Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Zanzibax 06-03-07, 10:37 PM	I understand Produce Flame is a range 0 spell. It's cast on your own hand and lasts 1 min/level. It does not interfere with spellcasting, nor does it end when other spells are cast. So what if I cast more than one Produce Flame? I would guess that it can't stack damage, because it's from the same source. Would it effectively extend the number of attacks...provided they were all used within the same time-frame (1 min/level...2 produce flames would last 1 min/level...simultaneously...ending one round apart...) Opinions? How about I change the spell with energy substitution? Produce Flame has a fire descriptor. Produce Flame with an energy substitution would have a different desciptor. Can only throw one at a time...cast 2...one round after the other? I see no rules conflicting with this...what am I missing?
Timlagor 06-03-07, 10:54 PM	They would never stack for damage. You could thrown just one at a time (per attack) but you could TWF with two spells (And some people would let you do so with 1) There was considerable discussion on the Druid Blaster thread in the Characters section. some GMs might not let you have more than one running at once at all.
Zanzibax 06-03-07, 10:55 PM	They would never stack for damage. You could thrown just one at a time (per attack) but you could TWF with two spells (And some people would let you do so with 1) There was considerable discussion on the Druid Blaster thread in the Characters section. some GMs might not let you have more than one running at once at all. Wouldn't they stack for damage if used as a melee attack with different energy descriptors?
Timlagor 06-03-07, 10:59 PM	Sitll the same basic spell so no. You open all sorts of abuse if you allowed that.
Zanzibax 06-03-07, 11:00 PM	Sitll the same basic spell so no. You open all sorts of abuse if you allowed that. So, there will be no rules citation from you. Your opinion, however, is under consideration. Ok. Anybody else?
magebeast 06-03-07, 11:46 PM	So, there will be no rules citation from you. Your opinion, however, is under consideration. Ok. Anybody else? You make touch attacks with a specific spell, the damage is explicitly spelled out in the spell description. It takes a standard action to attack with the spell once, or a full round action to attack if you have multiple attacks and the DM lets you attack with them. Plus, it's still the same spell it just has a different energy descriptor. That doesn't make it a different spell. Honestly he answered your question as fully as was required. He didn't need to re-cite the "same source" rule because you had already listed it.
CdrcJsn 06-04-07, 01:56 AM	Sounds like trying to get the benefit of the same spell. The only difference would be duration. Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths: In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the best one applies. I would say it would overlap and you wouldn't have two flames. Just one. The longer duration one would just overlap the shorter one. As for using Energy Substitution to change the energy type, that's up in the air. I could see the argument from both sides and wouldn't argue it however a judge rules. On the one hand, a Cold substituted Produce Flame can be said to be a different spell. On the other, nothing in the feat says that the spell should be treated as a different spell and that previous rules on metamagic feats tend to support the idea that the metamagic effect doesn't change the basic spell (i.e. a wizard can counterspell an empowered, maximized fireball with a regular fireball spell). Same Effect with Differing Results: The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts. I never noticed before, but according to the above, things like Energy Resistance can't be used more than once. So if cold substituted Produce Flame is the same as Produce Flame, the above rule would prevent stacking. In any case, the spell is 1 min per level, so that means it will almost never be precast in combat. So people will need to either use actions in combat or use quickening feats or items. Nothing unbalancing imo. Cedric
Zanzibax 06-04-07, 05:48 AM	Thanks. You found the rule that applied.
Lupo 06-04-07, 08:29 AM	from the SRD: Produce Flame Evocation [Fire] Level: Drd 1, Fire 2 Components: V, S Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: 0 ft. Effect: Flame in your palm Duration: 1 min./level (D) Saving Throw: None Spell Resistance: Yes Flames as bright as a torch appear in your open hand. The flames harm neither you nor your equipment. In addition to providing illumination, the flames can be hurled or used to touch enemies. You can strike an opponent with a melee touch attack, dealing fire damage equal to 1d6 +1 point per caster level (maximum +5). Alternatively, you can hurl the flames up to 120 feet as a thrown weapon. When doing so, you attack with a ranged touch attack (with no range penalty) and deal the same damage as with the melee attack. No sooner do you hurl the flames than a new set appears in your hand. Each attack you make reduces the remaining duration by 1 minute. If an attack reduces the remaining duration to 0 minutes or less, the spell ends after the attack resolves. This spell does not function underwater. I understand Produce Flame is a range 0 spell. It's cast on your own hand and lasts 1 min/level. It does not interfere with spellcasting, nor does it end when other spells are cast. it does not end when you cast other spells and as the description states "The flames harm neither you nor your equipment." most DMs will let you cast any other spells you like, some might demand to use your other hand - especially for touch spells. So what if I cast more than one Produce Flame? I would guess that it can't stack damage, because it's from the same source. Would it effectively extend the number of attacks...provided they were all used within the same time-frame (1 min/level...2 produce flames would last 1 min/level...simultaneously...ending one round apart...) durations simply overlap, but you happen to have more flames to throw, my halfling druid 10 sometimes runs out of flames, namely when haste kicks in. the spell simply grants a sure amount of damage against anything that isn't immune to fire or has a high spell resistance (i am still wondering why produce flame allows spell resistance and the orb spells do not:confused: ) and sometimes after summoning something there is not much else to do :) Opinions? on the TWF issue, as the flames seem to always pop up in the same hand, i wouldn't allow it with ONE casting of the spell, only a monk with a flurry might benefit from it. however with TWO castings of the spell, you should be able to designate the other hand as the point-of-appearance for the second spell, so this would grant you attacks with your of-hand as well. hm, but the -4 on all attacks would make it hard to hit with your iterative attack - unless you are really strong, maybe in bear form, or really dexterous, maybe in dire bat form - so i don't see this as a recommended tactic. ciao martin m. EDIT ok, IF your druid has access to girallon's blessing, four produce flames might be an option, don't forget to cast bull's strength, wildshape to polarbear form and claw away, each claw is +15 on attack and deals 1d4 + 10 + (1d6 + 5) fire, it is a shame that all the nice animal boosters won't work for a druid any longer . . . . throw in a rend every time two claws score a hit for 2d4 + 15 and a bite to finish it with +10 to hit and 2d6 + 5 ;) especially when your party fancy a bard and your party cleric throws in a righteous wrath of the faithful the damage output goes up like hell :)
The_Jester 06-04-07, 10:08 AM	Or a wizard/druid who could cast shocking grasp on a hand with produce flame then make an attack with the flame. That might be interesting... On an unrelated topic, how do you handle casting time of produce flame? Is it 1 round cast, next round throw or can you cast-n-throw in a single round?
kjenks 06-04-07, 11:22 AM	on the TWF issue, as the flames seem to always pop up in the same hand, i wouldn't allow it with ONE casting of the spell, only a monk with a flurry might benefit from it. however with TWO castings of the spell, you should be able to designate the other hand as the point-of-appearance for the second spell, so this would grant you attacks with your of-hand as well. hm, but the -4 on all attacks would make it hard to hit with your iterative attack - unless you are really strong, maybe in bear form, or really dexterous, maybe in dire bat form - so i don't see this as a recommended tactic. ciao martin m. As you can see from the SRD spell description Lupo quoted, it does not specifically require the ball of flame "to always pop up in the same hand." Like many things associated with this vaguely-worded spell, that's a DM call. On an unrelated topic, how do you handle casting time of produce flame? Is it 1 round cast, next round throw or can you cast-n-throw in a single round? Again, that's a DM call because the spell description doesn't actually say.
CdrcJsn 06-04-07, 02:43 PM	On an unrelated topic, how do you handle casting time of produce flame? Is it 1 round cast, next round throw or can you cast-n-throw in a single round? Again, that's a DM call because the spell description doesn't actually say. The spell description doesn't have to say. You can't normally cast an effect type spell and attack in the same round. The exception are ranged touch spells (a specific category of spell defined by having ranged touch). Produce Flame isn't one, so no attack on the same round you cast.
kjenks 06-04-07, 05:29 PM	Yes, that's one opinion. I've seen other people decide that it acts differently. I don't mind either way. I just ask the DM as I prepare my spell list for the day or as I cast the spell.
KShaver 06-04-07, 05:42 PM	Yes, that's one opinion. I've seen other people decide that it acts differently. I don't mind either way. I just ask the DM as I prepare my spell list for the day or as I cast the spell. I judge that way too. Only spells with range touch (melee or ranged) allow a touch attack to be made for free as part of the casting. Since its range is not either type of touch it does not grant the free attack as part of the casting.
clannagh 06-04-07, 08:12 PM	The other contentious issue is whether you can "share spell it" with your companian though I believe the RAW answer is no it cant be shared.
solbergb 06-04-07, 09:01 PM	Hm, the way I've ruled. I've had a druid use one produce flame for light, and zap with the other. He didn't try to weild a weapon or cast spells though with both hands tied up. On the share spells thing, I allow it but barring something like a Hierophant arcane familiar, most animals won't make good use of it. If they strike with a "paw' that roughly corresponds to a human hand, it'll work but they have to use the normal to-hit (like punching someone with a touch spell). If it is a wolf, too bad. One paw is on fire. It'll still attack with its mouth, barring a "push" and no animal will use the ranged option. If they do somehow make use of it, the master and animal share the same number of uses. So a 5th level druid gets 5 zaps, period, even if his pet ape used two and he used three. It hasn't come up much. I've not seen anyone try energy substitution tricks at my table. I'd allow it stacking for the melee use but not the ranged use, and melee use only if using the "punch with touch weapon" normal attack mod, rather than touch attack. The principle being that it takes separate actions to make the "acid" flame zap somebody vs the "fire" flame, unless you do an action that somehow discharges both. I do allow it though, same way I allow acid substituted flame arrow stacking with flame arrow, and I allow multiple resist energy spells to be on the same person for different elements. I'm aware of significant table variation on this point, and go along with whatever the judge rules when I'm the player. In my book, changing the element makes it a different effect.
JJeff 06-04-07, 09:08 PM	I believe you can share spell the Produce flame, The effect is a flame in your palm, thus it is a spell that affects you, and thus can be shared. I have seen mods that the NPCs use that trick, so I would think it's ok (ok, not good proof, but better than none)
amnuxoll 06-04-07, 10:29 PM	FWIW, my opinion is: 1. You can't attack with Produce Flame the same round you cast it 2. You can share it with an animal companion but unless than creature has an Int of 3 or more it doesn't know how to use it other than as a light source. :AMN:
kjenks 06-04-07, 10:47 PM	Here are the questions I ask and the table variations I have found so far: (1) Can I throw the ball of flame in the same round that I cast the Produce Flame spell? a: Yes b: No (2) Can I share Produce Flame with my dire bat animal companion? If so, where does the ball of flame appear? a: Yes, but it scares the bejeebers out of the animal so it's not useful. b: Yes, and the ball of flame appears in the dire bat's mouth. He can make bite attacks against the opponent's normal AC, and if he hits, the flame damage is added to the bite damage. c: Yes, and the ball of flame appears in the dire bat's mouth. He can choose either to make normal bite attacks against the opponent's normal AC with no extra damage or he can choose to make touch attacks with the ball of flame. d: Yes, and the ball of flame appears in the dire bat's claws (since he doesn't have hands). He can make melee touch attacks or he can make ranged touch attacks. e: Yes, and the ball of flame appears in the dire bat's claws, but they're useless for attacking -- unless you share the Beast Claws spell, then the dire bat can either make melee attacks (adding claw and flame damge) or he can make ranged touch attacks for flame-only damage. f: No (3) Can I make the ball of flame appear in my off-hand? a: Yes (Nobody has yet said no to that question, but I ask anyway.) Since I find all of these to be acceptable situations, I don't mind the table variation.
CdrcJsn 06-05-07, 04:38 AM	Yes, that's one opinion. I've seen other people decide that it acts differently. I don't mind either way. I just ask the DM as I prepare my spell list for the day or as I cast the spell. I've also seen this ruled differently. However those people can't base their opinion on a specific aspect of the rules, so I tend to disregard their opinion.
Zanzibax 06-05-07, 07:24 AM	I've also seen this ruled differently. However those people can't base their opinion on a specific aspect of the rules, so I tend to disregard their opinion. The Range: 0 thing did it for me after reviewing those spells with Range: 0 vs. Range: Touch (or Ranged Touch)
kjenks 06-05-07, 09:15 AM	I've also seen this ruled differently. However those people can't base their opinion on a specific aspect of the rules, so I tend to disregard their opinion. The only opinion that really matters in this case is the opinion of the DM at your table. So I just ask.
CdrcJsn 06-06-07, 05:12 AM	The only opinion that really matters in this case is the opinion of the DM at your table. So I just ask. But I feel guilty allowing a judge to make a ruling I personally think is wrong, so I tend to play according to what I think is right rather than what I think I can get away with because the judge might not be as aware of the rules. Obviously others feel differently.
kjenks 06-06-07, 07:22 AM	I don't want to pull the wool over the DM's eyes. If I think he doesn't really know a rule, I'll ask about the specific rule and show it to him. But this thing is so vague that there's plenty of room for DM interpretation.
solbergb 06-06-07, 10:29 AM	Generally I play to my own interpretation unless there are more restrictive common interpretations, then I ask before I take the action and abide by the ruling. If the GM spontaneously allows something more permissive to another player, or especially to the NPC's, well, I'm a firm believer that both sides of the table play under the same rules, so I will not unilaterally disarm, as it were.
CdrcJsn 06-06-07, 01:29 PM	But this thing is so vague that there's plenty of room for DM interpretation. Seeing as there's nothing in the rules that allows attacking with a spell the same round you cast it unless it's a ranged touch spell (and produce flame isn't), I don't see how this is vague at all. In this entire thread, nobody has cited a rule that would allow a person to attack with the flame the same round it is conjured. The only people that would allow this are those not aware of the exception that ranged touch spells have, or those that purposely house rule produce flame to the way they think it should go. House rules to change spells shouldn't be allowed in LG. That leaves GMs not aware of the actual rules about being able to attack the same round a spell is cast. edit Not that I would argue about his extensively though. Like Brad, I would normally go with the flow, but I will ask for a ruling before the game starts.
solbergb 06-06-07, 02:02 PM	In this entire thread, nobody has cited a rule that would allow a person to attack with the flame the same round it is conjured. . We played this way for quite a while before somebody pointed out the actual wording and ruled the other way. After consideration, we agreed, and started playing that round 1 you just summon the flame, round 2-N you can use it. One interesting side effect that you don't see often (because the spell isn't used much after APL4) is that if you have multiple attacks from haste or iteratives or whatever, you can burn more "uses" of the flame than one in a signle round. Kind of like chill touch, but with different mechanics because the statblock has different mechanics.
lseelba 06-06-07, 02:08 PM	Here is my personal take on Produce Flame as a GM. I play a druid, so as a PC I'll ask the GM for his or her interpretation and go with it. When I came up with my interpretation, I pretty much looked at the 2nd level Druid spell Flame Blade and thought about what it could and could not do, and then thought about how that would apply to Produce Flame which is a very similar spell. Basically, I treat produce flame as a spell that creates a light weapon that can be thrown or used as a melee attack. With this interpretation, the following rules hold: 1) You can't cast and attack in the same round. 2) You can use the flame to make iterative attacks if you have them, but not offhand attacks unless you have cast a second produce flame. 3) Like I'd rule with Flame Blade, this spell cannot be shared. 4) You can't do anything else with the hand with the flame (including cast spells with that hand). Same ruling I'd do with Flame Blade. 5) You can only have one Produce Flame in your hand at a time (as you could only have one weapon in your hand at a time). This would rule out the energy substitution trick. 6) In a grapple, the Flame could be used against you, as a light weapon could. I realize there is a sentence in the spell description that states "The flames harm neither you nor your equipment." For me, this describes the null state, rather than the state where a monk is shoving your own flaming hand down your throat :) Likewise, you could use it during a grapple, but you would take a -4 penalty to your melee touch attack. Here's where the similarities to Flame Blade stop. Flame Blade creates a scimitar-like blade. Produce Flame creates a 'Flame in your palm'. Therefore: 7) When wildshaping, Produce Flame is an eligible spell for anything that has a palm. Anything with a claw or hand has a palm. Birds and bats have palms on their talons. I'd rule that hooved animals do not have palms. Fish do not have palms. All this effects is whether a wildshaped druid can have a Produce Flame up, and where on the animal's body it is, not how he or she attacks with it. Regardless, I wouldn't allow produce flame to appear in a wildshaping druid's mouth, just as I wouldn't allow the produce flame to appear in a non-wildshaped druids mouth (ie a shifter druid that has a bite attack). 8) When attacking as a wildshaped druid, you can use the body part that has produce flame on it to make a produce flame attack, or a natural attack, but not both. (This ruling is based on the fact that Produce Flame is not a touch spell, so nothing on page 140-142 of the PHB apply here.) If you are proficient with the limb you are attacking with, you can just substitute the produce flame attack in for your normal attack (including in a full attack option). If you are not proficient with the limb you are attacking with when using produce flame, you take the normal attack penalties for non-proficiency, and you cannot make a full attack. In both cases above, the produce flame does not give you an extra attack. 9) A wildshaped druid cannot hurl a Produce Flame unless the animal has the ability to hurl objects with its palm (most animals don't, but primates clearly do). That's where I stand with Produce Flame right now as a DM. If you have any comments or see any inconsistencies please point them out. Lou
kjenks 06-06-07, 03:23 PM	Your personal take is fine. It doesn't agree with my take on it, but with this many quirks, I can't see how any two DMs are going to agree completely. Attacking with Produce Flame is kind of like grapple attacks in this way. The rules are quirky enough that everyone has a different opinion of how the rules work and you just have to ask each DM how it works at his table. And don't be too surprised if you play with the same DM later on and he's changed his mind. I've changed my mind several times about how I think they should work.
lseelba 06-06-07, 03:38 PM	Your personal take is fine. It doesn't agree with my take on it, but with this many quirks, I can't see how any two DMs are going to agree completely. Attacking with Produce Flame is kind of like grapple attacks in this way. The rules are quirky enough that everyone has a different opinion of how the rules work and you just have to ask each DM how it works at his table. And don't be too surprised if you play with the same DM later on and he's changed his mind. I've changed my mind several times about how I think they should work. lol...don't get me started on grappling. Specifically monsters that have improved grab, constrict, and/or multiple natural attacks and a high BAB. I swear everytime I run an encounter with such a monster I have to spend 10 minutes refreshing my understanding of how all the rules work (and most of the time I get frustrated by how poorly worded everything is)!
Eric Anondson 06-06-07, 04:42 PM	Here's some strangeness with produce flame. According to the RAW, DMG p. 303 "Catching on Fire", targets exposed to a noninstantaneous fire spell must make a Reflex DC 15 or catch on fire taking 1d6 immediately. Continuing to take 1d6 damage each subsequent round until they make the Reflex save or take action to put it out. Produce flame is a fire spell with a duration that is not Instantaneous. Does being hit by fire from produce flame cause someone to make the Reflex save or catch on fire? I'd say yes by RAW, but it sure makes produce flame much more of a threat.
Zanzibax 06-06-07, 05:55 PM	Here's some strangeness with produce flame. According to the RAW, DMG p. 303 "Catching on Fire", targets exposed to a noninstantaneous fire spell must make a Reflex DC 15 or catch on fire taking 1d6 immediately. Continuing to take 1d6 damage each subsequent round until they make the Reflex save or take action to put it out. Produce flame is a fire spell with a duration that is not Instantaneous. Does being hit by fire from produce flame cause someone to make the Reflex save or catch on fire? I'd say yes by RAW, but it sure makes produce flame much more of a threat. The answer is: Yes. Want to help with my druid blaster now? The thread's on page 2 of the character optimization boards at this point, but it's old enough that I'm not quite willing to engage in necromancy to bring it back to an undead status :cool:
katrick 06-06-07, 06:38 PM	...
lseelba 06-06-07, 07:46 PM	Here's some strangeness with produce flame. According to the RAW, DMG p. 303 "Catching on Fire", targets exposed to a noninstantaneous fire spell must make a Reflex DC 15 or catch on fire taking 1d6 immediately. Continuing to take 1d6 damage each subsequent round until they make the Reflex save or take action to put it out. Produce flame is a fire spell with a duration that is not Instantaneous. Does being hit by fire from produce flame cause someone to make the Reflex save or catch on fire? I'd say yes by RAW, but it sure makes produce flame much more of a threat. Good catch. I'd allow it. Here is a list of all the [Fire] spells in the SRD, and the ones in red can catch people on fire RAW: * Burning Hands * Delayed Blast Fireball * Fire Seeds * Fire Storm * Fire Trap * Fireball * Flame Arrow * Flame Blade * Flame Strike * Flaming Sphere * Heat Metal * Incendiary Cloud * Meteor Swarm * Produce Flame * Scorching Ray * Wall of Fire Of particular note is Flame Arrow, which has a non-instantaneous duration, but which specifically says it cannot catch cretures on fire. I'd pretty much assume all others in red above are fair game. You should really ask Ken if he has ever had luck with this aspect of Fire Spells...
Eric Anondson 06-06-07, 08:28 PM	You should really ask Ken if he has ever had luck with this aspect of Fire Spells...I have a fire cleric and I always forget about this rule. Something that might make one hesitant would be whether the DM also had the equipment go up in flames, which the DM could do by the rules. Suddenly the produce flame caster is as well-loved as the sunderer. My fire cleric loves throwing up wall of fire, she's all into the damage, but torching party treasure is something that has never happened because no one remembers the rule for it. :mage:
kjenks 06-06-07, 11:19 PM	Here's some strangeness with produce flame. According to the RAW, DMG p. 303 "Catching on Fire", targets exposed to a noninstantaneous fire spell must make a Reflex DC 15 or catch on fire taking 1d6 immediately. Continuing to take 1d6 damage each subsequent round until they make the Reflex save or take action to put it out. Produce flame is a fire spell with a duration that is not Instantaneous. Does being hit by fire from produce flame cause someone to make the Reflex save or catch on fire? I'd say yes by RAW, but it sure makes produce flame much more of a threat. Oh, man! I completely missed that one! And I've been playing my Produce-Flame-hurling druid for 10 levels now! Sigh. One more thing to ask a DM about. I'm gonna have to make up another checklist.
Lupo 06-07-07, 09:09 AM	Here's some strangeness with produce flame. According to the RAW, DMG p. 303 "Catching on Fire", targets exposed to a noninstantaneous fire spell must make a Reflex DC 15 or catch on fire taking 1d6 immediately. Continuing to take 1d6 damage each subsequent round until they make the Reflex save or take action to put it out. Produce flame is a fire spell with a duration that is not Instantaneous. Does being hit by fire from produce flame cause someone to make the Reflex save or catch on fire? I'd say yes by RAW, but it sure makes produce flame much more of a threat. :w00t: this increases possible damage output somehow, but only once for each target, as subsequent hits with produce flames will not increase the damage further - unless the critter took some time to quench the flames :P ciao martin m.
kjenks 06-07-07, 09:30 AM	Here's my questionnaire, in text form: Wolfrider often casts Produce Flame and hurls the flames at opponents. I’ve run into so many different opinions about how this vaguely-worded spell works that I’ve prepared this little questionnaire. === Produce Flame Evocation [Fire] Level: Drd 1, Fire 2 Components: V, S Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: 0 ft. Effect: Flame in your palm Duration: 1 min./level (D) Saving Throw: None Spell Resistance: Yes Flames as bright as a torch appear in your open hand. The flames harm neither you nor your equipment. In addition to providing illumination, the flames can be hurled or used to touch enemies. You can strike an opponent with a melee touch attack, dealing fire damage equal to 1d6 +1 point per caster level (maximum +5). Alternatively, you can hurl the flames up to 120 feet as a thrown weapon. When doing so, you attack with a ranged touch attack (with no range penalty) and deal the same damage as with the melee attack. No sooner do you hurl the flames than a new set appears in your hand. Each attack you make reduces the remaining duration by 1 minute. If an attack reduces the remaining duration to 0 minutes or less, the spell ends after the attack resolves. This spell does not function underwater. === (1) Can I throw the flame in the same round that I cast the Produce Flame spell? a. Yes b. No (2) Can I use the Share Spells ability to share Produce Flame with my dire bat animal companion? If so, where does the flame appear? a. Yes, and the flame appears in the dire bat's mouth. He can make bite attacks against the opponent's normal AC, and if he hits, the flame damage is added to the bite damage. b. Yes, and the flame appears in the dire bat's mouth. He can choose either to make normal bite attacks against the opponent's normal AC with no extra damage or he can choose to make touch attacks with the flame. c. Yes, and the flame appears in the dire bat's claws (since he doesn't have hands). He can make melee touch attacks or he can make ranged touch attacks. d. Yes, and the flame appears in the dire bat's claws, but they're useless for attacking -- unless I also share the Beast Claws spell, then the dire bat can either make melee attacks (adding claw and flame damage) or he can make ranged touch attacks for flame-only damage. e. Yes, but it scares the bejeebers out of the animal so it's not useful. f. No (3) Can I make the flame appear in my off-hand? a. Yes b. No (4) According to the DMG, p. 303 "Catching on Fire," targets exposed to “noninstantaneous magic fires” must make a Reflex DC 15 or catch on fire taking 1d6 immediately, continuing to take 1d6 damage each subsequent round until they make the Reflex save or take action to put it out. Produce Flame is a [Fire] spell with a duration that is not Instantaneous. Does being hit by a flame from Produce Flame cause an opponent to make the Reflex save or catch on fire? a. Yes b. No === Catching on Fire 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. Characters at risk of catching fire are allowed a DC 15 Reflex save to avoid this fate. If a character’s clothes or hair catch fire, he takes 1d6 points of damage immediately. In each subsequent round, the burning character must make another Reflex saving throw. Failure means he takes another 1d6 points of damage that round. Success means that the fire has gone out. (That is, once he succeeds on his saving throw, he’s no longer on fire.) A character on fire may automatically extinguish the flames by jumping into enough water to douse himself. If no body of water is at hand, rolling on the ground or smothering the fire with cloaks or the like permits the character another save with a +4 bonus. Those unlucky enough to have their clothes or equipment catch fire must make DC 15 Reflex saves for each item. Flammable items that fail take the same amount of damage as the character. === Those "===" things represent boxed text in my Word document. In 10 point font and two-column format with smaller margins, this all fits on one page. What do you think of the questionnaire? Should I provide more information to the DM? Ask more or fewer questions? Forget it altogether? If you're the DM and a player handed you one of these, what would you do? How would you feel?
Fakegoatee 06-07-07, 09:36 AM	I've also seen DM's rule that only ranged touch attacks reduce the spell's duration, not melee attacks (even though the spell text says, "Each attack you make reduces the remaining duration by one minute"). I don't know if there's table variation on this, but I'd sure want to know how many touch attacks I can make with the spell before I cast it.
Herrbard 06-07-07, 10:29 AM	Personally, I would love to see something like this before a game. It would take two minutes to read and rule at the beginning, instead of spending who knows how long in the middle of the game to decide.
Zanzibax 06-07-07, 11:34 AM	What do you think of the questionnaire? Should I provide more information to the DM? Ask more or fewer questions? Forget it altogether? Let's see, you have to ask if Produce Flame with the fire descriptor is a different spell from Produce Flame with a different energy descriptor, and might therefore stack for having different energy descriptors. You have to ask if more than one Produce Flame can be cast at a time. If the caster has 2 Produce Flames working at the same time, do they get the effect of a single spell, or twice as many flames to toss. What else? I'm sure there's more. Oh yes...can more than one flame be thrown per round. Whether or not Rapid Shot, Ranged Disarm, or other Ranged weapon feats affects this for the DM. The spell says "as a thrown weapon", so questions about various weapon focus feats and weapon specialization feats could conceivably be asked as well.
kjenks 06-07-07, 12:43 PM	Oh yes...can more than one flame be thrown per round. Whether or not Rapid Shot, Ranged Disarm, or other Ranged weapon feats affects this for the DM. The spell says "as a thrown weapon", so questions about various weapon focus feats and weapon specialization feats could conceivably be asked as well. My questionnaire is actually asking questions I've seen table variations on. I've never seen any table variation on that topic; everyone so far has said yes, my halfling druid can throw more than one flame per round. And I've never gotten any grief about including my halfling's "+1 racial bonus on attack rolls with thrown weapons and slings." But I don't usually ask about that in particular; I just include it in my total attack bonus. I've never tried casting Produce Flame twice with two different energy types. This druid just picked up Energy Substitution (Acid) in the 597 rebuild; I'll have to read the rules carefully and try that if it looks legal.
lseelba 06-07-07, 03:10 PM	I think your sheet is great. If I were a DM who'd never run into all the intricacies of Produce Flame, I'd probably just check a few of the boxes that give you a benefit and a few of the boxes that don't give you benefit. Its a heck of a lot nicer than getting bogged down in the middle of the game by it.
Zanzibax 06-07-07, 03:50 PM	And I've never gotten any grief about including my halfling's "+1 racial bonus on attack rolls with thrown weapons and slings." But I don't usually ask about that in particular; I just include it in my total attack bonus. I've never tried casting Produce Flame twice with two different energy types. This druid just picked up Energy Substitution (Acid) in the 597 rebuild; I'll have to read the rules carefully and try that if it looks legal. Cool I'll tell you what my argument is with two different Produce Flame spells is right now. Elemental Savant, I'm told, cannot cast a spell that has energy substitution added to it, if that energy substitution is different from their chosen elemental type. BECAUSE it is a different spell. The feat changes the spell to a different spell with a different energy type and elemental savants can only cast spells with the energy descriptor that maches their elemental type. Therefore, a druid without this restriction *can* change the spell to a different energy type and it will be a different spell. He can still only throw one produced flame at a time, however...
katrick 06-07-07, 04:19 PM	You could Energy Admixture it.double the damage. I think?? the Elemental Savant is the opposite element?? Just Extend it for more attacks. katrick
kjenks 06-07-07, 04:42 PM	I've looked over the rules and it looks like a very gray area. I cast Produce Flame, then I cast Energy Substitution (Acid) + Produce Flame. I now have two flames in my palm. COMBINING MAGICAL EFFECTS Spells or magical effects usually work as described, no matter how many other spells or magical effects happen to be operating in the same area or on the same recipient. Except in special cases, a spell does not affect the way another spell operates. Whenever a spell has a specific effect on other spells, the spell description explains that effect. Several other general rules apply when spells or magical effects operate in the same place: Stacking Effects: Spells that provide bonuses or penalties on attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes usually do not stack with themselves. More generally, two bonuses of the same type don’t stack even if they come from different spells (or from effects other than spells; see Bonus Types, above). Different Bonus Names: The bonuses or penalties from two different spells stack if the modifiers are of different types. A bonus that isn’t named stacks with any bonus. Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths:[i] In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the best one applies. Same Effect with Differing Results: The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts. One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant: Sometimes, one spell can render a later spell irrelevant. Both spells are still active, but one has rendered the other useless in some fashion. Multiple Mental Control Effects: Sometimes magical effects that establish mental control render each other irrelevant, such as a spell that removes the subjects ability to act. Mental controls that don’t remove the recipient’s ability to act usually do not interfere with each other. If a creature is under the mental control of two or more creatures, it tends to obey each to the best of its ability, and to the extent of the control each effect allows. If the controlled creature receives conflicting orders simultaneously, the competing controllers must make opposed Charisma checks to determine which one the creature obeys. Spells with Opposite Effects: Spells with opposite effects apply normally, with all bonuses, penalties, or changes accruing in the order that they apply. Some spells negate or counter each other. This is a special effect that is noted in a spell’s description. Instantaneous Effects: Two or more spells with instantaneous durations work cumulatively when they affect the same target.
Zanzibax 06-07-07, 06:29 PM	I've looked over the rules and it looks like a very gray area. I cast Produce Flame, then I cast Energy Substitution (Acid) + Produce Flame. I now have two flames in my palm. I don't see the gray. Not a bonus Different effects More than one effect No mental control Arguably a cold substitution and the regular fire spell are opposite effects...but there is no negation involved in the description Not instantaneous, except on contact...again...arguably
Zanzibax 06-07-07, 06:30 PM	You could Energy Admixture it.double the damage. I think?? the Elemental Savant is the opposite element?? Just Extend it for more attacks. katrick Elemental Savant can only use one element. Their "energy admixture" must be one element with the same element...for double damage.
lseelba 06-07-07, 06:43 PM	I don't see the gray. Not a bonus Different effects More than one effect No mental control Arguably a cold substitution and the regular fire spell are opposite effects...but there is no negation involved in the description Not instantaneous, except on contact...again...arguably Well the grey area is that it wouldn't give you extra attacks, just as one Produce Flame doesn't give you extra attacks. So you could attack with the acid flame, or the fire flame, but not both (at least how I would rule it at my table).
Zanzibax 06-07-07, 06:45 PM	Well the grey area is that it wouldn't give you extra attacks, just as one Produce Flame doesn't give you extra attacks. So you could attack with the acid flame, or the fire flame, but not both (at least how I would rule it at my table). Originally Posted by SRD COMBINING MAGICAL EFFECTS Spells or magical effects usually work as described, no matter how many other spells or magical effects happen to be operating in the same area or on the same recipient. Except in special cases, a spell does not affect the way another spell operates. Whenever a spell has a specific effect on other spells, the spell description explains that effect.
lseelba 06-07-07, 07:30 PM	Originally Posted by SRD COMBINING MAGICAL EFFECTS Spells or magical effects usually work as described, no matter how many other spells or magical effects happen to be operating in the same area or on the same recipient. Except in special cases, a spell does not affect the way another spell operates. Whenever a spell has a specific effect on other spells, the spell description explains that effect. Right...they operate completely independent of each other. What you are wanting to do is combine part of the spells (the part that lets you make a melee or ranged touch attack as a standard action, or as part of a full attack), while keeping another part of the spell separate (the damage). It would be like casting every touch spell you can find in any book on your cleric, and then expecting him to have an easy one hit kill against the BBEG. It just doesn't work that way. Also, if a DM did allow the stacking, whats stopping you from casting a Produce Flame of every energy type on yourself and doing 4d6+20 damage per attack? You could do it with the right items/feats.
lseelba 06-07-07, 07:33 PM	Elemental Savant can only use one element. Their "energy admixture" must be one element with the same element...for double damage. This is correct. A [Fire] spell can be admixed with Fire to do double damage according to the feat description in Complete Arcane.
Zanzibax 06-08-07, 12:31 PM	Right...they operate completely independent of each other. What you are wanting to do is combine part of the spells (the part that lets you make a melee or ranged touch attack as a standard action, or as part of a full attack), while keeping another part of the spell separate (the damage). It would be like casting every touch spell you can find in any book on your cleric, and then expecting him to have an easy one hit kill against the BBEG. It just doesn't work that way. Also, if a DM did allow the stacking, whats stopping you from casting a Produce Flame of every energy type on yourself and doing 4d6+20 damage per attack? You could do it with the right items/feats. You can't do that with a touch spell. Once you cast a touch spell, the moment you cast another spell, you lose the touch spell. However, Produce Flame is not a touch spell...and 4d6+20 isn't going to kill any BBEG. What's from stopping a fighter at an equivalent level from doing twice or even treble that in damage?
solbergb 06-08-07, 12:45 PM	Yeah....a druid would likely have to be 15th level to have that much energy substitution anyway. It's got a kn arcane requirement of 5, and even assuming the druid blows another feat to work around the fact that kn arcane is cross-class for druids, he needs his L3, L6, L9 and L12 feat to do it, and most are gonna take natural spell at L6. It really isn't something to lose sleep over. Especially since the same druid can do far, far nastier stuff by using, you know, spells higher than first level, or maybe his wildshape+companion.