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

[Maxperson]

I thought your argument was that fireball explicitly does not ignite worn or carried items. The rules don't say that.

Nope. I've said, and it's true, that you don't go out of your way to specify that fireball ignites unattended items if it ignites everything. You use language like 1e had. You only use language like 5e uses if attended items are immune. The language used is exclusionary.

 

[billd91]

"Besides causing damage to creatures, the fireball ignites all combustible materials within its burst radius, and the heat of the fireball will melt soft metals such as gold, copper, silver, etc. Items exposed to the spell's effects must be rolled for to determine if they are affected. Items with a creature which makes its saving throw are considered as unaffected."

I looked it up before I posted

Edit: As an aside. THIS is the sort of language 5e would have used if 5e fireball was supposed to be able to destroy worn items.

I see, I was thinking you were making a point of item saving throws in general, not just fireball (and, according to its reference back to fireball, lightning bolt). A lot of spells, like cone of cold and flame strike, don't include that item-protecting caveat.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's not unambiguous!

Natural language never is. And 5e is intentionally written in more natural language to make it more accessible - and, arguably, more open to interpretation, emphasizing the role/importance of the DM.

 

[Hriston]

Nope. I've said, and it's true, that you don't go out of your way to specify that fireball ignites unattended items if it ignites everything. You use language like 1e had. You only use language like 5e uses if attended items are immune. The language used is exclusionary.

The language used implies no such immunity. The items not mentioned are only excluded from certain ignition. There is still a possibility.

 

[Maxperson]

The language used implies no such immunity. The items not mentioned are only excluded from certain ignition. There is still a possibility.

The world ending tomorrow in a ball of fire from a nuclear strike is also possible. This is about what is probable, and it is extremely probable that I am correct. You don't highlight something like unattended items being burned unless you are excluding attended items. I'm going to give the designers some credit and assume that they write better than 1st graders. Feel free not to give them the same credit and assume that they were too dumb to write that everything could be burned if they really meant that.

 

[Hriston]

I edited everything in your post that I found presumptuous and offensive. I don't need to respond to such things.

I will respond to this though.

You don't highlight something like unattended items being burned unless you are excluding attended items.

Exclusion from certain ignition is not immunity from ignition. You seem to be wrongly considering this a distinction between items that certainly burn and items that certainly don't burn. The language doesn't support that. The language identifies some items that certainly burn. Other items may or may not burn.

 

[Hriston]

"A flammable object hit by this spell ignites if it isn’t being worn or carried."

Does this statement say flammable objects being worn or carried will not ignite? Or does it say they won't necessarily ignite?

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

Does this mean the fire does not ignite flammable objects not worn or carried, or does it mean the fire doesn't necessarily ignite flammable objects not worn or carried?

"The sphere ignites flammable objects not being worn or carried..."

Can the sphere never ignite flammable objects that are worn or carried? Or is it possible that the sphere sometimes ignites flammable objects that are worn or carried?

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

Yes, but what about flammable objects that are being worn or carried?

You may find these two interesting:

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

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

These spells (or the fires they create) damage all objects within their area, but only unattended objects will certainly catch fire. What about objects that are attended? How were they damaged? Is it possible that some of them also caught fire?

Is it making a house-rule to say they did?

 

[Maxperson]

Exclusion from certain ignition is not immunity from ignition. You seem to be wrongly considering this a distinction between items that certainly burn and items that certainly don't burn. The language doesn't support that. The language identifies some items that certainly burn. Other items may or may not burn.

Yes. Flammable objects certainly burn if unattended and inflammable objects certainly don't burn. That's the language. Items worn are excluded due to the language used. Look at 1e fireball for language of the sort they would have used had worn items been at all vulnerable.

 

[Maxperson]

double post

 

[Maxperson]

"A flammable object hit by this spell ignites if it isn’t being worn or carried."

Does this statement say flammable objects being worn or carried will not ignite? Or does it say they won't necessarily ignite?

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

Does this mean the fire does not ignite flammable objects not worn or carried, or does it mean the fire doesn't necessarily ignite flammable objects not worn or carried?

"The sphere ignites flammable objects not being worn or carried..."

Can the sphere never ignite flammable objects that are worn or carried? Or is it possible that the sphere sometimes ignites flammable objects that are worn or carried?

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

Yes, but what about flammable objects that are being worn or carried?

You may find these two interesting:

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

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

These spells (or the fires they create) damage all objects within their area, but only unattended objects will certainly catch fire. What about objects that are attended? How were they damaged? Is it possible that some of them also caught fire?

Those spells consistently call out unattended items and don't even so much as hint at worn items being ignitable.

Is it making a house-rule to say they did?

Yes.