D&D 5E Geniuses with 5 Int

[Cap'n Kobold]

To me anytime you need to make a, what 5e calls 'ruling', its a house rule because it can be different from table to table. Maybe calling it 'table decisions' will make it easier to handle since 'house rule' seem to be to controversial.

I generally differentiate between what I would call House Rules, where I am actually changing the official rules (such as declaring that Quarterstaffs are 2-handed weapons,) and Rulings where I'm either clarifying a fuzzy rule, or extrapolating from existing ones ("Your fireball sets the thatch ablaze", "Yes, you can find a 4-person tent for sale.")

 

[Yardiff]

I generally differentiate between what I would call House Rules, where I am actually changing the official rules (such as declaring that Quarterstaffs are 2-handed weapons,) and Rulings where I'm either clarifying a fuzzy rule, or extrapolating from existing ones ("Your fireball sets the thatch ablaze", "Yes, you can find a 4-person tent for sale.")

I understand. 'House Rule' like a lot of things (like Role Playing and commonsense) means different things to different people.

 

[pemerton]

the rules for interacting and damaging objects are on page 185. The rule is that the DM decides the AC, hit points and any resistances for the object. The sword does the damage. No extrapolation is necessary at all.

So it's RAW that a fireball spell will damage things, but its house ruling to say that the damage is the result of it setting things on fire?

 

[Yardiff]

So it's RAW that a fireball spell will damage things, but its house ruling to say that the damage is the result of it setting things on fire?

From the description of the fireball spell, and several other fire spells, they do fire damage and as a secondary effect they "It ignites flammable objects in the area that aren't being worn or carried."

Firestorm "The fire damages objects in the area and ignites flammable objects that aren't being worn or carried."

Flaming Sphere "The sphere ignites flammable objects not being worn or carried,"

Etc.

So yes, saying that the damage is the result of the object being set on fire would be a house rule....a least by my way of thinking.

 

[Maxperson]

So it's RAW that a fireball spell will damage things, but its house ruling to say that the damage is the result of it setting things on fire?

If you are changing a mechanic, yes it is a house rule. Your mechanical change has no bearing on anyone else's house. Nobody else is required to enact a ruling to overcome your change, so it can't be RAW. It doesn't matter how reasonable the change is, it is still a change to a rule.

There are non-mechanical house rules as well, but those are less common. An example would be if you change the rules definition of intelligence to include other things, or to just plain ignore the existing rule.

 

[Maxperson]

From the description of the fireball spell, and several other fire spells, they do fire damage and as a secondary effect they "It ignites flammable objects in the area that aren't being worn or carried."

Firestorm "The fire damages objects in the area and ignites flammable objects that aren't being worn or carried."

Flaming Sphere "The sphere ignites flammable objects not being worn or carried,"

Etc.

So yes, saying that the damage is the result of the object being set on fire would be a house rule....a least by my way of thinking.

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is saying that if a fire spell does not set things on fire, it's not a house rule to say that they do. That's incorrect. If igniting was part of the rule, it would be included as it is with fireball. A house rule to fireball would be to allow it to set fire to worn items, which is just as likely as setting fire to non-worn items. The existing rule inside of the fireball mechanics is silly to exclude flammable worn items.

 

[pemerton]

From the description of the fireball spell, and several other fire spells, they do fire damage and as a secondary effect they "It ignites flammable objects in the area that aren't being worn or carried."

Firestorm "The fire damages objects in the area and ignites flammable objects that aren't being worn or carried."

Flaming Sphere "The sphere ignites flammable objects not being worn or carried,"

Etc.

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is saying that if a fire spell does not set things on fire, it's not a house rule to say that they do. That's incorrect. If igniting was part of the rule, it would be included as it is with fireball.

I am saying that if an effect causes fire damage, it is not a house rule to say that it may set things alight because it has the capacity to do so - because that's what fire does.

Here is the rule for torches, on p 68 of the SRD:

A torch burns for 1 hour, providing bright light in a 20 foot radius and dim light for an additional 20 feet. If you make a melee attack with a burning torch and hit, it deals 1 fire damage.​

The torch burns. And it does fire damage. Yet, by the above logic, it seems that it would be a house rule for a GM to allow the following action declaration: "I use my burning torch to set the book alight!"

Here is another oddity. Page 68 of the SRD, in the entry for tinderboxes, describes torches as having "abundant, exposed fuel" (which permits them to be lit with an action rather than taking a minute). But on the above logic a torch can't set another torch alight, despite the fact that the currently-lit torch is burning more fiercely than a tinderbox (whose fire is not described as doing any damage, and takes a minute to set typical combustible objects alight) and the one that is not yet lit has "abundant, exposed fuel" of exactly the same sort as is currently burning in the lit torch.

Unless the GM institutes a house rule, that is!

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[BoldItalic]

See, this is why my character never bothers to carry a tinderbox. We rely on the party wizard to cast a fireball to ignite our torches when we need them.

Since tinderboxes are part of standard equipment packages, though, not carrying them requires a house rule. But we're cool with that.

 

[Yardiff]

Eh... I hesitate to wade back into this, but I will note that you appear to continue to conflate "common sense" in real life with RAW. That said, I understand why you don't think the term "houserule" should be used (I also wouldn't apply houserule to most of the adjudications under discussion).

Perhaps this might help- a popular case, referred to colloquially as Wagon Mound No. 1 (dealing with Proximate Cause), for the large part turned on the issue of oil not being flammable in water, even though everyone knows that, um, oil burns. Go figure, right?

Again, look back to either RAW or the fireball. Of course it makes sense to you that a fireball that hits someone will put them (and their objects) on fire. But, as I stated previously, it also makes perfect sense that an acid splash will damage objects; that a fall from height will damage objects; that many things will damage objects. The question becomes - what does a table want to do? And, contra your assertions, it is not spelled out in the RAW that a fireball causes the target to catch fire.

Is it common-sense to say that it does? Sure. Might some tables (perhaps the vast majority of tables?) not accept your common-sense adjudication? Sure.

Is this the RAW? Nope.

Pretty much this.

But I'll try to use 'table rulings' from now on.