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

[Maxperson]

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

Fireball doesn't say it targets a point of origin, either. It uses common language to indicate that the initial point is a targeted point of origin and to indicate that those damaged, including unattended objects are also targets.

 

[Maxperson]

[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], [MENTION=61529]seebs[/MENTION]:

You seem to be assuming that "dispel" in the Sunburst spell description means "dispel magical effect". I think [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION]'s point is that "dispel" is more naturally read as having its ordinary meaning (to drive off or bring to an end). In this sense, Sunburst will dispel natural darkness, if only for a moment. Which appears to contradict the "exclusionary"/"preclusionary" principle

Dispel as in "dispel magic" is in fact the common usage of the term when it comes to D&D magic. Sunburst does not dispel non magical darkness at all.

 

[Maxperson]

Not the only one:

Firebolt targets creatures and objects. The target takes fire damage on a hit. If the target is an object that isn't being worn or carried, it bursts into flames. If it is being worn or carried it still takes fire damage. The so-called exclusionary language does not prevent the excluded objects from taking damage.

That's not an exception. It specifies what exactly can be targeted and by RAW, nothing else can be. RAW states explicitly that a spell will specify what can be targeted. That means if it's not specified, it can't be targeted without a house rule.

It depends on how they define what a house-rule is.

No, it depends on what the definition of is, is Mr. President. How about you answer the question?

He didn't say it can't, just that it doesn't. If you were trying to settle things on this thread, you asked the wrong question.

Where RAW is concerned, it's the same difference. If a spell doesn't target objects, it can't target objects without a house rule. The reason for using doesn't instead of can't is because every rule can be house rules, meaning when it comes to rules, anything "can" be done.

The targeting rules and the spell fireball tell us the spell targets a point of origin. It doesn't tell us it targets unattended objects, only that they ignite.

That's false. Fireball does not say explicitly that it targets a point of origin. It uses common language to indicate that the point of origin, unattended objects and creatures are all targets.

You also said if you add healing to the spell's effects there is no departure.

No. What I said was that it wasn't contradicted by the spell itself. Any addition is a departure from the rule.

If I dispel your fears, they can still come back to haunt you.

If my fears are dispelled, they are gone. I don't suddenly begin fearing something again once my fears are dispelled.

 

[FrogReaver]

Fireball doesn't say it targets a point of origin, either. It uses common language to indicate that the initial point is a targeted point of origin and to indicate that those damaged, including unattended objects are also targets.

Yes, the rules do say fireball targets a specific "point of origin".

 

[Hriston]

That's not an exception. It specifies what exactly can be targeted and by RAW, nothing else can be. RAW states explicitly that a spell will specify what can be targeted. That means if it's not specified, it can't be targeted without a house rule.

"A spell’s description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect (described below)."

The spell doesn't tell you what can be targeted. The spell tells you what is targeted.

For fire bolt, it's "a creature or object within range."

For fireball, it's "a point you choose within range".

It's fairly obvious what the spell says it targets when you read the spell description.

Where RAW is concerned, it's the same difference. If a spell doesn't target objects, it can't target objects without a house rule. The reason for using doesn't instead of can't is because every rule can be house rules, meaning when it comes to rules, anything "can" be done.

So, then it's not the same difference.

That's false. Fireball does not say explicitly that it targets a point of origin. It uses common language to indicate that the point of origin, unattended objects and creatures are all targets.

Does the point of origin take "8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one"? Because that's what the spell says a target does.

 

[Ovinomancer]

[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], [MENTION=61529]seebs[/MENTION]:

You seem to be assuming that "dispel" in the Sunburst spell description means "dispel magical effect". I think [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION]'s point is that "dispel" is more naturally read as having its ordinary meaning (to drive off or bring to an end). In this sense, Sunburst will dispel natural darkness, if only for a moment. Which appears to contradict the "exclusionary"/"preclusionary" principle

Sunburst doesn't dispel normal darkness. After the spell, normal darkness in its area remains -- undispelled. Magical darkness, however, is dispelled and does not remain.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, the rules do say fireball targets a specific "point of origin".

I'm sure you can quote it for me then.

 

[Maxperson]

"A spell’s description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect (described below)."

The spell doesn't tell you what can be targeted. The spell tells you what is targeted.

For fire bolt, it's "a creature or object within range."

For fireball, it's "a point you choose within range".

It's fairly obvious what the spell says it targets when you read the spell description.

Yep. It's fairly obvious that it targets a point of origin, unattended objects and creatures. The word target only appears with creatures by the way.

Does the point of origin take "8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one"? Because that's what the spell says a target does.

Of course it does. It's just that destroying some air doesn't do much of anything since it's not really observable.

 

[delericho]

That is all interpretation, though.

Nope. Under "Vision and Light" (Basic rules, p. 65): "Darkness creates a heavily obscured area. Characters face darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit nights), within the confines of an unlit dungeon or a subterranean vault, or in an area of magical darkness."

The instant after a sunburst spell hits that "unlit dungeon" it is once again an unlit dungeon (because there's nothing there to light it)... and so we're back to darkness.

(Of course, if it were a lit dungeon before the sunburst then that wouldn't happen... but then there wouldn't be any natural darkness to begin with.)

Similarly, some of us think that the logic of fireball calling out the ignition of non-worn, non-carried items is to make it clear that the affect on those objects is not governed by the general rules for damaging objects.

Yeah, I'm not getting involved in that one.

 

[pemerton]

Nope. Under "Vision and Light" (Basic rules, p. 65): "Darkness creates a heavily obscured area. Characters face darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit nights), within the confines of an unlit dungeon or a subterranean vault, or in an area of magical darkness."

The instant after a sunburst spell hits that "unlit dungeon" it is once again an unlit dungeon (because there's nothing there to light it)... and so we're back to darkness.

I think you may have missed my point.

The momentary flare created by a Sunburst spell cast in circumstances of natural darkness will be visible only if we accept that the spell - however temporarily - dispels that darkness. (Cf. a spell which creates a momentary depiction of a flaring light - that will not be visible in circumstances of natural darkness, no matter how lifelike the depiction is - but such a spell might nevertheless have the power to dispel magical darkness.)