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

[delericho]

I think you may have missed my point.

The momentary flare created by a Sunburst spell cast in circumstances of natural darkness will be visible only if we accept that the spell - however temporarily - dispels that darkness.

That's a strange logic. Natural darkness isn't something that exists of itself; it is the absence of light sources. Sunburst is, very briefly, a light source, but it doesn't dispel the natural darkness, because there's nothing to dispel. Instead, it changes that unlit dungeon into a lit dungeon.

(Cf. a spell which creates a momentary depiction of a flaring light - that will not be visible in circumstances of natural darkness, no matter how lifelike the depiction is - but such a spell might nevertheless have the power to dispel magical darkness.)

Now that is a very interesting statement.

 

[pemerton]

That's a strange logic. Natural darkness isn't something that exists of itself; it is the absence of light sources.

Getting too far into the metaphysics of darkness reminds me of a conversation I had with a housemate nearly 20 years ago, trying to understand the relationship between darkness as the privation of light, and a necromancer's darkbolt spell that is clearly a presence and not just an absence.

But putting the scholasticism to one side, there is still the point about language - it is perfectly acceptable to say, of a flare of light, that it briefly dispelled the darkness. And [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION]'s question is whether Sunburst can do this for natural darkness. The question is, I think, mostly rhetorical - everyone takes it as a given that it can. The point of the rhetorical question is to apply pressure to the notion that if one instance of a phenomenon is listed (in this case, the dispelling of magical darkness) then other instances are "automatically" excluded (in this case, the dispelling - however briefly - of natural darkness).

I know that takes you into a discussion you'd rather avoid - namely, the interpretation of the fireball spell - and so I'll leave it at that.

Now that is a very interesting statement.

My knowledge of 3E is pretty variable, but I thought there was a whole issue with light spells and figments and the like that turned on this very contrast (between a spell that creates light, and a spell that creates a depiction of light).

 

[pemerton]

I honestly can't tell if this thread, the 5 intelligence thread, and the multiple polls on fireballs and ice are the worst thing ever, or the most awesome thing ever.

No one is forcing you to read them!

From my point of view, I'm getting some poll results that at least confirm that I'm not Robinson Crusoe in my intuitions on these matters: this one has been pretty steady for some time around 95/5; and the fireball one I think may have fluctuated a bit more but seems to be settling around 75/25.

As I think I've also posted upthread, I'm not that interested in answering any particular question about what may or may not be affected by a given casting of fireball (which depends on a whole lot of considerations, including balance considerations, fairness and reasonable judgement, and also in-fiction interpretations of saving throws and non-fatal hit point loss). I'm interested in the more general question of the relationship between mechanics, fiction, and adjudication of action resolution. I think that key to a RPG (as opposed to a board game or CCG) is that the fiction and mechanics interact, so that if a certain outcome is mechanically mandated than the fiction must somehow accomodate and express that; and if a certain state of affairs is known to be true in the fiction (eg a spell created a great ball of flame) then the outcomes resulting from mechanics must conform to that prior fiction.

Of course it's always possible to say "it's magic" but I think that's rather weak, and doesn't really explain how/why torches - which in the rules seem to differ from fireballs only in doing less fire damage per moment of contact - can ignite things, even (sometimes) things that are worn or carried.

 

[Maxperson]

I think you may have missed my point.

The momentary flare created by a Sunburst spell cast in circumstances of natural darkness will be visible only if we accept that the spell - however temporarily - dispels that darkness. (Cf. a spell which creates a momentary depiction of a flaring light - that will not be visible in circumstances of natural darkness, no matter how lifelike the depiction is - but such a spell might nevertheless have the power to dispel magical darkness.)

It doesn't temporarily dispel the magical darkness. It temporarily lifts, removes, overcomes, defeats, etc. the darkness, but since it can only dispel magical darkness....

Seriously, though, the spell is clearly using the commonly used D&D term dispel when it speaks of dispelling a magical darkness effect. Since dispel used in the commonly used D&D way is only with regard to magic, it can't dispel natural darkness since it isn't magical. If you want to use the the non-D&D term "dispel" on the normal darkness, go for it. It's different from the game term used by the spell, though.

 

[delericho]

But putting the scholasticism to one side, there is still the point about language - it is perfectly acceptable to say, of a flare of light, that it briefly dispelled the darkness.

It's acceptable, but it's not a particularly common usage, especially in a game with spells and, in particular, dispel magic. But fair enough. However...

And [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION]'s question is whether Sunburst can do this for natural darkness. The question is, I think, mostly rhetorical - everyone takes it as a given that it can. The point of the rhetorical question is to apply pressure to the notion that if one instance of a phenomenon is listed (in this case, the dispelling of magical darkness) then other instances are "automatically" excluded (in this case, the dispelling - however briefly - of natural darkness).

The problem with that is that the spell description also explicitly states that "brilliant sunlight flashes", and that's covered under "Vision and Light" (Basic, p.65).

I do agree with you about the "automatic" exclusion principle, which is why I don't want to get into the fireball discussion. I just don't think sunburst is a particularly useful example.

My knowledge of 3E is pretty variable, but I thought there was a whole issue with light spells and figments and the like that turned on this very contrast (between a spell that creates light, and a spell that creates a depiction of light).

You might well be right about that - my memory of the fine detail of 3e is hazy at best. I'd assumed we were talking about 5e only, which (rightly, IMO) ditched a lot of the more micro-managed details of earlier editions.

 

[Maxperson]

Were the players at my table to have one of their PCs cast a light spell and I responded with, "The light dispels the darkness.", every last one of them would think that some magical darkness went away. Every.....last.....one.....of.....them.

D&D has changed the common usage of dispel to mean, "Gets rid of something magical." That's what it means in D&D, and that's what it means in the sunburst spell. A DM would be screwing with his players if he described it as dispelling the darkness when no magical darkness is present. That's really not cool.

 

[pemerton]

The problem with that is that the spell description also explicitly states that "brilliant sunlight flashes", and that's covered under "Vision and Light" (Basic, p.65).

Still trying to hover around the edges of the thing you don't want to get drawn into: the same is true for fireball, which talks about an explosion of flame, which in turn has its effects set out on pp 87 and 97 of the SRD (rules for damaging objects, descriptions of fire damage) as well as the examples of fire damage from burning oil, flaming torches and the like in the equipment list.

These are the things that make me (and, I am guessing, [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION]) see Sunburst as rather parallel.

This is mostly just FYI - I realise that you can't get too far into it (either agreeing or rebutting) without getting into the thing you don't want to get into!

 

[delericho]

Still trying to hover around the edges of the thing you don't want to get drawn into: the same is true for fireball, which talks about an explosion of flame, which in turn has its effects set out on pp 87 and 97 of the SRD (rules for damaging objects, descriptions of fire damage) as well as the examples of fire damage from burning oil, flaming torches and the like in the equipment list.

These are the things that make me (and, I am guessing, [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION]) see Sunburst as rather parallel.

This is mostly just FYI - I realise that you can't get too far into it (either agreeing or rebutting) without getting into the thing you don't want to get into!

Yep. Agreed on all points.

 

[Sadras]

I'm interested in the more general question of the relationship between mechanics, fiction, and adjudication of action resolution. I think that key to a RPG (as opposed to a board game or CCG) is that the fiction and mechanics interact, so that if a certain outcome is mechanically mandated than the fiction must somehow accomodate and express that; and if a certain state of affairs is known to be true in the fiction (eg a spell created a great ball of flame) then the outcomes resulting from mechanics must conform to that prior fiction.

Of course it's always possible to say "it's magic" but I think that's rather weak, and doesn't really explain how/why torches - which in the rules seem to differ from fireballs only in doing less fire damage per moment of contact - can ignite things, even (sometimes) things that are worn or carried.

It seems to me, that we 'demand' (used extremely loosely) that in this instance the mechanics and fiction must interact in an RPG in a logical way and that the explanation of 'it's magic' is rather weak, but somehow we seem to loosen the reins when it comes to DOAM and the Warlord's screaming-healing powers.

 

[Maxperson]

Still trying to hover around the edges of the thing you don't want to get drawn into: the same is true for fireball, which talks about an explosion of flame, which in turn has its effects set out on pp 87 and 97 of the SRD (rules for damaging objects, descriptions of fire damage) as well as the examples of fire damage from burning oil, flaming torches and the like in the equipment list.

Fireball, though, is a spell and spells can't target objects unless the spell explicitly states that it does. Spell descriptions are using common language to indicate targeting, such as in fireball where it says, "A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range..." and "It ignites flammable objects in the area that aren't being worn or carried." Fireball tells us what it targets, and worn objects are not on the list.