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

[pemerton]

The general rules for fire do not trump the fact that the fireball spell tells you how it works, and it damages items which are not worn or carried.

If the fireball spell said ". . . and it damages nothing else" that would be true. But it doesn't. As far as items that are neither worn nor carried are concerned, fireball establishes a definite consequence (which trumps the general rule making it a matter of GM adjudication in various ways). For other objects, the GM's discretion is left undisturbed.

You are inferring that the particular list in the fireball spell description is exhaustive. The rules nowhere tell us that those sorts of lists are exhaustive, though. So you are extrapolating. I favour a different extrapolation, which I think does a better job of integrating all the salient rules text.

Specific beats general. All that fireball says is all that matters. Your general rules and your arguments about them are irrelevant.

But fireball says nothing about its description being exhaustive, or about the general rules being displaced.

Specific beats general and spells are explicitly pointed out to be specific rules, so your general rule does not apply.

<snip>

general rules are superseded by fireball's specific rules. A fireball can only damage objects that are not worn. Unless there is a house rule to say otherwise.

That word "only" is your interpolation, just as it is [MENTION=61529]seebs[/MENTION]' interpolation. It does not appear in any of the spell descriptions were are discussing. By your own lights, therefore, it is a house rule!

(Also, [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] is quite correct to point out that, in natural language, there is no general rule that lists and descriptions are exhaustive.)

Just out of curiosity, how do you think the bolded spells damage objects if not by burning (igniting) them?

They damage by burning. That text takes the effect of those spells out of the GM's adjudication, as I already stated in my earlier post.

The bottom line, for, me, is this: the game does not mandate that a NPC can be burned to death by Burning Hands or Fireball, and yet it is a house rule for the GM to describe his/her clothes as charred or damaged.

The rule is that longswords do 1d8 slashing damage and are versatile. Should you decide that it does 1d8 slashing damage and it is versatile, what you decide still applies to my table since it is RAW.

No. The text applies to you, but not my interpretation of it.

 

[Maxperson]

If the fireball spell said ". . . and it damages nothing else" that would be true. But it doesn't. As far as items that are neither worn nor carried are concerned, fireball establishes a definite consequence (which trumps the general rule making it a matter of GM adjudication in various ways). For other objects, the GM's discretion is left undisturbed.

You are inferring that the particular list in the fireball spell description is exhaustive. The rules nowhere tell us that those sorts of lists are exhaustive, though. So you are extrapolating. I favour a different extrapolation, which I think does a better job of integrating all the salient rules text.

But fireball says nothing about its description being exhaustive, or about the general rules being displaced.

First, the language used is exclusionary. It tells you what is included, so all else is excluded. Second, no specific rule says, "The general rule is displaced." It automatically displaces the general rule by virtue of being a specific one.

That word "only" is your interpolation, just as it is @seebs' interpolation. It does not appear in any of the spell descriptions were are discussing. By your own lights, therefore, it is a house rule!

Nope. The language says what is included, so all else is automatically excluded.

(Also, @S'mon is quite correct to point out that, in natural language, there is no general rule that lists and descriptions are exhaustive.)

It's in how it is worded. The language is absolute. It tells you in absolute terms what is ignited, and it's unattended flammable items.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], if someone tells you "There's milk in the fridge," and you open the refrigator door and see peanut butter in there as well, do you get angry at them for lying to you?

There is no general principle - in conversational English, in statutory English, in the writing of D&D's rules - that lists and descriptions are exhaustive.

 

[Maxperson]

[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], if someone tells you "There's milk in the fridge," and you open the refrigator door and see peanut butter in there as well, do you get angry at them for lying to you?

A more apt analogy is when discussing food, you said "Dairy is outside of the fridge." Yes, if I then found dairy inside of the fridge I would be upset that you lied to me. "Dairy is outside of the fridge" like "Fireball ignites unattended items" is exclusionary of its opposite.

 

[Lehrbuch]

...if someone tells you "There's milk in the fridge," and you open the refrigator door and see peanut butter in there as well, do you get angry at them for lying to you?

No.

But what kind of crazy person puts peanut butter in the refrigerator?

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

A more apt analogy is when discussing food, you said "Dairy is outside of the fridge." Yes, if I then found dairy inside of the fridge I would be upset that you lied to me.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that "Dairy is outside of the fridge." and "All of the dairy is outside of the fridge." are statements of identical meaning. Is that correct?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Maxperson]

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that "Dairy is outside of the fridge." and "All of the dairy is outside of the fridge." are statements of identical meaning. Is that correct?

When telling someone where to find the dairy, yes the are the same thing. Because if they aren't the same thing, you're a douche for misleading the person by saying that the "Dairy is outside of he fridge."

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

When telling someone where to find the dairy, yes the are the same thing. Because if they aren't the same thing, you're a douche for misleading the person by saying that the "Dairy is outside of he fridge."

I will accept that as a response of "no."

But that leaves us with the question of what the question the text of the spell is answering actually is, since that is what determined whether my two example sentences about dairy were the same under an assumption, but not under every assumption.