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

[FrogReaver]

You have to house rule to say it does not effect worn items.

General rules do not beat specific, so they don't apply.



It's not my preferred reading. Per Jeremy Crawford, it's the way it is. Fireball absolutely does not affect worn items. You have to house rule to enable that.

 

[pemerton]

It seems clear to me that the guy that designed the rules say otherwise. Unless you think Jeremy is lying to us, fireball works the way he says it does. Unless you house rule of course.

I don't think Jeremy is lying. But his opinion as to what his rules require isn't part of the rules that he wrote.

He wouldn't be the first person to disagree with others over the meaning and implication of words that he wrote.

 

[Shasarak]

Players may figure out that adding water to dirt can make mud, and who knows where that may lead!
.

We do not allow blatant meta gaming like that at our table.

 

[Maxperson]

You have to house rule to say it does not effect worn items.

That's impossible. It's not a house rule to leave fireball alone and change nothing. As written there is nothing that says it affects worn items, so it's not a house rule to go with that and just ignore worn items.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't think Jeremy is lying. But his opinion as to what his rules require isn't part of the rules that he wrote.

It's not an opinion or "his" rules. He is saying what the game requires and he knows for certain what that is. That makes it a fact, not an opinion.

He wouldn't be the first person to disagree with others over the meaning and implication of words that he wrote.

It's not a disagreement of meaning to state what the ambiguous rule you designed and wrote truly means. When you do that you are stating a fact. That other could possibly read it differently does not change that fact.

It virtually the same as errata. The only difference is that it is not written down. You now know what the rule is and can ignore it and house rule if you want to change it.

 

[Hriston]

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.

It may be a change from how you play it (fireball never igniting an attended object), but burning attended objects does not contradict burning unattended objects.

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.

That is correct. You are the DM. If that makes sense to you, go for it.

 

[FrogReaver]

But you did change fireball to ignore worn items.

That's impossible. It's not a house rule to leave fireball alone and change nothing. As written there is nothing that says it affects worn items, so it's not a house rule to go with that and just ignore worn items.

 

[Hriston]

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.

No, I'm not, and don't shout at me.

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.

That is correct. Neither requires any addition be made to the spell, nor does anything in the spell contradict them.

 

[Maxperson]

It may be a change from how you play it (fireball never igniting an attended object), but burning attended objects does not contradict burning unattended objects.

That is correct. You are the DM. If that makes sense to you, go for it.

Do you think that most people would view a fireball enabling the caster to read the minds of the targets to be a house rule?

 

[Maxperson]

But you did change fireball to ignore worn items.

In order for that to be true, you have to show me where fireball says that it does affect worn items. I'll wait.