How much can you melt with fireball

The fireball description mentions that it can melt things such as copper. Of the materials listed copper has the highest latent heat of fusion and melting point. The question I'm trying to answer is, how much mass can the fireball effect? Could a fireball melt a 20ft hemisphere of copper? (assuming the passage to the center has negligible effect on the mass) Something smaller like a copper piece?

My end goal, after determining how much heat is generated by a fireball, is to see how much ice you could melt with a fireball.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Science and D&D, sounds like a Phil and Dixie cartoon.

Let's assume a fireball cast by a 10th lvl wizard. 10d6 should yield about 35 points IIRC. While the heat generated by the fireball is hot, the duration is short so the actual damage, and heat imparted, is relatively small. So no, I don't think a normal fireball will even warm a 20ft chunk of copper, or ice for that matter.

If I pour a cup of gunpowder on the ground, run a copper wire through it and light it off, the heat from the burning powder may well melt the wire. The same amount of powder would have little effect on a 1" square bar of copper. I think the same applies with the fireball. Small light copper wire or chain mail might melt, but large pieces would only warm a little.
 

I think the rules leave this unstated for good reason. There is no real-world answer. The game rules are not detailed or compliant enough with real-world physics to model this in a consistent way.

The statement is there so the GM can be given an inspiration to make some choices - not so that the GM can make calculations. Have it do what you *want* it to do.
 

The statement is there so the GM can be given an inspiration to make some choices - not so that the GM can make calculations. Have it do what you *want* it to do.

This all started as a thought exercise while I was feeding DD her lunch. And now I have visions of a fireball, a frozen lake, and the PCs dropping into the icy water below!
 

Heard the argument about short duration before. People have gone so far as to argue that an "instantaneous" flash of fire can't ignite flamable materials, despite what the description says.

To answer the question, you need the Hardness of copper, and the HP per inch. Apply damage normally, and any "destroyed" by the fireball was melted.

Same for Ice, though Ice gets no Hardness against Fire.

So there's no sudden, disproportionate melting of soft metals just because the spell name is Fireball.

The DMG/SRD section on "Breaking and Entering", which includes the general Hardness tables, doesn't list copper, gold, or any of the "soft" metals, unfortunately.

SRD said:
Substance Hardness Hit Points
Paper or cloth ......... 0 2/inch of thickness
Rope ...................... 0 2/inch of thickness
Glass ....................... 1 1/inch of thickness
Ice .......................... 0 3/inch of thickness
Leather or hide ........ 2 5/inch of thickness
Wood or darkwood . 5 10/inch of thickness
Alchemical silver ....... 8 10/inch of thickness
Dragonhide ............ 10 10/inch of thickness
Stone ...................... 8 15/inch of thickness
Mundane crystal ...... 8 25/inch of thickness
Iron, steel, or deep crystal 10 30/inch of thickness
Mithral .................... 15 30/inch of thickness
Adamantine ............ 20 40/inch of thickness

Personally, I'd rate copper close to Alchemical Silver, but harder than wood. Maybe a 7 Hardness and 10 per inch. Silver I'd rate a bit softer, and Gold softer still. Softer than wood.

Yeah yeah, I know Balsa isn't the same category as Maple, but I think the table is referring to structural quality wood like well seasoned fir or perhaps oak.
 

Ah, I was trying to figure it out using:

Q = lm * m

Where Q is heat, lm is the latent heat of melting and m is mass. Estimating the mass is tricky part. Once I had Q I was going to use that to figure out the mass of the ice melted and thus it's volume. :)

However, with all that being said, I think [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] has the right approach to this. ;)
 

Ah, I was trying to figure it out using:

Q = lm * m

Where Q is heat, lm is the latent heat of melting and m is mass. Estimating the mass is tricky part.

That's not the only tricky part.

You put a block of ice in a room. You set off a fireball in the room.

How much of that energy goes into the ice, specifically, as opposed to, say the walls of the room?

Or, even more tricky - how does the magic work? Does it bring into being some energy, which distributes itself as it would in the real world, as we are assuming above? Or, does it bring into being some magical flame that sticks around for some period of time, and any energy that isn't absorbed into physical objects in some fraction of a second goes back to the magical energy plane? Because then the amount of energy the fireball deposits is dependent not so much on the fireball, but on the properties of the materials the fireball comes in contact with, but this is an entirely reasonable thing for magic, as opposed to real world.
 

To answer the question, you need the Hardness of copper, and the HP per inch. Apply damage normally, and any "destroyed" by the fireball was melted.

Well, I agree with the approach, but not necessarily with the details.

I also feel that if you are going for realism, the very basic rules for interacting with objects as presented in the SRD/RAW are not going to be adequate for even basic verisimilitude. The fundamental problems you are going to encounter are:

1) Lots of things that destroy tissue have very little effect on objects. So for example, a spear thrust might well go right through a creature, but probably has insufficient energy to do much damage to a hard object. Where as, the crushing blow of a maul will at least be as effective on stone as it would on soft tissue (albeit that stone probably has more hit points by volume). In general, I tend to half all damage against an object if the tool/weapon being employed is not designed to perform well versus the material of the object. So attempting to chop down a door with an axe works quite well, but is very slow going with a rapier - even if they both do 1d6 base damage. If you take the mechanical approach but ignore this, it won't be hard for most mid-level PC parties to bore through stone walls with their fists without too much trouble.

2) Similarly, attempting to attack an object with an item not designed for the purpose potentially does damage to the object itself. This is obvious on some level. If you try to break a door with a glass vial, the vial should smash. That however is not formalized by the rules, resulting in problems. The person attacking the door with the rapier if they apply too much force may well damage the rapier, while the axe wielder barring some sort of fumble ought to be fine (at least for game purposes, eventually of course any tool will dull or break from regular use, but the durations involved are sufficiently long as to be ignorable). And of course, attacking hard objects with your fists is probably a bad idea.

3) Finally, the rules give targets a static hardness and hit points that are linear with thickness. The problem with this is that realistically, hardness also linearly increases with thickness up to some quite high upper limit. That's because energy is absorbed and distributed more broadly the thicker the object, preventing flexing and deformation that might otherwise damage a portion of the object. A blow against a thin stone panel might smash it if it has sufficient force, but the same blow against a very thick boulder would normally do absolutely no damage at all. It probably won't even chip it. This is extremely important, because if you ignore the problem of thicker and thicker objects having increasing hardness, you get really dysfunctional results where objects that ought to be enduring and virtually indestructible without special tools, can easily be carved through in mere minutes without much effort simply by stubborn application of force. In the case of a thick wall of copper versus heat damage, copper will readily conduct the heat very quickly throughout the metal minimizing the actual effect of the heat on the object. The same amount of heat that would produce melting of a 3" thick copper panel might not even warm one that was 3 foot thick noticeably.

So there's no sudden, disproportionate melting of soft metals just because the spell name is Fireball.

But aside from the over simplified system employed by 3.X for interacting with objects, the mechanical approach is pretty much exactly what you should be employing IMO when adjudicating any damage to objects. I also agree that any exceptions to normal behavior ought to be clearly specified by the rules.

Personally, I'd rate copper close to Alchemical Silver, but harder than wood. Maybe a 7 Hardness and 10 per inch. Silver I'd rate a bit softer, and Gold softer still. Softer than wood.

I would rate copper as much more durable than you suggest here, with a hardness of 8 + 1/additional inch to a maximum of say 15 and about 20 hit points per inch. It would also in my game take half damage from any attack not specifically meant to effect metals, which in this case would mean probably anything but acid attacks, sonic attacks, and specialized metal boring tools. Faced with a 20ft thick copper wall, fireball would be virtually useless. Indeed, it would most likely take special preparation and considerable time to penetrate it. And anyone capable of constructing a 20ft thick copper stopper, probably also took the time to apply magical hardness spells and magical mending spells.
 

Energy attacks already do half damage to objects, by default, and Acid ignores hardness.

While I agree with your idea of adding to Hardness with mass/thickness, my suggestion of copper v Alchemical Silver was made with the current rules model in mind.

Alchemical Silver is the weapon alloy used for "Silver" weapons, harder than pure or jeweler's silver, but softer than normal weapons grade materials. That's why "Silver" weapons do less damage. Unless alloyed specifically to be a weapons grade material, copper would be softer, not harder.

Copper coins usually have Nickel and occasionally zinc added for durability. Even so, they're a far cry from tool or weapons grade material.

Brass, traditionally, had lead and tin in the mix. These days you don't see much lead, with zinc added in its place.

Bronze was copper and tin, no lead. Modern versions again have a bit of zinc added. Oddly, Bronze is harder than either copper or tin, and has a higher melting point than either one. It's one of those alloys that's more than just the sum of its component parts.

Wood, in D&D, is all lumped into one standard, ignoring the softness of pine (or the extreme softness of balsa) compared to hardwoods like oak. Ash and hickory are both good for tool or weapon hafts, being hard, springy and resilient, while other,harder woods like walnut tend to be more brittle. I think they were considering structural grade wood, like oak, for the most part.

Ice is the odd material. According to the book it has a hardness of zero. Having landed on it a few times wile learning to ice skate I can assure you that's wrong. It's also a material that can do damage, of the cold variety. Acid against it is more likely to be "destroyed" by being frozen than the acid corroding the ice. Any it did melt would quickly dilute the acid.

As for the example of a spear v flesh being compared to a spear v wood or stone: Flesh doesn't have a Hardness in the game. Wood has a Hardness rating and Stone has a higher one. That more or less accounts for the difference you describe.

What isn't accounted for is that you can damage a weapon by striking at too hard a material. You could, in theory, power-attack with a bale of hay and smash through a stone wall. All without harming o deforming the hay bale.

In the real world, blades get dull pounding against armor, shields or other weapons used to block or parry. D&D makes no provision for things like that. The complexity of weapon degradation would be an insane addition to play.

Thinking about your "Hardness increase with thickness" idea, might I suggest an adjustment? Increase the Hardness of anything by one point per inch, up to say three extra points, if it's "backed" by something at least as hard.

You could poke a finger straight through a piece of newsprint that was held in the air, but you'd break that finger if you tried that while the paper was laying on a wooden table.

That way Ice could have a functional hardness. if its thick enough.
 

That's not the only tricky part.

You put a block of ice in a room. You set off a fireball in the room.

How much of that energy goes into the ice, specifically, as opposed to, say the walls of the room?

Or, even more tricky - how does the magic work? Does it bring into being some energy, which distributes itself as it would in the real world, as we are assuming above? Or, does it bring into being some magical flame that sticks around for some period of time, and any energy that isn't absorbed into physical objects in some fraction of a second goes back to the magical energy plane? Because then the amount of energy the fireball deposits is dependent not so much on the fireball, but on the properties of the materials the fireball comes in contact with, but this is an entirely reasonable thing for magic, as opposed to real world.

Presuming the average of 3.5 points per dice, and a 10 dice fireball, you'll melt a bit less than 12 inches away from each exposed face. (Average of 35 points for the fireball, so divide by 3 hp per inch and get 11.6666666 inches.)

This, of course, presumes that Ice doen't have Evasion and a good Reflex save. :)
 

Remove ads

Top