NEW Burning Condition for D&D 5e 

how to support the channel :) ✅ LIKE & SHARE: ru-vid.comvideos ✅ PATREON: www.patreon.com/bobworldbuilder

It's kinda embarrassing how many spells literally list that they light objects on fire but there's no explanation of what that does.

Well, I think that Alchemists fire shouldn't be affected by water, as it's probably more like napalm

I've actually created a "Soaked" condition (originally was just part of the mechanics for a homebrew subclass I was designing, but felt it worked better as a condition). Basic gist is- you get wet, whether by rain or swimming or wading through a swamp etc, you get the condition. Features involved making you more conductive to lightning or cold damage, reduced resistance to extreme cold weather, and disadvantages on stuff like stealthing (try sneaking in wet armour or leather) It actually added a mechanic to swimming or travelling in rain etc, and has made my players actually play differently (especially since my current campaign is naval focused). Players have bought additional sets of clothing or armour to switch out when they get wet, or have tried luring enemies to get wet so they can zap or freeze them. I definitely feel we need more "environmentally/elementally" focused conditions, just since it will also make the diversity of spells or abilities much more interesting and important in a game

I think this condition would benefit from including other damage times as well, like cold damage from when you're freezing or necrotic for an effect similar to the wither effect from minecraft. Don't know how it would work with the Dex saves tho.

I feel as though something about this effect (perhaps the DC to avoid it) should be partially based on the amount of fire damage inflicted, such that a fireball is more likely to set you ablaze than a firebolt. Something like the Concentration rules, maybe; "The DC equals 10 or half the damage you take, whichever number is higher".

If a something is on fire it should be possible to spread the flames, I imagine a babarian casting himself on fire and running through the enemy lines to ignote them

One problem with your rule is that it doesn't account for how flammable an object is. I could see a player arguing that a tree or a house are flammable objects, but if you actually try to catch one on fire under typical circumstances, they don't ignite easily. I would force a d20 roll against a DC that scales with flammability.

I like the way you've written this! I agree with the disadvantage, being on fire is very distracting . I also agree with the saving throw being DC10 - I think it's reasonable that most creatures could react quickly enough to try and prevent themselves from catching fire instinctively.

2:57 fireball is so lit that it’s on the list twice

I like the idea for this, but I would include some sort of damage threshold to ignite a creature

I think the damage should be Xd4 damage where the X is the level of the spell you cast. A cantrip shouldn't be able to do enough to sustain damage, unless it's specifically used to on something to make the flame stronger, like a campfire.

I typically run environmental effects in the turn order as a 20 for Initiative (losing ties) like lair actions are because they seem similar. Just a suggestion for determining when an object's "turn" might be. Great video, I really would love if all the different elements had status conditions, but this is still great.

If something needs a "turn" in a combat round that wouldn't normally get a turn, like your example of the burning object, it's probably easiest to designate a step in the initiative order where that all happens. Maybe on count 20, when legendary and lair actions usually happen?

Player 1: The roof. Player 2: The roof. DM (rolls a 1): The roof is on fire.

"Creatures with 'Damage Immunities Fire' are immune for this condition. Immune creatures instead gain the Incendiary condition."

I usually use fire elemental special thing to emulate something is on fire, or that table for damage in DM screen. And usually I adjust damage depending from fire's source

Good idea, replaces numerous (not always the same) descriptions of burning!

Nice effect! I'd love to see similar standardized rules on other elemental damage, like electricity, acid, cold, thunder (deafening?) etc. Because it already does damage, you don't need to impose disadvantage to concentration checks, because the burning damage is causing an extra concentration effect every turn. Also, disadvantage is a pretty big negative condition on attacks or skills. While I think it could "make sense" it would make a lot of fire spells a lot more deadly. Compare it to other spells that cause disadvantage. Lastly, I would let anyone to forgo movement or an action to end the effect. Nothing is more annoying as a player, less fun, than losing a turn.

Fantastic - I'm going to add this to my games!

And it is really helpful to use experience from different systems. There is Ablaze condition in Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 4e, and it is really terrifying because of how fragile characters in that system

As someone playing a circle of wildfire druid, this is immediately getting sent to my dm for consideration, thank you so much

When you're on fire, people get out of your way. - Richard Pryor

Maybe we could use the system for concentration check DCs as a guide for the burning DCs. I think it makes sense that fire that causes more damage be more likely to set things on fire. 10 is fine for a baseline DC, but spells like fireball would logically be more intense flames and therefore more likely to set things alight (plus fireball already says it sets things on fire, but doesn't tell you how to handle it).

I think the easy answer for the burning effect on items is: If an object is burning, it retains this effect until a creature spends an action on its turn to douse the flame, or some other effect douses it. I know the wording isn't great, but basically, just stipulate that it stays burning until the object's hit points are gone, or until a creature extinguishes the fire, or something like rain extinguishes it. I'm actually working on a complete overhaul of The Way of the Four Elements Monk that uses almost this exact effect. Part of the reason is because I'm not treating the monk as a spellcaster. If you're interested to see what I've got so far, feel free to message me. I'd love any additional feedback if you happen to have the time.

SUCH a good video Bob! Decided I will absolutely use this in my games! I'd be interested to see what else you got in that big brain of yours as far as conditions go! One D&D definitely needed this one

this is a solid rule to start building upon I feel that giving a "burning tag" to spells could work best than all fire causes burning for example, fireball blows up very quickly, so it could not burn a lot of stuff while flaming sphere could ignite things easily as is a continous flame lastly, maybe giving a burning damage tag to effects is also probably good... something like "flaming sphere, burning 1d6" or "meteor swarm, burning 2d8" sounds pretty cool

love the idea! I always feel like I need to enforce burning as a dm, but have always struggled with the execution. one small complaint is that the dex save may be a bit too clunky to run. a player casting fireball on 8 targets is now making each player roll 2 dex saves for 2 separate effects, 16 rolls total. that's gonna be a long turn. maybe make them Con saves to at least keep it varied? (most fire spells are dex saves already) idk how to fix it, but a spell like wall of fire is gonna turn the battle into a dex save hellscape (maybe you like that idk)

Great timing. Since everyone is always saying that 5E characters are super heroes I'm working on a homebrew where they actually are super heroes. So I've been trying to figure out the best way to do a fire blast that keeps burning.

Personally, I'd go for the 1d6. Or maybe 1d4 on the first round and 1d6 thereafter (fire spreads). I notice you dropped the disadvantage on attack rolls from your revised rule. I'd be inclined to keep it: being on fire is distracting! I'd drop the specific concentration disadvantage, though, since the character already has to make a concentration check for sustaining damage. Being on fire is going to be painful, but even Power Word: Pain from Xanathar's specifically doesn't affect Con saving throws, such as the type you'd use to maintain concentration (which is an obvious hack to avoid being disadvantaged on the save used to end the spell). Nice call-out on a gap in the rules, though. Definitely something I'll make use of.

Also about alchemist fire: it is a special fire which doesn't disappear and you have to remove that alchemical thing from your skin (or your skin lol) to deal with it. Also it is kinda weak in 5e

I forgot what system it was but there was a rule I read that had fighting in complete darkness was a -10 but fighting while on fire was only a -3. Some of the tanks characters lit themselves on fire because the damage to them was negotiable and actually added a little bit of damage to their attacks while not taking up a hand. I also think that you could actually block the fire damage of you being ignited with a shield, using a high enough skill check. It was a weird system.

Had a situation where "produce flame" was thrown at a spider on its web and a 1 was rolled (catastrophic miss). Made perfect sense to the DM that the flame hit the web instead, which has its own rules for flamability. So the entire room, which was covered in webs, caught fire. Good times! Also, DC should be 10 + the level of the spell, so a flame bolt cantrip would be easier to avoid catching fire than, say, burning hands or a fireball.

especially for cases where fire becomes an ongoing environmental hazard (ie fighting in a burning building), i'd want the damage and save DC to escalate for each round that the fire isn't extinguished (maybe a +3 for each round). you could stipulate that the affected target (in this case, the building) must have sufficient fuel to make the fire grow stronger, so the DM can decide at what point the fire maxes out in its damage/difficulty potential. plus, you can use this escalating damage to continually damage the burning object itself as it is consumed - eventually that burning building is gonna collapse,

An alternate rule i have run before that was liked is that targets that take fire damage take additional flat fire damage from future fire damage equal to the number of dice they have taken of it so far, and burning conditions add to the burn stack each round based on the damage inflicted right away. They can go prone and use their move action to roll and put out the flames. Cold damage had a similar rule set, however rather than more damage they took growing penalties to their non armor ac and saves as their brain and nerves shut down. Attacks and skills were in the poison rules. Armor ac, items, and weapons were in acid. Other things generally worked different.

Yeah, I was surprised not to see burning with all of the new conditions perhaps we will see it in the near future. I also agree that somethings just need to work like they do in the real world I can see where they wanted to cut down on the design, but that made so many weird things that you just compensate for without even thinking about it. Great video. Also, one day four is pretty fair for burning that would kill a commoner in a round or two..

Fire is a primal fear , when present the effect of fear or panic should also be incorporated most things would flee rather than fight

Didn't peruse the comments yet but I love it. Critiques/changes- Maybe the DC goes up by 1 each round you fail the check (maybe to a maximum dc of X)? Simulating the fire spreading.

Elemental conditions are a nice addition. Like it was on Divinity Original Sin

I like to believe Alchemists Fire is like Greek Fire so it can be on and underwater, which is why it needs to be put out.

A thought for objects having turns, you could have the 'turn' for an object be on an initiative count of 0, losing all ties. (similar to lair actions, and a few other things, being on initiative count 20 losing all ties)

For a situation I had to improvise fire damage in recently I did it that the fire damage started at 1d4. Then for every turn the fire went without being extinguished, it stepped up the damage die (so from 1d4 to 1d6, etc.) until it got to 1d12, at which point it stayed at 1d12 but could spread to adjacent flammables.

I really liked the burning condition together with the bleed from the video about weapons are great aditions to the game. The only thing I would chage is how the condition is caused. Every time someone get hit by an attack or spell that deals fire damage, having to do a save seems to slow down combat a lot. I would do something like "When a creature is hit by an attack or spell that deals fire damage and that attack exceeds its AC 5 or more or the creature misses DC by 5 or more, the creature is burning"

This is great and I look forward to having similar rules for other elements. The way my DM usually rules the fiery effect of spells is basically setting objects on fire (e.g. the grass we're standing on, the floor of a wooden boat, etc) and characters who enter that area take something like 1d6. Also, I would suggest the DC for the burning condition to be something like concentration saves (i.e. 10 or half the damage taken, whichever is higher), so the more powerful the spell is, the higher the chance to burn.

Maybe the dexterity save DC could function like a concentration check? so 10 or half of the fire damage taken, whichever one is higher. Like it'd make sense that a fireball would have a better chance at lighting you on fire than someone holding a torch.

I always run environment effects on initiative count 20(after any PC or NPC turns) so objects on fire could take the damage with the environment, this also leaves it open to the effects of that object taking fire damage (like the red barrel exploding) so it can be immersive without disrupting a turn.

*PTSD from party's alchemist fire spam*

5:35 - I would consider amending that to "whenever a creature fails a save against a fire damage spell or effect the creature ignites..." And then also add "If the spell or effect does not allow a saving throw the target must make a DC 10 Dexterity saving throw or the creature ignites..." Mainly to avoid bogging it down with multiple saving throws on a single spell and to avoid arguments when a creature has a bonus on 'the next saving throw'

I'd have both the dc and the damage increase by round. dc 10,12,14,16,18, etc... damage 1d4,2d4,etc... to represent the fire spreading. We wouldn't simply ignore being on fire for very long exactly because we know that the fire could spread and risk engulfing you in flames. The escalating damage and difficulty represent that.

I modified the condition slightly to have it so each time the Dexterity Saving Throw is failed, the DC increases by 1. So as to represent the fire getting out of control and being harder to put out

From 3rd edition SRD: Catching on Fire Characters exposed to burning oil, bonfires, and non-instantaneous 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. It boggles my mind how many of the rules that were already in the game we have to port to 5e ourselves.

You're missing 2 spells that can burn people: Druidcraft and Prestidigitation. I douse creatures in oil all the time and then light them ablaze with either spell. Both spells allow a player to either start or stop a small fire like that of a candle or campfire. Thus creatures doused in oil can be set completely ablaze. Also burn damage per round is a flat 5 damage. See the description for a flast of oil in player equipment.

How would you handle fire resistance with your burning condition? Maybe advantage on the initial saving throw?

I did this for my system i created as well: i kept it at 1d4 fire damage at the start of your round.

I agree with a lot of what you said and I definitely believe a global rule like this would really make sense. Certainly would prevent the designers from having to spell it out in the text of each spell or item. My suggestion is that there should be an additional penalty to not immediately putting out the flames. What happens when flames are not well managed? They grow. Either an increase in damage or some other additional penalty should incur if the flames are not promptly dealt with.

I think the burning condition should increase in potency as turns go on. With a 1d4 a character with a lot of health might choose to ignore the fire and keep fighting, but imagine someone doing that IRL. They would quickly become engulfed in flames as their equipment catches fire, so i think the fire damage should increase every 2 or 3 turns if left unaddressed and maybe have a chance for the fire to spread if left alone for X number of turns

Personally I believe a standard 1D6 should be a good number for standard fire, 1D4 just feels like it would be ignored by most players outright. I like that there is an actual effect attached to being on fire, I'm just not quite sure I like that it affects concentration saves, as the fire itself actually imposes one. Additionally, two separate saves with different attributes and low DC, mean that the effect will almost never work. As it is currently written it almost never works on monsters or martials, but casters might suddenly have some trouble with keeping their spells up. So my pointers would be: -Increase the damage slightly -Concentration might be a bit rough since burning also causes a check for that -Consolidate the saves into one type to make it less complicated to remember

Really cool idea Bob! I would even maybe want to see it expanded to include other effects that could deal damage over time. I remember the first time I played D&D for real, I was poisoned by a monster bite and expected to take a small amount of poison damage at the start of each of my turns after that. That's just how I assumed that would work, that's how being poisoned in every video game I can think of works. In 5E, there's a poisoned condition, and there's poison damage, but very rarely do they actually overlap except on initial delivery (and even then, many things have you save against the poisoned condition OR some amount of poison damage, but not both). It might be worth exploring the idea to make a generic condition with damage type variants. As a rough example, "when hit by a fire effect, the target must make a DC 10 Dexterity save or become Afflicted (fire damage)" with "Afflicted" using more or less the same rules you present for Burning. This could add some cool flexibility to use this for a broader spectrum of things. Bitten by a snake? Maybe you have to make a CON save or risk becoming "Afflicted (poison damage)". Perhaps if a creature takes cold damage while they are wet, they have to make a CON save or become "Afflicted (cold damage)". Maybe some kind of special Mind Flayer, a Mind Flayer captain or something, could force PCs to make a Wisdom save or become "Afflicted (psychic damage)." I don't know if "Afflicted" is best name for it, and there are certainly plenty of advantages to making the condition specific to fire damage, but I really love the idea and I feel inspired to expand it. I would love to hear what you think of this idea! If you don't think its a good fit for what you're going for, that's perfectly understandable, I just think there might be even more potential to the idea that's worth exploring. Love your videos btw and hope your having a great day!

Been looking forward to this for almost a year now. I have a couple of notes to make but let me start by saying great work with this fire mechanic. It's no easy feat with 5e's rules and I think you've made something pretty easy for new folks to hang their hat on for most scenarios. First note, the burning condition overlaps a bit with the (somewhat rare) Aversion to Fire feature that Flesh Golems and Yetis have, but I think it would still be fine as an overall condition. The Aversion to Fire feature causes disadvantage on attacks and ability checks for a turn if taking fire damage. So the disadvantage with ability checks would be somewhat redundant for it, but there's not a lot of creatures with this creature to begin with. Also, I think there should be a note on how it effects creatures with immunity to fire damage, as such creatures probably wouldn't be bothered as much (or if we want to get interesting, could spread the condition to others easier)? At any rate, I look forward to your next video! Keep up the good work, Bob!

In a campaign i played in we had our rules based loosely on the fire elementals rules and some other stuff from forums. It mainly has to do with stuff like lighting grease on fire on a wooden dock (😅) and the sort so not really focused on people being on fire. so damage starts at a d6 but scales up as the fire gets bigger, bugger fire burns hotter hurts more. Additionally, every round the fire spreads by one square (we use the stabdard 5’ grid rules). If i remember correctly damage did repeat every turn but was pretty easy to end assuming you werent still in the fire.

I actually appreciate this about DnD, too many games (mostly video games) is it unrealistically easy to light something on fire. Like, if you get hit with a flaming arrow, you somehow burst into flames as if you were soaked in gasoline. In a survival situation, it can sometimes be quite difficult to start a fire, especially if it just rained, so it doesn't make sense that igniting someone's clothes would be trivially easy. Igniting a flame takes a long application of heat, unless you douse it in a flammable liquid, such as in the case of flame throwers and napalm, so maybe we can assume that spells like firebolt also shoot out a little stuff to help ignite things or the duration of the flame is longer or hotter than most, or maybe it just magically happens.

I think Savage Worlds had the best fire damage rules. If you were on fire and failed your save, the fire grew and did more damage, going up a die type each time until you successfully saved or did something to put it out. Fires in that game were deadly!

I think people seriously overestimate how flammable most things are. If I took a propane torch and just pointed it at a wooden log for a couple seconds I’d probably char a small area but the log wouldn’t stay lit once the torch is taken away. A person is even less flammable, unless the spell is coating them in some kind of accelerant it’s actually really hard to get stuff like wool and leather and skin to ignite.

Personally i enjoy how little on-command cantrips couldnt set clothes and other poor fuels on fire. But I'm sure many would enjoy the rule.

I personally house rule that effects that cause those burn conditions that must be resolved with an action, alchemist's fire, Magmins etc, can be resolved by expending an "attack". This means that Martial characters who often have multiattack can resolve the condition and still get off an attack. I started doing it after I had to deal with a similar condition that blinded PCs by throwing mud. It seemed a bit mean to consume their entire action to do this. It also makes these conditions more effective when used on spellcasters, which I personally think helps with Martial vs Caster balance.

An item that I've made that uses Fire. It can probably use your burning condition rule. Cursed dagger 1d4 piercing plus 1d6 fire damage. The dagger looks plain enough with a wooden hilt, however when it is held a slight warmth can be felt through the hilt. Roll passive perception the first time it is picked up, after that the user doesn't notice the heat. On a critical hit there is a 50% chance (01-50) that the opponent bursts into flames for 1d4 turns taking 1d6 fire damage per turn or (51-00) the wielder takes 1d6 fire damage. Proficiency with a dagger allows you to add your proficiency bonus to the attack roll for any attack you make with it.

Fire spells are thrown around quite a bit in D&D, I worry that this could create a lot of extra dex saves and slow down combat. I'd be inclined to allow burning on a crit for spells with attack rolls, and a natural 1 for spells requiring saves.

I have always had to make rules for stuff like this too, although in OLD D&D there were damage rules for fire burning over time, based upon grease or oil lit on fire, webs on fire, or a few other things

Really love the Vid and I'm gonna try and introduce this in to the Game I run so my Wildfire druid will stop asking me "So do they catch on fire?" Only change I think I'll make Is to make make the Save 10+Spell level

My one addition to this is that for the first round it would be 1d4 but rounds after it would be 1d6. Gives the players the choice to deal with it now or take more damage. It is also grounded in that fires spreads.

I totally agree that the damage types of spells should have more meaning. Like all fire damage spells have a chance to ignite things on the target, cold damage allways slows them down, force damage pushes them and so on.

The soul still burns…

The only thing I don't quite like is the low DC, but instead of changing the rule itself I would add on to each spell or item that they add to or lower the DC by an amount appropriate to the spell level/item rarity. Besides certain spells like Immolation and Grease I would say the that the DC increase/decrease would be equal to the level the spell was cast, so base Fireball adds 3 to the DC. As for items I think it should probably be a bit more so +2 for uncommon +4 for rare etc.

It sounds like an interesting idea, though I feel it bumps up the power level of an already (imo) over prolific damage type. Also, I think it should only work if something flammable is added e.g oil.

Alchemist's Flask makes some sense to not be auto-extinguished by water as it is conceptually similar to Greek Fire that existed in real life (the creation of which is a lost knowledge, as we know what it did but no longer know what was use and how to make it anymore) that would not be extinguished with water. So, it makes some sense that the D&D equivilant of this ancient inextinguishable substance requires a bit of time and effort to put it out. A more modern and similar concept is napalm. Again, something that is a more waterproof fire fueling gunk that makes extinguishing it a more time and effort consuming task. The fact that it (Alchemist's Flask) is a common non-magical item found in the basic Adventuring Gear at a steep but reasonably affordable 50gp from the beginning of the game is actually both cool and scary, especially when you realize that for half that price a player proficient with Alchemist's Tools can craft as part of a long rest, meaning average 1 per day, but easily 3 a day during downtime if they are just dedicating a day or more to resting and crafting.

One way of making fire more dangerous (probably in higher tier adventures) is to instead of an action putting away the fire, making so that it only reduces the die size. Ex: You're burning and taking a d6 fire damage per round. You use an action to lower it to a d4 for next round and the action next round finally puts it out. Another player helping you can make an action reduce the die two sizes instead

A block of ice is an object… but every rule breaks down to DM discretion at some point. I made an Alchemical Adept feat for the rogue in my game, so I dug through 3.x books for stuff to add to the craftable list. In the end, it was easier to take existing items and allow the alchemist to change their damage types so he could make ‘alchemist’s frost’ and such. The PC also had the Poisoner feat, so I added the ability to shift infliction methods for his poisons, so ingested poison could be reformulated as an injury poison. The third ability of the Alchemical Adept feat let him make healing potions that could either be taken as a bonus action with the normal effect, or as a standard action for maximum effect. Finally, the feat let the alchemist concoct stuff somewhat more quickly and cheaply. It ended up making that rogue a bit like the Alchemist class from Pathfinder. (And the whole 5e artificer was implemented badly, so its worst subclass is doubly cursed.)

I've got almost the same homebrew as you've developed with one difference: if the creature (or object, I suppose) fails the initial DEX save, it can only stop the fire by taking an action to do so or having another creature do so on its behalf. This to represent that one you properly catch fire, it becomes much harder to put it out. Having been lit on fire, I can assure you of two things: it's way harder to put out once your clothes light up, and you are _definitely_ not going to be able to concentrate on anything else very easily.

Thumbs up on the concept, my only input is that the flame damage per round and save versus condition could be modified based on the intensity or nature of the fire and/or the amount of combustibles on you and other circumstances. More complex to try to capture every situation, so I wouldn’t necessary try to expand the mechanic since it is easy for the DM to tweak the damage die or add a modifier to the save on the fly.

I think one of the problems with having a standard condition for burning is the damage doesn't scale for higher levels unless you have multiple conditions of ascending power. Poison and fear and charm and all that give disadvantage which is effectively the same at all levels of play, but damage does need to scale. Maybe there could be a burning condition but it also has a property of damage (like how charm and fear require you to know the source of your charm or fear). Like burning (1d4) for lower level spells and creatures and burning (4d6) at higher levels.

I’ve always thought searing smite was weak because of the Con save aspect but now that you’ve broken down how it could be completely busted without it, I understand. Thanks lol

i fully expected you to do the Human Chimney in the intro there

This feature is 🔥 🔥 🔥 🔥 Literally

Have you considered a stacking damage scale mechanic? That could convey the fear and realistic damage done by a spreading fire. First dexterity save failure causes 1d4, but if still under the burning condition on the start of your next turn, 2d4. Then 3d4, etc.

just a flat DC 10 to avoid getting put on fire is good for simplicity. but I would have liked to see it possibly scale with the damage done, possibly having the DC be 8 + the fire damage taken. just to make that bigger fires are more dangerous. the DC can go back down to 10 after the first time or something.

I love this condition! You’re too right on how 5e glosses over commonly known damage. Did you have any other conditions you used for the other damage type (cold, acid, lightning, etc.)? Open to suggestions from others to. Love this channel!

I like it a lot, this could also apply for acid damage, the only thing that I would change, is the save to the end of the burning creature´s turn; in that way the creature recieves damage "during" the rest of the round at least one time

I have the type of flame source give a percentage for things to catch fire as well. So players can set up situations to make it favorable. A cantrip may only have a 10% chance to catch but throw some oil and maybe it adds to that percentage. Higher level spells had a bigger chance to catch. It's not a perfect system but I basically was already following the searing smite rules after something catches on fire

Hi. I like the way you think Bob. I don't mind though keeping the lower level spells, especially cantrips from igniting things in an instant. Let's think of a torch or a small flame touching for an instant something. It could be blackened a bit, even catch fire for a moment, but stop burning after a while on its own. If you keep the flame on it for a while eventually it will start burning. A huge ammount of heating flame (translated into a stronger spell) can do the trick in an instant, on the other hand. The damage you cause is the amount of time the fire was still active on an object or creature, before it stopped burning.

I would probably add a caveat that creatures with fire resistance or immunity are immune to the burning condition as well so you don't have as much deciding on a case-by-case basis what creatures are flammable. If it were in the core rules of course it would be in the condition immunities block for monsters, but I think these kinds of notes are good for added conditions.

I think it really is the point of having a human dm to make sure some stuff makes sense. I have always just ignored the "these specific spells do what fire do" nonsense. If it fires, it burns. If it colds, it freezes. If it shocks, it shocks. So i love this simple rule. Personally I would reduce it to a DC 8 check, and adjust it depending on specific circumstances of necessary. But the disadvantage on checks is absolutely perfect for me. I currently just have damage when burnt. But I'm including this now. Along with frozen reducing speed by 10 feet and shocked giving the next attack against them advantage.

Looks like you passed your Dex Save in that outtake at the end!

It could scale, where some effects, spells, or stat blocks specify 1d6, 1d8, etc for the burning condition.

Next we may have freezing for cold damage, making you move slower or become more sluggish. And Conductive for lightning, meaning if youre wearing or carrying any metal you take more lightning damage and may be zapped. I think another guy in the comment section mentioned it but Divinity 2 has some great conditions for enviromental effects, such as oil and such

Burning condition. 1) targets make CON save on contact to the flame. (Reason is: it is harder to engulf into flames a larger creature.) It must make CON saves at the end of their next turn(s) or take fire damage. Condition ends on success. 2) Or they can expend their movement to roll, and make a DEX save to determine if they end the movement prone or not. (Yes, this inspired from that tiktok dance. ) 3) Or they can submerge themselves on water.

The difference between normal fire and magical fire is clear. Check all those spells you listed; their damage die range from d6 (Red Dragons,Fireball and Meteor Swarm) upwards through d8 and d10 all the way to d12. A simple torch might do a mere d4, but fire bases spells, and even fire based creatures (Fire Elemental, Salamander, etc.) Never do less than d6 damage.

Okay, so the condition is really cool, but that isn't the part that gets me excited. It's the space saving in a book that the condition causes. It legitimately lets you cut out around 4 to 6 lines of text per instance past the first, so almost all flame things can use it which will actually make it easier to remember, while cutting down on text space. Solid choice. I'm stealing it.

i didn't think about disadvantage on concentration checks when on fire.. i really like that.

I know this would complicate it, but, if something catches fire, the fire generally grows. Therefore, maybe increase the damage every couple of rounds. One d4 for the first 2 rounds. 2d4 for the next 2 rounds. Basically Half the round, rounded up, d4s.

I think there's gotta be the rule that any object or creature set on fire, starts with 1d4 damage on the first round, but the damage should ramp up with every round because fire *spreads*. 1d4+1d6 on second round, 1d4+1d6+1d8 on third, and progress towards the limit of 1d4+1d6+1d8+1d10+1d12 for living medium creatures and up to 1d4+1d6+1d8+1d10+1d12+1d20 per round for buildings or gargantuan creatures. Extinguishing the flames must ramp up in difficulty as well by rising the DC with every round of continuous burning. This would make fire as deadly as it is, would make sense for most monsters to have the resistance or immunity to it. I think that is rather easy to learn and not that hard to keep track of.