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

[seebs]

Do you think that making a ruling that fireball ties your shoes is "making a change to an existing rule"?

I would say it is: It's adding a function to the spell it did not previously have. And I would say the same thing for causing it to set fire to worn or carried items. We have a description of how the spell works, and a list of the things it may set on fire. That it doesn't specifically state that it doesn't set other things on fire is no more relevant than that it doesn't specifically state that it doesn't tie your shoes.

 

[Hriston]

So what is different about each of these sentences?

Thanks for editing your post. I get a little uptight when things I didn't say are attributed to me. I'll answer your question, but I do have to ask, what do you think is different about them?

I think addressing one example will make it clear what I think the difference is.

"A flammable object hit by this spell ignites."

This would mean that any flammable object hit by the spell is set alight. The statement covers all flammable objects. This is in contrast to the original statement.

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

This statement only applies to flammable objects that are not worn or carried. The spell sets them on fire. It doesn't tell you what happens to flammable objects that are worn or carried, or to any other objects for that matter. Those objects are simply not covered by this statement.

It mystifies me how someone could think that lack of coverage is somehow binding, i.e. constitutes a rule that worn/carried flammable objects cannot be burned. The statement doesn't say, for example, "A flammable object hit by this spell doesn't ignite if it is being worn or carried." Is that how you are reading this statement?

 

[Hriston]

Do you think that making a ruling that fireball ties your shoes is "making a change to an existing rule"?

I would say it is: It's adding a function to the spell it did not previously have. And I would say the same thing for causing it to set fire to worn or carried items. We have a description of how the spell works, and a list of the things it may set on fire. That it doesn't specifically state that it doesn't set other things on fire is no more relevant than that it doesn't specifically state that it doesn't tie your shoes.

Let's be clear. We aren't discussing making a ruling that fireball always sets fire to worn or carried items, or that it always ties your shoes for you. I agree, that would be a house-rule.

What we are discussing is the DM making a situational ruling that a particular worn or held item catches fire in the presence of a particular casting of fireball for whatever reason. Perhaps the creature with the item failed its saving throw. Maybe the item is considered to be highly flammable. Whatever the reason, my position is the rules do not preclude the DM from making such a ruling on a case-by-case basis and no alteration to the spell as written is required to do so.

Likewise, if there is some reason a particular casting of fireball might result in the caster's shoes being tied, there is nothing in the rules or in the description of the spell that would prevent that from happening. A house-rule is not established by such a ruling.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yes. Flammable objects certainly burn if unattended and inflammable objects certainly don't burn. That's the language.

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

You all know what I meant.

That's the English language for you.

Natural, yeah. Clear or unambiguous, not in the least.

It doesn't say whether or not it ties your shoes, either.

Another instance where the DM would have to make a ruling, yes. ;P


What I'm seeing in this thread is not a cogent discussion of what constitutes a house rule vs a ruling in 5e, but more of a value judgment held over from the 3.x era when RAW was king and the label 'house rule' was dismissive.

In 5e, house-rule or ruling, what the DM says goes. The distinction is largely moot.

The former, IMHO, implies a higher level of consistency, and that's about it. The distinction say, between "in my campaign, Gnomes are fey" and "the fey-muncher attacks your gnome in preference to the human and half-orc also within it's reach, because he seems more fey-tasting." Not wildly significant. A DM could always make a ruling inconsistent with his own house rule, or consistently make a ruling without formally calling it a house rule.
5e just Empowers DMs with that kind of latitude.

 

[Yardiff]

Thanks for editing your post. I get a little uptight when things I didn't say are attributed to me. I'll answer your question, but I do have to ask, what do you think is different about them?

I think addressing one example will make it clear what I think the difference is.

"A flammable object hit by this spell ignites."

This would mean that any flammable object hit by the spell is set alight. The statement covers all flammable objects. This is in contrast to the original statement.

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

This statement only applies to flammable objects that are not worn or carried. The spell sets them on fire. It doesn't tell you what happens to flammable objects that are worn or carried, or to any other objects for that matter. Those objects are simply not covered by this statement.

It mystifies me how someone could think that lack of coverage is somehow binding, i.e. constitutes a rule that worn/carried flammable objects cannot be burned. The statement doesn't say, for example, "A flammable object hit by this spell doesn't ignite if it is being worn or carried." Is that how you are reading this statement?

That's the way I interpret it yes.

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

While I might rule that a missed save exposes worn and/or carried items to burninating, I think it would be a house rule.

I think that the words used in a ruling do set expectations. Absent any rules, real-world behavior is a safe expectation (breathing is RAW). The use of inclusive/exclusive words do set an expectation that the non-excluded/included universe is not accepted within the rule.

I'm not good at citing the appropriate rule/law/theory/observation, but in this case I believe Occam would probably agree that the intent of the writers will generally set the expectation amongst most players that a fireball will not threaten their worn and/or carried items.

Now, I can't prove anything either way, so feel free to disregard and carry on.

 

[Satyrn]

What I'm seeing in this thread is not a cogent discussion of what constitutes a house rule vs a ruling in 5e, but more of a value judgment held over from the 3.x era when RAW was king and the label 'house rule' was dismissive.

In 5e, house-rule or ruling, what the DM says goes. The distinction is largely moot.

The former, IMHO, implies a higher level of consistency, and that's about it. The distinction say, between "in my campaign, Gnomes are fey" and "the fey-muncher attacks your gnome in preference to the human and half-orc also within it's reach, because he seems more fey-tasting." Not wildly significant. A DM could always make a ruling inconsistent with his own house rule, or consistently make a ruling without formally calling it a house rule.
5e just Empowers DMs with that kind of latitude.

I always felt empowered the same DMing 3e.

Maybe it's just because I wasn't on these forums during that edition's heyday, but what all of you say about it doesn't reflect how I view it at all. I've always seen it run as "rulings, not rules" just as much as 5e. (especially after the first couple times someone tried Grappling)

 

[Hriston]

That's the way I interpret it yes.

You have the right to interpret it however you choose. You do realize, however, that isn't what it actually says, don't you, and that no house-rule is required to play in a way that disagrees with your personal interpretation?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tony Vargas]

I always felt empowered the same DMing 3e.

Maybe it's just because I wasn't on these forums during that edition's heyday, but what all of you say about it doesn't reflect how I view it at all. I've always seen it run as "rulings, not rules" just as much as 5e. (especially after the first couple times someone tried Grappling)

It really is almost more about the attitude of the community than the specifics of the game, yes.