning Spell, which would be closer to that, though it also doesn't say it ignites combustibles.
That said, as GM I would allow it for torches in the possession of the character without question. Lighting things outside the possession of the character would be iffy, but might still be allowed.
Though, as GM I would allow prestidigitation to light torches in the character's possession, as well. I would also allow ray of frost to cool drinks, or to freeze food to make it last longer. These are reasonable applications of spells.
Regarding my character, any objection to using this to light torches(?):
Fire Bolt (Sp): As a standard action, you can unleash a scorching bolt of divine fire from your outstretched hand. You can target any single foe within 30 feet as a ranged touch attack with this bolt of fire. If you hit the foe, the fire bolt deals 1d6 points of fire damage + 1 point for every two cleric levels you possess. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Wisdom modifier
This is from the fire domain.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a judge I would have no issue with someone using Fire Bolt to light a torch in their possession. Or even an unattended one (say on the wall). I might require a "to hit roll" vs. a stationary (DEX 0) tiny target (say touch AC 5 - don't roll a "1").
But then, I've let people use ray of frost to chill a mug before tapping the beer keg... it added to the RP of the encounter. (Rule of Kewl and all that. Didn't hurt the story and was "fun"...)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there is always a danger when you let a spell do something it is not designed or intended to do. So would/have I allowed prestidigitation light a fire? Probably not, especially after spark being published. And I may/not let a ray of fire or a fire bolt light a mundane piece of wood on fire, but let's face it, a torch is a specific item designed to catch fire. The description is a bit lacking as it does not describe it being wrapped in a flammable cloth or soaked in oil, but it is clearly highly flammable. I think it is a bit too rules-lawyery to say a fire spell (or other fire effect) that is hot enough to do physical damage, but not enough to start a torch is a bit ridiculous.
Of course, all too often in PFS, players use a harmless GM adjudication be the foundation for exploitation on a much grander scale so I can understand why GMs in PFS tend to be cautious when it comes to allowing something for which the rules are a bit unclear.
|
|
@FF: A couple of issues, though. Since certain fire spells specify that they do set things on fire, the default assumption would probably be that, if it doesn't say it does, it doesn't. YMMV.
And, again, using a fire-based attack against, say, a torch, might fall into a couple of rules where the attack does double damage and can ignore the object's hardness, since fire is so appropriate to do damage to wood....
More seriously, there are ways, I am sure, to do this in Core, even if they are not as simpel as just pulling the Spark cantrip from whatever book it comes from, as a known/prepared spell.
I wonder if that cantrip is on a chronicle sheet, somewhere. Might be amusing to do it with a Rogue using the Minor Magic talent...
If I were the GM, I would consider it a flammable substance and it would ignite upon contact with any fire damage. Just like how Web does a similar thing.
|
|
Anyway, looks like we have consensus, even if the answer is mainly, ask the GM:
"Prestidigitation can't light torches, unless the GM says otherwise. Fire damage can't light torches, unless the GM says otherwise.
That said, the GM will probably allow fire damage to light torches and probably won't allow prestidigitation to light torches."
Obviously not the answer I was hoping for, but I got the question answered that I asked, so that's good enough. Thanks all for the help. Glad we could work it out.