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

[Hriston]

Yes. Flammable objects certainly burn if unattended and inflammable objects certainly don't burn. That's the language. Items worn are excluded due to the language used. Look at 1e fireball for language of the sort they would have used had worn items been at all vulnerable.

All you seem to be doing is insisting that the language supports you without demonstrating how it actually does.

 

[Yardiff]

These spells (or the fires they create) damage all objects within their area, but only unattended objects will certainly catch fire. What about objects that are attended? How were they damaged? Is it possible that some of them also caught fire?

Is it making a house-rule to say they did?

Yes.

 

[Hriston]

Those spells consistently call out unattended items and don't even so much as hint at worn items being ignitable.

Right, so they don't say whether worn items ignite or not, do they?

Yes.

The DM exercising discretion over that which the rules give the DM discretion is not a house-rule.

 

[Maxperson]

All you seem to be doing is insisting that the language supports you without demonstrating how it actually does.

I already have. The language itself when taken in context is exclusionary of worn objects being affected.

 

[Yardiff]

So what is different about each of these sentences?




"A flammable object hit by this spell ignites."

"A flammable object hit by this spell ignites if it isn’t being worn or carried."

"The fire ignites any flammable objects in the area."

"The fire ignites any flammable objects in the area that aren’t being worn or carried."

"The sphere ignites flammable objects."

"The sphere ignites flammable objects not being worn or carried..."

"It ignites flammable objects in the area."

"It ignites flammable objects in the area that aren’t being worn or carried."

"The fire damages objects in the area and ignites flammable objects."

"The fire damages objects in the area and ignites flammable objects that aren’t being worn or carried."

"The spell damages objects in the area and ignites flammable objects."

"The spell damages objects in the area and ignites flammable objects that aren’t being worn or carried."

 

[Maxperson]

Right, so they don't say whether worn items ignite or not, do they?

It doesn't say whether or not it ties your shoes, either. What is not said is not part of the written rule. Ever.

You have to modify the rule (house rule) in order to add in the ignition of worn items.

The DM exercising discretion over that which the rules give the DM discretion is not a house-rule.

It is when you are modifying a rule to say something it doesn't say. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a house rule for the DM to discretely decide that the fireball tied your shoes, or reveal the thoughts of every creature on the planet to the caster.

 

[Satyrn]

Flammable objects certainly burn if unattended and inflammable objects certainly don't burn.

I'm amused.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm amused.

Yeah. I realized that after I posted, but decided to leave it.

You all know what I meant.

 

[Hriston]

I already have. The language itself when taken in context is exclusionary of worn objects being affected.

Can you give me a post number?

 

[Hriston]

So what is different about each of these sentences?

Some of them are the spell descriptions I quoted, and some of them you have altered and yet still attributed to my post.