Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6876563" data-attributes="member: 42582">I find most of this a bit odd.For instance, I don't really see the connection between guidelines for DCs and damage relative to level - which is what p 42 gives - and the question of whether or not a torch can set fire to combustible items. The 4e guidelines tells me that at Epic Tier, fires and explosions and the like will be more dramatic and destructive than at Heroic Tier - in 5e, bounded accuracy changes that. But I don't see anything that bears on the question of whether or not torches can set combustible materials alight.I also don't see any clear connection between "story agendas" and "narrative control" and the question of whether or not players can declare actions like "I use my torch to set fire to the tapestry" or "I cast a fireball to set fire to the timber stables that are full of dry straw". The two things seem pretty orthogonal to me.Hence, whatever the salient changes between 4e and 5e in relation to "metagame", "bounded accuracy", "story agendas" or "narrative control", I'm not really seeing how it bears on this particular issue.In Moldvay Basic there is no express discussion of setting things alight: the description for the fireball spell, for instance, simply refers to a fiery explosion and then notes the damage suffered by creatures in the radius. Nevertheless, in that game we always took it for granted that a fireball might ignite combustible materials. I would never think of that as a house rule, because there was no presumption to the contrary that a fireball couldn't ignite paper, dry timber etc.In 4e, by way of contrast with B/X, the rules make it pretty clear that fire damage might ignite combustible material:* Fire: Explosive bursts, fiery rays, or simple ignition. (PHB, p 55) * Like characters, objects have hit points and defense scores . . . Usually, it doesn’t matter what kind of attack you make against an object: Damage is damage. However, there are a few exceptions. . . . you might rule that some kinds of damage are particularly effective against certain objects and grant the object vulnerability to that damage type. For example, a gauzy curtain or a pile of dry papers might have vulnerability 5 to fire because any spark is likely to destroy it. (DMG, pp 65-6) * Noncombat encounters focus on skills, utility powers, and your own wits (not your character’s), although sometimes attack powers can come in handy as well. . . . Powers you use might give you bonuses on your checks, make some checks unnecessary, or otherwise help you. (PHB, p 259)So even moreso, it would never occur to me that I was house ruling when I required the player of a wizard, who was casting Fire Shroud (an enemies-only 15' R fire attack) to attack an undead spider swarm, to make Arcana checks to avoid setting alight the books and scrolls over which the swarm was crawling.I think that 5e is closer in its rules text to 4e than to Moldvay Basic (I cited some of the text in the OP), and so I would find it equally odd to describe these sorts of situations as house ruling. (As opposed to adjudications in the course of action resolution, arrived at by reading and applying the game rules.)Take Burning Hands as an example:As you hold your hands with thumbs touching and fingers spread, a thin sheet of flames shoots forth from your outstretched fingertips. Each creature in a 15-foot cone must make a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes 3d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. The fire ignites any flammable objects in the area that aren’t being worn or carried.Like Moldvay Basic and 4e's fireball spell descriptions, the description here only refers to damage to creatures. There is also the stipulation about objects that are neither worn nor carried. Does this mean that if an enemy wizard is holding a scroll, and my PC blasts him/her with Burning Hands, then that scroll is immune from being damaged or destroyed unless my GM makes a house rule? Is the non-house ruled default that, even if the mage lies dead and charred, the scroll is pristine and untouched?To me that seems like it would be a weird view to hold, made even weirder by the text on p 87 of the SRD (which is pretty similar to the stuff on pp 65-66 of the 4e DMG):Characters can also damage objects with their weapons and spells. Objects . . . can be affected by physical and magical attacks much like creatures can. The GM . . . might decide that certain objects have resistance or immunity to certain kinds of attacks.It seems to me that deciding what happens to the scroll (does the player make an INT check to see if his/her PC can successfully ignite the scroll? does the GM roll hit points for the scroll?) is an issue of adjudication, but not of house ruling.</blockquote>

Verification