D&D 5E Is it houseruling to let a torch set fire to things?

jmoolaman · Apr 15, 2016

You understand that you are basically asking is fire hot and can it burn things. Yes, oddly enough it is and yes it truly can.

Oofta · Apr 15, 2016

FrogReaver said:
Lol. I almost regret ever starting that thread...

Ahh, that does bring back memories. :erm:

Not necessarily fond ones, but memories nonetheless.

I still define a house rule as one that explicitly overrides a rule from the book. Like if I change how Heat Metal spell works because I think it's overpowered for it's level.

There are certain currently active threads that show how people still don't accept that not every aspect of the game is defined by the rules written in the book. Sometimes the DM just has to make a ruling, and that's part of the design of the game.

Other versions of D&D would have people scrambling to find what the flight speed of a sparrow carrying a coconut would be, only to declare that the rules are insufficient and hopelessly broken because they don't specify African or European swallow.

At least I don't see the phrase "RAW SAYS <insert opinion here>" as much as we used to on certain other forums. B-)

ChrisCarlson · Apr 15, 2016

Dirty houserulers! We hateses them, we does!

Tony Vargas · Apr 15, 2016

Imaro said:
The major thing, especially in early 4e, that lead to that past discussion was that every spell, including those with the "fire" keyword had a specific type of target they could affect... ie "creature". Thus why specify the target as "creature" if the power was intended to be used on objects as well?

The rules specifically left it up to the DM whether spells that targeted 'creatures' could target unattended objects.

A similar point was (and is) whether the existence of ongoing damage means that anything that doesn't give ongoing fire damage can actually start fires. The answer was (and is) that the environment can have characteristics like being flammable. If the bale of hay is exposed to fire, it catches fire, whether the fire in question has stats as an attack that include ongoing fire damage or not.

Really, a non-issue, then and now. But, particularly now, as there's no expectation that the rules will be at all explicit or robust, to begin with - DM judgment and sensible rulings are assumed.

Tony Vargas · Apr 15, 2016

Manbearcat said:
1) Player wants to set a creature on fire with a torch.

Unless the creature was especially flammable, it'd start burning when reduced to 0 hps.

2) Player wants to set flammable building materials on fire with a torch:

If they're really flammable, just drop or dip the torch as you walk by - 'interacting with an object as part of an action' - if they're flammable, but not like tinder, sure, an action.

3) Spellcaster/grenadier wants to set creature/object on fire with a fire spell/grenade:

One advantage of spells is that their effects are more clearly spelled-out (npi!) and don't necessarily have to make sense (because: magic). The flip side of that is if a spell doesn't say it does something, it probably doesn't do it. A hypothetical spell that does fire damage to your enemies (but only your enemies) in the area, for instance, probably wouldn't start fires (unless nearby flammable materials really had it in for you).

Any or all of those houserules or are they just rulings on exceptions (even if crappy rulings...their merit isn't relevant)?

Rulings. Doubly so in 5e, where the spirit is 'rulings not rules.'

Guest 6801328 · Apr 15, 2016

For everybody expressing doubt as to the utility of this thread, in this thread there are in fact people claiming that rulings are house-rules. Crazy, but true.

Yardiff · Apr 15, 2016

Elfcrusher said:
For everybody expressing doubt as to the utility of this thread, in this thread there are in fact people claiming that rulings are house-rules. Crazy, but true.

I take it that you believe that term 'house-rule' has only one interpretation, the one you use?