The example on p 42 is of a PC pushing an ogre into a brazier of coals for 2d8+5 fire damage.
According to the rules on p 219 of the PHB, though, an improvised weapon does 1d5 untyped damage. So, on your theory of "houseruling", isn't it a "houserule" to have a torch do [fire] damage? Or to have coals from a brazier do 2d8+5 [fire] damage?
Uhm... yeah it is houseruling... you are houseruling how much damage the coals do, whether or not they ignite anything (and apparently from the example not everything with the "fire" keyword does), etc.. the fact that an example is provided doesn't change the action in the slightest...
Or, to put it another way, I don't know what you think p 42 is for, but I know what I think it (and other stuff, like pp 65-66) are for.
Pg. 42 is for providing mechanical guidance in situations where the DM must house rule, arbitrate, make some stuff up, etc. in situations that the game lacks rules for.
As I quoted upthread, p 65 says that "Like characters, objects have hit points and defense scores". That doesn't give me the impression that these rules are primarily for burning papers with torches and knocking down doors with toothpicks. They give me the impression that they're for settting fire to buildings with fireballs and knocking down doors with axes! For me, that's the point of saying "like characters" (which is in turn a synonym, or near enough to, for creatures). The rules are telling me that things that hurt creatures can hurt objects too, subject to the restrictions and guidelines noted on p 66.
These are general rules... don't the rules for powers/spells/etc. override general rules?
Pages 88 through 93 of the DMG have a range of traps with defences and hit points. I don't know how you imagine the designers envisaged those traps being attacked, but I think they envisaged that powers would be used!
Maybe... maybe not, As a DM my personal ruling would be it depends on the power (and thus why the inclusion or exclusion of "object" as a target is important)... didn't Chris Perkins rule a spell couldn't be used on a door because it had "creatures" listed as it's target in one of his play videos??
For some reason I don't understand you seem to think that pp 42, 65 and 66 are not part of the rules. Because they're the rules I'm pointing to. And they are not about "whatever rules the DM wants it to be". They are very clear rules for DCs, damage values and the like, which are to be used to "make it possible for the players to try anything they can imagine" (DMG p 42).
They are not rules, they are guidelines to help a DM handle situations for which there are no rules... Quick question, where in these rules can I find the chance that a particular item actually ignites and catches fire? Where in these rules can I find the amount of ongoing damage that a fire causes once it ignites? Is this a separate type of "fire" damage than that of the coals, since in that example there was no chance for them to ignite anything... unless there is a standard answer you can point to, the DM is still making all of this up, contrary to the so called rules you keep mistakenly claiming are in the book.
Rule zero = (not too loosely paraphrased) "It's the GM's game and s/he can do what s/he wants". Pages 43, 65 and 66 of the DMG is 3 pages of charts and guidelines for adjudicating improvised attacks (including against objects).
There are some people who run 4e of nothing but p 42 plus the monster-building charts: these are the mechanical spine of the system. The equivalent from rule zero would be to give a GM a bag of dice and say "Hey, go nuts!". If you think those are much the same thing, you think about RPGing very differently from me. If D&Dnext is being designed on the premise that those are the same thing, I don't think it's the game for me.
KM addressed this but I'll just add... there is a difference between guidelines and rules.
Because, as I've already mentioned multiple times upthread, a power that has "object" listed as a target can attack a target without the need for GM adjudication of the fictional positioning. Whereas once pp 432, 65 and 66 are in play the GM is expected to adjudicate the fictional positioning: see PHB p 8: "When it’s not clear what ought to happen next, the DM decides how to apply the rules". So when I try to use my fireball to set a ship alight, and it's not clear what ought to happen next, the GM decides how to proceed, drawing upon p 42, pp 65-66, and also the multiple suggestions throughout the DMG to "say yes" to player improvisation.
Why do you keep saying the fictional positioning, as if that is the only thing the DM is deciding... he is also deciding the mechanical effect as well. In other words he is creating the entire thing whole cloth. there is no rule for if,how or the effect of a fireball setting a ship alight, you as DM are making all this up.
I am not discussing the clarity of 4e's rules on this point. @
Cyberen made a comment about editing a bit of a way upthread, and I didn't see anyone disagree.
Just because we agree that the game had one problem doesn't mean we don't think it had others...
I am discussing whether or not the rules of 4e, as published in mid-2008, mean that a fireball cannot set things alight. I though that you were asserting this. If you're now simply saying that the editing could have been clearer, I don't disagree.
The
RULES as published in 2008 don't allow a fireball to set anything alight. Now if you as DM want to use the guidelines from pg. 42 (as well as the rules for damaging objects) to construct rules concerning fireball and how it sets things on fire that is your pejorative... but there are no rules for it and the powers rules as they stand take the stance that an object is not a valid target for the spell to damage. They could have even been going with the earlier logic someone suggested, that made it highly unlikely a fireball would ignite anything... or maybe magical spells only do exactly what they are supposed to do and thus magic fire doesn't ignite inorganic matter... in other words your intepretation of how Fireball works is just one of manyu and not supported by the rules published in 2008.
As to why they made the revision - perhaps they wanted the clarity? Perhaps they felt not enough people had paid attention to pp 65-66? Maybe it was an abundance of caution - after all, it always struck me as obvious that Weapon Focus would only confer a damage bonus for attacks with the [weapon] keyword, and not (for instance) when a weapon was used as an implement, but they issued a clarification on that one too.
Regardless of what you personally intepreted the
guidelines I mean "rules" to infer or mean as far as fireballs and igniting things is concerned... the fact is that the two most logical answers are that it was either so unclear that clarification was necessary or it is a case of actual errata that changed the rules... I have seen no evidence to support the first case any more than the possibility of the second case.
I'm sure some Basic D&D GMs ruled that, because there were no rules for jumping, the PCs couldn't jump - and when they were pointed to Moldvay's comments in the GM advice chapter, muttered something about "houserulings". Those GMs sucked too!
So which one is it?? Here you're using an example where there are no rules for something and a "good" DM is expected to make a ruling on it... but doesn't that make this an apples and oranges comparison since you keep claiming (mistakenly IMO) that rules for fireballs to set ships ablaze and powers to damage objects are in the actual books as rules... so again which one is it? Is the case in 4e that the rules are there... or that they aren't but you feel a "good" DM should create them (houserule) the game to account for them?
