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

[Yardiff]

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?

It says that to me, otherwise why add the carried/worn part?

 

[Hriston]

Just out of curiosity-

If you acknowledge that one table (let's call it a house) has a rule that is one way;
and that another house has a rule that is a different way ...

And that both of those are permissible ...

What would you call the different rules at their houses?

(See above, where I tried, again, to point out that people aren't arguing over what they think they are arguing about. If you want to call those differences "rulings," or "adjudications," or "house interpretations," or even "house rules," doesn't change that they are not the RAW).

I call it the normal amount of variation within the game as it is written to be played. You don't need to change RAW to play the game. You can if you want to. There's no stigma attached for me. Of course the rulings of an individual DM are not RAW, but there is plenty of room for rulings within RAW.

 

[Imaro]

How I'm reading it is that the fireball spell is setting the specific condition which (if met) causes flammable objects to ignite from the usage of the spell... otherwise they remain in their current (neutral) state...

For set X (flammable objects)If X (not carried or worn) then Y (they ignite).

 

[Hriston]

It says that to me, otherwise why add the carried/worn part?

My opinion? The spells are written that way so the DM can confer whatever degree of protection to worn/carried items that he or she sees fit.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[seebs]

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.

Okay.

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.

Well, no more than they preclude the DM from making a ruling that, in a particular case, the spell tie's someone's shoes.

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.

Well, sure. And there's nothing preventing a particular casting of fireball from causing water to freeze. Or providing healing instead of damage to its targets. I mean, sure, that's not what it says it does, but who cares? You can just do anything, and as long as you don't say it's a general rule that it always happens, it's a ruling, not a house rule.

But they all have in common that they contradict the spell's description of what it does, and by exclusion, what it does not do.

 

[FrogReaver]

Just because a word doesn't exist for the category in question doesn't mean we must cram everything into categories that we currently have words for.

DNd is not played by raw alone ever. Saying something isn't raw does not make it a house rule by necessity because there can be different labels for different types of non-raw rules.

Even you not playing by raw when you describe a character falling down a pit or after jumping. Even though rules cover falling no rule states what the cause of falling in DND is and thus whatever you decide is not raw. But we don't see anyone complaining that they can air walk because Gravity is not raw. The fact of the matter is that not having Gravity is just as much not in raw as having gravity. So if you call them house rules then you acknowledge that DND forces you to play with house rules. So calling something a houserule ends up being pointless in this case.

Just out of curiosity-

If you acknowledge that one table (let's call it a house) has a rule that is one way;
and that another house has a rule that is a different way ...

And that both of those are permissible ...

What would you call the different rules at their houses?

(See above, where I tried, again, to point out that people aren't arguing over what they think they are arguing about. If you want to call those differences "rulings," or "adjudications," or "house interpretations," or even "house rules," doesn't change that they are not the RAW).

 

[Hriston]

Ah, but then all you are doing is arguing over the definition of houserule. Do you see that? What you are saying, in effect, is that you are reserving that term for rulings that contradict the RAW ("At this table, all races start with 1 feat, and variant humans start with 2 feats" would be an example of a ruling that directly contradicts the RAW).

OTOH, you appear to believe that all adjudications that are not covered by the rules, or not expressly forbidden by the rules, are just rulings.

This is a fine thing to believe - but you're arguing about the definition of houserule.

As you see from the fireball discussion, people can muster arguments (support) for their beliefs about to worn objects on the target when a fireball hits. They can argue from common sense (of course a fireball would ignite objects on you!), they can argue from other rules (here's a rule about damaging objects!), they can invoke Latin (expressio unius means that rules imply that the objects worn wouldn't ignite), they can argue in pari materia (if you look at other spells, like acid splash, that should damage objects, they don't, so fireball shouldn't either), they can argue intent (the game is supposed to be fun/realistic), or whatever. But the point is - it's not in the rules. There's no right or wrong. There is just the rule that the house decides on.

I think you've missed my point entirely. I don't care how anyone defines house-rule, and I don't believe I've argued with anyone over what one is. I've accepted the definitions used by those I've been conversing with and made my arguments on their terms. I'm not worried about any value judgement implied by the use of such terms.

What I object to is the idea that the wording of the spells in question excludes flammable objects that are worn or carried within the spells' area of effect from being ignited by the flames which the spells produce. My reading of those rules tells me that is not the case.

You can call it a ruling or a house-rule if you want. It makes no difference to me, but for the DM to determine that such an item catches fire due to one of these spells requires no change to the rules or the spell descriptions as they are written. As I've said above, there's plenty of room within the adjudication space defined by the rules for the DM to apply his or her judgement and imagination.

 

[Maxperson]

No, it isn't. That ruling changes nothing about the way fireball works. It contradicts no part of what's written. If you disagree, please show me where in fireball it says worn items cannot be ignited. You can't because it doesn't.

The ruling does change how it works, because how it works is to ignite unattended items. You are adding in the burning of attended items.

Using the same logic as above, I can have the fireball give the caster access to the complete memories of the targets and have it strip off the targets clothing, then wash, press and fold the laundry. Those are also additions to the spell that are not contradicted by any part of what is written.

 

[Maxperson]

We aren't discussing what I think the spell would do. We are discussing whether making such a ruling constitutes a change to the existing rule. My position is that no change is required and that the DM making such rulings is the mode of gameplay presumed by the written rules.

You are absolutely discussing what you think the spell should do. RAW doesn't have it ignite worn objects, so it has to be what you THINK IT WOULD DO in order to add that in.

If you're asking my opinion on why one might make a ruling that a worn or carried item catches fire in the presence of a fireball, as opposed to one of these other absurd rulings that have been suggested, I would sight the fact that the spell produces fire capable of setting objects within its area of effect on fire. You, of course, are free to rule as you see fit on a case by case basis.

Sure, having it set fire to worn objects is much more reasonable than having it do the laundry, but both are equal when it comes to whether or not they are additions to the spell and whether the spell contradicts them. If one is a house rule, then both are.