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

[Maxperson]

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

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

The absence of preclusion does not mean inclusion. It's still a house rule to add to existing rules, even if not precluded from doing so.

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

That example, sure. However, there is no departure if he does the damage and just adds healing to the spell.

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?

Nope. I just means you are creating rules when you fill in the gaps the game leaves you.

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?

It means that it does not dispel mundane darkness, just like it does not illuminate darkness created by a spell. Illumination and dispelling are two different things. Being a burst, it only lasts an instant, which may not even be enough time to see anything.

 

[Maxperson]

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?

Since the spell does not create a specific rule about damaging objects, the general rule would apply. Congrats. You just found the one spell that can damage worn items without a house rule.

 

[Maxperson]

FYI

@Orethalion Apr 17 @JeremyECrawford Fireball states it ignites flammable unattended items. Does it have any effect on held or worn items of a target?

Jeremy Crawford
@JeremyECrawford
@Orethalion No.


There you have it from the rules man himself. Fireball is not intended to affect worn items, just as I thought, and as the language made pretty darn clear. The rest of the fire spells are almost definitely the same.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yet that is not what he wrote in the rules. DNd cannot be played by raw alone. It requires rulings on almost everything to even play. Fireball ignites flammable unattended items. There is no rule written about how it interacts with flammable held items. Stop acting like your houserule is RAW.

FYI

@Orethalion Apr 17 @JeremyECrawford Fireball states it ignites flammable unattended items. Does it have any effect on held or worn items of a target?

Jeremy Crawford
@JeremyECrawford
@Orethalion No.


There you have it from the rules man himself. Fireball is not intended to affect worn items, just as I thought, and as the language made pretty darn clear. The rest of the fire spells are almost definitely the same.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Just want to point out, again, that 5e is written in natural language, not precise jargon. Natural language is naturally ambiguous and requires interpretation. There is no RAW - or, rather, the RAW of 5e is not useable as such nor meaningful, it /must/ be interpreted to be applied.

Rulings not rules.

 

[Maxperson]

Yet that is not what he wrote in the rules. DNd cannot be played by raw alone. It requires rulings on almost everything to even play. Fireball ignites flammable unattended items. There is no rule written about how it interacts with flammable held items. Stop acting like your houserule is RAW.

It IS how he wrote the rules, at least to those who know what exclusionary language looks like. I thought it would take more than 4 minutes for someone to deny an unequivocal answer from the rules guy. Wow.

 

[Maxperson]

Just want to point out, again, that 5e is written in natural language, not precise jargon. Natural language is naturally ambiguous and requires interpretation. There is no RAW - or, rather, the RAW of 5e is not useable as such nor meaningful, it /must/ be interpreted to be applied.

Rulings not rules.

Right, but it's pretty clear (not 100%, but close enough) that they didn't intend for those fire spells to damage worn items.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Right, but it's pretty clear (not 100%, but close enough) that they didn't intend for those fire spells to damage worn items.

And that it's not exactly 'against the rules' for it to happen, either. That is, that what burns when a fireball goes off is up to the DM, using the text of the spell as a natural-language starting point, not as an absolute that he must formally over-rule as if in some sort of legal process.

 

[Maxperson]

And that it's not exactly 'against the rules' for it to happen, either. That is, that what burns when a fireball goes off is up to the DM, using the text of the spell as a natural-language starting point, not as an absolute that he must formally over-rule as if in some sort of legal process.

While not exactly against the rules, the language is very clear that fireball does not affect worn items, and that has now been backed up by the rules guy. He flat out said no, it does not affect worn items. That should put the nail in the coffin on whether or not it's a house rule for it to burn worn stuff.

 

[FrogReaver]

It IS how he wrote the rules, at least to those who know what exclusionary language looks like. I thought it would take more than 4 minutes for someone to deny an unequivocal answer from the rules guy. Wow.

Fireball not damaging worn items is not a part of raw just like fireball damaging worn items would not be a part of raw.

While I agree with you that the INTENT of the raw is for fireball not to damage worn items, that just isn't what the raw says. You have the best justification for why you rule or houserule your way but it's still a ruling, it's still what you call a houserule. Heck it's even the way I play it. But that doesn't make it a WRITTEN rule.