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

[seebs]

I would say that the "neither worn nor carried" language strongly implies that items which are worn or carried are not affected.

 

[pemerton]

I would say that the "neither worn nor carried" language strongly implies that items which are worn or carried are not affected.

Perhaps, if that was all that was said.

But the text on p 87, which says that "Characters can also damage objects with their weapons and spells" and that objects "can be affected by physical and magical attacks much like creatures can" not only strongly implies, but actively asserts, the contrary.

In light of the rest of the discussion on p 87 (about the GM deciding an object's hp and resistances), the point of the text about igniting flammable objects seems to be to take the matter out of the realm of discretionary adjudication and to stipulate an outcome.

This is also supported by the definition of fire damage - it hurts because it involves flame, like a dragon's breath - and that definition is in turn reinforced by the descriptions of burning oil and the like, which we know are flaming things and which are said to deal fire damage.

Suppose that a Burning Hands spell deals 10 hp of damage to a Cultist (9 hp) who is trying to run from the cult hide-out carrying the scroll with the ritual for summoning some otherworldly being. The cultist drops below 0 hp. Page 98 of the SRD states:

Most GMs have a monster die the instant it drops to 0 hit points, rather than having it fall unconscious and make death saving throws. Mighty villains and special nonplayer characters are common exceptions​

This cultist is, in the view of the GM, neither a mighty villain nor a special NPC and so the GM narrates the cultist as dead, with skin burned and hair charred. Is the GM house ruling if s/he also describes the cultists clothes as burned and blackened? Personally, I don't see how the cultist could be burned to death yet his/her clothes remain unaffected.

Is the GM house ruling if s/he described the scroll as being burned? My response is the same - how can you wreathe a cultist in flames sufficient to kill him or her, yet there be no chance that the paper s/he is carrying be set alight?

That's not to say that the paper is obviously destroyed, either. But surely there is some chance of that?

In a situation in which the NPC is damaged (ie loses hp) but does not die, further complexities in adjudication arise because there is ambiguity in what hit point damage consists in, what a DEX saving throw amounts to, what the AoE is (it is a full cone, as the rules text implies, or a "thin sheet" as the flavour text asserts?), etc.

On the Gygaxian account of hit points, it is arguable that the scroll can't be damage for the same sorts of reasons as there being no need for a hit location system (AD&D DMG, p 61):

[H]it points are not actually a measure of physical damage, by and large, as far as characters (and some other creatures as well) are concerned. Therefore, the location of hits and the type of domage caused are not germane to them. . . . Damage scored to characters . . . is actually not substantially physical - a mere nick or scratch until the lost handful of hit points are considered - it is a matter of wearing away the endurance, the luck, the magical protections.​

But not everyone uses Gygaxian hit points; and the 5e default is that physical damage begins at 50% loss, not just the last handful (Basic PDF, sidebar on p 75). Furthermore, even with Gygaxian hit points a "nick or scratch" from fire damage could be sufficient to set a piece of paper alight!

I think there could be different ways of handling this. Rolling a save for the object appears to be ruled out (because objects automatically fail their DEX saves, and are immune to effects that require a CON save - and what other sort of save would be applicable here?), but the GM might call for an INT/CHA check to target the spell so as to avoid (or, if desired, to ignite) the scroll - because INT/CHA is the stat that affects casting for wizards or sorcerers (as appropriate to the PC's class). Or the GM could deem that the paper has d20, or 2d10 hit points, which becomes functionally equivalent to a saving throw vs the spell's damage. Or the GM could say there is a N% chance the paper is caught within the sheet of flame - say, 30% if the NPC is damaged but not killed by the spell, and 70% if the NPC is dead from being wreathed in flames.

I don't think the rules dictate any of these approaches - though the hit point one seems most canonical, given the text on p 87 of the SRD. But I don't think that a GM trying in these sorts of ways to make sense of the fiction in light of the rules is house ruling. S/he is just adjudicating the game.

And all the moreso when s/he allows a lit torch to ignite another torch (say, in circumstances where the PCs have lost all their tinderboxes but don't want to be left without light).

 

[Maxperson]

But deciding that (say) the scroll is burned along with the wizard who was holding it isn't establishing a rule at all. It's applying a rule (or, rather, a conjunction of rules: I've cited the relevant passages of the SRD upthread).

That's wrong. Specific beats general and spells are explicitly pointed out to be specific rules, so your general rule does not apply. It takes a house rule to overcome the fireball rules.

But anything that I decide applies only to my own table.

That's also wrong. The rule is that longswords do 1d8 slashing damage and are versatile. Should you decide that it does 1d8 slashing damage and it is versatile, what you decide still applies to my table since it is RAW. I would have to house rule a change to not go with what you decided for your table.

It's only the decisions about things not explicitly spelled out in the rules (Not RAW) that apply only to your own table.

In circumstances like that it's natural that varying interpretations and table practices will flourish. That doesn't mean that everyone is house-ruling, though. That just shows us that even reasonable minds can differ over the interpretation of natural language rules and over their application to (imagined) empirical circumstances.

Sure it does, at least when it's a ruling about something not written in the D&D rules.

At least in common law countries, judges disagree all the time over rules that are (generally) drafted with far more care than the D&D ones, that have received far more skilled analysis and commentary, and in cases where the stakes are much higher and hence much greater effort is made to get it right. They are only held to some degree of uniformity by rules establishing hierarchies of authority and rules for casting votes on the bench. Why would we expect the D&D RAW to produce any greater uniformity of interpretation and application?

Those bench rulings (at least in the U.S.) have the force of law. They are new rules. Why would we expect D&D to be any different?

Obviously I don't think it's crystal clear at all. I've quoted the text on p 87 that says that objects can be damaged by attacks, including spell attacks, in much the same way as creatures can. The same text also mentions that objects always fail their DEX saves. Given that a big chunk of the damaging spells that involve DEX saves are the fiery ones (Fireball (including the delayed version), Burning Hands, Flaming Sphere, Fire Storm, Flame Strike, Incendiary Cloud, Meteor Swarm, Wall of Fire, maybe some others I'm missing*), that text would be fairly pointless if those spells couldn't damage objects.

And as I pointed out above, those general rules are superseded by fireball's specific rules. A fireball can only damage objects that are not worn. Unless there is a house rule to say otherwise.

Of the spells I've mentioned, three have no text about damaging objects (Flame Strike, Incendiary Cloud and Wall of Fire): it would be odd if that absence of text meant that they could damage worn/carried objects though Fireball, Burning Hands and Flaming Sphere cannot. Delayed Blast Fireball, Fire Storm and Meteor Swarm all have text noting that the spell damages objects in the area, as well as igniting objects that are neither worn nor carried. Few other spells have such text: does that mean that the passage on p 87 is meant to be applied only in the context of 7th and higher level spells?

Just out of curiosity, how do you think the bolded spells damage objects if not by burning (igniting) them?

 

[Maxperson]

Perhaps, if that was all that was said.

Specific beats general. All that fireball says is all that matters. Your general rules and your arguments about them are irrelevant.

 

[seebs]

The general rules for fire do not trump the fact that the fireball spell tells you how it works, and it damages items which are not worn or carried.

 

[Yardiff]

I my be misremembering this but I believe in 1e/2e if you failed a save against something like fireball or dragon breath weapon your carried or worn equipment were subject to saving throws and damage, if you made the save your items were fine even if the damage from the save was enough to take you down. I think this changed to a critically failed save in 3e. Not sure what 5e says.

 

[S'mon]

The general rules for fire do not trump the fact that the fireball spell tells you how it works, and it damages items which are not worn or carried.

Yes. It would be a house rule for the GM to say that a fireball does not set fire to unattended flammable objects.

In the matter of attended objects, the rules deliberately leave it to GM adjudication (appropriately, in my view) so that the GM can make sensible callings like not having the held scroll be unscathed by the fireball, not having an Evading Rogue character's clothes burnt off while the Rogue was unharmed*, etc.

*Unless that's the sort of game you want, of course.

 

[Maxperson]

In the matter of attended objects, the rules deliberately leave it to GM adjudication (appropriately, in my view) so that the GM can make sensible callings like not having the held scroll be unscathed by the fireball, not having an Evading Rogue character's clothes burnt off while the Rogue was unharmed*, etc.

*Unless that's the sort of game you want, of course.

No the rules don't. By explicitly calling out unattended items, the rules automatically create the exclusion of attended items. That's how language works. If the RULES were leaving it to the DM, they would say so.

 

[S'mon]

[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] - that is not how language works.

 

[Maxperson]

[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] - that is not how language works.

If I say to line up, but blondes are excluded, that automatically includes all other hair types. Specifying what is included and excluded automatically eliminates everything else. That's how it works. By all means, though, house rule that stuff worn can be burned. I do. It's a silly exclusion.