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

[FrogReaver]

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

I use all caps to emphasize certain words and phrases just like max person. Go preach your one true forum language elsewhere.

 

[KahlessNestor]

I use all caps to emphasize certain words and phrases just like max person. Go preach your one true forum language elsewhere.

Just saying this is the rule I see everywhere, and constantly see people apologize for doing it accidentally. Many (most?) will take it that way. And I bet if you look up online etiquette it will say the same thing. No need to get your panies in a twist. Just realize that's the reality and don't be surprised if you are called on it.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

[Maxperson]

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

Since I have stated that I use all caps only for emphasis, the issue is over. Anyone who reads my post and still wants to act like I'm yelling is being highly disingenuous. Besides, "pretty commonly" means that there are in fact other uncommonly understood ideas that all caps is NOT SHOUTING. I am in that latter category.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

This is all true, but more reasonable has no bearing on whether something is a house rule or not. A change to fireball to allow it to do laundry is no more or less a house rule than it igniting worn objects.

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?

I asked... "Fireball states it ignites flammable unattended items. Does it have any effect on held or worn items of a target?" His answer was an unequivocal no. It has no effect on worn items.

 

[KahlessNestor]

Since I have stated that I use all caps only for emphasis, the issue is over. Anyone who reads my post and still wants to act like I'm yelling is being highly disingenuous. Besides, "pretty commonly" means that there are in fact other uncommonly understood ideas that all caps is NOT SHOUTING. I am in that latter category.

Or, you know, someone not reading this thread calls you on it in another and defaults to the common standard. Just trying to save you some grief, friend [emoji6]

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

[Tony Vargas]

but I am sceptical about fires being known to allow anyone to read someones mind, or to ties shoes, or do the laundry.

Not disagreeing, but let's see: hypnosis (fascination w/flame, it's a thing), memory plastic?, laundry used to include actually boiling the clothes...
...and, in an old D&D campaign, there was a magic-user who would barbecue with his fireball, added dry rub to the material components and everything...

Why, back in the real world old days, we had a cleaning product that cleaned like a white tornado.

Not the 'djinni?'

Seriously, though...

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.

Agreed.

 

[Maxperson]

Or, you know, someone not reading this thread calls you on it in another and defaults to the common standard. Just trying to save you some grief, friend [emoji6]

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

First, there's not a whole lot of grief. I've been using all caps for emphasis for 5 or so years and that's the second time that I can remember someone saying something. Second, once. That's all they get. Then I let them know that I'm not yelling, but just using caps for emphasis. They have no excuses since they know what I am doing, so if the say it again, they're just being an ass.

 

[pemerton]

That's impossible. It's not a house rule to leave fireball alone and change nothing. As written there is nothing that says it affects worn items

Yes there is: p 87 of the SRD. It talks, in general terms and without limitation, about the capacity of spells to damage objects as they do creatures.

To reach your favoured conclusion, you have to go beyond the text and draw an implication from the fireball text that overrides the p 87 text. But as has now been discussed fairly extensively in this thread, that is not the only implication that might be drawn.

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

<snip>

It's not a disagreement of meaning to state what the ambiguous rule you designed and wrote truly means.

<snip>

It virtually the same as errata.

Whether or not it's the same as errata, that doesn't mean it states the current RAW. After all, the main function of errata is to change what is written, not to affirm it.

As for the more general issue: if Jeremy Crawford intended something, but didn't write it down, then it's not written down. "The game" is not something that exists just in his mind and desires.

 

[pemerton]

Drying the laundry would make more sense.

Well, if your laundry is not worn then it will catch fire. But if you put on your clothes then can you stand in a fireball and have them dried? Or would the water in the worn clothes be unaffected, because fireball can't affect worn objects?

 

[Maxperson]

Yes there is: p 87 of the SRD. It talks, in general terms and without limitation, about the capacity of spells to damage objects as they do creatures.

To reach your favoured conclusion, you have to go beyond the text and draw an implication from the fireball text that overrides the p 87 text. But as has now been discussed fairly extensively in this thread, that is not the only implication that might be drawn.

I don't go beyond the text at all. The text explicitly engages in rules about damaging objects and therefore negates page 87 completely. Specific beats general.

As for the more general issue: if Jeremy Crawford intended something, but didn't write it down, then it's not written down. "The game" is not something that exists just in his mind and desires.

He did write it down and it's very clear to anyone not trying to do an end around the rules that it doesn't damage worn objects. Only those trying to both wiggle through the very, very small hole of very unlikely vagueness AND who don't want to create a house rule for some reason, are arguing here on your side of things,