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

[FrogReaver]

Saying I am right you are wrong isn't very productive...

No. I treat a general principle like a general principle. We even have a specific term for it - a canon of statutory interpretation. Sometimes we use the fancy Latin and everything.

I did not bother interjecting so long as you confined your comment to "conversational English" or "D&D rules," because that's neither here nor there.* But you decided to interject "statutory" in there; and that's incorrect. It's not just a general principle - it's a canon of statutory interpretation.

Now, you are free to continue arguing your point with @Maxperson, because I already said my piece- I think you two are like ships passing in the night. But to the extent you wish to continue pressing home your assertion that there is no such "general principle," in statutory interpretation, I would highly suggest, again, no longer asserting a point that I have long since debunked. And, to be honest, it's a general principle that anyone with a passing familiarity with statutory interpretation is familiar with.

And I would finish by saying that I didn't want to get drawn into this, but your statement was so facially incorrect I had to make the correction. To the extent you wish to continue defending it - well, that's on you.

*I assume, for now, that while we both can agree that there is a general principle in statutory interpretation that when a word is ambiguous, it is interpreted in the context of the statute (yes, there is fancy Latin for that as well), that doesn't necessarily mean that we are all looking over D&D rules as if we were resolving the ambiguities of a prolix legal code. I hope.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[seebs]

Plus there is the broader context of making sense of the fiction. Do the rules for fireball really imply that, on a field of goblins burned to death by a fireball spell, not one of them has any damage to his/her clothes? And what about ice? Is a fireball able to set alight to flammable objects but unable to melt ice?

Ice which is not a worn or carried object would be taking fire damage, same as everything else. Melted or turned to steam, depending on the amount of damage done. Seems straightforward.

Depending on how you apply the effect, you might conclude that the clothes get burned if and only if the thing which used to be wearing them dies, because at that point they are no longer worn or carried.

EDIT: Not to mention that Gricean Maxims, which are predicated upon actual communicative intentions, are contentious in their application to written texts with multiple authors. There's a good chance that the spell text and the p 87 text were authored by different people, with their content settled at different times. Working out their total implications and consequences isn't about discerning a particular speaker's communicative purpose, but about making sense of the directions they give to various game participants, in the context of a game that is meant to generate a reasonably coherent shared fiction among those participants.

They tell us that the person who wrote the text for fireball clearly envisioned it as not damaging items which are worn or carried, and spent extra effort to specifically communicate that. That is the intent of the fireball spell. You could argue that the page 87 ruling has other intent, but the spell's intent is unambiguous. If it meant something else, it wouldn't have those words.

If a player says (in character) "I inspect the goblins for cause of death," is it within the spirit of the game to say the fireball killed them all from heat exhaustion while leaving their clothes unsinged?

Hmm. Interesting question. How about if goblins were hacked up by someone with a sword; should their armor be damaged? Because the D&D rules answer is of course that armor is not damaged by melee attacks against the wearer. At all. But that's ridiculous. So... Pointing out that the rules produce outcomes which make no sense is, I think, unpersuasive.

 

[seebs]

Saying I am right you are wrong isn't very productive...

That was not just "I am right, you are wrong", it was a succinct summary of the points which had been clearly established and to which no meaningful rebuttal had been offered.

 

[Satyrn]

Is there a calendar out there where today is New Year's Day? Because after reading through this thread I want to make a new resolution:


I resolve to never again use the phrase "RAW"


Now pop the champagne! And let's sing Auld Lang Syne

 

[FrogReaver]

That was not just "I am right, you are wrong", it was a succinct summary of the points which had been clearly established and to which no meaningful rebuttal had been offered.

He did not clearly establish anything.

 

[FrogReaver]

You linked one case that I recall and on your own admission is was interesting but not really explanatory to the point you were making.

You are probably right. But you have not got anywhere near demonstrating that with your side steps and constant reminders that you are staying out of it and edit of the same. You have cited cases but no analysis showing they are interpreted with your principle instead of some other. You may be right but you are terrible at arguing why.

Well, it's how a conversation advances. As opposed to "winning."

To be fair, I didn't just say it. And I didn't say, "Believe me, because I know stuff." I explained why it was wrong, I cited the specific canon, and then (because people just won't leave it alone) I provided pinpoint cites and references to three different common law jurisdictions - which, you know, I shouldn't have to do for one of the most basic canons of statutory interpretation.

And it's okay to be wrong (or misstate things, or overstate things). I do it. Other people do it. Because, and I cannot emphasize this enough, it's only through being wrong that you learn. If you already know everything, how are you ever going to learn anything (a common refrain from parents to children, by the way)?

I think someone once said, "The only thing I know, is that I do not know," well, that and, "I drank what?"

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tony Vargas]

There is a reason that cone of cold in AD&D is a higher level spell than fireball even though it does less damage. It leaves treasure more intact.

Same damage. 1-6 averages 3.5, 2-5 averages 3.5 - sorry, been bugging me since 1981.

Also, AD&D fireballs would conform to available volume and lightning bolts rebound off stone walls, making them more dangerous to you & your dungeon-crawling party than Cone of Cold.

Also, fire resistance/immunity was awfully common. IIRC, across the board, cold spells seemed to do less damage and/or be higher level than fire spells. That may have become less true as more spells were added to the game, though...

 

[ExploderWizard]

Same damage. 1-6 averages 3.5, 2-5 averages 3.5 - sorry, been bugging me since 1981.

Also, AD&D fireballs would conform to available volume and lightning bolts rebound off stone walls, making them more dangerous to you & your dungeon-crawling party than Cone of Cold.

Also, fire resistance/immunity was awfully common. IIRC, across the board, cold spells seemed to do less damage and/or be higher level than fire spells. That may have become less true as more spells were added to the game, though...

Cone of cold is 2 levels higher. Ice storm is 4th level and only does a flat 3-30 as a damaging effect. Either way its less raw punch for the spell slot.