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

[Maxperson]

No, I'm not, and don't shout at me.

I don't shout. When I use all caps I'm just placing stress on those words.

That is correct. Neither requires any addition be made to the spell, nor does anything in the spell contradict them.

LOL Are you seriously saying that having fireball do the laundry doesn't add anything to the spell? You sir are not arguing in good faith.

 

[Hriston]

Then your reading is wrong.

No, it isn't. Yours is. You're seeing restrictive, precise language as prohibitive. It's not the same thing.

The spell says: "It ignites flammable objects in the area that aren't being worn or carried."

There is no reason for which someone would write this if they actually meant "It ignites flammable objects in the area."

I haven't said that's what they meant to write. I think they meant to write exactly what they did. It means all objects that are both flammable and unattended will ignite. You are supposing that this implies some specific intent with regards to other objects.

The word "that" is what we call a "restrictive qualifier"; it tells you that it is restricting the scope of the thing modified. This sentence is equivalent to "It ignites flammable objects in the area, if they aren't being worn or carried."

Yes, it introduces a restrictive clause that modifies the group of flammable objects the spell description says will certainly ignite. Notice that neither the spell description nor your paraphrase rule out the possibility that other objects might also ignite.

The spell excludes objects that are worn or carried from being ignited just as much as it excludes objects which aren't flammable from being ignited, or objects which are not in the area.

The objects are excluded from the list, not from being ignited.

If I say, "The customer ordered items that aren't on the menu," that doesn't mean items on the menu weren't also ordered.

 

[Tony Vargas]

LOL Are you seriously saying that having fireball do the laundry doesn't add anything to the spell? You sir are not arguing in good faith.

Drying the laundry would make more sense.

 

[Satyrn]

Drying the laundry would make more sense.

Not just drying, it cleans by sterilization, and all the dirt and grime and bloody mess of the adventuring day just burns away.

And the wrinkles just melt away.

No refluffing required to turn fireball into Mordenkainen's Ludicrous Laundromat.

 

[Maxperson]

No, it isn't. Yours is. You're seeing restrictive, precise language as prohibitive. It's not the same thing.

Restrictive. It restricts to unattended objects. This is backed up by Jeremy Crawford saying flat out that fireball does not affect worn objects.

 

[Maxperson]

Drying the laundry would make more sense.

That's true! However, wearing all of that clothing in order to avoid it being burned would be a pain.

 

[thalmin]

Saying a fireball could possibly ignite worn or attended items is only applying many people's personal knowledge and experience to an effect (fire damage). Granted there I many things in. this world beyond my personal experiences, but I am sceptical about fires being known to allow anyone to read someones mind, or to ties shoes, or do the laundry. Now in-game we are talking about magical fire. Maybe someone wants to include such in theior game world. Why, back in the real world old days, we had a cleaning product that cleaned like a white tornado.

As for Mr. Crawford's tweeted ruling (not quite the same as a rule), did he specifically say that it was against the rules for Fireball to ignite an attended item, that the DM would be breaking the rules? It is more work for the DM to keep track of extra saving throws, and what the effect of creature saving throw success or failure might have on the attended object's saving throw. Leaving it out of the spell description means the DM doesn't have to do more work if he doesn't want to. But the RAW leave many things to the DM's discretion (rulings, not rules). I don't consider it a house rule (rather a DM ruling) if sometimes worn or attended items ignite, or even which unattended items.

 

[KahlessNestor]

It's not an opinion or "his" rules. He is saying what the game requires and he knows for certain what that is. That makes it a fact, not an opinion.



It's not a disagreement of meaning to state what the ambiguous rule you designed and wrote truly means. When you do that you are stating a fact. That other could possibly read it differently does not change that fact.

It virtually the same as errata. The only difference is that it is not written down. You now know what the rule is and can ignore it and house rule if you want to change it.

Actually, what Jeremy says in Sage Advice has actually no bearing, and he admits as such. AL doesn't require following his rulings. And Crawford has been known to change his mind (see his ruling on Cutting Words).

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

[KahlessNestor]

I don't shout. When I use all caps I'm just placing stress on those words.



LOL Are you seriously saying that having fireball do the laundry doesn't add anything to the spell? You sir are not arguing in good faith.

If you want emphasis you use italics. It's a pretty commonly understood idea that all caps is shouting, and is rude.

Basic Internet etiquette.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

[FrogReaver]

In order for that to be true, you have to show me where fireball says that it does affect worn items. I'll wait.

In order for it not to be true you have to show me where the fireball spell explicitly says it cannot ignite worn items.