Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6876468" data-attributes="member: 996">Indeed....The 4e rules specifically allowed powers that target creatures to target unattended objects, if the DM desired.&nbsp; So no such fictional nonsense was created.&nbsp; I've noticed that you do like to take these deep-dives into the rules implications, you did it a while back with the Dispel Magic definition of magic, concluding that Lay on Hands wasn't necessarily magical, while any use of Ki was, IIRC.That's fun and all, but in the above case, as in the current thread, any conclusion of such a dive is surely going of the deep end (pi).Attack powers, perhaps.&nbsp; There were clearly utility powers that were meant for out of combat use, as well.&nbsp; Of course, you might want to set something on fire in combat, so that's hardly an impediment.&nbsp; And, the DM's ruling was consistent enough with the rules - which called for him to rule one way or the other - and, perhaps more importantly, to define the environment.&nbsp; It was up to the DM to decide what's in the area, and, if there were flammables, what would have touched them off.&nbsp; There were.&nbsp; There are in every game, it just comes with the RPG territory.&nbsp; But, the above was not a case of changing the rules, merely making a ruling where called for.&nbsp; There may have been less call for rulings, in general, but it could happen.In any case, the idea that a DM would 'need to house-rule' to let a torch start a fire was as absurd then as it is now.&nbsp; The agendas were just different back then.&nbsp; 5e has succeeded in giving us a less divisive community, less committed to finding fault where none exists.&nbsp; That's a good thing.&nbsp; We could maybe stand to go a bit further in that direction, though.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6876468, member: 996"] Indeed.... The 4e rules specifically allowed powers that target creatures to target unattended objects, if the DM desired. So no such fictional nonsense was created. I've noticed that you do like to take these deep-dives into the rules implications, you did it a while back with the Dispel Magic definition of magic, concluding that Lay on Hands wasn't necessarily magical, while any use of Ki was, IIRC. That's fun and all, but in the above case, as in the current thread, any conclusion of such a dive is surely going of the deep end (pi). Attack powers, perhaps. There were clearly utility powers that were meant for out of combat use, as well. Of course, you might want to set something on fire in combat, so that's hardly an impediment. And, the DM's ruling was consistent enough with the rules - which called for him to rule one way or the other - and, perhaps more importantly, to define the environment. It was up to the DM to decide what's in the area, and, if there were flammables, what would have touched them off. There were. There are in every game, it just comes with the RPG territory. But, the above was not a case of changing the rules, merely making a ruling where called for. There may have been less call for rulings, in general, but it could happen. In any case, the idea that a DM would 'need to house-rule' to let a torch start a fire was as absurd then as it is now. The agendas were just different back then. 5e has succeeded in giving us a less divisive community, less committed to finding fault where none exists. That's a good thing. We could maybe stand to go a bit further in that direction, though. ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification