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

[Satyrn]

Yeah. I realized that after I posted, but decided to leave it.

You all know what I meant.

But if I substitute "incombustible" for "inflammable," does that make my reading of your post a house rule?

 

[Hriston]

It doesn't say whether or not it ties your shoes, either. What is not said is not part of the written rule. Ever.

Agreed. Whether or not worn/carried items are ignited is not part of the written rule.

You have to modify the rule (house rule) in order to add in the ignition of worn items.

No you don't. The rule is silent on whether worn items are ignited. What needs to be modified?

It is when you are modifying a rule to say something it doesn't say. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a house rule for the DM to discretely decide that the fireball tied your shoes, or reveal the thoughts of every creature on the planet to the caster.

So it must be a house-rule for the DM to decide that worn items don't ignite, because the rule doesn't say they don't.

 

[ZzarkLinux]

Away from book now. Questions:

(1) Is there a sentence in the book that forbids wet torches from igniting?

(2) Is there a sentence in the book that forbids torches in space from igniting?

 

[pemerton]

Away from book now. Questions:

(1) Is there a sentence in the book that forbids wet torches from igniting?

(2) Is there a sentence in the book that forbids torches in space from igniting?

I don't believe there are such sentences in the Basic PDF or SRD. If I've missed them, though, I'm happy to have them pointed out.

 

[Maxperson]

No you don't. The rule is silent on whether worn items are ignited. What needs to be modified?

The instant the DM rules that worn items can be ignited, he has added "Worn items can be ignited." to the language of fireball. That is a rules change.

So it must be a house-rule for the DM to decide that worn items don't ignite, because the rule doesn't say they don't.

It's never a house rule to play a spell exactly as it is written, and exactly what is written only says unworn items ignite.

 

[Maxperson]

Away from book now. Questions:

(1) Is there a sentence in the book that forbids wet torches from igniting?

(2) Is there a sentence in the book that forbids torches in space from igniting?

You'd have to house rule both instances. Heck, "space" doesn't even exist in 5e unless you create both it and the rules that go with it. In 1e the Necklace of Adaption allows you to exist in airless space for up to 7 days. In 2e there were the Spelljammer rules that said that objects bring some air with them into space, so under those rules torches in space would ignite. 3e was silent, 4e I don't know.

 

[Hriston]

The instant the DM rules that worn items can be ignited, he has added "Worn items can be ignited." to the language of fireball. That is a rules change.

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.

It's never a house rule to play a spell exactly as it is written, and exactly what is written only says unworn items ignite.

As long as I have unworn items ignite in the presence of fireball, I'm playing by the rules. What happens to worn items is left up to me. The rules don't say that worn items don't ignite.

 

[seebs]

No you don't. The rule is silent on whether worn items are ignited. What needs to be modified?

Well, the rule is also silent on whether or not the spell ties your shoes. It's also silent on whether or not it changes your genetics to introduce a peanut allergy.

Why do you think it would do one of these things, because it's silent on them, but not the others?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Hriston]

Well, the rule is also silent on whether or not the spell ties your shoes. It's also silent on whether or not it changes your genetics to introduce a peanut allergy.

Why do you think it would do one of these things, because it's silent on them, but not the others?

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.

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.