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

[MostlyDm]

It's also worth bearing in mind that the guidelines in the DMG about when to roll the dice actually also apply when considering *when to look to the rules*.

It's not a house rule, or even a "ruling" in the 5e spirit. It's pure common sense, determined before you ever reach the point of "huh, I'm not sure, better check the rules on that."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[delericho]

Of course it's a house rule. And an utterly game-breaking one at that.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

This very similar to another thread I just read. According so some posters over there, ruling that "shoving daggers repeatedly through an enemy's eyes and into their brains while they are helpless" does in fact kill the enemy is unsupported by the rules and therefor a kind of cheating.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Of course it's a house rule. And an utterly game-breaking one at that.

Yeah, I agree with delericho here. You will totally break the game if you just allow one torch to light another. To just light a torch willy-nilly like that? No... you'd need to use Time Stop to do that (well, as long as it's your own torch...if someone else is holding the unlit torch, you're out of luck...it's only a 9th level spell fer cryin' out loud!).



^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[S'mon]

This very similar to another thread I just read. According so some posters over there, ruling that "shoving daggers repeatedly through an enemy's eyes and into their brains while they are helpless" does in fact kill the enemy is unsupported by the rules and therefor a kind of cheating.

No house rule here, but I'd probably make that fairly difficult to achieve; being able to reliably stick a dagger through even a sleeping or trussed up foe's eye sounds like a high level assassin at work, and we have rules for that - critical hit sneak attack.

 

[chaochou]

As fas as I'm concerned something has to meet a couple of criteria to be a 'house rule':

1) It has to confound general expectations
2) It has to set a new precedent

I don't think a burning torch lighting an unlit torch meets either.

 

[Imaro]

I think the consensus in this thread is interesting (but, of course, correct).

I suspect the moment that you read those words you'll know exactly what I'm getting at. What was it, 2...3 years ago when we had the "can fire effects in 4e set things afire?" There was not a consensus here. In fact, there was a number of 4e detractors who were unwavering in their opinion of "no, that would be a houserule." Despite the (imo insurmountable) evidence to the contrary being that the effects in the game are entirely key-word driven and fire effects have the (shocker) Fire keyword:

"Explosive bursts, fiery rays, or simple ignition."

noun: ignition

* the action of setting something on fire or starting to burn.​

I sometimes think RPG nerdism is more partisan than Football Hooliganism. If we were all face to face arguing over fire effects, we would be knifing each other up and overturning each others' cars, there can be no doubt! Cats and dogs living together. Mass hysteria.

I remember this discussion... and I think you are mis-representing it at best. If I remember correctly this was about certain powers, not mundane items we all have a pretty good concept of from the real world.

The major thing, especially in early 4e, that lead to that past discussion was that every spell, including those with the "fire" keyword had a specific type of target they could affect... ie "creature". Thus why specify the target as "creature" if the power was intended to be used on objects as well? Some believed that if you were using a magical power that explicitly cited a creature as it's target to affect objects... that yes you were in fact house ruling. Again there were spells in 4e that specifically called out the ability to light objects on fire (Prestidigitation) or specifically targeted objects (Disintegrate, Light, etc.)... so yes I can totally see why allowing a different or extra type of target to a spell would be considered a houserule... what I don't see is how the question in this thread and that discussion are related...

EDIT: And for the record, no... I don't consider this a houserule. Torches don't have specific types of targets they can affect, they do fire damage to anything they come into contact with and thus can ignite flammable things like other torches.

 

[Umbran]

And if this becomes an edition warring thread, people will find themselves banned quickly, if only to prevent the irony from becoming so thick and dense as to collapse in on itself and form a black hole. Do not go there.

 

[Dausuul]

No.

[Edited because I realized I was missing some key points.]

By design, the rules cover certain areas of the game and leave others to the discretion of the DM. A house rule is something that affects the design space that is covered by the rules. If it's in the area that is left to DM discretion, then it's just a ruling, not a house rule.

The most obvious type of house rule is one that changes something in the rulebook. The rules say that you automatically regain all your hit points after a long rest. If I say that in my campaign, you don't automatically regain hit points after a long rest--you have to spend hit dice to heal--that's a house rule.

A house rule doesn't have to explicitly change the text of the rules, though. Let's say I made a rule that every time you roll a critical hit, you gain 50 XP. That is not changing the written rules, per se. Nowhere in the rulebooks does it say that you don't get 50 XP for a critical hit. But it's still pretty clearly a house rule. XP awards are in the "covered by the rules" design space.

However, what happens when you touch a lighted torch to an unlighted one is the sort of specific detail that the rules leave to the DM. Thus, it's a DM ruling, not a house rule.

This is not a bright-line distinction, and there is room for disagreement on whether any given thing falls in the "explicit rules" or "DM discretion" space (e.g., shoving daggers into the eyes of helpless foes). But I'd say the torch issue is firmly in the "DM discretion" area.

This very similar to another thread I just read. According so some posters over there, ruling that "shoving daggers repeatedly through an enemy's eyes and into their brains while they are helpless" does in fact kill the enemy is unsupported by the rules and therefore a kind of cheating.

The bolded part is flat wrong. House rules are not cheating. They're house rules, and at your table they are every bit as valid as anything in the rulebooks.

The only way to cheat in D&D is to deceive the rest of the table (e.g., saying you rolled a 20 when you got a 4).

 

[Manbearcat]

[MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] , it was a multi-faceted conversation:

1) One component of it was the "target viability" question and how 4e Target (Creatures vs Enemies) tech interfaced with the game world.

2) How keywords (specifically Fire in this case) interfaced with the game world and how the stunting mechanics handled exceptions by way of referencing fictional positioning and keyword descriptors.

The second part is the facet of the conversation I was referring to.

Speaking specifically to 5e's mechanism for handling exceptions, I would be curious how folks would handle stunts with fire effects. It is obviously a consensus that fire effects should have the potential to set things afire (not a house rule).

What about this. How are the following action declarations handled:

1) Player wants to set a creature on fire with a torch. I would say:

Action Economy: Action

Procedure: Athletics vs (low DC). Immediate Saving Throw (not terribly high) Dex for half damage and to avoid (some value) burn affect (fire damage at the start of your turn). If you fail, take (some value of) fire damage and save vs Dex again. Action automatically puts out the fire.

Something like that where the values are balanced.

2) Player wants to set flammable building materials on fire with a torch:

Action Economy: Bonus Action while adjacent.

Effect: Create some sort of burning fire hazard that spreads (that requires Saving Throw Dex - etc - See 1 above)

3) Spellcaster/grenadier wants to set creature/object on fire with a fire spell/grenade:

Action Economy: Rider to original effect?

Procedure: Some sort of applicable ability/skill check vs a difficult DC (eg Arcana). See above for rest. Failure equals some sort of moderately punitive effect (as you can't give out free riders). Perhaps Disadvantage on next action for whatever ad-hoc justification is required (arcane feedback, backfire/mishandle)

---

Any or all of those houserules or are they just rulings on exceptions (even if crappy rulings...their merit isn't relevant)?