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

[Maxperson]

That's the English language for you.

Natural, yeah. Clear or unambiguous, not in the least.

Another instance where the DM would have to make a ruling, yes. ;P


What I'm seeing in this thread is not a cogent discussion of what constitutes a house rule vs a ruling in 5e, but more of a value judgment held over from the 3.x era when RAW was king and the label 'house rule' was dismissive.

In 5e, house-rule or ruling, what the DM says goes. The distinction is largely moot.

The former, IMHO, implies a higher level of consistency, and that's about it. The distinction say, between "in my campaign, Gnomes are fey" and "the fey-muncher attacks your gnome in preference to the human and half-orc also within it's reach, because he seems more fey-tasting." Not wildly significant. A DM could always make a ruling inconsistent with his own house rule, or consistently make a ruling without formally calling it a house rule.
5e just Empowers DMs with that kind of latitude.

Good post. My main group has been playing since 1e, so when 3e arrived we kept rulings over rules. People who were new to my other3e groups, such as when I DMd in a shop quickly became accustomed to rulings over rules as I wasn't about to change my style for anyone else. 5e just continues the 1e/2e tradition.

I don't think it's necessarily a higher level of consistency for house rules, though. Rulings and rules should be equally consistent, which is why I view them both as house rules. Were I to try and differentiate the two, it would be that house rules tend to be things that are more common. A ruling would be about something that happens every 5 years or so due to the number of different things required to cause that event to happen, the change to fireball to allow it to burn worn objects would be a house rule due to fireball being a common attack type.

 

[seebs]

What I object to is the idea that the wording of the spells in question excludes flammable objects that are worn or carried within the spells' area of effect from being ignited by the flames which the spells produce. My reading of those rules tells me that is not the case.

Then your reading is wrong.

The spell says: "It ignites flammable objects in the area that aren't being worn or carried."

There is no reason for which someone would write this if they actually meant "It ignites flammable objects in the area." The word "that" is what we call a "restrictive qualifier"; it tells you that it is restricting the scope of the thing modified. This sentence is equivalent to "It ignites flammable objects in the area, if they aren't being worn or carried."

The spell excludes objects that are worn or carried from being ignited just as much as it excludes objects which aren't flammable from being ignited, or objects which are not in the area.

 

[pemerton]

no more than they preclude the DM from making a ruling that, in a particular case, the spell tie's someone's shoes.

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?

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.

These comments are very puzzling to me.

You seem to be suggesting that the rules for the Fireball spell, Burning Hands, etc can all be read completely divorced from the rest of the rules - and even ignoring key sentences of those texts themselves.

I will reprise some of that text (which I also cited in the OP):

SRD pp 66, 68, 97
Alchemist’s Fire. This sticky, adhesive fluid ignites when exposed to air. . . . On a hit, the target takes 1d4 fire damage at the start of each of its turns. A creature can end this damage by using its action to make a DC 10 Dexterity check to extinguish the flames. . . .

Oil. . . . you can splash the oil in this flask onto a creature . . . . If the target takes any fire damage before the oil dries (after 1 minute), the target takes an additional 5 fire damage from the burning oil. You can also pour a flask of oil on the ground . . . . If lit, the oil burns for 2 rounds and deals 5 fire damage to any creature that enters the area or ends its turn in the area. . . .

Tinderbox. . . . Using it to light a torch - or anything else with abundant, exposed fuel - takes an action. Lighting any other fire takes 1 minute.

Torch. A torch burns . . . If you make a melee attack with a burning torch and hit, it deals 1 fire damage. . . .

Different attacks, damaging spells, and other harmful effects deal different types of damage. . . . Fire. Red dragons breathe fire, and many spells conjure flames to deal fire damage.​

I think this text makes it very clear that (i) fire damage can be a typical result of being burned by flames, and that (ii) the flames that burn people (thereby inflicting fire damage) can also set things alight.

Now consider these spell descriptions:

SRD pp 123, 142-43
Burning Hands
As you hold your hands with thumbs touching and fingers spread, a thin sheet of flames shoots forth . . . A creature takes . . . fire damage . . . The fire ignites any flammable objects in the area that aren’t being worn or carried.

Fireball
A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame. Each creature in a 20-foot-radius . . . takes . . . fire damage . . . The fire . . . ignites flammable objects in the area that aren’t being worn or carried.​

Both spells create flames. This is why they do fire damage (as we are told on p 97). Flames can set things alight (this is largely self-evident, and also exhibited by the rules for alchemist's fire, oil, tinderboxes and torches). The spells tell us that flammable objects that are neither worn nor carried will be set alight.

But what about other objects? Can ice (not a flammable object) be melted by these spells? Does it make a difference whether or not the ice is worn or carried? Can clothes be singed or charred? Etc.

This takes us to the final rules passage I wish to cite:

SRD p 87
Characters can also damage objects with their weapons and spells. Objects . . . can be affected by physical and magical attacks much like creatures can. The GM determines an object’s Armor Class and hit points, and might decide that certain objects have resistance or immunity to certain kinds of attacks. (It’s hard to cut a rope with a club, for example.) Objects always fail Strength and Dexterity saving throws, and they are immune to effects that require other saves. When an object drops to 0 hit points, it breaks.​

This tells us that spells (like Burning Hands and Fireball) can inflict damage, that objects always fail their saves against those spells, but the GM is to determine the hit points and hence (in practical terms) the consequence. There is a reference to breaking but clearly it can't be intended literally - the passage also gives the example of a rope being cut, which is not really an instance of breaking, and I have also mentioned the possibility of ice melting (which, again, is not really an instance of breaking). Plus the equipment descriptions and the spell descriptions give us the example of objects catching alight and burning.

When this passage is read in conjunction with the others I have cited, I think it gives me a fairly clear answer to the question "What about non-flammable material like ice, or flammable objects that are held or carried?", namely, this is up to the GM.

Whereas when it comes to tying shoelaces, or peanut butter allergies, or doing the laundry, there is nothing in the spell descriptions, nor anywhere else in the rules, that makes those even conceivable, yet alone highly salient, consequences of casting Burning Hands or Fireball.

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.

Right. I've tried to spell out the reasoning in detail above: the spells produce flames and therefore inflict fire damage; flames are capable of igniting things and fire damage is capable of damaging objects; when the object is worn or carried then there is nothing mechanically automatic about this, however, and the GM must adjudicate.

The spell says: "It ignites flammable objects in the area that aren't being worn or carried."

There is no reason for which someone would write this if they actually meant "It ignites flammable objects in the area." The word "that" is what we call a "restrictive qualifier"; it tells you that it is restricting the scope of the thing modified. This sentence is equivalent to "It ignites flammable objects in the area, if they aren't being worn or carried."

The spell excludes objects that are worn or carried from being ignited just as much as it excludes objects which aren't flammable from being ignited, or objects which are not in the area.

But no one is asserting that what is meant is it ignites flammable objects in the area. What is being asserted is that the spell dictates that flammable items neither worn nor carried ignite, and leaves it open for the GM to determine (per p 87 of the SRD, and other relevant rules text) whether or not other objects are damaged (and perhaps also whether or not that damage takes the form of, or includes, ignition).

You may not think agree that this is what is meant. But the mere possibility that it may be what is meant is sufficient to rebut your claim that "there is no reason for which someone would write this . . ." There is a reason: namely, in the context of a game which, by default, makes damage to objects a matter of GM discretion, they are removing that discretion for an important class of objects.

You have the right to interpret it however you choose. You do realize, however, that isn't what it actually says, don't you, and that no house-rule is required to play in a way that disagrees with your personal interpretation?

Right. The fact that interpretations are non-binding (there is no authoritative hierarchy of D&D GMs), and that interpretations are contestable, does not mean that they are anything other than applications of the rules text.

there's nothing preventing a particular casting of fireball from causing water to freeze. Or providing healing instead of damage to its targets.

Of course there is. The spell description says that it creates flames; and this is confirmed by the fact that it inflicts fire damage. Fire burns; it does not freeze. Fire damage hurts; it does not heal.

You seem to be insisting that it is illegitimate to read the Fireball text in the context of the rest of the rules, or the purpose for which it has been written (namely, rules for playing a fantasy RPG). Which is something I find odd, given that a general principle of interpretation is to have regard to the context (including the larger textual context) within which the text has been authored, as well as the purpose for which it has been produced.

 

[Maxperson]

These comments are very puzzling to me.

You seem to be suggesting that the rules for the Fireball spell, Burning Hands, etc can all be read completely divorced from the rest of the rules - and even ignoring key sentences of those texts themselves.

The point is not about fire. The point is about what is in the text vs. what isn't, and whether the text contradicts the new addition. I've already acknowledged that burning is more reasonable, but it's still just as allowable as doing laundry or reading minds. If one is a house rule, they all are. How reasonable something is doesn't play into it.

SRD pp 66, 68, 97
Alchemist’s Fire. This sticky, adhesive fluid ignites when exposed to air. . . . On a hit, the target takes 1d4 fire damage at the start of each of its turns. A creature can end this damage by using its action to make a DC 10 Dexterity check to extinguish the flames. . . .

Oil. . . . you can splash the oil in this flask onto a creature . . . . If the target takes any fire damage before the oil dries (after 1 minute), the target takes an additional 5 fire damage from the burning oil. You can also pour a flask of oil on the ground . . . . If lit, the oil burns for 2 rounds and deals 5 fire damage to any creature that enters the area or ends its turn in the area. . . .

Tinderbox. . . . Using it to light a torch - or anything else with abundant, exposed fuel - takes an action. Lighting any other fire takes 1 minute.

Torch. A torch burns . . . If you make a melee attack with a burning torch and hit, it deals 1 fire damage. . . .

Different attacks, damaging spells, and other harmful effects deal different types of damage. . . . Fire. Red dragons breathe fire, and many spells conjure flames to deal fire damage.​

I think this text makes it very clear that (i) fire damage can be a typical result of being burned by flames, and that (ii) the flames that burn people (thereby inflicting fire damage) can also set things alight.

Now consider these spell descriptions:

SRD pp 123, 142-43
Burning Hands
As you hold your hands with thumbs touching and fingers spread, a thin sheet of flames shoots forth . . . A creature takes . . . fire damage . . . The fire ignites any flammable objects in the area that aren’t being worn or carried.

Fireball
A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame. Each creature in a 20-foot-radius . . . takes . . . fire damage . . . The fire . . . ignites flammable objects in the area that aren’t being worn or carried.​

Both spells create flames. This is why they do fire damage (as we are told on p 97). Flames can set things alight (this is largely self-evident, and also exhibited by the rules for alchemist's fire, oil, tinderboxes and torches). The spells tell us that flammable objects that are neither worn nor carried will be set alight.

But what about other objects? Can ice (not a flammable object) be melted by these spells? Does it make a difference whether or not the ice is worn or carried? Can clothes be singed or charred? Etc.

Fire damage, yes. Burning unattended objects, yes. Burning attended objects is avoided everywhere in the game that specifically talks about fire damage and objects, so no. If you want to add that into the game, it may be more reasonable than the other two things I mentioned, but it's no more RAW than they are. All are house rules.

SRD p 87
Characters can also damage objects with their weapons and spells. Objects . . . can be affected by physical and magical attacks much like creatures can. The GM determines an object’s Armor Class and hit points, and might decide that certain objects have resistance or immunity to certain kinds of attacks. (It’s hard to cut a rope with a club, for example.) Objects always fail Strength and Dexterity saving throws, and they are immune to effects that require other saves. When an object drops to 0 hit points, it breaks.​

This is the general rule that all of those spells override. It does not apply unless you house rule in that those spells can affect attended/worn items.

This tells us that spells (like Burning Hands and Fireball) can inflict damage, that objects always fail their saves against those spells, but the GM is to determine the hit points and hence (in practical terms) the consequence. There is a reference to breaking but clearly it can't be intended literally - the passage also gives the example of a rope being cut, which is not really an instance of breaking, and I have also mentioned the possibility of ice melting (which, again, is not really an instance of breaking). Plus the equipment descriptions and the spell descriptions give us the example of objects catching alight and burning.

Right, but only unattended objects, since the spells call those out. Attended objects are unaffected unless the DM adds that to the rule.

When this passage is read in conjunction with the others I have cited, I think it gives me a fairly clear answer to the question "What about non-flammable material like ice, or flammable objects that are held or carried?", namely, this is up to the GM.

You assume the answer, though. The game does not tell you that attended/worn objects can be harmed, and in fact goes out of it's way to specify that those things harm unattended objects. That's exclusionary language. You simply don't specify unattended objects if you mean for all objects to be affected, unless you are in grade school and don't know how to write. I choose not to assume that the designers are worse than a 1st grader when it comes to writing.

Whereas when it comes to tying shoelaces, or peanut butter allergies, or doing the laundry, there is nothing in the spell descriptions, nor anywhere else in the rules, that makes those even conceivable, yet alone highly salient, consequences of casting Burning Hands or Fireball.

There's always, "because magic!" Anyway, as I said, it's not about how reasonable something is. It's about adding something to the rule that is not written, which makes it a house rule. Something that you view as extremely reasonable does not turn that thing from a house rule into RAW.

For all that you quoted in your post, one thing was notably lacking. Any wording AT ALL that says that fireball (or any other fire spell) burns attended/worn objects. Not a single word about it. All you have is a general rule that doesn't apply because spells are specific rules.

 

[Maxperson]

You may not think agree that this is what is meant. But the mere possibility that it may be what is meant is sufficient to rebut your claim that "there is no reason for which someone would write this . . ." There is a reason: namely, in the context of a game which, by default, makes damage to objects a matter of GM discretion, they are removing that discretion for an important class of objects.

I missed this the first time through. One of the top points of 5e is that the DM has discretion over everything. They did not remove discretion by stating that fireball ignites flammable unattended objects. They made it so that the DM has to exercise his discretion to overcome the specific rule that fireball ignites flammable unattended items. The DM also has to exercise his discretion to add the ability to damage attended/worn items to the spell.

DM discretion that adds or subtracts from a rule is a house rule.

 

[Hriston]

Okay.



Well, no more than they preclude the DM from making a ruling that, in a particular case, the spell tie's someone's shoes.

Sure, if that's enjoyable for a particular group, the rules don't stand against it.

Well, sure. And there's nothing preventing a particular casting of fireball from causing water to freeze.

The rules don't preclude it, no, but it does seem to run counter to the intent, if that's something that concerns you.

Or providing healing instead of damage to its targets. I mean, sure, that's not what it says it does, but who cares? You can just do anything, and as long as you don't say it's a general rule that it always happens, it's a ruling, not a house rule.

The spell specifies damage, so you've departed from the rules considerably here.

But they all have in common that they contradict the spell's description of what it does, and by exclusion, what it does not do.

I don't understand what you mean by "by exclusion". I see no contradiction except in the case where the spell says it does damage and you have it not do damage. Does it mean nothing can happen in the game unless a rule tells you it happens?

Here's an example: sunburst says, "This spell dispels any darkness in its area that was created by a spell." Does this mean the "brilliant sunlight" created by the spell has no power to illuminate mundane darkness?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Hriston]

Here's another example: wall of fire makes no mention of damaging objects of any sort, and yet it does 5d8 fire damage to creatures. Am I supposed to believe the wall is made of a type of fire that has no power to damage objects? If a torch is placed inside the wall, does it not burn? Does the omission of object damage in this case reveal an intent that objects not be destroyed by wall of fire? Or is the inclusion of the word "fire" enough to tell me it is hot and burns things?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Ovinomancer]

Here's an example: sunburst says, "This spell dispels any darkness in its area that was created by a spell." Does this mean the "brilliant sunlight" created by the spell has no power to illuminate mundane darkness?

No, that phrase specifically talks only about how it dispels darkness created by spells. That's nothing to do with illumination of mundane darkness. Your question doesn't make sense.

It may well illuminate normal darkness. The instantaneous duration would require adjudication from the DM as to whether or not that's enough time to register anything so illuminated. I'd say, no, no it can't. It's a flashbang with added damage, and you don't see squat in the illumination of a flashbang, even if you're not looking at it when it goes off.

Here's another example: wall of fire makes no mention of damaging objects of any sort, and yet it does 5d8 fire damage to creatures. Am I supposed to believe the wall is made of a type of fire that has no power to damage objects? If a torch is placed inside the wall, does it not burn? Does the omission of object damage in this case reveal an intent that objects not be destroyed by wall of fire? Or is the inclusion of the word "fire" enough to tell me it is hot and burns things?

You can get 3rd degree burns from water at 63C (~155F) in less than a second. 3rd degree burns are on contact for a pan in the over at 350F if touched with bare skin. Neither of those temperatures would set a torch alight, or most anything else, for that matter. I suppose some unstable chemical compounds might qualify for being alight at those temps.