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

[Maxperson]

Well, if your laundry is not worn then it will catch fire. But if you put on your clothes then can you stand in a fireball and have them dried? Or would the water in the worn clothes be unaffected, because fireball can't affect worn objects?

We could just make fireball stick the water into your body. Then it won't be damaging the water and you get dry clothing. For some here that won't even be a house rule!

 

[Maxperson]

So fireball is a spell that targets and the rules for targeting on page 204 explicitly say that spells will tell you if it targets objects. If the spell doesn't say that it targets objects, then it doesn't, per RAW. That means that fireball telling you that it targets unattended objects is exclusively limiting all such targeting to unattended objects. By not stating that it affects worn objects, it flat out does not, per RAW.

The general object damage rules will never apply to spells at all, since not only are spells specific rules, but so are the spell target rules, and those say that you will only ever find out if a spell will target an object within the spell itself.

The above is why Jeremy said no. He wasn't giving his ruling on how he does it. He was explaining what RAW already told us.

 

[KahlessNestor]

So you're saying I can't cast magic missile at the darkness?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

[Maxperson]

So you're saying I can't cast magic missile at the darkness?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

Not me, the rules

Love that skit.

 

[Hriston]

Fireball, as a spell, doesn't target objects or creatures. It targets a point of origin.

 

[Maxperson]

Fireball, as a spell, doesn't target objects or creatures. It targets a point of origin.

Not entirely correct. Read the spell. It damages TARGETS. That means that anything it damage is a target, as well as the point of origin.

 

[Hriston]

Not entirely correct. Read the spell. It damages TARGETS. That means that anything it damage is a target, as well as the point of origin.

Of the three options for what a spell TARGETS on page 204, the fireball spell TARGETS a point of origin. It's irrelevant that the spell calls something that makes a saving throw a target. I hope my use of all caps didn't make you feel like I think you're stupid.

 

[Hriston]

You don't understand "by exclusion[?]"

"ignites flammable objects in the area that aren’t being worn or carried."

Let's expand that (expand the contraction).

Ignites flammable objects in the area that are not being worn or carried.

Now, let's see how this would apply in a different context-

"You may eat any items that are not in my lunch box."
"The fire will ignite any objects that are not covered by a heat shield."
"You can kill any orcs that are not surrendering."

That is how language of exclusion works.

It is perfectly fine to say that common sense means that a person hit by a FIREBALL will suffer the same FIRE effects as the area around him. But that's not what the RAW say.

I haven't said the fireball spell DOES affect objects being worn or carried. I agree the spell doesn't say it does that. What I'm rejecting is the notion that "exclusion" places an absolute limitation on what the consequences of casting fireball might be.

 

[Hriston]

You can believe what you want, and make a common sense ruling based on the same.

However, the specific effects from, say, Burning Hands and Fireball, and the lack of mention of those specific effects in Wall of Fire, make for a very compelling argument that Wall of Fire does not have the effect that it will "ignite[] flammable objects in the area that aren’t being worn or carried." Under the RAW. Which you can common-sense adjudicate away from.

Just as you are free to say to yourself, "Self, it makes no sense that spells that cause acid, or force, damage don't damage the objects worn by the target, despite the lack of language indicating same."

No, you aren't free to say that. The "logic" of exclusion dictates that because the spell DOES damage creatures, that means it DOES NOT damage objects.

 

[Hriston]

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.

Maybe I chose the wrong word. The intent of my question was, "Does the spell specifying that is dispels darkness created by a spell mean it doesn't dispel darkness not created by a spell, and therefore not work?" Keep in mind that I don't think it does.

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.

I'm really not interested in whether you'd be able to see anything. Sorry my use of the word "illuminate" confused you.

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.

What do any of those temperatures have to do with the fire that wall of fire creates?