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

[Maxperson]

I mean, I've seen threads on various sites about whether or not a bear can grapple, even after the term BEAR HUG was introduced. I don't see why there can't be idiots out there who think fires can't start more fires without having to argue over it for a dozen pages.

I haven't seen a single person here who thinks a fire can't start more fires. If you think this debate is about that, you need to re-read that dozen pages, because you missed a lot.

 

[S'mon]

Look, I told you I didn't want to get drawn into this. This is why. If you make a sweeping, unarguably wrong point, the best course of action is to just concede it. You can concede it with grace, you can concede it with humor, or you just go, "Yep, my bad," (that might be the best way!) and you move on.

There was no debate here. The statement that there is no general principle in statutory English that lists and descriptions are exhaustive is not just incorrect, it's the opposite of true.

I don't know where you learned Law, but what Pemerton said is entirely correct from an English Law perspective (my field) and presumably an Australian Law perspective (his field). My
Constitutional Law tutors at Oxford never taught me anything like your claim, whereas what I was taught tallies exactly with what Pemerton said.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The rules don't imply that at all. They state it by eliminating worn items as being damageable.......without a house rule anyway. As for the ice, that's up to the DM to rule on and to enact that new rule consistently in the future.



The bolded is irrelevant. Without proof that they are written by two different people, and further proof that they didn't collaborate together, we have to treat the rules as they are written. 1) specific beats general, so the fireball rules trump any other object damaging rules, and 2) the inclusion of what fireball specifically damages automatically excludes everything else.



Yes, since that's the rule. However, it's also within the spirit of the game to enact house rules when the rules result in something you view as silly, so feel free to house rule that the clothes are fried.

The way I roll with it depends on the outcome of the fireball. Anyone caught in the blast that is still standing isn't terribly burnt. If the fireball takes out a target then whatever it was wearing I consider badly burned, but not on fire. I believe the intent of the rule was to prevent squeezing extra damage out of the spell and needing to track ongoing fire damage rather than intending for fireball victims to remain unburnt.

This way I get results that are consistent if a creature is taken out by a fireball without giving the spell extra fire damage. As for treasure and other valuables, the answer is simply don't throw fireballs willy-nilly at targets that you want to loot.

There is a reason that cone of cold in AD&D is a higher level spell than fireball even though it does less damage. It leaves treasure more intact.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[S'mon]

I just want to verify this.

Thanks for verifying then.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Maxperson]

The way I roll with it depends on the outcome of the fireball. Anyone caught in the blast that is still standing isn't terribly burnt. If the fireball takes out a target then whatever it was wearing I consider badly burned, but not on fire. I believe the intent of the rule was to prevent squeezing extra damage out of the spell and needing to track ongoing fire damage rather than intending for fireball victims to remain unburnt.

This way I get results that are consistent if a creature is taken out by a fireball without giving the spell extra fire damage. As for treasure and other valuables, the answer is simply don't throw fireballs willy-nilly at targets that you want to loot.

There is a reason that cone of cold in AD&D is a higher level spell than fireball even though it does less damage. It leaves treasure more intact.

In AD&D sure. Fireball could also destroy worn items back then. There has been a trend starting with 3e for the game to become less "painful" to the players, and fewer and fewer things cause permanent loss. It was very easy to permanently lose stats and levels in 1e/2e. 3e it was possible, but much rarer to the point where I don't think I ever actually managed to lose a level or stat. 4e I'm not sure about.

As for how you run fireball, that's a very reasonable way to run it in 5e, but it's not RAW. I run fireball in a similar manner.

 

[pemerton]

The way I roll with it depends on the outcome of the fireball. Anyone caught in the blast that is still standing isn't terribly burnt. If the fireball takes out a target then whatever it was wearing I consider badly burned, but not on fire. I believe the intent of the rule was to prevent squeezing extra damage out of the spell and needing to track ongoing fire damage rather than intending for fireball victims to remain unburnt.

This way I get results that are consistent if a creature is taken out by a fireball without giving the spell extra fire damage.

That makes sense to me. It also fits with Gygaxian hit points (as per his DMG, p 61) - if the target of the fireball isn't taken out then hit location, damage type etc are not germane, which correlates to no equipment etc being damage.

As for treasure and other valuables, the answer is simply don't throw fireballs willy-nilly at targets that you want to loot.

There is a reason that cone of cold in AD&D is a higher level spell than fireball even though it does less damage. It leaves treasure more intact.

Interesting explanation - I've often wondered about that!

 

[pemerton]

there is a general principle

You seem to be treating "general principle" as something like a synonym for "rough-and-ready rule-of-thumb".

I was replying to [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]'s claim (post 133 upthread) that "the language used is exclusionary. It tells you what is included, so all else is excluded. . . . The language says what is included, so all else is automatically excluded." There is no such principle that applies to English, statutory or otherwise.

In some context, lists are exhaustive. Including in some statutory contexts. But not in general - or, to use Maxperson's term, not automatically.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*