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

[Maxperson]

Of the three options for what a spell TARGETS on page 204, the fireball spell TARGETS a point of origin. It's irrelevant that the spell calls something that makes a saving throw a target.

The rules are not irrelevant. Despite the initial target being a point of origin, all creatures subject to fireball are also targets. The specific rule of fireball says so.

In any case, it specifies how it targets objects, and it specifies unattended.

I hope my use of all caps didn't make you feel like I think you're stupid.

HOW COULD IT?

 

[Hriston]

The absence of preclusion does not mean inclusion. It's still a house rule to add to existing rules, even if not precluded from doing so.

You can call it a house-rule if you want to, so long as you admit there's an absence of preclusion.

That example, sure. However, there is no departure if he does the damage and just adds healing to the spell.

To clarify, are you saying adding to the rules is not departing from the rules?

Nope. I just means you are creating rules when you fill in the gaps the game leaves you.

You can call it creating rules if you want. My point is you aren't contradicting rules by filling in the gaps.

It means that it does not dispel mundane darkness, just like it does not illuminate darkness created by a spell. Illumination and dispelling are two different things. Being a burst, it only lasts an instant, which may not even be enough time to see anything.

Illumination is what dispels darkness. Or is 'dispel' to be understood here only as game jargon? You seem to be understanding my use of 'illumination' as game jargon as well. I just meant it in the natural sense of 'light'.

 

[Maxperson]

You can call it a house-rule if you want to, so long as you admit there's an absence of preclusion.

That was before I realized that the specific targeting rules, which supersede the general object damaging rules, solved everything. Those specific targeting rules state unequivocally that the spell will tell you whether it can target objects. If a spell doesn't tell you it can target worn objects, it can't. Fireball can only target unattended objects as those are the only ones specifically mentioned by it.

To clarify, are you saying adding to the rules is not departing from the rules?

Um, no. I've only been saying the exact opposite for 16 pages now. I'm saying that since the rules don't explicitly target worn objects, you are not departing from the rules by not targeting worn objects. You are simply going by RAW and adding nothing else.

Illumination is what dispels darkness. Or is 'dispel' to be understood here only as game jargon? You seem to be understanding my use of 'illumination' as game jargon as well. I just meant it in the natural sense of 'light'.

That spell which lasts only an instant is not going to dispel any sort of non-magical darkness. Ever. The "instant" it's over, the darkness will return. Only magical darkness will fail to return once dispelled.

 

[pemerton]

The general object damage rules will never apply to spells at all, since not only are spells specific rules

But the general object damage rules (SRD, p 87; Basic PDF, p 66) expressly state that:

Characters can also damage objects with their weapons and spells. Objects are immune to poison and psychic damage, but otherwise they can be affected by physical and magical attacks much like creatures can.​

What do you think the point of those rules is?

I also like [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION]'s example of Sunburst:

Brilliant sunlight flashes in a 60-foot radius centred on a point you choose within range. . . . This spell dispels any darkness in its area that was created by a spell.​

Does the so-called "exclusion" principle of rules interpretation mean that natural darkness is not dispelled by the brilliant flash of sunlight? I think the answer is obviously no, and that the dispelling of darkness created by spells is called out simply to resolve the question of how competing spell effects might interact. (Otherwise, it would be a matter for GM adjudication.)

 

[delericho]

I also like [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION]'s example of Sunburst:

Brilliant sunlight flashes in a 60-foot radius centred on a point you choose within range. . . . This spell dispels any darkness in its area that was created by a spell.​

Does the so-called "exclusion" principle of rules interpretation mean that natural darkness is not dispelled by the brilliant flash of sunlight? I think the answer is obviously no, and that the dispelling of darkness created by spells is called out simply to resolve the question of how competing spell effects might interact. (Otherwise, it would be a matter for GM adjudication.)

That's actually not as good an example as it seems, because sunburst is an instantaneous spell. The dispelling of magical darkness is called out because that's a lasting effect of the spell. After the instant flash from sunburst whatever natural light conditions prevailed would resume - including natural darkness if the area was otherwise unlit.

 

[Maxperson]

But the general object damage rules (SRD, p 87; Basic PDF, p 66) expressly state that:

Characters can also damage objects with their weapons and spells. Objects are immune to poison and psychic damage, but otherwise they can be affected by physical and magical attacks much like creatures can.​

What do you think the point of those rules is?

To let the player know that objects can be damaged by spells. They don't supersede the specific spell damage rules, though. In order to find out which spells can damage objects, you have to look at those spells that explicitly say that they do.

Does the so-called "exclusion" principle of rules interpretation mean that natural darkness is not dispelled by the brilliant flash of sunlight? I think the answer is obviously no, and that the dispelling of darkness created by spells is called out simply to resolve the question of how competing spell effects might interact. (Otherwise, it would be a matter for GM adjudication.)

Natural darkness isn't dispelled. It's only interrupted for a very brief instant and then it comes right back. Only magical darkness is dispelled.

 

[Hriston]

Natural darkness is momentarily dispelled by sunburst. This shows the spell's language is not exclusionary. The alternative reading relies on an understanding of 'dispel' as game jargon having the same meaning as the spell dispel magic. An exclusionary interpretation of that reading could apply only to magical darkness, as it would be nonsensical to say natural darkness could be created by a spell.

 

[Maxperson]

Natural darkness is momentarily dispelled by sunburst. This shows the spell's language is not exclusionary. The alternative reading relies on an understanding of 'dispel' as game jargon having the same meaning as the spell dispel magic. An exclusionary interpretation of that reading could apply only to magical darkness, as it would be nonsensical to say natural darkness could be created by a spell.

Dispelling is a lasting effect. A disruption is not the same as being dispelled. At least not in D&D terms.

 

[FrogReaver]

Fireball doesn't say it targets any objects. How can it ever ignite any of them?

The rules are not irrelevant. Despite the initial target being a point of origin, all creatures subject to fireball are also targets. The specific rule of fireball says so.

In any case, it specifies how it targets objects, and it specifies unattended.



HOW COULD IT?

 

[seebs]

Maybe I chose the wrong word. The intent of my question was, "Does the spell specifying that is dispels darkness created by a spell mean it doesn't dispel darkness not created by a spell, and therefore not work?" Keep in mind that I don't think it does.

It does not dispel darkness not created by a spell, so far as I can tell. Creating light doesn't dispel non-magical darkness, even though it causes the space to no longer be dark. Dispelling is what you do to spells to end their effects.