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

[pemerton]

I even felt a bit ashamed of answering this poll in the first place...

Which way did you vote?

 

[RevelationMD]

In my own gaming group we do allow for one torch to be used to light another torch - but only in a round where the character in question isn't using his action to 'breathe'.

 

[Manbearcat]

In my own gaming group we do allow for one torch to be used to light another torch - but only in a round where the character in question isn't using his action to 'breathe'.

Wait a minute. This seems to imply that you abstract breathing into one action rather than discrete "inhale" and "exhale"actions? Can I also assume then that you allow ridiculous things like "blinking to facilitate moistening eyeballs" as a Bonus Action?

This kind of stuff completely breaks the "existence" action economy. Definitely well outside of ruling territory and well into houserule.

I don't even know how some of you people live with yourselves let alone run a proper, balanced, functional game.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I don't even know how some of you people live with yourselves let alone run a proper, balanced, functional game.

They're dirty metagamers is how.

 

[chaochou]

Wait a minute. This seems to imply that you abstract breathing into one action rather than discrete "inhale" and "exhale"actions?

...

I don't even know how some of you people live with yourselves let alone run a proper, balanced, functional game.

Pfff. Everyone knows you divide your Intercostal Strength by your Lung Capacity to get your Respiratory Points for the turn. I mean if you're not even doing the basics of oxygen to carbon dioxide exchange how can you even say you're role playing at all?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

...I honestly can't tell if this poll is serious or not. But the fact that people apparently openly disagreed about whether a torch could set things on fire seems, to me, to bring into question the very concept of "natural language." Even if 99.99% of people voted no--we have people who voted yes. It is a non-zero number.

 

[RevelationMD]

...I honestly can't tell if this poll is serious or not. But the fact that people apparently openly disagreed about whether a torch could set things on fire seems, to me, to bring into question the very concept of "natural language." Even if 99.99% of people voted no--we have people who voted yes. It is a non-zero number.

Well, actually, I voted yes - but that was out of ignorance of the meaning of 'houseruling'. I took the poll to mean 'in your gaming group do you allow a torch to be used to light another torch' - which I thought was an obvious 'yes'. Having read through the posts I see that 'houseruling' has a very specific meaning and it's not what I assumed lol.

In my defence I've played one game of D&D (using roll20 - last Sunday) since around 1995. I'm a born again noob

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Well, actually, I voted yes - but that was out of ignorance of the meaning of 'houseruling'. I took the poll to mean 'in your gaming group do you allow a torch to be used to light another torch' - which I thought was an obvious 'yes'. Having read through the posts I see that 'houseruling' has a very specific meaning and it's not what I assumed lol.

In my defence I've played one game of D&D (using roll20 - last Sunday) since around 1995. I'm a born again noob

Well, you can always click the red Unvote in the upper-right corner of the poll and change your vote!

But really, my point would still stand even if we had 0 "Yes, it's houseruling" votes here, because Pemerton started the poll, in his own words, because "In another thread, the following question has arisen: Is it houseruling to allow a PC to use a burning torch to set fire to a flammable object?" So, even if no one *here* said yes, clearly SOME people thought the answer was "yes," or Pemerton wouldn't have felt the need to create a poll.

 

[RevelationMD]

Well, you can always click the red Unvote in the upper-right corner of the poll and change your vote!

But really, my point would still stand even if we had 0 "Yes, it's houseruling" votes here, because Pemerton started the poll, in his own words, "In another thread, the following question has arisen: Is it houseruling to allow a PC to use a burning torch to set fire to a flammable object?" So, even if no one *here* said yes, clearly SOME people thought the answer was "yes," or Pemerton wouldn't have felt the need to create a poll.

Fair comment - and thanks for pointing out how I can undo my embarrassment! lol

 

[Maxperson]

Seems reasonable to me. The rules don't cover everything, especially mundane physics. That's what the DM is for You shouldn't have a problem with it. A houserule is something that changes a clear game rule.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

Just to clarify. A house rule is any rule that applies to your own house. It need not be mechanical in nature. It need not have anything to do with an existing rule. The only requirements are that it A) be a rule, and B) apply only to your house.

A mechanical change such as this torch issue that deals with mechanics, and that applies only to your house, would be a house rule. The DM has creates a mechanical change to the rules and will apply them consistently in the future under identical, and possibly similar circumstances.

This torch debate seems to be ridiculous, because virtually everyone would allow it. However, when you step back from that and look objectively at the situation, you see that the DM has created a mechanical change to the existing rules to allow the torch to do what is being asked about in the OP. He will apply it consistently. And his ruling in no way affects my table. That's a house rule.