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

ChrisCarlson · Apr 16, 2016

Maxperson said:
House rules are changes or additions to the rules of the game as they are written.

You've just tried to define a nebulous term. And in doing so, I can likewise say your definition is equally overstepping and absurd.

Also, context. I've seen people attempt to use "houserule" as a derogatory term far too often. Once you (the general 'you') start using it to dismiss someone else's opinions, you again change the meaning of said term.

RevelationMD · Apr 16, 2016

Your fireball question, I'll admit, is a weird one - I guess the writer of the spell description assumed that most people being hit by fireball wouldn't want it to destroy their worn possessions (as opposed to using the spell to light their torch). But magical fire created by a spell is beyond the 'fire burns' discussion anyway. Fireballs being able to discern whether a torch is held or at the feet, has to come down to the magic of the spell (as strange as that is), in exactly the same way as the fire created by firestorm not effecting plant life if the caster requires. Simple explanation - it's magic, it can bend the laws of nature.

Maxperson · Apr 16, 2016

ChrisCarlson said:
You've just tried to define a nebulous term. And in doing so, I can likewise say your definition is equally overstepping and absurd.

Also, context. I've seen people attempt to use "houserule" as a derogatory term far too often. Once you (the general 'you') start using it to dismiss someone else's opinions, you again change the meaning of said term.

Really? I don't recall ever seeing house rule as a derogatory term. I have seen house rules dismissed in discussion about RAW, as they should be, though.

There's nothing wrong with house rules or discussing them, so long as it is understood that they only apply to you and that you shouldn't try to push them on others.

Maxperson · Apr 16, 2016

RevelationMD said:
Your fireball question, I'll admit, is a weird one - I guess the writer of the spell description assumed that most people being hit by fireball wouldn't want it to destroy their worn possessions (as opposed to using the spell to light their torch). But magical fire created by a spell is beyond the 'fire burns' discussion anyway. Fireballs being able to discern whether a torch is held or at the feet, has to come down to the magic of the spell (as strange as that is), in exactly the same way as the fire created by firestorm not effecting plant life if the caster requires. Simple explanation - it's magic, it can bend the laws of nature.

That's a cop-out. There's nothing involved anywhere in fireball that indicates that it is somehow magically discerning so as not to burn items on a target. "Because magic" falls flat in cases like this.

The rule was put there because players do not like to lose magical staves, scrolls and other valuable items to fire. It's a rule that makes no sense and exists for balance reasons.

MostlyDm · Apr 16, 2016

ChrisCarlson said:
Also, context. I've seen people attempt to use "houserule" as a derogatory term far too often. Once you (the general 'you') start using it to dismiss someone else's opinions, you again change the meaning of said term.

This has always seemed like such an odd internet phenomenon to me.

Depending on the game, I typically run with dozens of house rules. They vary.

One of my longest running campaigns (not 5e) is more house rule than core rule at this point.

The GMs I know do the same. The rules are not going to fit perfectly for every scenario. It's inevitable.

Frankly, I think if I sat down at someone's table and they said they had NO house rules? I'd probably walk. Because either they mean it, because they lack the system mastery to understand what things they want changed... or they have hidden house rules because they're the kind of person to willfully interpret things as they like and pretend it's the only way to interpret... Or some combination of both.

I've made exceptions for new DMs that haven't decided what they want to change yet. But a seasoned DM that claims they have no house rules? Nah. Not for me.

DM Howard · Apr 16, 2016

Tony Vargas said:
Indeed....

I hope you didn't take what I said as snarky. I was simply stating that such common sense rulings are inherent to all RPGs.

Oofta · Apr 16, 2016

ChrisCarlson said:
You've just tried to define a nebulous term. And in doing so, I can likewise say your definition is equally overstepping and absurd.

Also, context. I've seen people attempt to use "houserule" as a derogatory term far too often. Once you (the general 'you') start using it to dismiss someone else's opinions, you again change the meaning of said term.

Yes, and usually the term is preceded by some personal interpretation of a particular rule that is difficult to justify followed by "if you disagree with me you can make a houserule, I will just never play in a game you run because you're obviously an ******

"

RevelationMD · Apr 16, 2016

Maxperson said:
That's a cop-out. There's nothing involved anywhere in fireball that indicates that it is somehow magically discerning so as not to burn items on a target. "Because magic" falls flat in cases like this.

The rule was put there because players do not like to lose magical staves, scrolls and other valuable items to fire. It's a rule that makes no sense and exists for balance reasons.

Actually, its quite the opposite. As you previously pointed out it specifically says that the fireball spell is somehow discerning with regards to what is in possession and what is not. Anyway, this is irrelevant - I suspect you are right that the rule is there so that a 3rd level spell doesn't become a low level Mordenkainens Disjunction. Not sure how this suggests that a torch can't be used to light another torch.

FrogReaver · Apr 16, 2016

It is such dismissals that lead to questions over what a house rule really is. If such things aren't really house rules then dismissing them as not RAW doesn't really work.

Maxperson said:
Really? I don't recall ever seeing house rule as a derogatory term. I have seen house rules dismissed in discussion about RAW, as they should be, though.

There's nothing wrong with house rules or discussing them, so long as it is understood that they only apply to you and that you shouldn't try to push them on others.

Li Shenron · Apr 16, 2016

pemerton said:
Which way did you vote?

Correctly

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

Is it houseruling to allow a burning torch to set fire to another torch?

Yes

No

ChrisCarlson

First Post

RevelationMD

First Post

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

MostlyDm

Explorer

DM Howard

Explorer

Oofta

Legend

RevelationMD

First Post

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog

Li Shenron

Legend

Similar Threads