# Shooting arrows through a Wall of Fire



## kolikeos (Apr 28, 2007)

Do the arrows take the indicated damage just like a creature passing through the wall, in which case they will burn before they reach their target?
Thanks in advance.


----------



## phindar (Apr 28, 2007)

I've never had it come up, but I think thats a very good way to handle it.  I can't think of a reason why the arrows _wouldn't_ take the damage, unless the spell specifically mentions it doesn't damage objects.  Though fire does half damage to objects, so I don't know if that would let arrows get through (I guess it depends on how much damage the spell does and how much arrows can take  ).


----------



## kolikeos (Apr 28, 2007)

O heck, I was under the impression that an arrow can't possibly survive 2d6+8 fire damage, but now that you mention that objects take only half damage from fire (wood too?) I started looking for arrow hit points. Where can I find that?


----------



## MarkB (Apr 28, 2007)

kolikeos said:
			
		

> O heck, I was under the impression that an arrow can't possibly survive 2d6+8 fire damage, but now that you mention that objects take only half damage from fire (wood too?) I started looking for arrow hit points. Where can I find that?



Smashing Objects

Well, wood has hardness 5, and a light weapon with a wooden haft has 2 hit points. I'd tend to assume an arrow is even less sturdy, so make it 1 hit point.

By the book, that means that if you happen to roll minimum damage for that _Wall of Fire_ - (1 + 1 + 8) / 2 = *5* - then the arrow would take zero damage, since the damage doesn't exceed its hardness, and would sail through undamaged - but any higher roll would toast it.

However, there's also this rule:

_Vulnerability to Certain Attacks
_
Certain attacks are especially successful against some objects. In such cases, attacks deal double their normal damage and may ignore the object’s hardness.​
Although no examples are given, I'd consider a thin wooden stick to be particularly vulnerable to fire, and wouldn't halve the fire damage, in which case the arrow is definitely toast.


----------



## ChimericDream (Apr 28, 2007)

Well, I'd say that the damage is also dealt per round, and since an arrow spends an extremely small amount of time in the wall, there's probably not enough time for it to burn.

Now, I'd probably give some sort of miss chance to the target on the other side, but that's another story.


----------



## Ogrork the Mighty (Apr 28, 2007)

muzick said:
			
		

> Well, I'd say that the damage is also dealt per round,




Yet someone running or jumping through the wall as part of movement still takes the full damage and they're only in the fire momentarily.

I think it's a novel idea to use a _wall of fire_ as an anti-arrow shield. Props!


----------



## Aust Diamondew (Apr 28, 2007)

This came up for our group once, we came to the same conclusion, wall of fire destroys arrows.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Apr 28, 2007)

Remember the extra hardness and hit points from enhancement bonuses.


----------



## MarkB (Apr 28, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Remember the extra hardness and hit points from enhancement bonuses.



Good point. A +1 arrow is a lot hardier than a normal arrow, and a +2 arrow would probably survive even a max-damage roll from the _Wall_ (assuming that enhancement bonuses to ammo boost their hit points the same way they do individual weapons).


----------



## frankthedm (Apr 28, 2007)

MarkB said:
			
		

> Good point. A +1 arrow is a lot hardier than a normal arrow, and a +2 arrow would probably survive even a max-damage roll from the _Wall_ (assuming that enhancement bonuses to ammo boost their hit points the same way they do individual weapons).



Nothing is said otherwise so it is +2 hardness and +10 HP per plus. But it needs it considering wood is vulnerable to fire. 

2d6+8 is about 15 damage, doubled due to fire vulnerability is 30. if fire ignores an arrows hardness a +2 arrow's 21 HP has a small chance to save the arrow as it goes trough. A +3 arrow has about a 50%/50% shot.


----------



## kolikeos (Apr 28, 2007)

A magical bow bestows its magical properties on its ammunition, but do the arrows fired from this magical bow also get the extra hardness and hit points of a magical weapon?

And does it get the saving throw magic weapons are entitled to? I know Wall of Fire does not have a save but I would still like to know.


----------



## Corsair (Apr 28, 2007)

Except Wall of Fire doesn't damage objects.  It specifically states that it damages creatures.


----------



## Franky (Apr 28, 2007)

I'd go for miss chance due to heat haze and cover..

what you're looking at is an object travelling at speed,  it wouldn't disintegrate if it passed through a wall of fire..

And ..

and arrow is not fired in a direct line  ....  your line of sight to target is through the fire .. the arrow goes in an arc Over the flames ..

shoot me down with fiery arrows if I'm wrong


----------



## MarkB (Apr 28, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Nothing is said otherwise so it is +2 hardness and +10 HP per plus. But it needs it considering wood is vulnerable to fire.
> 
> 2d6+8 is about 15 damage, doubled due to fire vulnerability is 30. if fire ignores an arrows hardness a +2 arrow's 21 HP has a small chance to save the arrow as it goes trough. A +3 arrow has about a 50%/50% shot.



However, that fire damage is being halved in the first place because it's being applied to an object (only acid and sonic damage don't get halved), so doubling it only brings it back up to the original damage, which makes it 20 at the maximum, averaging 15, so an arrow with 21 hit points will always get through. And vulnerability may or may not include ignoring hardness, depending upon how vulnerable the item is to the particular form of attack.


----------



## shilsen (Apr 28, 2007)

Franky said:
			
		

> I'd go for miss chance due to heat haze and cover..




It doesn't provide cover. But it does provide total concealment, since a Wall of Fire is opaque. So someone firing through it has to pick the right square and gets a 50% miss chance even if he does.

From the previous posts, I get the impression that a few people have missed that little factor, but I could be wrong.


----------



## Ogrork the Mighty (Apr 28, 2007)

Corsair said:
			
		

> Except Wall of Fire doesn't damage objects.  It specifically states that it damages creatures.




So if you hold a piece of paper in a _wall of fire_, it won't burn? That's really grasping.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Apr 29, 2007)

Ogrork the Mighty said:
			
		

> So if you hold a piece of paper in a _wall of fire_, it won't burn? That's really grasping.




Depends, are you talking about an in-game MAGICAL Wall of Fire?  Where there are specific rules one usually follows (even if they don't make sense), and where magic can alter/change/ignore physics all together?

Or are you talking about a wall of fire in the real world?

Are we discussing what makes sense, or what RAW says?


----------



## Ogrork the Mighty (Apr 29, 2007)

I italicized _wall of fire_, didn't I? That means I'm talking about the spell.

So in your campaign pieces of paper can pass through a _wall of fire_ without burning? Um, okey-dokey.

But a paper golem would burn because it's a creature? So a _wall of fire_ has some kind of special power to distinguish between the two?

Burning up arrows that pass through a _wall of fire_ sounds like a cool and innovative use of the spell to me. Ultimately it doesn't really matter to me one way or the other. 

But blind adherence to the letter of the law ultimately produces silly results. Having a _wall of fire_ deal fire damage to creatures but not to pieces of paper is one such example.


----------



## Corsair (Apr 29, 2007)

A wall of *opaque violet* fire that is only hot on *one side* and deals double damage to undead even if they have no particular vulnerability to normal fire.

Clearly we're dealing with some sort of strange mystical effect that is only vaguely similar to real fire in that it deals fire damage.


----------



## kolikeos (Apr 29, 2007)

There is nothing in the spell's description that says it provides concealment.

Let's say I house rule that a Wall of Fire does damage arrows. Now I need to know how many HP does a normal arrow fired from a +1 bow has, what's its hardness (and is it ignored by fire damage?) and does it take half, full, or double damage from fire?


----------



## MarkB (Apr 29, 2007)

kolikeos said:
			
		

> There is nothing in the spell's description that says it provides concealment.



It says it's opaque. That means it can't be seen through. It doesn't need to come out and say it provides concealment any more than _wall of iron_ does.


----------



## glass (Apr 29, 2007)

MarkB said:
			
		

> Although no examples are given, I'd consider a thin wooden stick to be particularly vulnerable to fire, and wouldn't halve the fire damage, in which case the arrow is definitely toast.



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.


----------



## phindar (Apr 29, 2007)

Yeah, I think paper is vulnerable to fire, but an arrow probably not.  Thinking about it in real world terms, a fire that could vaporize a arrow moving somewhere between 100-200 fps would have to be pretty freakin' hot.  Of course, thinking of it in real world terms is only so useful because its magic, but heck, you got to start somewhere.

Stormwrack lists spells which can start fires, and it lists _Wall of Fire_ as one that can't.  (I find the fire starting table a bit hinky in Stormwrack, but that's a separate issue.)  They say that _Fireball_ can start fires, but _Flame Strike_ can't.  _Lightning Bolt_ can, but _Scorching Ray_ can't.  I was really hoping that I'd find some sort of correlation between spells that don't affect objects not being able to start fires, but that was apparently just pie in the sky dreaming on my part.  

Dealing damage to the arrows seems like a pretty good ruling, though I'd go with the half damage to objects and I'd probably half that again to reflect the fraction of a second the arrow spends in the flames.  Looking at the SRD I don't see anything mentioning the wall as being see-through, so I'd rule it blocks line of sight.  (If the opague nature of the wall is mentioned elsewhere, I might go back on that.)


----------



## boolean (Apr 29, 2007)

phindar said:
			
		

> Looking at the SRD I don't see anything mentioning the wall as being see-through, so I'd rule it blocks line of sight.  (If the opague nature of the wall is mentioned elsewhere, I might go back on that.)




From the spell description:
*Effect:* Opaque sheet of flame up to 20 ft. long/level or a ring of fire with a radius of up to 5 ft. per two levels; either form 20 ft. high


----------



## phindar (Apr 29, 2007)

Aha, the Effect line.  Foolish me, reading the description hoping for a description of the Wall.  According to the Wik, Opacity means visible light doesn't pass through.  Which I'd say blocks line of sight, as opposed to a transparent or translucent wall, which would let all or some light through.  



			
				Wiki said:
			
		

> While many materials are so opaque (steel in visible light), and others so transparent (air in visible light), that opacity often seems to be a boolean property, others are "somewhat" opaque.



Since the spell description (or more correctly, the Effect entry) doesn't specify the degree of opacity, I'm going to go with the boolean property.  What's your feeling, boolean?


----------



## Ogrork the Mighty (Apr 29, 2007)

kolikeos said:
			
		

> Let's say I house rule that a Wall of Fire does damage arrows. Now I need to know how many HP does a normal arrow fired from a +1 bow has, what's its hardness (and is it ignored by fire damage?) and does it take half, full, or double damage from fire?




Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. It's a cool effect but it requires more knowledge of game mechanics if you're dealing with anything other than mundane arrows. In which case, it might not be worth it.


----------



## kolikeos (Apr 29, 2007)

Ogrork the Mighty said:
			
		

> It's a cool effect but it requires more knowledge of game mechanics if you're dealing with anything other than mundane arrows.



That's the reason I'm here, to gain more knowledge of game mechanics


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Apr 29, 2007)

I would go with the wall dealing 1D6+4 {half damage} to an arrow passing through it. Assuming the arrow has a hardness of 5 and hps of 1 means that firing an arrow through a Wall of Fire is not a good idea.

Magical arrows would gain the normal +2 hardness and +10 hps per +1 of a bonus enhancement.

IMO, Opaque is, in this case, a boolean variable, meaning the Wall blocks LOS.

However, since the wall is only 20' high an archer could fire indirectly {for which I HR an additional range increment penalty} at a target on the other side...selecting a square and rolling a 50% miss chance.

Very intruiging idea.. and timely since my group will soon be facing this effect


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Apr 29, 2007)

glass said:
			
		

> Wood is not vulnerable to fire. Have you ever lit a bonfire? It takes real effort to get it going!



 So, you've tried to light a bonfire made of arrow shafts?  If not, exactly how does your analogy help?  I'm no expert, but I'd think an arrow shaft is kept as dry as possible.  A bonfire is typically (IME) made from surrounding logs that are not dried out, and sometimes slightly damp.



			
				glass said:
			
		

> And wood can char/blacken on the surface for a long time before being singnificantly damaged.



 That's a reasonable explanation for halving the fire damage.  I'm not sure I agree with it enough to use it as justification, but it's a lot more reasonable than the faulty bonfire analogy.


----------



## ScipioX (Apr 30, 2007)

Whether wood is particularly vulnerable to fire is a DM call.  IMHO, wood isn't.  The bonfire analogy works fine for me.  

However, I would say the fletching is vulnerable.  An arrow without fletching (or even worse, unevenly burned fletching) is not going to go anywhere near the target.  So taken as a whole, I'd say that an arrow is vulnerable to fire.


----------



## starwed (Apr 30, 2007)

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 (Apr 30, 2007)

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 (Apr 30, 2007)

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 (Apr 30, 2007)

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 (Apr 30, 2007)

phindar said:
			
		

> 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 (Apr 30, 2007)

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 (Apr 30, 2007)

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 (Apr 30, 2007)

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 (Apr 30, 2007)

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 (Apr 30, 2007)

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.


----------



## werk (Apr 30, 2007)

Something, something, the wood BURNS you!


----------



## Nail (Apr 30, 2007)

TheGogmagog said:
			
		

> 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 (Apr 30, 2007)

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:



			
				dictionary.com said:
			
		

> 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 (Apr 30, 2007)

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 (Apr 30, 2007)

IanB said:
			
		

> ...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 (May 1, 2007)

glass said:
			
		

> 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...
> 
> ...




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 (May 1, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> 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 (May 1, 2007)

starwed said:
			
		

> 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 (May 1, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> 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:


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> 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:


			
				Jondor Battlehammer said:
			
		

> 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 (May 1, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## KarinsDad (May 2, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> 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.




Yes. And the rules text states that non-instantaneous magical fire can cause equipment to catch on fire.

Whether that actually damages an arrow when it goes through the 20 feet of heat and the wall of fire is dependent on how literal or liberal one wants to be with various object and fire/heat rules.


----------



## Slaved (May 2, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> And the rules text states that non-instantaneous magical fire can cause equipment to catch on fire.




I thought it said "might find their..." in reference to the fire? Can do and might do are still pretty far from will do though.


I went looking for other spells to see what other fun options are out there and it looks like the wall of force spell never actually says that it blocks objects from passing through it. Breath weapons and creatures plus some spell definitions and how it responds to attacks, but nothing about blocking objects.


----------



## Nail (May 2, 2007)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Yes. And the rules text states that non-instantaneous magical fire can cause equipment to catch on fire.
> 
> Whether that actually damages an arrow when it goes through the 20 feet of heat and the wall of fire is dependent on how literal or liberal one wants to be with various object and fire/heat rules.



Agreed.


----------

