My gaming group encountered a Great Wyrm Red dragon. During the fight, the fiery dragon breath brought some players under 0 hp, activating the incinerate special ability.
Incinerate (Su) A great wyrm red dragon can incinerate creatures in its fiery breath. A creature reduced to fewer than 0 hit points by its breath weapon must make a Fortitude save (using the breath weapon's DC). Failure indicates that the creature is reduced to ash. Creatures destroyed in this way can only be restored to life through true resurrection or similar magic.
As the creature body is reduced to ash, it may be logical to roll saves for equipment and worn items, particularly for low ignition point materials items like scrolls, capes or robes. Of course, this is not RAW, and I've found nothing in the rules to back-up this. So what do you think about this situation and do you know if there is a rule that can help me in one way or another ?
Thanks
I'm having trouble finding the rules quotes, but attended magical items (which they are until the characters are dead) are only ever damaged when a character rolls a natural 1 on a saving throw. And then only 1 item at a time, and there is a table to roll on to determine which it is.
|
Is there a state between dead and ash? If so, during that period the item is unattended and is subject to going up in flames. This decision is a matter of gaming style. The game is conducted in turns and actions without much reference to the time of the individual actions; it is abstracted. The passage of time within an action is precisely the issue from a rules basis, and this is so dependent on the players' desire for what they get out of the game that a single answer isn't possible that would be adequate to every position on that continuum.
If stuff burns to dragon flame, all stuff, you have to decide how this affects a dragon's horde or tactical choices during combat. I don't know about you, but my adventurers expect a horde if gold pieces not gold slag.
By the rules gear is not affected unless a nat 1 is rolled.
Oh as a DM I'd so make those items make a save.
As a player I'd have no objections.
Oh as a DM I'd so make those items make a save.
As a player I'd have no objections.
I would hope you would tell the players about this houserule in advance not pull a "gotcha" moment on them.
When the PCs are dead there stuff is unnatended and easy to destroy but until then it is not that easy.
I'm having trouble finding the rules quotes, but attended magical items (which they are until the characters are dead) are only ever damaged when a character rolls a natural 1 on a saving throw. And then only 1 item at a time, and there is a table to roll on to determine which it is.
Claxon, this rule is about a failed saving throw and it seems very logical : you hard failed with a natural 1 and have to roll for your gear.
With incinerate, you can pass the save for the breath attack, but even if you succeed and your hp go down to 0 or lower, you have to make a Fortitude save to avoid being reduced to ash. So you can pass the Reflex save, avoiding part of the breath attack, still be alive (e.g. unconscious at -1 hp) and nonetheless be utterly destroyed by this ability because you fail the Fortitude save.Imagine a spell caster with no armor (mage robe) caught in the breath while reading a scroll. The poor mage is reduced to fine gray powder BUT the scroll and the robe are still intact ?
I have to find some way to explain how this is possible. Maybe the Great Wyrm breath attack secret is some kind of matter porosity : the flames go through armor and clothes, directly burning flesh, leaving astonished and horrified enemies at the sight of cooked corpses...
By the rules gear is not affected unless a nat 1 is rolled.
Can you quote the exact rule please ?
I've found this:Items Surviving after a Saving Throw: Unless the descriptive text for the spell 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). Refer to Table: Items Affected by Magical Attacks: Items Affected by Magical Attacks. Determine which four objects carried or worn by the creature are most likely to be affected and roll randomly among them. The randomly determined item must make a saving throw against the attack form and take whatever damage the attack dealt.
If the selected item is not carried or worn and is not magical, it does not get a saving throw. It simply is dealt the appropriate damage.
However, the text talks about spells. Breath weapons are supernatural [Su] and not spell [Sp]. So if you go RAW, can it be applied for breath weapons ? I would say no, but as English isn't my native language, I may have misunderstood something.
I'm having trouble finding the rules quotes, but attended magical items (which they are until the characters are dead) are only ever damaged when a character rolls a natural 1 on a saving throw. And then only 1 item at a time, and there is a table to roll on to determine which it is.Claxon, this rule is about a failed saving throw and it seems very logical : you hard failed with a natural 1 and have to roll for your gear.
With incinerate, you can pass the save for the breath attack, but even if you succeed and your hp go down to 0 or lower, you have to make a Fortitude save to avoid being reduced to ash. So you can pass the Reflex save, avoiding part of the breath attack, still be alive (e.g. unconscious at -1 hp) and nonetheless be utterly destroyed by this ability because you fail the Fortitude save.Imagine a spell caster with no armor (mage robe) caught in the breath while reading a scroll. The poor mage is reduced to fine gray powder BUT the scroll and the robe are still intact ?
I have to find some way to explain how this is possible. Maybe the Great Wyrm breath attack secret is some kind of matter porosity : the flames go through armor and clothes, directly burning flesh, leaving astonished and horrified enemies at the sight of cooked corpses...
I understand you want to do this, but you are in the rules forum, so you have just been given the rules again. If you don't like the rule, just houserule it. Just remember the game has other nonsensical rules that exist because the devs think they are better for balance and/or fun.
The downside to your houserule is that if the player is brought back to life all of his gear is gone. Many players would rather face death than to lose gear.
If your players are the type to argue "realism" and you really have no problem with the gear surviving I can give you other examples of realism being ignored. So your players can accept the "it's the rules" argument, or you can be ready to make a lot of house rules. <---not being snarky just preparing for what may come.
Just a few examples:
All creatures of the same size category despite having a massive size difference within that category can wear the same armor, if they are roughly the same shape.
A giant or other large and powerful creature should break your arm and possibly the shield if you try to use a shield to block it.
You can be paralyzed, but you still get a reflex save.
The fact that attended items use your save for anything.
People walking through lava and healing it naturally over time as if it is a minor convenience.
Throwing yourself off of a high building possibly twice or more, getting up, dusting yourself off and just walking away.
The list goes on.....
By the rules gear is not affected unless a nat 1 is rolled.Can you quote the exact rule please ?
I've found this:
Items Surviving after a Saving Throw: Unless the descriptive text for the spell 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). Refer to Table: Items Affected by Magical Attacks: Items Affected by Magical Attacks. Determine which four objects carried or worn by the creature are most likely to be affected and roll randomly among them. The randomly determined item must make a saving throw against the attack form and take whatever damage the attack dealt.
If the selected item is not carried or worn and is not magical, it does not get a saving throw. It simply is dealt the appropriate damage.However, the text talks about spells. Breath weapons are supernatural [Su] and not spell [Sp]. So if you go RAW, can it be applied for breath weapons ? I would say no, but as English isn't my native language, I may have misunderstood something.
The rules in the magic section also tend to apply to supernatual affects.
As an example the rules do not say that a dragon's breath weapon require line of effect, but that rule is in the spell section. Would you allow the dragon's weapon to go through a wall?
You can use the "but it only says spells" idea, but now you need an entire new set of rules for supernatural abilities.
So you can go with the spell limitations apply to supernatural abilities or you can assume all supernatural abilities ignore the spell rules since they don't their own special section.
Breath weapons are the least of your worries if you want to decide that supernatural abilities do not have to follow the rules for spells.
There are gloves that let you see through a wall or door. A witch can use the sleep hex to put everyone in a room to sleep before the party enters since that would ignore the line of effect the door or wall is presenting.
There are also other issues.
I don't think trying to force this to work is worth the "it is the rule" argument I would just houserule it, if that is the type of realism your entire table expects.
Why would a Great Wyrm Red dragon want an ability that deprives it of additional loot for its hoard?
Why would a Great Wyrm Red dragon want an ability that deprives it of additional loot for its hoard?
Great point. Red dragons are very greedy. They like ly get their loot by killing other creatures and taking their stuff. As for how this breath weapon incinerates creature s but not gear, it's magic. People killed by fireballs don't have their gear damaged. So I don't see why this dragon should do so either. As written its a good way to kill invaders and collect more treasure.
The rules in the magic section also tend to apply to supernatual affects.
As an example the rules do not say that a dragon's breath weapon require line of effect, but that rule is in the spell section. Would you allow the dragon's weapon to go through a wall?
You can use the "but it only says spells" idea, but now you need an entire new set of rules for supernatural abilities.
So you can go with the spell limitations apply to supernatural abilities or you can assume all supernatural abilities ignore the spell rules since they don't their own special section.
Breath weapons are the least of your worries if you want to decide that supernatural abilities do not have to...
That's not because supernatural abilities tends to follow some of the spell rules, that they have to stick to all the spells rules. There are many differences : spells do provoke AOO in combat, supernatural abilities don't, spells can be dispelled or countered, supernatural abilities, can't...
Breath weapons and spells have as much similarities than differences, but nothing in RAW tells us that breath weapons should follow spells rules. Of course you can argue that nothing tells the opposite, but this will lead nowhere.Wraithstrike, your answer makes sense for me but I was looking for a clean answer that no player could argue at the gaming table. Obviously there is still room for debate here, and that's why the GM exists : to make a decision.
Why would a characters magical gear survive the incinerating blast? Magic.
Doesn't have to make sense.
We treat any failed 1 on a save the same way, not just from spells.
Fall into lava and roll a 1 on the REF save? Might lose some gear...
With the dragon, if he incinerates the PC, and later breathes again, he might get the gear anyway...
Why would a Great Wyrm Red dragon want an ability that deprives it of additional loot for its hoard?
It's because dragons love treasure and the taste of juicy adventurers that they are so formidable opponents in physical combat : high armor class, good damage and many spells to improve this further.
But sometimes, he wants to teach a hard lesson to assumptive adventurers. Turn their body and equipment into ash to be sure that the survivors won't come back the next day fresh and ready for a new fight.
The rules are pretty clear.
Magic items are only rolled for destruction if the character fails his saving throw. Whether or not he dies is totally immaterial to that fact.
So, the RAW answer is, unless the PC fails his save, his magic items are not destroyed, regardless of whether he dies or does not die. Since Incineration is nothing more then a +20 dmg 'death effect', it has no effect on this ruling unless the DM wants to make a house ruling that it does so.
==+Aelryinth
The rules in the magic section also tend to apply to supernatual affects.
As an example the rules do not say that a dragon's breath weapon require line of effect, but that rule is in the spell section. Would you allow the dragon's weapon to go through a wall?
You can use the "but it only says spells" idea, but now you need an entire new set of rules for supernatural abilities.
So you can go with the spell limitations apply to supernatural abilities or you can assume all supernatural abilities ignore the spell rules since they don't their own special section.
Breath weapons are the least of your worries if you want to decide that supernatural abilities do not have to...
That's not because supernatural abilities tends to follow some of the spell rules, that they have to stick to all the spells rules. There are many differences : spells do provoke AOO in combat, supernatural abilities don't, spells can be dispelled or countered, supernatural abilities, can't...
Breath weapons and spells have as much similarities than differences, but nothing in RAW tells us that breath weapons should follow spells rules. Of course you can argue that nothing tells the opposite, but this will lead nowhere.Wraithstrike, your answer makes sense for me but I was looking for a clean answer that no player could argue at the gaming table. Obviously there is still room for debate here, and that's why the GM exists : to make a decision.
By the rules only the character is harmed, and there are no rules for the items being harmed because of this ability. The game strictly calls out when items are being harmed, and I dont just mean with magic, so unless you can show a player that this ability can harm items they will have room to argue. Like I said before if you want it to work make it into a house rule because right now there is no rule to support it working, and the rule for an ability tends to tell you what they can do, not everything they can't do.
If the items are damaged by this ability which does not call out damaging magic items, then why would another dragon's fire breath which killed a character also not damage magic items.
Basically I will put it this way. You will find no rules supporting what you want to do. Your choices are to once again change the rule or accept the fact that your players have room to argue with you.
edit: You have yet to show precedence between character death and item destruction as common thing, and what makes sense in the game to someone is still not often a rule. That is just how the game is. You are saying the rule works a certain way so the burden of proof is on you to prove it, just like it would be on your players if they had a similar ability.
If you want to ruin the dead guys stuff just let the dragon Breath on his ashes then they Will burn like unatended objects.
The rules in the magic section also tend to apply to supernatual affects.
As an example the rules do not say that a dragon's breath weapon require line of effect, but that rule is in the spell section. Would you allow the dragon's weapon to go through a wall?
You can use the "but it only says spells" idea, but now you need an entire new set of rules for supernatural abilities.
So you can go with the spell limitations apply to supernatural abilities or you can assume all supernatural abilities ignore the spell rules since they don't their own special section.
Breath weapons are the least of your worries if you want to decide that supernatural abilities do not have to...
That's not because supernatural abilities tends to follow some of the spell rules, that they have to stick to all the spells rules. There are many differences : spells do provoke AOO in combat, supernatural abilities don't, spells can be dispelled or countered, supernatural abilities, can't...
That is a bad example because I was speaking of situations where Supernatural abilities do not have their own special rules, and SU's specifically say they do not provoke. I never said SU's do everything spells do. I clearly mentioned how they work, in absence of their own rules. So far I have not seen an example to counter that.
Lets get back on track guys, stick to the text for now -- Wraithstrike made an excellent suggestion with that a few posts ago and it is fine to houserule supernatural abilities as working like spells.
A quick search of the PRD however results in the following two definitions for Supernatural Abilities:
Supernatural abilities are magical but not spell-like. Supernatural abilities are not subject to spell resistance and do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated (such as an antimagic field). A supernatural ability's effect cannot be dispelled and is not subject to counterspells. See Table: Special Ability Types for a summary of the types of special abilities.Supernatural Abilities (Su): Supernatural abilities are magical attacks, defenses, and qualities. These abilities can be always active or they can require a specific action to utilize. The supernatural ability's description includes information on how it is used and its effects.A (very) quick perusal of the FAQs resulted in this:
Temporary Ability Score Increases and Monster Abilities: Do these affect the DCs of monster and PC supernatural abilities based on those ability scores?
Although the description of temporarily ability score bonuses just refers to increasing spell DCs, that is a legacy of some older game terminology not being updated as new features were added to the rules. Temporary ability score increases should affect supernatural ability DCs based on those ability scores, such as a medusa's gaze attack or a witch's hexes.
Which is not particularly relevant, but the only FAQ I found which directly relates to supernatural ability mechanics.
Based on these the attacks the ability works as written in the description first (second quote), and then based on the general guidelines from the first and third quotes.
So we go again to the Incinerate description.
Incinerate (Su)...
Your first quote and your emphasis, clearly proves that supernatural abilities have their own rules mechanisms. So it's not because spells and supernatural abilities share some rules that they should be the same thing.
You also got a point with the target of incinerate. I tried to find other abilities or effects in the same vein that affect a creature to compare with incinerate. I found that disintegrate was quite close :A thin, green ray springs from your pointing finger. You must make a successful ranged touch attack to hit. Any creature struck by the ray takes 2d6 points of damage per caster level (to a maximum of 40d6). Any creature reduced to 0 or fewer hit points by this spell is entirely disintegrated, leaving behind only a trace of fine dust. A disintegrated creature's equipment is unaffected.We can also compare with flesh to stone:
The subject, along with all its carried gear, turns into a mindless, inert statue.
As you can see, the text gives precise descriptions about the equipment of the target, despite the fact they're spells. In my opinion, disintegrate adds the bold text because the total destruction of a creature legitimately makes the reader to ponder about gear and items worn. In the same way, flesh to stone tells us what happens to equipment because items are often unaffected by spells that target creatures. I could also have used the destruction spell instead of disintegrate...
Back to incinerate: In the light to these 2 examples, I think the supernatural ability should contain precise information about the gear of the ash-turned creatures. If disintegrate has the info, incinerate should have too.So my question is still unresolved: where in the rules is it written that a supernatural ability that destroys a creature leaves her equipment unaffected ?
Back to incinerate: In the light to these 2 examples, I think the supernatural ability should contain precise information about the gear of the ash-turned creatures. If disintegrate has the info, incinerate should have too.
So my question is still unresolved: where in the rules is it written that a supernatural ability that destroys a creature leaves her equipment unaffected ?
I think instead of asking "where in the rules does it say..." you should be asking these two questions:
- Does it say in the rules... ?
- If it doesn't say in the rules, what rules cover...?
The point others are making is that the answer to your recapitulated question (and my first question) is "The rules do not say". Which means you need to ask the second question. The bits that have been quoted above are everyone's offering in response to that question, and it implies that in this case, since it is not stated how Su abilities in general affect equipment when they destroy the carrying creature, you must use fallback rules. And the answer then follows, "Su abilities do not implicitly nor automatically destroy carried items when the carrying creature is destroyed".
What you actually need is a general rule to show that things which affect characters also affect items. However as I already mentioned the game has specific rules telling you when items are affected. You have no rule nor precedent for whatever kills/destroys a character affecting an item as the default. The specific ability in question also only calls out creatures. So like I said before since you are making the claim it is on you to find the proof. Your players are the ones you have to convince however so they may just accept it. However if they don't just accept what rules do you have to show that your idea is the intent? You can try asking Mark (a dev), but I don't think he will agree either. However if he does at least you will have an unofficial answer.
What you actually need is a general rule to show that things which affect characters also affect items. However as I already mentioned the game has specific rules telling you when items are affected. You have no rule nor precedent for whatever kills/destroys a character affecting an item as the default. The specific ability in question also only calls out creatures. So like I said before since you are making the claim it is on you to find the proof. Your players are the ones you have to convince however so they may just accept it. However if they don't just accept what rules do you have to show that your idea is the intent? You can try asking Mark (a dev), but I don't think he will agree either. However if he does at least you will have an unofficial answer.
You are right : the game has specific rules telling us when items are damaged. This rule applies to spells (and unless you have a quote telling me the contrary ONLY to spells).
While I can understand the logic of your reasoning and somewhat even agree with it, we have no general rule that clearly states that items are not damaged by special abilities or specific powers. So you try to convince me that your interpretation, that I consider more RAI than RAW is the only one possible.Now, I think the only way to close this thread is to agree that the text about Items Surviving after a Saving Throw should be interpreted like this:
Unless the descriptive text for a spell or a special ability specifies otherwise, all items carried or worn by a creature are assumed to survive this attack.
There will be no ambiguity left if the text was written like this and I want your opinion about suggesting a modification to the official team.
Are you asking for the "Items Surviving after a Saving Throw" to include supernatural affects and spells instead of just calling out spells?
If that is what you are asking then I would do one better and call out the entire spells section. That will prevent future FAQ's in other parts of the magic chapter.
Possible FAQ wording:
Title: Supernatural Abilities and the Magic ChapterMost of use assume that most of the rules for spells apply to supernatural abilities. However this is not directly stated.
For the purpose of the FAQ this is my questions.
Would it be correct to say the rules for spells and supernatural affects apply equally unless specifically called out as not affecting spells or supernatural affects?
Examples of things that I believe apply to supernatural abilities, but the rules do not specifically say so:
The aiming rules for spells also apply to SU's.
Here are two examples:
You need line of affect for AoE based supernatural affects.
You need line of sight for target based aiming such as a monster with a dominate ability.
Another section that calls out spells:
The "Items Surviving after a Saving Throw" stating that a creature rolling a nat 1 could lead to magic items being harmed also applies to a supernatural area of affect ability despite the text "Unless the descriptive text for the spell specifies otherwise..."
I think that would also apply to SU's, but it does call out spells.
If you do intend to actually FAQ this I would suggest you ask Mark Seifter if it is better to try to cover those in one FAQ like I did or ask a different FAQ for each issue. He may ask you to make the multi-topic FAQ, and then try to put it into a blog instead of a long FAQ.
First sentence of the entry: Damaging Magic Items, p.459 of CRB.
A magic item doesn’t need to make a saving throw unless it
is unattended, it is specifically targeted by the effect, or its
wielder rolls a natural 1 on his save.
I was looking for that, but I could not remember where it was.
LazarX what you want to happen is not the same as what the rules allow. If you are not presenting a point based on your interpretation of the rules, but instead what you would like to see that should be stated.
First sentence of the entry: Damaging Magic Items, p.459 of CRB.
A magic item doesn’t need to make a saving throw unless it
is unattended, it is specifically targeted by the effect, or its
wielder rolls a natural 1 on his save.This text does not include the word 'spell' anywhere, so it includes all kinds of attack to a magic item.
Thanks Numarak, that's exactly what I was looking for !
I just can't believe I didn't find it sooner.IMO, it completely answers my initial question. Of course one can argue how this can be devoid of logic, but in a fantasy world where dragons do exist, we can also accept that our real-world logic is sometimes irrelevant.
Thanks again for all you who helped me with this topic.
I find it more appropriate not to require to have a Dragon make a second pass at dead ashpiles of bodies in order to incinerate items.
My reasoning is as follows. The dragon's breath incinerated the PC's reducing them to ash. Which means basically it was powerful enough at that moment to force the items to save as well.
LazarX, while I agree with your general reasoning, the rules follow their own mechanics. We have similar other examples of real-life inconsistencies (like the disintegrate spell that can totally destroy a creature but leaves her equipment unaffected). I think this is a deliberate choice from the designer team. This avoids situations where items are regularly destroyed because it induces the need for more treasure (either money or magic) to repair or replace lost possessions. I game terms, the increasing rate of change in equipment slows the playing rhythm as many items impact vital stats of the character and force players to recalculate lots of numbers (characteristics, AC, combat, spells, etc.). So to keep up game fluidity and the best thing to do is finding a way to minimize loss of equipment, even if it means to have less realistic situations.