Lol. I almost regret ever starting that thread...
The rules specifically left it up to the DM whether spells that targeted 'creatures' could target unattended objects.The major thing, especially in early 4e, that lead to that past discussion was that every spell, including those with the "fire" keyword had a specific type of target they could affect... ie "creature". Thus why specify the target as "creature" if the power was intended to be used on objects as well?
Unless the creature was especially flammable, it'd start burning when reduced to 0 hps.1) Player wants to set a creature on fire with a torch.
If they're really flammable, just drop or dip the torch as you walk by - 'interacting with an object as part of an action' - if they're flammable, but not like tinder, sure, an action.2) Player wants to set flammable building materials on fire with a torch:
One advantage of spells is that their effects are more clearly spelled-out (npi!) and don't necessarily have to make sense (because: magic). The flip side of that is if a spell doesn't say it does something, it probably doesn't do it. A hypothetical spell that does fire damage to your enemies (but only your enemies) in the area, for instance, probably wouldn't start fires (unless nearby flammable materials really had it in for you).3) Spellcaster/grenadier wants to set creature/object on fire with a fire spell/grenade:
Rulings. Doubly so in 5e, where the spirit is 'rulings not rules.'Any or all of those houserules or are they just rulings on exceptions (even if crappy rulings...their merit isn't relevant)?
For everybody expressing doubt as to the utility of this thread, in this thread there are in fact people claiming that rulings are house-rules. Crazy, but true.
Or does it?When I house rule physics, does Schrödinger's cat die a fiery death?
I take it that you believe that term 'house-rule' has only one interpretation, the one you use?