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

[FrogReaver]

Rules by exclusionary principle is not the same as rules as written.

 

[pemerton]

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.

Would those temperatures ignite a torch if I was not holding it? If not, then it seems to follow that a fireball is hotter than that.

 

[pemerton]

The game does not tell you that attended/worn objects can be harmed

Yes it does. On p 87, the SRD states that objects can be harmed by physical and magical attacks in much the same way as creatures can be.

in fact goes out of it's way to specify that those things harm unattended objects.

It goes out of its way to specify that certain spells ignite objects that are neither worn nor carried. In other words, it exempts those objects from the normal application of p 87.

You simply don't specify unattended objects if you mean for all objects to be affected

You might well specify a certain class of objects as being distinctively affected if you want to carve them out from the general rules stated on p 87, which require the GM to adjudciate hit points, AC etc. That is, in fact, what I think is the most natural reading of the rules as a whole.

Your reiterating your own preferred reading doesn't change the fact that I am also reading and applying the rules as they are written. I am also curious as to what you think that point of p 87 is - at I already pointed out, a good number of the spell effects that cause damage are the fire spells.

The point is not about fire.

<snip>

There's always, "because magic!"

The point is absolutely about fire. The rules tells us what fire damage is: it's damage caused by flames, and by the fiery breath of dragons. This is reinforced by the spell descriptions themselves talking about "thin sheets of flame", "explosions of flame" and the like. No where do the rules carry even the remotest suggestion that these are all some sort of pseudo- or magical fire that is incapable of singing the hat a goblin is wearing even as it burns the hair off the goblin's head.

It's about adding something to the rule that is not written, which makes it a house rule.

<snip>

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.

Nor is there a single word stating that held/worn objects can't be damaged. That's the point. You are also extrapolating beyond what is expressly stated. You are extrapolating, from the specification of certain objects, that the general rules on p 87 are displaced. That is not stated anywhere. (There is a generic statement about "specific excluding general", but I am also applying that statement: the specific rules about ignition displace the general rules about the GM deciding on hit points, etc).

You also haven't discussed ice. Can a fireball spell melt ice? Does it matter whether or not the ice is in the possession of a creature?

 

[pemerton]

If Jeremy Crawford wants to run a game in which fireballs "burn" people to death while leaving their clothes, scrolls, ice pendants etc unaffected, that's his prerogative.

If 5e mandated that result as a consequence of RAW, I would think that counted heavily against 5e compared to some of its predecessor editions (eg 4e, Moldvay Basic) which clearly leave it as a matter for the GM to adjudicate, having regard to the fact that a fireball is a ball of . . . (wait for it) . . . fire.

But it seems clear to me that 5e does not mandate that result, because it has p 87 on damaging objects.

As I've already posted, the whole issue is also bound up in the narration of hit points and saving throws. On a Gygaxian treatment of hit points, which I prefer, then it would make sense that objects worn or carried by a still-living target can't take any damage more serious than a singing, for the same sorts of reasons that hp loss which does not kill a person causes nothing worse than a nick or a scratch.

For those who prefer hp as meat - meaning that every point of fire damage suffered is some sort of serious burning of the target's flesh - I leave it up to them to come up with a narration that explains how the fire reaches the flesh without interacting in any way with the clothes inbetween.

 

[Umbran]

Would those temperatures ignite a torch if I was not holding it? If not, then it seems to follow that a fireball is hotter than that.

Who says magical fire sources do damage to creatures or ignite things by plain old fashioned mundane *temperature*?

Who says magical fire sources have to be consistent? Maybe wall of fire is somehow different from fireball in some ineffable magical way. I agree that it's often better for play if they are consistent, but, well... magic is mysterious

Really - don't lean on mundane physics to answer your questions about magic. D&D magic typically has to invoke other planes of existence to get around the flagrant violations of thermodynamics. After that kind of metaphorical barbarian rampage on reality, you cant expect it to suddenly start speaking clean sonnets, not even out of breath.

 

[pemerton]

Who says magical fire sources do damage to creatures or ignite things by plain old fashioned mundane *temperature*?

<snip>

Who says magical fire sources have to be consistent?

<snip>

Really - don't lean on mundane physics to answer your questions about magic.

Yes and no.

A fireball (and the other fire spells) do fire damage. The rules characterise fire damage (SRD, p 97) as being the sort of thing that results from conjured flames or from the fiery breath of dragons. It is also the sort of damage that is inflicted by burning oil, flaming torches and alchemist's fire.

The fireball spell itself describes an "explosion of flame". The burning hands spell talks about a thin sheet of flame.

Nothing in the rules suggests that - despite all the rules text that I've just mentioned - fireball and burning hands create some sort of "magical" or pseudo-flame which does not burn and ignite things in much the same way as ordinary flame does.

 

[Umbran]

Yes and no.

A fireball (and the other fire spells) do fire damage. The rules characterise fire damage (SRD, p 97) as being the sort of thing that results from conjured flames or from the fiery breath of dragons. It is also the sort of damage that is inflicted by burning oil, flaming torches and alchemist's fire.

The actual quote (PHB pg 196, on damage types) is:

"Fire. Red dragons breathe fire, and many spells conjure fire to deal fire damage."

Which is circular. Fire damage type is fire damage. I don't think self-referential definitions are particularly enlightening.

Nothing in the rules suggests that - despite all the rules text that I've just mentioned - fireball and burning hands create some sort of "magical" or pseudo-flame which does not burn and ignite things in much the same way as ordinary flame does.

Nothing in the rules suggests? NOTHING? You sure you want to go with that answer?

The thread's been going on for how many pages, basically about how the rules for fire spells are remarkably *UNLIKE* real-world fire, and you actually try to tell me *NOTHING* in the rules suggests anything hinkey?

It would seem to me that *every instance* where fire behaves in an un-intuitive fashion (like, somehow your dry burlap robe is super-duper flame retardant better than asbestos, but only when you wear it!) is such a suggestion.

Maybe nothing there is anything *you* take as definitive and unambiguous, but we are talking about "suggestions", not definitive statements. For suggestions, you should be ratcheting down your burden of proof about 11 ranks, no?

Or, you can just accept that it was written by human beings, who did not provide you with 100% fidelity to anything real, and not worry about it too much.

 

[pemerton]

The actual quote (PHB pg 196, on damage types) is:

"Fire. Red dragons breathe fire, and many spells conjure fire to deal fire damage."

Which is circular. Fire damage type is fire damage. I don't think self-referential definitions are particularly enlightening.

Well, it uses the word "dragon", and also the word "flames" (as in conjure flames to deal fire damage - your rendering of that as "fire" is a typo).

And those aren't self-referential (I don't think) - they're meant to evoke concepts and phenomena that exist outside of the D&D rules (flames in the real world; fire-breathing dragons in Beowulf, Tolkien etc).

Nothing in the rules suggests? NOTHING? You sure you want to go with that answer?

The thread's been going on for how many pages, basically about how the rules for fire spells are remarkably *UNLIKE* real-world fire, and you actually try to tell me *NOTHING* in the rules suggests anything hinkey?

It would seem to me that *every instance* where fire behaves in an un-intuitive fashion (like, somehow your dry burlap robe is super-duper flame retardant better than asbestos, but only when you wear it!) is such a suggestion.

Well this is what's at issue, isn't it?

Does a successful DEX save vs fireball mean that the character stood there in the flames, bathing in their luxurious heat but not being even singed? Or does it mean that the character avoided the worst of the flames (say, by dropping very low to the ground, or by taking shelter behind a shield or a table or Gygax's "Schroedinger's crevice" in the rock-face), and that is why the robe didn't catch fire (though perhaps it is somewhat singed)?

I favour the Gygaxian narrations - hit points, saving throws, and the extrapolation to damage to objects - and I think they produce a fiction that is basically coherent and allows the flames of dragons to be just that - flames - while nevertheless allowing that D&D PCs can heroically avoid the worst consequences of being bathed in fire.

The alternatives - hp as meat, fire damage as burning people but not their clothes, etc - seem to me to create a fiction that is less coherent and that makes D&D more self-referential (D&D dragons are no longer like Smaug; the "flame" conjured by a Burning Hands spell isn't really flame; "because magic"; etc) while leaving it cut off from the fantasy literature and tropes that actual give it its depth and foundation.

I accept that the self-referential interpretation is open, but I don't think it's mandated, and I don't think my preferred approach is at odds with the rules of the game.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes it does. On p 87, the SRD states that objects can be harmed by physical and magical attacks in much the same way as creatures can be.

General rules do not beat specific, so they don't apply.

Your reiterating your own preferred reading doesn't change the fact that I am also reading and applying the rules as they are written. I am also curious as to what you think that point of p 87 is - at I already pointed out, a good number of the spell effects that cause damage are the fire spells.

It's not my preferred reading. Per Jeremy Crawford, it's the way it is. Fireball absolutely does not affect worn items. You have to house rule to enable that.

 

[Maxperson]

If Jeremy Crawford wants to run a game in which fireballs "burn" people to death while leaving their clothes, scrolls, ice pendants etc unaffected, that's his prerogative.

If 5e mandated that result as a consequence of RAW, I would think that counted heavily against 5e compared to some of its predecessor editions (eg 4e, Moldvay Basic) which clearly leave it as a matter for the GM to adjudicate, having regard to the fact that a fireball is a ball of . . . (wait for it) . . . fire.

But it seems clear to me that 5e does not mandate that result, because it has p 87 on damaging objects.

It seems clear to me that the guy that designed the rules say otherwise. Unless you think Jeremy is lying to us, fireball works the way he says it does. Unless you house rule of course.