Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 5757731" data-attributes="member: 48965">The section on objects says this... "Sometimes a Strength check isn't sufficient to damage or destroy an object, often because of the object's size, durability or both. Alternatively, a character might need to destroy an object from across the room. In such cases, attacking an object with a power can provide the answer. At the DM's discretion any power that targets one or more creatures can target one or more objects. (See "Choosing targets" page 105)"  Ok, cool... now let's examine choosing targets on page 105... "Powers often involve the selection of targets. When choosing targets the powers user must make sure that every target meets several criteria..." Nowhere is the accidental targeting of anything discussed, and in fact from a reading of the rules it seems that only the power useer decides what is or isn't a target... so the DM is houseruling if he decides that a power targets the old, dry parchments in a library. In fact I would say the player has a very strong argument (rules wise) to shut a DM down who tries to cause the igniting of combustibles accidentaly to occur. This is exactly what you claimed 4e stopped.  See I would say in 4e he's giving the player a consistent houserule for frame of reference for the power. The player knows that this power can accidentally set things aflame (regardless of the rules not supporting the DM's ruling and realism). I don't see creativity in leaving this nebulous... I see confusion and it creating a point of contention when one or the other (player or DM) wants it to behave in a certain way and the other doesn't. I also see 4e clearly in favor of the player's, as opposed to the DM's, determination of whether it will or will not set thigs ablaze.</blockquote>

Verification