If a mage were inclined to disintigrate the armor an opponent was wearing how would one resolve this?
It seems like it would work as a standard disintigrate attack (ranged touch, wearer's SR or other magic resistance applies, saving throw as wearer, etc). The only difference being that any damage would be dealt to the armor rather than to the target. Hardness would still apply.
In other words, the sunder rules would not come into play at all. I admit I haven't scoured the books, but that seems the correct conclusion to me.
Is that how my fellow DMs would rule this?
Thanks,
Fin
|
The rules specify in this case you cannot specifically target the armor.
Under Damaging objects-
"Attended (Held/Wielded etc.) Items: Unless the descriptive text for a spell (or attack) specifies otherwise, all items carried or worn by a creature are assumed to survive a magical attack. If a creature rolls a natural 1 on its saving throw against the effect, however, an exposed item is harmed (if the attack can harm objects)....."
It does specify in the spell text that a disintegrated creature's equipment is unaffected.
Hope this helps.
|
Corbin: I would agree with you, but that's written for the case in which the creature, not the item, is the target of the spell. I would personally rule it how Finarin described, except targeting CMB instead of touch AC. Realistically, of course, targeting the actual enemy will probably have a higher success/effectiveness rate in most situations anyway.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The spell would make it too easy to destroy things and the game has rules on sunder. That makes me believe the RAI is to target the target not his equipment.
Since there are no rules for targeting worn equipment with spells unless the spell in question says you can, it seems to me that you can not.
Compare my suggestion to the 3.5 sunder rules for things that are not weapons. Was sundering armor broken in that edition? Because what I proposed is harder than that.
Really? Because in 3.5 it was impossible. The last line of the sunder rules said, "You can’t sunder armor worn by another character."
You can't do it. This is a good thing.
D&D 3E had a targeted disintegrate feat you could use to take out arms and stuff. That was a horrible idea, too. But I think even that didn't let you take out equipment.
I'm unclear on why several of you assert that one cannot do this.
I find it difficult to accept 'the rules don't say that you can do this, so you can't' as a clear ruling against it. The rules are not inclusive of all possible actions.
Additionally the disintegrate spell specifically allows the targeting of objects, with no exception for worn or attended objects. The rules for attended objects would seem to indicate that the item would use the wielder's touch AC, SR, and saving throw.
That seems a stronger argument that it can be done, than that it cannot.
Can anyone site a rule that clearly precludes using the disintegrate spell (or any spell that allows attacks on objects) to attack an enemy's armor?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Disintegrate doesn't have a target line so you can't choose to target specific areas on a creature with it (such as items they are holding/wearing). It strikes the first creature it comes in contact with. It otherwise strikes the first object it comes into contact with. If you strike a creature's armor with a spell, you strike the creature, not the object you happen to touch. This is why if someone throws up a tower shield to gain total cover, you can still cast a spell on the creature, because hitting the shield hits the creature.
What is the difference between aiming a touch spell at a creature and aiming a touch spell at a creature's equipped item?
Nothing.
Or put it another way, why does a ranged touch attack ignore Armor? Answer: not because it finds a hole in the armor and sneaks inside, but because the spell's effect is triggered whenever it strikes the creature, regardless of whether it hits him in the eyeball or in the shield or in the breastplate. The armor doesn't matter and the creature is entirely affected by whatever the spell is.
There is no game rule that allows you to fire a ray spell (ranged touch) through the armor-wearer's eye slit, or under his gusset, or whatever. You don't need to. Rays ignore armor. This is a good thing or else Scorching Ray would never hurt a guy dressed in full plate with a tower shield.
So, back to my original question, what is the difference between aiming a touch spell at a creature and aiming a touch spell at a creature's equipped item?
Nothing - either way, the "magic" of the spell affects the creature, regardless of whether it's a Scorching Ray that fries the guy inside his full-plate oven or a Disintegrate that turns the guy, but not his armor, into a trace of fine dust.
Is that RAW or "fluff"?
Both. It's fluff because I described it so eloquently. It's RAW because of what Corbin Dallas quoted above - you cannot affect attended equipment unless the spell says so, and Disintegrate does not say so.
Houserule it however you want, but the RAW is fairly clear here.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You may be correct, but I don't believe Corbin Dallas' quote actually refers to the issue at hand. That quotes clarifies that equipment is not damaged when a spell is targeting the bearer (save in the case of a natural 1 on the saving throw). It does not actually say that equipment cannot be targeted.
I'm having trouble because disintegrate clearly states that it can target an object. And equipment is by definition an object.
The ray ignoring armor class is a pretty good argument, but couldn't one just as easily say that the magic behaves so because the intention is to hit the wearer? In the case of a ray that may target an object couldn't the intention be changed?
Also impact location with a ray does seem to matter since a ray is capable of scoring a critical hit and thereby doing greater damage. If the target location didn't matter at all, as DM Blake suggests, then why would this be the case?
I'm fully prepared to accept that one cannot do as I'm suggesting, I just haven't seen any RAW yet that actually seems to state such a thing.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm fully prepared to accept that one cannot do as I'm suggesting, I just haven't seen any RAW yet that actually seems to state such a thing.
This comes down to the same problem that I see everywhere on these threads. The RAW doesn't tell you everything you cannot do. For example, it doesn't say that you cannot eat a castle. I think we would all agree that no PC race is capable of eating a castle. If you can, it's because you acquired magic that makes it possible, and that magic is what says you can - without it, you cannot, despite nothing in the RAW that says you cannot eat a castle.
OK, that was a pretty big straw man.
Another example is that the RAW has a very specific and detailed description of the "Dead" condition, but that condition does not say you cannot take any actions. So, by RAW, combatants are allowed a Move and a Standard action in combat, and when they die, they can stall take those actions. The RAW does not say they can't.
That's not even a straw man.
My point is, if we always base our argument on "I can do [something] because there is no RAW that says I cannot do it" then we will often create weird, even impossible, situations.
It is an unsupportable position to assume that all things can be done unless the RAW says they cannot.
In the case of aiming a touch spell at equipment, we DO in fact have some specific RAW that tells us what we CAN do (aim at creatures ignoring their equipment OR aim at unattended equipment), That tells us how it works. It's reasonable to assume that if the writers wanted to be able to disintegrate the armor off of an enemy, the would have included rules for it, either in general magic or in the disintegrate spell. They did not.
Therefore, RAW does allows certain things and what the OP wants to do is not included in the RAW, ergo, not allowed, much like eating a castle or taking actions while dead is not allowed.
I'm fully prepared to accept that one cannot do as I'm suggesting, I just haven't seen any RAW yet that actually seems to state such a thing.This comes down to the same problem that I see everywhere on these threads. The RAW doesn't tell you everything you cannot do. For example, it doesn't say that you cannot eat a castle. I think we would all agree that no PC race is capable of eating a castle. If you can, it's because you acquired magic that makes it possible, and that magic is what says you can - without it, you cannot, despite nothing in the RAW that says you cannot eat a castle.
OK, that was a pretty big straw man.
Another example is that the RAW has a very specific and detailed description of the "Dead" condition, but that condition does not say you cannot take any actions. So, by RAW, combatants are allowed a Move and a Standard action in combat, and when they die, they can stall take those actions. The RAW does not say they can't.
That's not even a straw man.
My point is, if we always base our argument on "I can do [something] because there is no RAW that says I cannot do it" then we will often create weird, even impossible, situations.
It is an unsupportable position to assume that all things can be done unless the RAW says they cannot.
In the case of aiming a touch spell at equipment, we DO in fact have some specific RAW that tells us what we CAN do (aim at creatures ignoring their equipment OR aim at unattended equipment), That tells us how it works. It's reasonable to assume that if the writers wanted to be able to disintegrate the armor off of an enemy, the would have included rules for it, either in general magic or in the disintegrate spell. They did not.
Therefore, RAW does allows certain things and what the OP wants to do is not included in the RAW, ergo, not allowed, much like eating a castle or taking actions while dead is not allowed.
You are a tarrasque. I'm sure you could eat a castle.
You are a tarrasque. I'm sure you could eat a castle.
He's got you there! <grin>
An attended object is anything touched, grasped, held, or carried. This is clearly defined in the rules. Here are some other rule excerpts...
The former seems to allow you to sunder any held or worn item of your opponent. In this case you target CMD, not AC.
The latter, however, seems to limit sunder attempts only to weapons or shields. In this case, you use CMD for weapons and shields, and AC for everything else.
When an item is unattended, you clearly use its AC.
However, when you target an attended magical item, its AC changes. Specifically...
...a held item gains your Dexterity bonus to its AC.
So I ask again, at what point are you supposed to target AC, and when are you supposed to target CMD?
I don't see why you couldn't use disintegrate on an attended item, provided you had a way to use it in melee (since sundering seems to be exclusively melee, based on archetypes that grant ranged sunder).
A lot of the times rules are argued from a the point of a player who wants to do something.
Remember the rules work the same for NPC's, and PC's, and ask yourself "is it ok/fair if the GM does this to me"?
With that aside the rules presented by RD seem to indicate you need a way to make disintegrate into a melee attack. The magus can do it with one of it's arcanas.
What's the difference between affecting a living target by hitting them in the breastplate and hitting the breastplate lying unattended on the ground? How does the spell distinguish if it's "intended" to hit the creature or the object? Magic, that's how.
That is nice, but you need to quote rules in the Rules forum. So far the closest anyone has come is Ravingdork, and his findings suggest you need to make it into a melee attack.
|
|
I have no real issue with what RD is suggesting is possible.
Kazaan-
RAW does not require a "real life" or a "fantasy" explanation of why you can or cannot accomplish something through the rules.
With RAW you simply execute the rule as written as DM_Blake basically explained in that post.
For the record, SKR did not state that the item "knows" anything. The user spends actions to accomplish a task.
|
|
The relevant rules have already been quoted by others. To summarize, Disintegrate can target an object, so you simply use the normal spell rules for targeting an object and, since the object is attended, it uses the AC of the attendee and their saves. Blake then went on to counter that position by claiming a spell can't distinguish affecting the breastplate or the person wearing it because Touch AC disregards said breastplate; so long as the ray touches any part of the target creature, body or worn items, the disintegrate effect affects the creature primarily and only damages gear if they roll a nat-1. I provided a counter-point that it's the intent of the caster what they want to affect. If they're casting "at the creature", then the ray will affect the creature even if it hits their armor. However, if they're casting "at the armor", the ray will affect the object as per normal affecting object rules. I illustrated an example of how magic understands the intent of the user in how a weapon can have Freezing, Flaming, and Shocking all triggered by the command "Fuhugumagu" but if you use a standard to command it with "Fuhugumagu" to activate Flaming, the weapon knows which enchantment you're intending to activate. Thus, Blake's counterpoint is disproved by counterexample and the most relevant position is that casting a spell at a worn item follows normal targeting of attended objects.This is not correct. If you wish to debate what RAW "means", a thread has already been started for that.
|
If I'm going to fail a fortitude save against disintegrate I'd far rather it be for an item than my character. I think it takes a wish to raise the dead without a corpse and 2d6/level is a lot of damage.
The dust from Disintegrate counts as sufficient for Resurrection, so that's 10,000GP. Then two Restoration spells, 2,000GP. Worst comes to worst, you lose the dust, and need two Wish spells, one to recreate the body, one to replicate Resurrection, then the two Restoration spells (52,000GP). But, hey, if you'd prefer it to auto-destroy your + 5 vorpal longsword (200,000GP) with one failed save, that's your prerogative.
If I'm going to fail a fortitude save against disintegrate I'd far rather it be for an item than my character. I think it takes a wish to raise the dead without a corpse and 2d6/level is a lot of damage.The dust from Disintegrate counts as sufficient for Resurrection, so that's 10,000GP. Then two Restoration spells, 2,000GP. Worst comes to worst, you lose the dust, and need two Wish spells, one to recreate the body, one to replicate Resurrection, then the two Restoration spells (52,000GP). But, hey, if you'd prefer it to auto-destroy your + 5 vorpal longsword (200,000GP) with one failed save, that's your prerogative.
Except a +5 vorpal longsword has enough HP where hitting it with disintegrate is less useful than hitting the squishy flesh bag holding it.
I hope the range of opinions on what the RAW indicates here is sufficient to convince people that the conclusion is unclear.
I also thank everyone for remaining so civil, quite refreshing :)
To DM Blake, I completely agree with what your saying about the rules not indicating everything that cannot be done, but I also feel that it is unrealistic to expect the rules to detail everything that can be done.
In this case I think it is unclear which is correct as both sides have valid points. My personal opinion is that the rules cited so far are more in favor of being able to disintegrate worn armor than against the notion (based on disintegrate specifying its use against objects and the existence of rules for damaging attended objects).
But everyone please continue! Your thoughts and points are welcome!
As Ravingdork said, you cannot sunder with a ranged weapon. Sunder is the appropriate action for trying to break an enemies item with a weapon in combat(rays are treated as ranged weapons). Therefore, you can't target the armor someone is wearing specifically with the disintegrate spell.
Unattended items, you can target with smashing an object, and aim as a full-round action to get a +5 on the ranged attack. I doubt any GM would rule that disintegrate is an inappropriate weapon for smashing objects.
The relevant rules have already been quoted by others. To summarize, Disintegrate can target an object, so you simply use the normal spell rules for targeting an object and, since the object is attended, it uses the AC of the attendee and their saves. Blake then went on to counter that position by claiming a spell can't distinguish affecting the breastplate or the person wearing it because Touch AC disregards said breastplate; so long as the ray touches any part of the target creature, body or worn items, the disintegrate effect affects the creature primarily and only damages gear if they roll a nat-1. I provided a counter-point that it's the intent of the caster what they want to affect. If they're casting "at the creature", then the ray will affect the creature even if it hits their armor. However, if they're casting "at the armor", the ray will affect the object as per normal affecting object rules. I illustrated an example of how magic understands the intent of the user in how a weapon can have Freezing, Flaming, and Shocking all triggered by the command "Fuhugumagu" but if you use a standard to command it with "Fuhugumagu" to activate Flaming, the weapon knows which enchantment you're intending to activate. Thus, Blake's counterpoint is disproved by counterexample and the most relevant position is that casting a spell at a worn item follows normal targeting of attended objects.That is nice, but you need to quote rules in the Rules forum. So far the closest anyone has come is Ravingdork, and his findings suggest you need to make it into a melee attack.
What's the difference between affecting a living target by hitting them in the breastplate and hitting the breastplate lying unattended on the ground? How does the spell distinguish if it's "intended" to hit the creature or the object? Magic, that's how.
Actually RD's rule quote was under"SMASHING AN OBJECT" and the following text referred to melee attacks.
Now if you have different rule I would like to see them.
If I'm going to fail a fortitude save against disintegrate I'd far rather it be for an item than my character. I think it takes a wish to raise the dead without a corpse and 2d6/level is a lot of damage. If I'm not going to fail the fortitude save disintegrate isn't going to destroy the armor of someone with PC wealth at the levels where it's likely to be seen. Weapons are more fragile, but a +1 metal or +2 hafted weapon will survive better than half the time, a +2 metal weapon will survive 7775 times in 7776, and a +3 weapon will always survive in shape to be repaired.A lot of the times rules are argued from a the point of a player who wants to do something.
Remember the rules work the same for NPC's, and PC's, and ask yourself "is it ok/fair if the GM does this to me"?
You do no need a wish. You can do it with true resurrection which is 10000 gold pieces, and less expensive than your armor by the time you can afford it or have access to wish.
So how, exactly do you cast a spell against an attended object? There's rules for how to adjudicate the damage; the target's Touch ac is based on the attendee's stats as is the item's saves. So clearly, attended objects (ie. weapons, armor, held items, etc) are intended to be targetable by spells. And you think it makes sense to say that with all those rules in place, there's no actual mechanic to target the spell against those items? You can Smash an unattended object, Sunder an attended object, or cast a spell against either. Period.
It does not directly target objects however. It is a Ray spell which requires a ranged touch. The rules for making a weapon attack against an attended object are the Sunder rules, which are only applicable for melee weapons. There are no general rules permitting ranged attacks against attended objects. There are some special rules which allow fighter(archer) to make sunder attacks with a bow, and things of that nature, but none for ranged attacks in general, and none for ray attacks either.
"Ray: Some effects are rays. You aim a ray as if using a ranged weapon, though typically you make a ranged touch attack rather than a normal ranged attack. As with a ranged weapon, you can fire into the dark or at an invisible creature and hope you hit something. You don't have to see the creature you're trying to hit, as you do with a targeted spell. Intervening creatures and obstacles, however, can block your line of sight or provide cover for the creature at which you're aiming.
If a ray spell has a duration, it's the duration of the effect that the ray causes, not the length of time the ray itself persists.
If a ray spell deals damage, you can score a critical hit just as if it were a weapon. A ray spell threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a successful critical hit."
If you want to target an attended item with the ray spell, please quote some rules permitting a ranged attack against attended items.
Except a +5 vorpal longsword has enough HP where hitting it with disintegrate is less useful than hitting the squishy flesh bag holding it.If I'm going to fail a fortitude save against disintegrate I'd far rather it be for an item than my character. I think it takes a wish to raise the dead without a corpse and 2d6/level is a lot of damage.The dust from Disintegrate counts as sufficient for Resurrection, so that's 10,000GP. Then two Restoration spells, 2,000GP. Worst comes to worst, you lose the dust, and need two Wish spells, one to recreate the body, one to replicate Resurrection, then the two Restoration spells (52,000GP). But, hey, if you'd prefer it to auto-destroy your + 5 vorpal longsword (200,000GP) with one failed save, that's your prerogative.
Longsword= 5 hit points and it gets 10 for every +1
That is 55hp for a +5 swordEach caster level does 7 hit points on average
55/7 means an level 8 caster could destroy your sword if it could cast the spell, so that means by the time you run into a caster that can actuallly cast it, that sword is likely to be destroyed.
So how, exactly do you cast a spell against an attended object? There's rules for how to adjudicate the damage; the target's Touch ac is based on the attendee's stats as is the item's saves. So clearly, attended objects (ie. weapons, armor, held items, etc) are intended to be targetable by spells. And you think it makes sense to say that with all those rules in place, there's no actual mechanic to target the spell against those items? You can Smash an unattended object, Sunder an attended object, or cast a spell against either. Period.
Disintegrate
...
Saving Throw Fortitude partial (object); Spell Resistance yes(object): The spell can be cast on objects, which receive saving throws only if they are magical or if they are attended (held, worn, grasped, or the like) by a creature resisting the spell, in which case the object uses the creature's saving throw bonus unless its own bonus is greater. This notation does not mean that a spell can be cast only on objects. Some spells of this sort can be cast on creatures or objects. A magic item's saving throw bonuses are each equal to 2 + 1/2 the item's caster level."The spell can be cast on objects... (held, , grasped, or the like)"
Need it be more clear than that? Srsly ppl.
That text is NOT in the spell. Nice try.
Did you just make it up?
edit:There is no autotargeting for ranged touch attacks. So once again show rules that would explain how to target an attended object with a ranged attack. I am sure you can't.
If you want to target an attended item with the ray spell, please quote some rules permitting a ranged attack against attended items.
He can't.
Need it be more clear than that? Srsly ppl.
And if you are going to be snarky at least know the rules.
You quoted the target or target rules which is for spells like charm person or dispel magic. Target spells are specific way to Aim spells which is why it is under the "Aiming a Spell" section.Guess what else is under the "Aiming a Spell" section?
Effect: Some spells create or summon things rather than affecting things that are already present.
You must designate the location where these things are to appear, either by seeing it or defining it. Range determines how far away an effect can appear, but if the effect is mobile, after it appears it can move regardless of the spell's range.
Ray: Some effects are rays. You aim a ray as if using a ranged weapon, though typically you make a ranged touch attack rather than a normal ranged attack. As with a ranged weapon, you can fire into the dark or at an invisible creature and hope you hit something. You don't have to see the creature you're trying to hit, as you do with a targeted spell. Intervening creatures and obstacles, however, can block your line of sight or provide cover for the creature at which you're aiming.
So how, exactly do you cast a spell against an attended object? There's rules for how to adjudicate the damage; the target's Touch ac is based on the attendee's stats as is the item's saves. So clearly, attended objects (ie. weapons, armor, held items, etc) are intended to be targetable by spells. And you think it makes sense to say that with all those rules in place, there's no actual mechanic to target the spell against those items? You can Smash an unattended object, Sunder an attended object, or cast a spell against either. Period.
Disintegrate
...
Saving Throw Fortitude partial (object); Spell Resistance yes(object): The spell can be cast on objects, which receive saving throws only if they are magical or if they are attended (held, worn, grasped, or the like) by a creature resisting the spell, in which case the object uses the creature's saving throw bonus unless its own bonus is greater. This notation does not mean that a spell can be cast only on objects. Some spells of this sort can be cast on creatures or objects. A magic item's saving throw bonuses are each equal to 2 + 1/2 the item's caster level."The spell can be cast on objects... (held, , grasped, or the like)"
Need it be more clear than that? Srsly ppl.
That text is NOT in the spell. Nice try.
Did you just make it up?
edit:There is no autotargeting for ranged touch attacks. So once again show rules that would explain how to target an attended object with a ranged attack. I am sure you can't.
WHAT part of text are you talking about "NOT in the spell"? I can read just fine and I read that just the way Kazaan put it. The spell has (object) in its description and if you look up (object) under the magic rules it says "(object): The spell can be cast on objects, which receive saving throws only if they are magical or if they are attended (held, worn, grasped, or the like)"
WHAT part of text are you talking about "NOT in the spell"? I can read just fine and I read that just the way Kazaan put it. The spell has (object) in its description and if you look up (object) under the magic rules it says "(object): The spell can be cast on objects, which receive saving throws only if they are magical or if they are attended (held,...So how, exactly do you cast a spell against an attended object? There's rules for how to adjudicate the damage; the target's Touch ac is based on the attendee's stats as is the item's saves. So clearly, attended objects (ie. weapons, armor, held items, etc) are intended to be targetable by spells. And you think it makes sense to say that with all those rules in place, there's no actual mechanic to target the spell against those items? You can Smash an unattended object, Sunder an attended object, or cast a spell against either. Period.
Disintegrate
...
Saving Throw Fortitude partial (object); Spell Resistance yes(object): The spell can be cast on objects, which receive saving throws only if they are magical or if they are attended (held, worn, grasped, or the like) by a creature resisting the spell, in which case the object uses the creature's saving throw bonus unless its own bonus is greater. This notation does not mean that a spell can be cast only on objects. Some spells of this sort can be cast on creatures or objects. A magic item's saving throw bonuses are each equal to 2 + 1/2 the item's caster level."The spell can be cast on objects... (held, , grasped, or the like)"
Need it be more clear than that? Srsly ppl.
That text is NOT in the spell. Nice try.
Did you just make it up?
edit:There is no autotargeting for ranged touch attacks. So once again show rules that would explain how to target an attended object with a ranged attack. I am sure you can't.
Once again that quote is only under the target spells sections, which is a subsection of "Aiming a Spell". These are spells that do not require a ranged touch attack.
Rays are under the "Effects" subsection of Aiming a spell. The rules he quoted do not apply. Being in the "Magic Chapter" is not enough to say it works for the other ways to aim a spell. Each way to aim a spell has its own rules.
Otherwise Spell Turning would work against Rays, just like it works again targeted spells, but it does not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since it is an attended object, its AC is based on the holder/wearer's Dex score.
<---Wrong. That only applies to melee attacks by the rules RD posted.
So that means you still need a way to hit an attended object. Disintegrate uses "Effect ray " aiming method. It does not used the "target" system. I am glad you understand that much now.
However you still have not no rules saying how you can hit an attended object with a ranged attack.
That quote that started this post is only for melee attacks. It specifically calls out melee attacks.
Now here is the quote you are trying to use, and I am not cherrypicking.
Smashing an Object
Smashing a weapon or shield with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon is accomplished with the sunder combat maneuver (see Combat). Smashing an object is like sundering a weapon or shield, except that your combat maneuver check is opposed by the object's AC. Generally, you can smash an object only with a bludgeoning or slashing weapon.
Armor Class: Objects are easier to hit than creatures because they don't usually move, but many are tough enough to shrug off some damage from each blow. An object's Armor Class is equal to 10 + its size modifier (see Table: Size and Armor Class of Objects) + its Dexterity modifier. An inanimate object has not only a Dexterity of 0 (–5 penalty to AC), but also an additional –2 penalty to its AC. Furthermore, if you take a full-round action to line up a shot, you get an automatic hit with a melee weapon and a +5 bonus on attack rolls with a ranged weapon.
That entire section is about melee weapons. Where are your rules for ranged weapons?
An object is only a valid target when it's separate. When it's being worn by a creature, you can only target a creature UNLESS YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC MECHANIC THAT SPELLS OUT OTHERWISE.
The reason for this is that the game does not have a standard "called shots" mechanic, only general targeting.
A good example of this is the spell "Heat Metal". Whether the spell goes off or not is dependent on the wearer's saving roll, not the gear, despite it's specific function.
I'm not so sure that I agree with you here. Just because the rules aren't clear on how to target attended magical items with spells doesn't mean it can't be done. It just means it is unclear.
Also, why couldn't ray spells fall into the targeting category AND the rays category? You are clearly choosing a target AND using a ray after all.
An object is only a valid target when it's separate. When it's being worn by a creature, you can only target a creature UNLESS YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC MECHANIC THAT SPELLS OUT OTHERWISE.
The reason for this is that the game does not have a standard "called shots" mechanic, only general targeting.
A good example of this is the spell "Heat Metal". Whether the spell goes off or not is dependent on the wearer's saving roll, not the gear, despite it's specific function.
I'm not so sure that I agree with you here. Just because the rules aren't clear on how to target attended magical items with spells doesn't mean it can't be done. It just means it is unclear.
Also, why couldn't ray spells fall into the targeting category AND the rays category? You are clearly choosing a target AND using a ray after all.
Because rays under the effects aiming system, not the target aiming system.
Choosing a target(dictionary term) and using a target(in game terms) based spell are two different things.
Almost every spell has a target(dictionary term), but not all spells use the target(game term) way of aiming, and rays are don't fit here, and until Paizo comes up with a way to attack attended objects witih ranged attacks it can't be done. The fact that the archer fighter has to have a special rule to do it shows it is not part of the normal rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Disintegrate is able to effect objects. That is what is provided for both in the spell description and the saving throw line.
Then there is the "Smashing an Object" rules.
"Smashing a weapon or shield with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon is accomplished with the sunder combat maneuver (see Combat). Smashing an object is like sundering a weapon or shield, except that your combat maneuver check is opposed by the object's AC. Generally, you can smash an object only with a bludgeoning or slashing weapon."
So, why would anyone ever try to sunder armor? Sunder attacks provide an AoO for attempting them. But "Smash object" attacks do not. Also, smash object attacks only provide for the items AC, which, does not take into account any creature attending/wearing the object. I take this that RAI is that sunder is for attacking items on creatures, and "Smash object" is for items not used by a creature.
"Armor Class: Objects are easier to hit than creatures because they don't usually move, but many are tough enough to shrug off some damage from each blow. An object's Armor Class is equal to 10 + its size modifier (see Table: Size and Armor Class of Objects) + its Dexterity modifier. An inanimate object has not only a Dexterity of 0 (–5 penalty to AC), but also an additional –2 penalty to its AC. Furthermore, if you take a full-round action to line up a shot, you get an automatic hit with a melee weapon and a +5 bonus on attack rolls with a ranged weapon."
Going by that interpretation, there is no way to use disintegrate to target a worn suit of armor.
If you disagree, then there is no reason for anyone to use the sunder special action, when they could instead use the "smash object" rules, and completely ignore any AC or CMD the character wearing the armor has. Even more, you can get an auto-hit with melee weapons by taking a full-round action.
An object is only a valid target when it's separate. When it's being worn by a creature, you can only target a creature UNLESS YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC MECHANIC THAT SPELLS OUT OTHERWISE.
The reason for this is that the game does not have a standard "called shots" mechanic, only general targeting.
A good example of this is the spell "Heat Metal". Whether the spell goes off or not is dependent on the wearer's saving roll, not the gear, despite it's specific function.
I'm not so sure that I agree with you here. Just because the rules aren't clear on how to target attended magical items with spells doesn't mean it can't be done. It just means it is unclear.
Also, why couldn't ray spells fall into the targeting category AND the rays category? You are clearly choosing a target AND using a ray after all.
Because rays under the effects aiming system, not the target aiming system.
Choosing a target(dictionary term) and using a target(in game terms) based spell are two different things.
Almost every spell has a target(dictionary term), but not all spells use the target(game term) way of aiming, and rays are don't fit here, and until Paizo comes up with a way to attack attended objects witih ranged attacks it can't be done. The fact that the archer fighter has to have a special rule to do it shows it is not part of the normal rules.
I remain unconvinced.