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

[Maxperson]

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.

You need to read 1e again. Fireball destroyed items worn even if the target isn't taken out. The items are safe only if the target saves, not if he isn't taken out.

Interesting explanation - I've often wondered about that!

A more probable explanation is that resistance to cold is rarer than resistances to fire, making the cold spell more powerful.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

You don't call out something specific like that unless it's necessary. Since there are rules for destroying objects, there is no need for the statement in fireball unless those rules were not appropriate. Similarly, if the writer of fireball had intended it to destroy objects both attended and unattended, he would have said so. By calling out unattended only, he is excluding attended items.

House rule the spell if you want, but you should at least admit that you are house ruling.

 

[billd91]

The items are safe only if the target saves,...

Not even then by my recollection.

 

[Hriston]

Fireball certainly, automatically ignites flammable objects in the spell's area of effect that are neither worn nor carried. That much is clear. However, this has no bearing whatsoever on whether flammable objects that are worn or carried have a chance of catching fire. The rules leave this detail up to the discretion of the DM. If you disagree, prove me wrong.

 

[pemerton]

the person who wrote the text for fireball clearly envisioned it as not damaging items which are worn or carried, and spent extra effort to specifically communicate that. That is the intent of the fireball spell. You could argue that the page 87 ruling has other intent, but the spell's intent is unambiguous. If it meant something else, it wouldn't have those words.

It's not unambiguous!

Here's one way it could have been made unambiguous: The spell ignites flammable objects that are in the area of effect and are neither worn nor carried by a creature. It does no damage to any other objects. I'm sure there are other variations that would have the same consequence (eg judicious use of "only").

But no such wording occurs. You are extrapolating an intent and a message which is not the only plausible thing being communicated. As [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] has just pointed out, for instance, and as I am inclined to think, the significance of calling out these things specifically is to take the question of their ignition outside the realm of GM discretion. Which would still leave other objects within GM discretion (as per SRD p 87).

You don't call out something specific like that unless it's necessary. Since there are rules for destroying objects, there is no need for the statement in fireball unless those rules were not appropriate.

But there are any number of reasons why those rules might not be approriate: for instance, if they invoke GM discretion and - when it comes to fireball's effect upon non-worn, non-carried items you don't want the GM to have discretion.

Similarly, if the writer of fireball had intended it to destroy objects both attended and unattended, he would have said so. By calling out unattended only, he is excluding attended items.

I could equally say: had s/he wanted to state and nothing else is affected, s/he would have said so. But s/he didn't.

Which means it is a matter of interpretation. Your reading is no more "automatic" than mine. And I think mine has the virtue of reconciling the spell description with p 87, and of reducing absurdities in the fiction, like goblins being burned to death yet their clothing being completely unsinged.

 

[Maxperson]

But there are any number of reasons why those rules might not be approriate: for instance, if they invoke GM discretion and - when it comes to fireball's effect upon non-worn, non-carried items you don't want the GM to have discretion.

If that had been the case, the creator of fireball would have said so, rather than just listing unattended objects.

I could equally say: had s/he wanted to state and nothing else is affected, s/he would have said so. But s/he didn't.

And you would be wrong. The creator didn't need to say that since the very fact of writing it the way he did does that already. Redundancy is bad in a book where word bloat either costs the company or the consumer more money.

 

[Maxperson]

Fireball certainly, automatically ignites flammable objects in the spell's area of effect that are neither worn nor carried. That much is clear. However, this has no bearing whatsoever on whether flammable objects that are worn or carried have a chance of catching fire. The rules leave this detail up to the discretion of the DM. If you disagree, prove me wrong.

What is not said is not a part of the rules. Since specific beats general and fireball lists specific rules on object destruction, the general object destruction rules do not apply. Fireball also does not say that it does not give a deep massage to its targets, so I guess that detail is also up to the discretion of the DM. If you disagree, prove me wrong.

 

[Maxperson]

Not even then by my recollection.

"Besides causing damage to creatures, the fireball ignites all combustible materials within its burst radius, and the heat of the fireball will melt soft metals such as gold, copper, silver, etc. Items exposed to the spell's effects must be rolled for to determine if they are affected. Items with a creature which makes its saving throw are considered as unaffected."

I looked it up before I posted

Edit: As an aside. THIS is the sort of language 5e would have used if 5e fireball was supposed to be able to destroy worn items.

 

[Hriston]

What is not said is not a part of the rules. Since specific beats general and fireball lists specific rules on object destruction, the general object destruction rules do not apply. Fireball also does not say that it does not give a deep massage to its targets, so I guess that detail is also up to the discretion of the DM. If you disagree, prove me wrong.

I thought your argument was that fireball explicitly does not ignite worn or carried items. The rules don't say that.

 

[seebs]

It's not unambiguous!

The intent is. People don't add extra words that don't change meaning.