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

[pemerton]

Wasn't 0hp just dead in 1st Edition?

No. The rules are on p 82 of the DMG. If a character is dropped below 0 hp (optionally, below -3) s/he dies. At zero (optionally, between 0 and -3 inclusive) s/he is unconscious, losing 1 hp per rd, and dies of this hp loss drops him/her to -10. If the bleeding is staunched and s/he has hp restored, s/he is still comatose for 10 to 60 minutes and requires a week of rest.

Another 1e DMG option: you could let PCs survive down to -10, but they required a week of bedrest to recover, even if fully healed up magically. Most every DM I knew back then used that option and/or other home-brew or Len Lakofka variants to make 1st level a little more survivable.

As presented, it was not an option; the only option was whether death occurs if dropped below zero, or if dropped below -3. (Like [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] posted.)

In Unearthed Arcana there was a 3rd level cleric spell, Death's Door, that alleviated the need for the week of rest. It was very popular in my AD&D game.

 

[Tony Vargas]

the main difference between a roleplaying game and a video game or board game: physics are assumed unless the DM says otherwise.

Which physics? The implied physics of the rules? RL physics? Newtonian Physics? Action-movie-trope physics? Fantasy-genre physics? Medieval 'natural history'/superstition?

The main difference between an RPG and a CRPG is that there /is/ a GM to say otherwise.

 

[Max_Killjoy]

In another thread, the following question has arisen: Is it houseruling to allow a PC to use a burning torch to set fire to a flammable object?

Especially: Is it houseruling to allow a PC to use a burning torch to set fire to another torch?

Page 68 of the SRD, in the entry for tinderboxes, describes torches as having "abundant, exposed fuel" (which permits them to be lit with an action rather than taking a minute). Page 68 also tells us that a hit with a burning torch deals 1 hp of fire damage. And p 97 tells us that "Red dragons breathe fire, and many spells conjure flames to deal fire damage."

So the rules suggest there is a close connection of some sort between being a flame or a fire source and dealing fire damage.

But they don't actually say that a lit torch can set fire to another torch.

So, would that be houseruling, or otherwise changing RAW?

The question you have to ask yourself in those moments is, do the rules define the reality, or do the rules model the reality?

I myself go for the latter answer, and the answer to your question is "torches are burning, burning things light torches, so a torch can light a torch". There's no need for specific rules that say "a torch can light a torch", it's simply a fact. If that is not a fact of the reality, then you have some much bigger questions to answer.


("Reality" in this case being used to refer to the "fictional reality" in which a story or game takes place.)

 

[Tony Vargas]

The question you have to ask yourself in those moments is, do the rules define the reality, or do the rules model the reality?

("Reality" in this case being used to refer to the "fictional reality" in which a story or game takes place.)

Heh. Either of those can get you into trouble. If you lean too far towards rules-as-laws-of-physics, the 'reality' can get pretty goofy (think Terry Pratchet if his stuff wasn't so funny), if you lean too far towards 'modeling' the rules can cease to be functional as rules, turning the game into a tedious exercise. Not that they aren't both valid. Just that rules have important purposes in a game beyond those two approaches to simulation.