I was running my friends through Mud Sorcerer's Tomb as a one-shot about half a month ago (only finished about half of it), and we got to the part with the necklace of strangulation. Lacking other means, the party came up with the creative solution of targeting the halfling monk who was wearing the lethaly attractive piece of jewelry with a disintegrate spell, attempting to just blast the necklace without turning the monk to dust as well.
I wasn't sure this was kosher with the RAW, or even spirit of the RAW, but after some discussion I decided that it would be better for the game to allow the attempt (so that we didn't have an untimely death that would be difficult to deal with, as well as my lack of desire to squash player creativity). Afterall, as it was pointed out to me, removing the necklace requires limited wish, wish, or miracle, but the description says nothing about simply destroying the thing.
The touch attack was automatic, as the monk wanted to be shot, and the monk lowered his spell resistance. The necklace had to make its saving throw (as its due considering its status as a magic item, but with its own save bonus, as the monk was certainly considering the thing a foe and not allowing it to use his own save), as did the monk. If the monk failed, he would be dust (considering that the disintegrate was operating as a critical hit by a 15th level caster or so, and the monk wasn't at full hit points, either).
As it turned out, the necklace failed the save and the monk succeeded, and everyone was happy (other than the poor necklace!). I promised I'd post the story here and see what people had to say about it, and then I promptly forgot until this morning. But, here it is!
I'm just curious what other people think of the legality of this situation, and whether they would have bent the rules to allow this type of thing to happen or not? There's no doubt in my mind that I did the right thing, but am simply curious as to other people's opinions.
One thing I would also like to draw your consideration towards that I'm not so sure about was the different saves for the necklace and the monk. I'm pretty sure that was handled right, I just want to double check that, because the item was considered an adversary of the monk, it should not have used his save bonus, correct?
I think you did fine. I would have given the necklace a touch AC of 14 (10 + Dimunitive size modifier) and given it the save it was due if the hit was successful. If the PC had missed it, well... a save for the PC wearing it instead.
There was really no reason to make both the PC AND the necklace make a save if the spellcaster made his ranged touch attack. The spell allows you to target creatures OR objects. With something that small, you just have to make sure you hit the necklace and not the poor sap wearing it.
Sounds like a good ruling to me. Sometimes its best to just forego the RAW to make room for logical moves etc.
I now notice that I managed to misspell target in the title of the thread. Wonderful. :|
At any rate, thanks for the support. I was kind of hoping to have Sebastian pop in and say, "How dare you blah blah blah!" or something like that (I kid!).
As to targeting just the necklace and allowing the monk to foregoe the save if the hit was successful, that's an interesting point. The monk stated that he would hold still for the "procedure," so the sorcerer could just take a full-round to cast and make sure it was an automatic hit, by my ruling (and a critical at that, like I said). At any rate, I'd never really considered using the spell to target the equipment of a character. I always thought of that application as being for blasting holes in walls and such.
However, I will note that at the time, it was the party's belief that the spell would also destroy all the monk's equipment, which is contrary to the description of the spell I just looked up and reviewed (equipment is unaffected). That was part of my hesitation to allow just the necklace to be targeted, as I was under the impression that if you were aiming at any part of a creature or his gear, it was sort of "all or nothing," the whole being (and his stuff) getting turned to dust or none of it. Now that I realize that was erroneous, allowing the necklace to simply be the target makes sense.
Was the automatic hit (effectively a disintigrate coup de grace, I suppose) kosher with this reading of the rules, or should the necklace have been entitled to use its touch AC just as it was entitled to a saving throw?
However, if the necklace had simply been the target, would it have benefited from the monk's spell resistance, had he chosen to left it up? I'm wondering about this now, considering that, had we understood the situation more properly, the monk probably would have left the effect in place as a defense, unless of course it would have thwarted the destruction of the necklace.
Thoughts? This type of situation is admittedly rare, but it opens up some interesting topics that are fun to talk about and useful to know in the odd case of such an event.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Was the automatic hit (effectively a disintigrate coup de grace, I suppose) kosher with this reading of the rules, or should the necklace have been entitled to use its touch AC just as it was entitled to a saving throw?
No problem with the automatic hit. An inanimate object is effectively 'helpless' and could be attacked in such a manner. My only issue is... the necklace is most certainly an OBJECT and by definition is immune to critical hits (not that all the extra damage was necessary to destroy something so minor, just being nitpicky).
Also, I think you were justified in having the monk make his own save. Honestly, I would have ruled that the monk took the 5d6 damage as normal for passing a disintegrate save. My reasoning for this is that since the spell uses a TOUCH attack, simply striking the armor, shield, pants, ring, necklace, etc. of a creature is sufficient to transfer the destructive energies into the creature in question. Since the intention was to destroy the amulet with the spell, the spellcaster could be said to have 'modified' his spell in some way as to focus the energy on the object instead of the person wearing it. The destructive energy 'bleed' would have still occurred, imo, as that seems to be the way the spell works per the RAW.
But yeah, if you can blow holes in a wall, you can melt jewelry. If the players become fond of this solution though, you can always turn it against them and say that some cursed items attach themselves to the wearer's 'pattern' and that they become a part of the wearer in all ways. This is a handy 'out' to prevent abuse.
Good call on the critical. That was mainly for the monk if things fell through (he'd be facing a critical disintigrate if the rolls went badly). I do think I forced the 5d6 on him, still, but it's been long enough that I no longer remember. If I did, it was hardly a concern. He had around 100 hp at full capacity, and while we was slightly damaged, it was far from the point where 5d6 would have mattered. (And, since that's where we stopped for the evening and it's unkown if we'll ever finish the dungeon, it may be irrelevant; although, it certainly shouldn't be discounted for discussion's sake)
I'll echo the other posters saying it was a good ruling. In your place I would've played it pretty much the same way, but with the monk hit only on a missed touch attack on the necklace. Perhaps no auto hit opportunity either, as trying to remain still while your life was being choked out of you would be a feat indeed ;-)
Good stuff!
J-
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Perhaps no auto hit opportunity either, as trying to remain still while your life was being choked out of you would be a feat indeed ;-)
Yeah, but since the character in question was a monk, I would have probably allowed the monk a Concentration check to focus through the pain and remain still long enough for the spell to happen. Monks especially should be capable of such feats, imo.
Saern, the Mook's... err, Monk's SR protects anything he wears as well as himself. Lowering his SR would have been a necessary step. That was the correct way to proceed. A coup de grace can be made against creature's subject to critical hits only, so that should not have mattered with regards to the necklace. You could have ruled it as an auto hit, but I would never give freebies like that. Having watched my players attempt to lob a peice of trash into a garbage can only a few feet from them (if that) and MISS, makes me confident that trying to pinpoint a thin little necklace around a friend's neck with a "pencil thin" ray isn't going to be automatic. It's going to require a bit of precision, thus an attack roll (AC 14, as stated before).
Edit: After reading the necklace's description in the DMG, I noticed that it deals 8 points of damage to the creature wearing it every round. Also, it doesn't come off until the creature is a dry husk. That tells me this thing is clinging tenaciously to the PC wearing it. Had you wanted to get absolutely technical and been "not such a nice guy", you could have easily ruled that the fact that the necklace was choking the PC and thus digging into the flesh of his throat (think of a garotte), that it would be even harder to target due to the flesh providing it with either cover or, IMO, improved cover. Thus, the touch AC would have either been 18 or 22 (in the case of improved cover).
Now the whole thing takes on a much more challenging angle since that is significantly more difficult to hit. IMO, this would have been the more accurate way to go.
Yeah, but since the character in question was a monk, I would have probably allowed the monk a Concentration check to focus through the pain and remain still long enough for the spell to happen. Monks especially should be capable of such feats, imo.
I was thinking a Will save, but I agree (and Concentration would be appropriate). High level characters especially would be more able to deal with such circumstances but there should still be that element of danger.
J-
Had you wanted to get absolutely technical and been "not such a nice guy", you could have easily ruled that the fact that the necklace was choking the PC and thus digging into the flesh of his throat (think of a garotte), that it would be even harder to target due to the flesh providing it with either cover or, IMO, improved cover. Thus, the touch AC would have either been 18 or 22 (in the case of improved cover).
Completely sensible, but the attack would actually be quite a bit easier than that.
Objects are easier to hit than creatures because they usually don’t 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 + 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.
If you were feeling vindictive, you could certainly rule that since casting Disintegrate requires a standard action, you can't take the Full Round Action to aim it for a +5 bonus to hit, but you're still looking at reducing the Amulet's AC from 14 to 7. Thus, it would have an AC of 11 with Cover or 15 with Improved Cover. Since strangling a PC indicates a certain degree of movement, I could even see waiving the additional -2 penalty, raising it to be possibly as high as a 17, but that's really as hard as it's going to get by the RAW. Of course, since the item has a +11 bonus on saving throws, giving it an AC that's touchable is scarcely going to imbalance the game -- the only way you'll be casting Disintegrate with a high enough attack modifier to hit a 22 with anything that could pass for confidence is if you're an Eldritch Knight with crazy high dexterity.
I'm not sure what the official ruling is, but I generally allow ranged attack rolls to be made as Touch Attacks ('f course, not the other way round) if the character so desires. It makes hitting easier in cases where the object doesn't move.
Indeed, attempting to hit a small amulet on a strangled guy is a hard feat, you should attempt it yourself. Have someone wear a necklace and then try hitting it with something trown from 2 feet away.
Beyond that; I'd have ruled the amulet would be toast on a failed save (using it's own modifier) and the Monk would take the 5d6 points of blast damage. (Disintegrate can vaporize 10ft of bricks; it's not going to be able to out all its power on a small amulet.)
But basic ruling: anything that makes players creative, goes. And this is a fine example.
I'm going to jump on the "Good Call" bandwagon. This sort of thing falls under the 'sundering a worn or carried object' rules (PH p158).
This thread also reminded me of a slick feat for the disintegrate spell in the Lords of Madness book, called Disintegrate Finess. It allows you to voluntarily lower the damage, as well as target particular parts of a creature's body - like destroying the skeleton while leaving the rest of a creature intact (it's still dead, Jim).
I think at one point the suggestion of just grabbing the thing and turning the spell into a melee touch attack did come up, but in the heat of the moment it was forgotten.
Anyway, one more juicy bit of the story- the monk was a halfling, and the sorcerer a kobold. Considering it was Sexi Golem playing the monk, it's amazing that he wasn't a gnome, in which case you would have a kobold shooting disintigrate at a gnome... an excellent opportunity for an accident. :)
Though not really the situation at hand, it was such a compelling thought Sexi even diverted time to pull an OotS-esque line, something to the effect of, "I swear to the gods, if you vaporize me, I will come back as a ghost with the deadliest of the optional abilities available, and haunt your ass!" Ah, good stuff.
I think you made a great call all the way around, Searn, unless that monk was under 15th level (in which case he had no business entering that tomb). Have I ranted yet today about 3 golems @ 112 hp each with DR 10/adamantine AND bludgeoning and imunity to magic? Or the one with DR 15/adamantine, 250 hp, SR 24, and regeneration 10?
Actually the monk was 14th lvl and we beat the steaming crap out of those 3 golems and barely broke a sweat. sorcerers RULE!
Super creative on the part of your players Saern, and great "seat of the pants" DMing on your part.
:-)
-Roth
Actually the monk was 14th lvl and we beat the steaming crap out of those 3 golems and barely broke a sweat. sorcerers RULE!
Our wizard had no spells effective against golems. Ditto the cleric. The party had no adamantine weapons, and the golems turned the 1/2-orc barbarian into paste in 3 rounds.
Our dwarf barbarian did pretty well, although he was using a straight +5 falchion, so the creatures being of "construct" type impeded him a bit. Though it wasn't adamantine, the sheer damage he did with power attack left his efforts noticeable each round. The monk, unable to actually affect the golems directly, did provide significant help through "aid another" in combat to increase the barbarian's attack, further letting him benefit from power attack without worrying about missing.
However, the day would have certainly gone to the golems if it had not been for the sorcerer. Reverse gravity has no save and allows no spell resistance, thus working on golems. Acid fog behaves in a similar manner, and additionally, it doesn't sink like a cloudkill spell, so the golems ended up taking an acid bath on the ceiling for a while, before dropping back down to be finished off by the barbarian.
And, at the time, those were the only three characters! All our healing came from the monk's innate ability and the insane number of wands of cure light wounds purchased by the sorcerer (oh yeah, he was also a wild mage with Use Magic Device).
Good play all around.
That was a good play session I needed that after having a big break (I sound like a crack addict) I just wish it would have started earlier cause I had to go see my chick before I had to ship back. But overall i'm gonna have to say that kobold was one of my favorite characters and I only changed once before I decided to use that one. (For thise that don't know I have a chacter creation problem I can't make just one). We need to do it again next time we are all back around home.
I've got all the info, Jherrith, so we can do it again anytime we have enough of the "group" back together.