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

[Maxperson]

I will accept that as a response of "no."

But that leaves us with the question of what the question the text of the spell is answering actually is, since that is what determined whether my two example sentences about dairy were the same under an assumption, but not under every assumption.

I say yes, and you say you'll take it as a "no." I don't remember you being my wife.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I say yes, and you say you'll take it as a "no." I don't remember you being my wife.

Well, I don't know if you do it to your wife too, but you didn't just answer my question - you assumed my reason for asking it, and assumed incorrectly, which resulted in your "yes" being a "no" to the question I had actually asked which you apparently misunderstood.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, I don't know if you do it to your wife too, but you didn't just answer my question - you assumed my reason for asking it, and assumed incorrectly, which resulted in your "yes" being a "no" to the question I had actually asked which you apparently misunderstood.

I didn't assume anything. I responded in the same context as is used in the fireball spell. If you assumed something else, that's on you.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I didn't assume anything. I responded in the same context as is used in the fireball spell.

Either you didn't assume anything, or you assumed the context in my examples and in the fireball spell as the same - it literally cannot be both. (At least not without some definition of "assume" that I am unaware of being used.)

 

[Lehrbuch]

When telling someone where to find the dairy, yes the are the same thing. Because if they aren't the same thing, you're a douche for misleading the person by saying that the "Dairy is outside of he fridge."

Isn't the dairy a building?

I think you'll find that the fridge is in the dairy.

 

[Maxperson]

Either you didn't assume anything, or you assumed the context in my examples and in the fireball spell as the same - it literally cannot be both. (At least not without some definition of "assume" that I am unaware of being used.)

Ahh, it's context you have trouble with. The statement that I didn't assume anything was in direct response to your statement that I assumed YOUR reasons. It was not about literally everything. Context. Context. Context.

 

[ZzarkLinux]

I voted No: It is not a houserule for a torch to ignite things. I voted this way because the torch is an option to all characters, and I don't think it would affect PC / intra-party balance.

It's more of a game definition thing, kinda like how adding a setting isn't a houserule, and adding cultural / racial taboos isn't a houserule. Defining a game a certain way that doesn't skew class-balance / class-role / PC versus NPC balance isn't really a houserule.

 

[pemerton]

I really don't want to get involved in this, but c'mon. This is just not true.

Expressio unius est exclusio alterius (roughly, saying one thing excludes others) is just about the most basic rule of statutory construction these is. It's like, in the canon and everything. That's why we have residual clauses.

At best it generates a prima facie assumption in some contexts - for instance, if there is no further statutory text to suggest otherwise. To give a concrete example: section 51 of the Australian Constitution states that "The Parliament shall . . . have power to make laws . . . with respect to" a whole host of enumerated items. This is followed by section 52 which "The Parliament shall . . . have exclusive power to make laws . . . with respect to" a small number of further matters. Section 122 identifies a further power of Parliament to make law "for the government of any territory" that ends up under federal authority. Section 128 identifies another power, to enact laws that would alter the Constitution (which only take effect if then affirmed at referendum).

You can't tell whether the list in section 51 is exhaustive until you read the whole document and see what else is said. In this case, it is obviously not exhaustive because other stuff is mentioned. Some people, including very eminent members of the judiciary, have even thought that the Parliament also has powers to make laws in respect of certain matters that are not mentioned anywhere in the text, but are inherent in its constitution as the supreme law making body of a sovereign nation.

In the context of the D&D rules, there is further text which makes it clear that the list in Fireball, Burning Hands etc is probably not exhaustive - namely, the general rule stated on p 87 of the SRD. That's ample to displace any presumption of exhaustiveness.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that "Dairy is outside of the fridge." and "All of the dairy is outside of the fridge." are statements of identical meaning. Is that correct?

But that leaves us with the question of what the question the text of the spell is answering actually is, since that is what determined whether my two example sentences about dairy were the same under an assumption, but not under every assumption.

There are clearly contexts in which "Dairy produce is outside of the fridge" conveys the same meaning as "All dairy produce is outside of the fridge". But as you note, it depends upon context and what assumptions are in play.

In relation to the Fireball spell, I think the most salient context is that p 87 of the SRD establishes an approach to damaging items which is (i) extremely dependent upon GM discretion, and (ii) is completely silent on any notion of ignition as a consequence of fire damage. The text stating that flammable objects which are neither worn nor carried will ignite makes it clear that, in this context, the GM has no discretion (other than over what counts as flammable, worn or carried) and makes it clear that the damage takes the form of catching fire.

I don't think it does anything more than that.

I've also been trying to work out the consequences of [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]'s view for the melting of ice. If he takes it that the list is only an exhaustive treatment of the ignition of flammable materials, then it is not houseruling to hold that the spell melts (partially or completely) some piece of ice being held by the NPC who is in its AoE. Which is odd: by the RAW you can melt the wizard's ice but not burn the wizard's scroll.

Or if we take the list as utterly exhaustive of all consequences for objects, then by RAW no ice is ever melted by fireball. Which is as absurd as the suggestion that it would be houseruling to describe the NPC who was burned to death by a fireball as having had his/her clothes charred.

But what kind of crazy person puts peanut butter in the refrigerator?

I do! In winter it will be cold either way; in summer it reduces separation/sloppiness due to heat and keeps out ants.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Ahh, it's context you have trouble with.

Stay classy, Max.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*