Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Is it houseruling to let a torch set fire to things?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Maxperson" data-source="post: 6881080" data-attributes="member: 23751"><p>The point is not about fire. The point is about what is in the text vs. what isn't, and whether the text contradicts the new addition. I've already acknowledged that burning is more reasonable, but it's still just as allowable as doing laundry or reading minds. If one is a house rule, they all are. How reasonable something is doesn't play into it.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Fire damage, yes. Burning unattended objects, yes. Burning attended objects is avoided everywhere in the game that <strong>specifically</strong> talks about fire damage and objects, so no. If you want to add that into the game, it may be more reasonable than the other two things I mentioned, but it's no more RAW than they are. All are house rules.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This is the general rule that all of those spells override. It does not apply unless you house rule in that those spells can affect attended/worn items.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Right, but only unattended objects, since the spells call those out. Attended objects are unaffected unless the DM adds that to the rule.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You assume the answer, though. The game does not tell you that attended/worn objects can be harmed, and in fact goes out of it's way to specify that those things harm unattended objects. That's exclusionary language. You simply don't specify unattended objects if you mean for all objects to be affected, unless you are in grade school and don't know how to write. I choose not to assume that the designers are worse than a 1st grader when it comes to writing. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>There's always, "because magic!" Anyway, as I said, it's not about how reasonable something is. It's about adding something to the rule that is not written, which makes it a house rule. Something that you view as extremely reasonable does not turn that thing from a house rule into RAW. </p><p></p><p>For all that you quoted in your post, one thing was notably lacking. Any wording AT ALL that says that fireball (or any other fire spell) burns attended/worn objects. Not a single word about it. All you have is a general rule that doesn't apply because spells are specific rules.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Maxperson, post: 6881080, member: 23751"] The point is not about fire. The point is about what is in the text vs. what isn't, and whether the text contradicts the new addition. I've already acknowledged that burning is more reasonable, but it's still just as allowable as doing laundry or reading minds. If one is a house rule, they all are. How reasonable something is doesn't play into it. Fire damage, yes. Burning unattended objects, yes. Burning attended objects is avoided everywhere in the game that [b]specifically[/b] talks about fire damage and objects, so no. If you want to add that into the game, it may be more reasonable than the other two things I mentioned, but it's no more RAW than they are. All are house rules. This is the general rule that all of those spells override. It does not apply unless you house rule in that those spells can affect attended/worn items. Right, but only unattended objects, since the spells call those out. Attended objects are unaffected unless the DM adds that to the rule. You assume the answer, though. The game does not tell you that attended/worn objects can be harmed, and in fact goes out of it's way to specify that those things harm unattended objects. That's exclusionary language. You simply don't specify unattended objects if you mean for all objects to be affected, unless you are in grade school and don't know how to write. I choose not to assume that the designers are worse than a 1st grader when it comes to writing. There's always, "because magic!" Anyway, as I said, it's not about how reasonable something is. It's about adding something to the rule that is not written, which makes it a house rule. Something that you view as extremely reasonable does not turn that thing from a house rule into RAW. For all that you quoted in your post, one thing was notably lacking. Any wording AT ALL that says that fireball (or any other fire spell) burns attended/worn objects. Not a single word about it. All you have is a general rule that doesn't apply because spells are specific rules. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Is it houseruling to let a torch set fire to things?
Top