# Grease spell = grease fire?



## pokedigimaniac (Oct 11, 2006)

Quick question - I seem to recall reading somewhere that the grease from a grease spell will not burn. Can someone confirm or deny this for me, please?


----------



## frankthedm (Oct 11, 2006)

Previous editions did this, 3.5 is quiet on the subject. That means a lot of folks think of the spell more as _Lubricating Slime_.


----------



## pokedigimaniac (Oct 11, 2006)

I had noticed that 3.5 was quiet about it. So was 3.0, upon checking my old PHB. Did previous editions agree that it was nonflammable?

At the same time, would it be fair to let it burn a bit - maybe copying the rules for something else?

One idea is to work it like oil rules:



> You can pour a pint of oil on the ground to cover an area 5 feet square, provided that the surface is smooth. If lit, the oil burns for 2 rounds and deals 1d3 points of fire damage to each creature in the area.




Except that it only burns for one round, and after that, the grease is all burned out and no longer slippery.

In which case, if something is in the area, these rules might apply:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/environment.htm#catchingOnFire


> 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.
> 
> ...




I may be overthinking this, but it's either tell the players that the 'grease' spell does not burn, period, or let it have a minor burning effect if set on fire by something like a fireball.


----------



## Cedric (Oct 11, 2006)

pokedigimaniac said:
			
		

> I had noticed that 3.5 was quiet about it. So was 3.0, upon checking my old PHB. Did previous editions agree that it was nonflammable?




In previous editions it was a fatty substance (I think the material component was butter, pork fat, etc). 

And it was permanent.

Natural fatty grease is flammable, so in 1st ed. we always treated grease from the spell as flammable. But not something you could cast on a torch...something you would have to cast and throw a torch on, if that makes sense.


----------



## Deset Gled (Oct 11, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> But not something you could cast on a torch...something you would have to cast and throw a torch on, if that makes sense.




In 3.x, the Grease spell can be targeted on an object, including a torch or even clothing.

The spell description says nothing about whether or not the grease is flammable.  Personally, I think that spells like this should perform only the actions that the spell states; the spell doesn't state the grease is flammable, so it isn't.  Ruling otherwise opens up a slipperly slope (pun intended).  From a balance perspective, it think that forcing a balance check (which can make an opponent flat-footed) is powerful enough for a first level spell.

Also, note that Grease is a Conjuration (Creation) spell with a non-instantaneous time.  This means the grease is "held together" by magic forces.  I think it is reasonable to assume that the physical properties of the grease are limited by this magic.  The arguement that the grease is flammable would be stronger if the duration of the spell was instantaneous.


----------



## Cedric (Oct 11, 2006)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> In 3.x, the Grease spell can be targeted on an object, including a torch or even clothing.




Sorry, I was vague...in 1st ed it could be cast on a torch or anything else for that matter. However, "we" (being my groups) never would have expected that torch to just burst into flames. Kind of like throwing a bucket of melted fat on a torch, it's not going to flare up, it's going to go out. 

But if you carefully catch the fat on fire, it'll burn really nicely. We treated Grease from the Spell the same way. It was flammable, but wasn't like gasoline.


----------



## werk (Oct 11, 2006)

pokedigimaniac said:
			
		

> Quick question - I seem to recall reading somewhere that the grease from a grease spell will not burn. Can someone confirm or deny this for me, please?




Take some butter out of the fridge and smear it on the counter.  Add flame.  What happens?

_Grease_ does not burn IMC.


----------



## Cedric (Oct 11, 2006)

From a Fire Safety Manual

 Classes of Fire

   1.      Ordinary combustibles: paper, cloth upholstery, trash, plastic, wood…

   2.      Flammable liquids, gasses and *greases*: kerosene, oil, paint, cleaning, fluids, *cooking oil*…
   3.      Energized electrical components: appliances, wiring…

   4.      Combustible metals: potassium, magnesium… 

Grease of the cooking oil or animal fat variety is definitely flammable. In fact, one of the most dangerous house fires is a grease fire. The temptation is to throw water on it, but this scatters the grease (while it's still burning) and will not put out the fire. 

I can understand your butter analogy, but grease itself is absolutely flammable. 

Mind you, this has nothing to do with the spell. Just talking about actual grease.


----------



## Dracorat (Oct 11, 2006)

The actual spell is not flammable.


----------



## Cedric (Oct 11, 2006)

/Rant_On

They seem to have tried to remove or reword every spell that had some unintentional use that would allow it to be cool and allow players to actually be creative. Now each spell has to fit into some cookie cutter mold of "it does this and this only." 

This isn't even mentioning the way durations have been castrated.

Invisibility - once a great scouting spell. Now a short lived spell which primarily is used to give an immediate combat advantage for one round, then is discarded. 

The more 3.5 I play, the more I can't stand huge parts of it.
/Rant_Off


----------



## Dracorat (Oct 11, 2006)

I am quite the opposite. 3.5 encourages smart thinking and planning. Now, you can't decide to just cast an extended mage armor for all day and that's that. Now, you have to choose when its important to have it (for example).


----------



## shilsen (Oct 11, 2006)

Dracorat said:
			
		

> I am quite the opposite. 3.5 encourages smart thinking and planning. Now, you can't decide to just cast an extended mage armor for all day and that's that. Now, you have to choose when its important to have it (for example).



 Actually at 12th lvl you can cast an Extended Mage Armor and have it last all day. In 3.5.

That being said, I generally find the 3.5 changes to spells a significant improvement.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Oct 11, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> The more 3.5 I play, the more I can't stand huge parts of it.



 Them's fightin' werds!


----------



## Cedric (Oct 11, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Them's fightin' werds!




Eh..instead of Light vs. Darkness...Continual Light vs. Continual Darkness.

Now I have to put up with Daylight that isn't really daylight and Darkness that will make a dark room brighter. 

Half of the damage spells wind up with your target saving for no damage it seems. 

Just bugs me


----------



## Nail (Oct 11, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> They seem to have tried to remove or reword every spell that had some unintentional use that would allow it to be cool and allow players to actually be creative.



IME, the tighter ruleset of 3.xe has made player creativity easier, not harder.  Both you and the DM know what a spell (or whatever) will do; there's less room for a DM to squelch a good idea or tactic.

The 3.xe ruleset allows players to plan, create, and explore without having to rely on the DMs interpretation or mood.  I like that.


----------



## Nail (Oct 11, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> Half of the damage spells wind up with your target saving for no damage it seems.



That's usually because (surprise, surprise) the damage spell in question has other effects, in addition to the damage.  

Other effects = less straight-up damage.

Examples of spells you've had problems with?


----------



## Dracorat (Oct 11, 2006)

shilsen said:
			
		

> Actually at 12th lvl you can cast an Extended Mage Armor and have it last all day. In 3.5.
> 
> That being said, I generally find the 3.5 changes to spells a significant improvement.




Yeah my bad on that one.

But still, many of the spells fall in the category I described (I just picked a bad example)


----------



## Nail (Oct 11, 2006)

Dracorat said:
			
		

> Yeah my bad on that one.
> 
> But still, many of the spells fall in the category I described (I just picked a bad example)



You're thinking, maybe, of something like Bull's Strength?


----------



## werk (Oct 11, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> /Rant_On
> 
> They seem to have tried to remove or reword every spell that had some unintentional use that would allow it to be cool and allow players to actually be creative. Now each spell has to fit into some cookie cutter mold of "it does this and this only."
> 
> ...




See...that's exactly why I like 3.5 so much.  Less subjectivity, less DM arbitration, better game.


----------



## werk (Oct 11, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> From a Fire Safety Manual...Grease of the cooking oil or animal fat variety is definitely flammable. In fact, one of the most dangerous house fires is a grease fire. The temptation is to throw water on it, but this scatters the grease (while it's still burning) and will not put out the fire.
> 
> I can understand your butter analogy, but grease itself is absolutely flammable.




So, by that logic, anytime you throw fire at a living creature with a nice layer of subcutaneous fat, like humanoids, then they should burst into flame.  Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

You will not be able to set the butter on fire using a lighter or match inside 6 seconds, that is a sound analogy.  

(I cook a lot with butter and grease, it only catches fire when it's already at flash-point.  The grease spell is optimized for slippery not for burny.)


----------



## Cedric (Oct 11, 2006)

werk said:
			
		

> See...that's exactly why I like 3.5 so much.  Less subjectivity, less DM arbitration, better game.




Yes, to be honest most of the people I know who like 3.5 like it just for reasons like this. Very few one shot kills, everyone can contribute on semi-equal footing, rules are clearly laid out with a minimal amount of ambiguity, you don't have to wonder if x can do y as it is usually stated as such if it can, etc., etc. 

But, I don't mind being a vocal minority. As a GM, I like deciding for myself if you can use Spell Y to accomplish goal X. In general, if you come up with a plausible reason that is not specifically duplicated by another spell or ability I would say yes. However, in 3.x (moreso 3.5) I am left with less and less ability to interpret this for myself as there is a "ruling" on it that people have a reasonable expectation you will stick with unless you have stated otherwise already (house ruled in advance, etc.). 

As a player, I loved those days when the light at the end of the tunnel was a flickering match in a stiff breeze and your whole group was almost done for...and you're staring at your character sheet in desperation when suddenly...you are hit with that idea that's like tossing gasoline and tinder on that flickering match. That epiphany which...if it works...will save your whole group, all because you used some spell in a manner other than it was originally intended. 

But, in 3.x that creativity is often squashed by a ruleset that eliminates the what-ifs and leaves me with a black and white set of capabilities. 



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> Examples of spells you've had problems with?




It's not so much specific spells as a fundamental change in magic. In 1st edition...you feared a fireball. A wizard dropping a fireball on his own party meant he was an idiot or things were "just that bad.' 

In 3.x who cares about a fireball. 7d6 fireball? Hah, by the time you are tossing that around my fighter has 70 hit points and I'm going to save and take 14 points of damage. By all means, drop it on the party if you "have" too. 

Or heck, drop it on the rogue who likely won't take any damage from it. 

Now yes, there are metamagic feats to help you out. But in the end, the spells have roughly the same damage output as they had before, but the targets have more hit points, better saves and more often have SR. 

Tons of people like this...I hold myself in reserve as one of the few that just don't like it.

However, 3.x also got a LOT of things right. The skill system alone makes it worthwhile to play this over 2nd edition. 

*shrugs* YMMV


----------



## Cedric (Oct 11, 2006)

werk said:
			
		

> So, by that logic, anytime you throw fire at a living creature with a nice layer of subcutaneous fat, like humanoids, then they should burst into flame.  Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
> 
> You will not be able to set the butter on fire using a lighter or match inside 6 seconds, that is a sound analogy.
> 
> (I cook a lot with butter and grease, it only catches fire when it's already at flash-point.  The grease spell is optimized for slippery not for burny.)




I appreciate your analogy, and I'm not saying it lacks merit. 

However, there is a big difference between an open ladle of grease from the kitchen and a body wrapped in layers of moist skin. 

The butter is also a good point, but again, that's just a matter of perception. If you perceive the spell as having wiped everything down with butter...then I agree, not reasonably flammable. 

If you perceive the spell as having poured kitchen grease on an area...very flammable. 

Search google for "grease fire".


----------



## Glyfair (Oct 11, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> They seem to have tried to remove or reword every spell that had some unintentional use that would allow it to be cool and allow players to actually be creative.




That's funny, this use of grease to me was the variation always used by the munchkins in the area.  It was at the top of their lists of ways to use spells that weren't intended to cause damage.  Using in that way was normal and standard and passed around, a far cry from "creative."


----------



## Nail (Oct 12, 2006)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> That's funny, this use of grease to me was the variation always used by the munchkins in the area.  It was at the top of their lists of ways to use spells that weren't intended to cause damage.  Using in that way was normal and standard and passed around, a far cry from "creative."



That's been my experience too.

The spell _Levitate_ often came up like that as well.


----------



## Cedric (Oct 12, 2006)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> That's funny, this use of grease to me was the variation always used by the munchkins in the area.  It was at the top of their lists of ways to use spells that weren't intended to cause damage.  Using in that way was normal and standard and passed around, a far cry from "creative."




One spell doesn't really make a point one way or the other. I'm confident we could back and forth tons of examples.

I want to cast continual light on his eyes, make him blind. 
I want to cast web, then grease, set those both on fire and burn them alive. 

...and we could go on. 

That's not my point though. If you play with Munchkins who are going to dig up loopholes to screw your game, they're going to do that no matter how much leeway you take out of the rules. Everytime you close a loophole, they'll find two more. 

The solution? Don't game with people like that.

I'm talking about leaving information for the GM to interpret and use as they see fit. The game doesn't need every possible thing defined. I like rules structure sure, but not to the point where most reasonable avenues of creativity are closed. 

I'll run the game the way I want to run the game when I run...and when I play I'll happily go with whatever the GM wants if I respect the GM (if I don't respect the GM, I won't stay in his game). 

However, when I go through and revise the flavor of the game and some of the specific rules to something I prefer to run, I would rather those revisions be fairly minor. More and more though, I have to change vast parts of the game to get that flavor I want (and no, I don't want to play something else, don't misconstrue my words..when I want to play something else, I do). 

I preferred the game when more parts of it were left to the GM and the players to define. 

Cedric


----------



## Hellefire (Oct 12, 2006)

I have to agree with Cedric on this one. I've only been playing 3.x for a couple months now, and I'm still learning a ton every day. There are certainly benefits to a well-structured/defined system. I think it's particularly useful for putting everyone on the same footing (for world-wide games, for example). And the system can obviously be used cross-genre, which can be a great benefit for variety while still remaining in the familiar.

However.

Most of the 27 years I've been gaming has been with my own mixture of 1st and 2nd edition. I also found those systems less specified and thus more open to experimentation and creativity. Yes, there were issues with interpretation and bias. But it seemed more open, less....sterile. I guess I found the old systems more analog and fluid and the new system more digital and compartmentalized.

Of course, any game can be centered more around rules and rolls or more around roles, and I enjoy both. I found the old system more free-form (I also find some other games, such as Vampire and Saga to be more about the unfolding story and less about the PC_01), and I find the new system to be more about the system itself than about the tale of adventure and woe.

Now, admittedly I had decades to internalize my views on the old system. It became a world I could visualize in my head and not conciously hang on the rules, because they were so ingrained. I am still stumbling around with the 3.x system learning it - and I am trying to learn it well to give the system a fair chance - so that system may seem more mechanical to me at the moment due to necessity, and that may change in the future. I have seen some improvements and things I like, but I still largely miss the familiarity, easily suspended disbelief and 'living' world of my previous system. The new system is probably better for globalization, but so far it lacks some of the flavor I like in the old systems.

My rambling .02

Aaron

p.s. grease is one of my favorite spells of all time - but I've never considered it flammable.


----------



## Particle_Man (Oct 12, 2006)

For what it is worth, Complete Mage has a spell that is basically a "Flammable Grease" and is higher level than Grease.  This implies that ordinary Grease is not flammable.


----------



## Nail (Oct 12, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> If you play with Munchkins who are going to dig up loopholes to screw your game, they're going to do that no matter how much leeway you take out of the rules. Everytime you close a loophole, they'll find two more.



That's not been my experience, even when playing with "munchkins".  Especially when sticking with just the Core books, the amount of abuse possible is _orders of magnitude less_ than that possible with 2e.  And with 3.xe, other players have the power to point out rules gaffs, not just the DM.

2e......<shudder>.....


----------



## Benimoto (Oct 12, 2006)

I have to agree with werk.  Most greases do not burn easily at room temperature.  Grease fires happen when the grease is heated, such as when cooking, to a near-boiling point.  This generally takes more than 6 seconds.


----------



## Nail (Oct 12, 2006)

OTOH, a grease fire destroyed much of the Midwest (USA) last spring.  You just can never have too much baking soda.


----------



## werk (Oct 12, 2006)

Benimoto said:
			
		

> Most greases do not burn easily at room temperature.  Grease fires happen when the grease is heated, such as when cooking, to a near-boiling point.  This generally takes more than 6 seconds.




And slathering flash-point grease all over the place would probably have other effects not mentioned in the spell as well.

Maybe if we say it's commercial grease rather than cooking grease...  Grease for High Temperature and Extreme Pressure Application

Best use of grease IMC involved a little latitude in the rules for flair.  The party wound up facing a fire giant BBEG, and a multi-classed squishy in the group thought that a little grease would maybe give them the upper hand (it was his only spell left and he desperately wanted to contribute).  He cast the grease under the giant, which promptly made his balance check.  The rest of the party unloaded on him, taking him down to a measley single hitpoint.  Then it was his turn, balance check rolled a 1, so I said that he took that last point of damage when he fell...hard.

"Is that the best you can...WHA?!? <crash>"






The Onion...Americas finest news source.


----------



## Cedric (Oct 12, 2006)

Benimoto said:
			
		

> I have to agree with werk.  Most greases do not burn easily at room temperature.  Grease fires happen when the grease is heated, such as when cooking, to a near-boiling point.  This generally takes more than 6 seconds.




I agree in 3.x that *Grease* is not meant to be flammable. But, remember back in 1e, we were dealing with rounds that lasted a minute. That...and the stipulation (in our group while playing 1e) that once you cast *Grease* you had to spend a round setting it on fire...is why we considered it flammable in 1e.


----------



## werk (Oct 12, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> ...is why we considered it flammable in 1e.




I thought it was considered flammable because it said so in the spell's description.  <shrug>


----------



## Cedric (Oct 12, 2006)

werk said:
			
		

> I thought it was considered flammable because it said so in the spell's description.  <shrug>




It first appeared in Unearthed Arcana (the original), and I don't believe it was specified as being flammable there. However, it may have been considered flammable in the 2e PHB.


----------



## Glyfair (Oct 13, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> It first appeared in Unearthed Arcana (the original), and I don't believe it was specified as being flammable there. However, it may have been considered flammable in the 2e PHB.




No, the 2E PHB doesn't mention it as being flammable.  As to the type of grease it creates, the material component is either a piece of pork rind, or some butter.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Oct 13, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> I appreciate your analogy, and I'm not saying it lacks merit.
> 
> However, there is a big difference between an open ladle of grease from the kitchen and a body wrapped in layers of moist skin.
> 
> ...



Yes, there is a big difference - the ladle of grease from the kitchen is already hot enough to do damage - stick your hand in a kettle of hot grease and find out. (Well, don't really, it _will_ hurt, and make you look silly into the bargain....) The Grease spell does not say 'covers an area with hot grease, so no, it is a lot closer to  butter, lard, shortening, chicken fat, vegetable oil, lubricating oil, etc - while they can all be set on fire it is not already hot enough to catch on fire. Heck, try lighting a puddle of lamp oil on fire - it does not ignite all that easily either.

I would not allow the Grease spell to be used in this fashion either.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Geoff Watson (Oct 13, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> It first appeared in Unearthed Arcana (the original), and I don't believe it was specified as being flammable there. However, it may have been considered flammable in the 2e PHB.




In both 1e and 2e it was stated that the grease was non-inflammable (ie it cannot be easily set alight).

PS: Why does everyone use "flammable" when they mean "inflammable"? 

Geoff.


----------



## Particle_Man (Oct 13, 2006)

Geoff Watson said:
			
		

> PS: Why does everyone use "flammable" when they mean "inflammable"?




Because people who don't understand english that well (including some fire fighters) read certain containers saying "inflammable" and thought that meant that they were "not flammable".  This lead to real fires that destroyed real properties.  The powers that be decided that it would be easier to relable certain things "flammable" then try to educate everyone who might become a fire fighter. 

And that change has trickled down to today, so that "flammable" and "inflammable" have the same meaning, but some people think that latter means "not flammable".


----------



## wayne62682 (Oct 13, 2006)

Quoth Dr. Nick Riviera (of Simpsons fame):  

Don't worry, its inflammable!

**KABOOM**

Inflammable means flammable?!  What a country!


----------



## Cedric (Oct 13, 2006)

Geoff Watson said:
			
		

> In both 1e and 2e it was stated that the grease was non-inflammable (ie it cannot be easily set alight).
> 
> PS: Why does everyone use "flammable" when they mean "inflammable"?
> 
> Geoff.




The original Unearthed Arcana didn't specify if Grease was flammable or not. Was it stated somewhere else in 1e? 

As to 2e, I couldn't say. I never played much 2e and didn't save my books. Once my group read that Magic Missile was limited to 5 missiles, we tossed it out as junk. 

As to flammable vs inflammable...they have the same meaning in this context. I use flammable because it's two letters shorter and less cumbersome in daily use.


----------



## Nail (Oct 13, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> I never played much 2e and didn't save my books. Once my group read that Magic Missile was limited to 5 missiles, we tossed it out as junk.



So...have you read about how many missiles the 3.xe _Magic Missile_ can cast?

I'll be checking your garbage tomorrow morning.


----------



## Cedric (Oct 13, 2006)

3.x has a robust enough skill system, that I've been able to stomach some of the things that made me toss 2e. 

However, even then we played a hybrid game. THAC0 was a good idea, there were some other good concepts as well. We used the dual wielding rules from 2e more than 1e, but mostly stuck with 1e spells. 

However, the magic missile thing still irks the crap out of me in 3.x. When I get home I'll post some of the higher level variant magic missile spells I've come up with in 3.x.


----------



## Nail (Oct 13, 2006)

Shoot.  I was looking forward to getting some free used gaming books.  

Closer to being serious: I, too, have created some new "magic missile like" spells.  The trick is realizing that Magic Missile is "too good" for a 1st level spell, so any spell you create to replace it (or higher level spells based on it) need to take that balance into account.


----------

