larp – How can I safely represent non-combat fire magic?

Any sort of fire is very dangerous and should not be used. Read up on fire twirling for using fire if absolutely necessary.

You could use LED lightning to represent fire; LED lights are cheap and come in many colours. If you stick to reds, yellows, and orange, you could get good fire effects.

You could also use electroluminescent sheets (known as EL sheets) or wire. These are sheets like paper that glow when an electrical current is applied, and are quite safe. To get fire, you could cut fire shapes from a red EL sheet.

dnd 5e – Can an animated sword, made of adamantine, take damage via magical fire?

The ruling “has a basis in fact” insofar as the DMG account of how objects are effected by different damage types is extremely permissive (DMG p. 246):

Objects and Damage Types: Objects are immune to poison and psychic damage. You might decide that some damage types are more effective against a particular object or substance than others. For example, bludgeoning damage works well for smashing things but not for cutting through rope or leather. Paper or cloth objects might be vulnerable to fire and lightning damage. A pick can chip away stone but can’t effectively cut down a tree. As always, use your best judgment.

Note that this doesn’t even establish, for example, a hard and fast rule for a common sense ruling like paper being vulnerable to fire damage. So it is certainly not that case that the rules clearly state that adamantine objects can’t be immune to fire damage.

Of course, these rules specifically apply to inanimate objects. You say:

In this instance, it was an animated sword that was attacking us, and therefore a creature, no longer just an object.

I feel that this undercuts your concern over an object’s damage resistances/vulnerabilities/immunities. After all, if it is a creature, the DM can modify a creature’s stat block in any way they would like. The DM is not restricted to creatures in the Monster Manual. Your argument seems to turn on the DM using the object material to make the case that the adamantine sword was immune to fire damage. But note that the statistics for the flying sword (and you don’t specifically say that the “animated sword” is a Monster Manual flying sword) cannot be derived from the object properties. According to the DMG, steel has a suggested AC of 19, the flying sword has a DEX modifier of +2, so arguably it should have an AC of 21. Instead, it only has an AC of 17. For reference, adamantine has a suggested AC of 23. Did the sword you were fighting have an AC of 23, or 25 with DEX bonus?

So, either it’s a creature, in which case the DM has wide leeway (the DM is not restricted to creatures in published works, and even constructs in published works diverge from characteristics of the materials they are made of), or it’s an object, in which case the DM has wide leeway (because most of the rules around objects are suggestions, including AC, hit points, and damage resistances/vulnerabilities/immunities).

For what it’s worth, I probably wouldn’t make adamantine immune to fire damage. If it was forged in fire, fire can unmake it (except for artifacts). Maybe resistant? But I also wouldn’t spend a lot of time thinking about precise damage types for objects, unless it was really critical to the narrative.

dnd 5e – can a sword made of adamantine be damaged by magical fire?

This ruling isn’t “standard” D&D5e. (Assuming the GM was using the Flying Sword as presented in the Monster Manual.)

Of course, this could be–effectively, is–a homebrewed animated sword. In which case the GM is free to give it whatever damage immunities they would like.

But the Flying Sword (MM p.20) has no immunity to fire. (It is immune to poison and psychic damage, so even in that stat block we can see it’d have been easy to add “fire” to that list, but the developers didn’t.)

Additionally, adamantium in 5e traditionally grants the nullification of critical hits, rather than immunity to fire. See DMG p.150, for example.

That said, I’ve seen this sort of misunderstanding/mistake/mismatch in expectations cause too much grief at tables. I strongly recommend that out of session you take a moment to ask the GM about it, rather than let it fester. And that conversation doesn’t have to be confrontational: “hey, that’s neat that some materials grant fire immunity–can I quest for some of that and have it crafted into a shield?” can work just as well as “oh, so I guess I’m going to have to have cantrips ready to deal two different damage types, now?”

Fire Damages WebNX Utah Datacenter, Causes Extended Outage

Of all the categories I thought we might add to LowEndBox one day, “Datacenter Fires” was not on my short list.  But maybe we need to create this section.  On the heels of OVH’s huge SBG Datacenter fire in March, we’ve learned that WebNX has suffered a serious fire in their Ogden, Utah datacenter.

According to news reports, an emergency generator kicked in during a power outage, and then caught fire.

If you’re not familiar with datacenter power design, here’s a quick 101: most datacenters have a UPS system that is designed to provide short-term power should public power fail – long enough for an emergency generator to start up and begin providing long-term electricity.  In most datacenters, generators can run for weeks or months and can be refilled with diesel while operating.  Some datacenters even have multiple generators that can independently provide the full load of electricity, in theory providing infinite uninterrupted power as long as they are refueled.

In this case, public power failed and when the emergency generator started, it apparently caught fire for reasons unknown.  For safety reasons, the fire department cut power to the entire building.

WebNX posted an update on Facebook and on their web site:

Now that we have a better understanding of what happened we would like to give everyone an update.

One of our old generators that have worked for years and was recently load tested had a mechanical failure and caught fire resulting in power being cut to our core routers and fire suppression system controlling the fire. Unfortunately, the fire department opted to cut power to the rest of the building as a precaution even though the power systems were independent. We are currently waiting for an emergency inspector to arrive to give the all-clear so we can bring most of the servers in Ogden back online. Some servers will have an extended outage as they may require rebuilds due to some water damage. Those builds have a high probability that data is intact.

We would like to thank you for your patience and know that we are doing everything we can to get everyone back online.

WebNX feels that many customer systems will be unaffected, but smoke damage is often very widespread.  According to experts,

Smoke particles from fire travel fast, at around 10 metres per second, and can quickly fill a room or data centre hall. Under the microscope, these particles have jagged edges. As they spread through the air and enter servers and other equipment, these minute fragments cause scratching and damage.

Unfortunately, the deterioration does not stop there. Smoke settles on all surfaces of data centre equipment, even after the fire is extinguished, leaving a residue. Micro-pitting begins to occur on metal surfaces and although cleaning operations may initially look successful, the smoke residue that remains continues to react with moisture in the air, causing corrosion. Isolated faults typically begin to appear within a few days and can develop into much larger problems over time.

WebNX provides a 100% uptime SLA, so if you’re affected, please be sure to read the terms.

Let’s hope that articles in this category do not continue to grow!


I’m Andrew, techno polymath and long-time LowEndTalk community Moderator. My technical interests include all things Unix, perl, python, shell scripting, and relational database systems. I enjoy writing technical articles here on LowEndBox to help people get more out of their VPSes.

dnd 5e – Does the Elemental Adept (fire) feat let you reroll non-fire damage dice?

I think we are all in agreement that the Elemental Adept (Fire) Feat, Rules as Written, should allow for the potentially increased damage to the radiant damage portion of Flame Strike.

The divide comes for those who consider the Feat not clearly worded, and Rules as Intended to exclude the radiant damage dice.

In reflecting on how other rulings might help us think about this, what comes to my mind are the rulings on Critical hits and “extra damage”.

How does extra damage work for critical hits?

If an exceptionally well-placed sword blow (slashing) is intended to allow a paladin extra damage dice on the subsequent Divine Smite (radiant), that to me is enough to argue that the elemental (fire) feat is intended to apply to the additional radiant damage as well, unless and until something specifically disallowing it is official.

domain driven design – Job scheduling using hang fire DDD in c#

Job Scheduler Service
UI layer ->API Layer -> Application Layer
Core Layer

API Layer will dependent on Application Layer having interface Infrastructure layer will dependent on Application Layer via the interface.

The infrastructure layer and Application Layer will have the Domain Dependency.

And my Application Layer having CQRS with MediatR.

This is the way all the layers are linked.

I used hangfire to do the scheduling. So in the Core layer, I have a common class called JobExecutor which is implemented by using an interface IExecutor. Inside this, I am doing mediator to call the command. Which is a generic code. This interface is used by hangfire to schedule the commands.

Infrastructure.JobStorage Is the layer which is adding an entry to the hangfire database. This is done by calling hangfire.core.dll provided by hangfire. This Hangfire Library is using the Core interface IExecutor

So my question is it a best practice to pass the command which is present in the Application Layer to the Infrastructure Layer.

Let me know any more details.

dnd 5e – Does the Fire Elementa’s Touch attack’s ongoing damage stack with itself?

No they do not stack

The errata to the Dungeon Masters Guide states (emphasis mine):

Different game features can affect a target at the same time. But when two or more game features have the same name, only the effects of one of them—the most potent one—apply while the durations of the effects overlap. For example, if a target is ignited by a fire elemental’s Fire Form trait, the ongoing fire damage doesn’t increase if the burning target is subjected to that trait again. Game features include spells, class features, feats, racial traits, monster abilities, and magic items. See the related rule in the “Combining Magical Effects” section of chapter 10 in the Player’s Handbook.

The trait talked about there states:

(…) until someone takes an action to douse the fire, the creature takes 5 (1d10) fire damage at the start of each of its turns (…)

And the Touch attack states:

(…) Until a creature takes an action to douse the fire, the target takes 5 (1d10) fire damage at the start of each of its turns (…)

These are almost identically worded and as the first does not stack with itself we can conclude that the second also does not. This can also be concluded from the fact that the features share the same name, that name being the Touch attack of a Fire Elemental. As such, while the durations of those features would overlap, only one takes effect.

Both effects would be there though

Note that the rules do not say that while the durations overlap one of the effects just vanishes, instead, it simply becomes inactive while those durations overlap. But what happens when you try to end the effect of such a condition? We actually have an entire question on this (full disclosure: I asked it):

dnd 5e – Do the Fire Elemental’s Fire Form trait’s and Touch attack’s ongoing fire damage stack with each other?

They do technically stack, but a GM can always rule otherwise

Yes, the effects do have different names, and as such, the rules on stacking effects do not apply to these features. Thus a Fire Elemental could enter a creature’s space, catching them on fire and causing them to take 1d10 fire damage at the start of their turns and then perform a Touch attack, igniting them again and causing them to take another, separate 1d10 fire damage at the start of their turns.

That is what the rules seem to lay out; however, you may not think this makes perfect sense. After all, the creature was lit on fire twice and a GM could certainly argue that this simply cannot happen and thus the second effect cannot actually occur, but that would be their own ruling. Furthermore, if a GM said that they did stack, they would want to determine how one can go about dousing the fires; does it require one action or two?

dnd 5e – Does the Faerie Fire spell give advantage on attacks against invisible creatures?

The description of the faerie fire spell states:

Any attack roll against an affected creature or object has advantage if the attacker can see it, and the affected creature or object can’t benefit from being invisible.

As I read it, there are two ways to interpret this. The first is that being held unseen is a benefit of being invisible, and therefore the spell removes that benefit. Since the invisible creature is then visible, you have advantage against it.

The other interpretation is that the order of the sentence matters; first, check if you can see them, and you have advantage if you can. Then, strip them of the benefits of invisibility. In this case, you would have a regular attack roll against the creature, without disadvantage from being invisible nor advantage from Faerie Fire.

What interpretation of the rule aligns with the intention of the faerie fire spell?

dnd 5e – How much fire damage does igniting Grease deal?

I think there’s only one reasonable interpretation of “spells only do what they say they do” in this case. The idea that this means that the grease can’t be ignited puts a weird privilege on the property “flammable”. In the real world, pretty much most things can be lit aflame, and grease is usually one of them.

Saying “the grease spell doesn’t say the substance is flammable, so it is fireproof” is like saying “wall of stone doesn’t say that the wall is visible, only that it’s solid, so you can’t see it”. That’s…. a route to madness. We use a common sense, English language interpretation of what “stone” is, and the same should apply to “grease”.

Now, it may be that “flammable” is special, and there is a non-written rule that this is a property that nothing has unless otherwise stated. But, that seems to be exactly what Crawford is cautioning about in this tweet“There aren’t secret rules.” There definitely isn’t a written rule about this.

So, what’s the reasonable interpretation? The grease may indeed be flammable, but it’s not so specially flammable as to cause significant extra fire damage — if it were, it would say so. I’d rule that it either burns in a flash that does no damage, or minimal damage like the non-magical damage from a lit torch as a weapon — save or take 1 point of fire damage.