I remain unconvinced.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.
You normally do, but you should at least give a reason as to why one method of aiming should apply to another if you are going to support it.
Well then what is the (object) part of Disintegrate for? I'm not being sarcastic or snide or anything, this is confusing me since I've always seen Disintegrate played being able to target objects.
While I await that tomorrow I'm gonna do (as mentioned all the time by me) my new favorite thing and ask my local PFS GM's, ever since finding out that they are actually reasonable people and not just RAW hungry idiots (as people make them out to be) I find asking them ends a lot of arguments since the most basic reason for people to want RAW answers even when common sense says otherwise is for PFS.
You normally do, but you should at least give a reason as to why one method of aiming should apply to another if you are going to support it.I remain unconvinced.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 just don't see any evidence that the two categories are mutually exclusive.
All spells that effect creatures, characters, or objects have targets (using both the standard definition as well as the game's definition). If they didn't, then one could argue that disintegrate automatically finds invisible creatures (since it doesn't target them, it just makes an attack roll).
My 2 cents?
You can't disintegrate with your ranged touch, since you can't specifically target armor with it. Like Wraith has pointed out, there aren't specific rules for it when it's on a person. And more over, the smashing object rules don't help the defense of Disintigrate being able to destroy gear.
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). Refer to Table: Items Affected by Magical Attacks to determine order in which items are affected. 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.
This section means to me, that disintegrate wouldn't target equipment worn unless it's not attended(in which case it's treated as though it failed it's save) or the wielder rolls a 1.
More importantly, as a Ray, it's treated as a ranged weapon. Meaning, that even if you follow those rules, you're forgetting that that ranged attacks don't smash objects well: and I see no reason why this wouldn't apply to a Disintegrate attack(since rays are treated as ranged weapons in a lot of ways) and it isn't really a siege canon(though I could see the case made).
Lastly, do you guys really want to be able to target gear with Disintegrate? First, that alone will mess up estimated WBL, since welp, the players burned up half their expected income against their BBEG. Sucks they don't get any more gold in this AP before the next arc... And what happens when DMs start using this to destroy player gear? People think Sundering already is a jerk DM tactic...
So can we just say no to Disintegrating Items Plz?
Edit:
If they didn't, then one could argue that disintegrate automatically finds invisible creatures (since it doesn't target them, it just makes an attack roll).
And RD, that's nonsense. Rays specifically call out they can hit objects they can't see, since it's just like a normal ranged attack, but it isn't guaranteed.
I ask again...what is the (object) part of Disintegrate there for if not to use what is says under (object) in Saving Throws?
I ask again...what is the (object) part of Disintegrate there for if not to use what is says under (object) in Saving Throws?
For unattended objects or 1's.
Also, fun fact:
Only the first creature or object struck can be affected; that is, the ray affects only one target per casting.
What happens on a 1 for the save? Oh right, the gear takes the hit and you don't get toasted instead the gear does, since it can only hit one object or creature. Trippy if you ask me.
The "Object" part of the spell is to disintegrate doors, or walls, or pineapples (as long as they're lying around and not in someone's hands). My beholders (back when I played a game that had them in the game world) used their at-will disintegrates to dig entire 3-dimensional labyrinthine lairs (they are perfect flyers) that were terrible nightmares for the PCs to navigate.
For what it's worth, I think it's silly to be unable to target attended items with rays. I think some of the suggestions here about how to houserule it into the game are well-thought-out. I would allow a disintegrate to be used such items.
But it's a houserule.
Heck, it even says in the Disintegrate spell that if you cast it on a target and do enough damage to kill him, then his body but not his items are turned to dust. You target the whole package. You ignore his armor and shield, blasting the entire creature into dust without his armor protecting him or suffering any chance of being disintegrated. It's like, to the spell, the armor isn't even there.
Want to really piss off that BBEG fighter? Disarm him and then use a readied disintegrate to poof his sword into dust before he can pick it up. But alas, you'll have to create houserules to disintegrate it while he's holding it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, and yeah, I can indeed eat a castle, and I wouldn't even chip an armored tooth. But, digesting stone is so unrewarding. And passing stone is even worse, though my armored bowels are certainly up to the task.
But I think I did specify "you". As in players. I am clearly not a player race. There is only just me and Mrs. Tarrasque and we have been player-free since '93.
ok if it only for unattended object then what is the point of the bolded part below...
(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.
If it cannot be cast on attended objects then why say right there that apparently they can, and it list attended objects get saves if they are attended. So if you cannot target attended objects when this says you can then why would it need to say that they get a save if they are attended when you cannot target them.
I can make that sentence literally run FOREVER. So please give an actual explanation of why since I cannot for the life of me see it.
Ive always seen it played that it can target objects but MOST of the time its always better to just hit the person since the save is the same and just because you destroy someone's weapon does not mean they do not have something else to beat you to death with. Sure GM's can screw over their characters but the NPC shouldn't want to destroy a weapon/armor/other items when his true goal should be to survive the encounter and kill the PC's. If my GM Disintegrated one of my assassin's daggers, then I would just quick draw one of the dozen others kept on his person. If he disintegrated my fighter's greataxe, then I would just use one of the 3 magic hammers he has on him.
Using Disintegrate as an NPC or a PC to destroy an attended item is actually very stupid.
Using Disintegrate as an NPC or a PC to destroy an attended item is actually very stupid.
Then why do you want to do it?
Ive always seen it played that it can target objects but MOST of the time its always better to just hit the person since the save is the same and just because you destroy someone's weapon does not mean they do not have something else to beat you to death with. Sure GM's can screw over their characters but the NPC shouldn't want to destroy a weapon/armor/other items when his true goal should be to survive the encounter and kill the PC's. If my GM Disintegrated one of my assassin's daggers, then I would just quick draw one of the dozen others kept on his person. If he disintegrated my fighter's greataxe, then I would just use one of the 3 magic hammers he has on him.
Using Disintegrate as an NPC or a PC to destroy an attended item is actually very stupid.
What is the roll to hit only the armor and not the creature? Please, no house rules or "I think it should be" only quoted passages from the RAW.
From what I can find, it would fall either under Sunder or "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."
Sunder requires a melee attack, which rays are not.
Smashing an object is "like" sunder, except you are opposed by the object's AC. It then lists how to calculate that:
"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."
I hope we can agree that a medium sized creatures full-plate would also be medium sized. Giving it a +0. Most full-plate is inanimate, so it is treated as having dex 0, with -5 modifier, plus an additional -2 for being inanimate. This leaves AC 3 as the AC of the armor.
With this, any wizard able to disintegrate can hit this from BAB alone, leaving only a 5% chance (nat 1) on the roll to miss.
If you disagree, please quote the rules where. I believe that the rules intend Sunder to cover all equipment destruction in combat, and "smashing an object" to be for smashing doors, walls, chests and the like (as evidenced by the items in its relevant tables).
Ive always seen it played that it can target objects but MOST of the time its always better to just hit the person since the save is the same and just because you destroy someone's weapon does not mean they do not have something else to beat you to death with. Sure GM's can screw over their characters but the NPC shouldn't want to destroy a weapon/armor/other items when his true goal should be to survive the encounter and kill the PC's. If my GM Disintegrated one of my assassin's daggers, then I would just quick draw one of the dozen others kept on his person. If he disintegrated my fighter's greataxe, then I would just use one of the 3 magic hammers he has on him.
Using Disintegrate as an NPC or a PC to destroy an attended item is actually very stupid.
That doesn't hold true for lots of items, like armor or headbands(oh, sorry, can you not cast that spells anymore? Sorry lol) Which I doubt players carry spares of.
Further more, if it's so simple, what's the AC the spell hits against? It's a ranged touch spell, but no touch specific cmd exists. It's not a Sunder since those are melee so no cmd. It's not clear at all.
Further more, Ranged weapons do half damage against objects, so if they save is it 1/4th?
My point is, RAI, the spell doesn't call out what it's supposed to do in these situations and thus doesn't work that way.
ok if it only for unattended object then what is the point of the bolded part below...
I can make that sentence literally run FOREVER. So please give an actual explanation of why since I cannot for the life of me see it.
How about this:
Items Surviving after a Saving Throw: Unless the descriptive text for the spell specifies otherwise [Disintegrate does not], 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) [Disintegrate can only harm unattended objects, per the spell description: "A disintegrated creature's equipment is unaffected"]. 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.
So now we know when unattended items need saving throws (whenever you want to target them with spells like Disintegrate or whatever). And we also know when attended items need saving throws (random selection whenever their "attender" rolls a natural 1 on his save IF the spell can affect his equipment).
Disintegrate allows only the former usage (unattended objects) since it explicitly says that the target's equipment is unaffected even if the target creature is turned to dust. Arguably, the DM could rule that a natural 1 on a save vs. Disintegrate CAN destroy gear for the same reason that Fireball won't destroy your satin cloak unless you roll a natural 1 in which case it can, likewise, Disintegrate won't destroy your gear unless you roll a natural 1 in which cast it can. Or a DM might say that the spell specifically states that "A disintegrated creature's equipment is unaffected" is quite specific and clear that the gear is unaffected and this should apply to natural 1's as well.
I could argue for either side of that debate though I think I'm in the latter interpretation that this spell, specifically, cannot harm a creature's equipment because it explicitly says so - it's a stretch for me to accept that the authors bothered to explicitly say this while they really meant that this only applies when the failed save is not a natural 1 (seems to me they would have been clear on that if it were their intent).
But targeting the equipment of a living creature is clearly outside of the scope of this spell.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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 the save is passed, either the holder or the item would take 5d6 damage. On average, that's 17.5 HP. As wraithstrike pointed out, a +5 longsward has 55HP, so it would take about 3 Disintegrates with slightly above average rolls, or 4 with below average rolls. As long as you have a way to repair equipment, that ain't so bad. However, it'd do the same damage to a "squishy flesh bag", who, if they have a +5 longsword, are most likely martial, and have more than 55HP. And are much easier to heal.
On the other hand, a failed safe does up to 40D6 HP to the squishy. Ouch. But that's level 20 damage, 2d6 per level. Wizard's don't get level 6 spells, like Disintegrate, until level 11. That's 22D6, or 77 damage on average. Ouch, but survivable, by a martial anyhow. The sword on the other hand? It does no HP damage. It could be the adamantine, GM artifact of hardiness, +10 super longsword of irreplaceable power. On a failed save, it's gone. Disintegrate does not damage items on a failed save, "When used against an object, the ray simply disintegrates as much as a 10-foot cube of nonliving matter." You can't Resurrect (10,000GP) a +5 longsword (50,000GP). You can a person. And don't bring Wish or Miracle into this, talking about bringing the item back, because they're level 9 spells, much later in the game than Disintegrate.
So, Disintegrate, if able to target attended items, is massively advantageous for NPC's/casters. NPC's are one off encounters, for the most part. If you destroy their equipment? No big, they're the GM's constructs, they'll always have new equipment by the next time you encounter them, if you ever encounter them again. The PC's? Yeah, that equipment can't be mended or made whole, it's gone. That's gonna have a much more lasting impact, unless the GM is planning on giving you replacement loot. Which seems unlikely, since he just pulled the d@#k move of Disintegrating your equipment.
As for the caster advantage, let's be honest, what caster has a +10 equivalent armour or weapon? It makes sense, as a spell, to have a caster advantage, but damn, it's a brutal one. If a level 20 martial loses his +10 equivalent weapon to this spell, that's one quarter of his total wealth by level gone in a flash. I can't think of a single piece of equipment that a caster invests into as much as a martial does into his weapon/armour.
Ive always seen it played that it can target objects but MOST of the time its always better to just hit the person since the save is the same and just because you destroy someone's weapon does not mean they do not have something else to beat you to death with.
So, let's say your party encounters a fighter and a wizard. You, being the party's martial, engages the NPC fighter in melee. The enemy Wizard Disintegrates your armour, then the NPC Fighter full round attacks you. Just how screwed are you? I think more screwed than if he had just hit you with the disintegrate. Remember, it's not just your weapon, it's any single piece of equipment you have. You're fighting in the air with an item that gives you fly? Enjoy your fall. Under water with a ring of water breathing? Enjoy drowning. Your belt of physical perfection, which some of your feats and/or carrying capacity may be depending on? Good luck to you friend. Which, if it was any physical item giving Constitution, does HP damage in the reduced Con bonus. A +6 at level 20 would be 60HP.
Actually, on that note, what would the HP of your rings, headbands, belts, gloves, other magic items that aren't armour or weapons, be? Would they even survive the failed save of 5D6? Probably not. Ignore the caster advantage problem I mentioned, casters are boned.
Disintegrate has two modes one that targets only organics (and specifically mentions ignoring equipment) and one that targets only inorganics (and specifically mentions ignoring organic matter), if you decide to target inorganics matter it affects everything inorganic in a ten foot cube. So I don't see why you can't target the pc with the inorganic portion of the spell and destroy all his equipment (all within ten feet cube) leaving him naked.
Only the first creature or object struck can be affected; that is, the ray affects only one target per casting.
I ask again...what is the (object) part of Disintegrate there for if not to use what is says under (object) in Saving Throws?For unattended objects or 1's.
Nobody has provided proof that the object line exclusively refers only to unattended objects. Only conjecture and assumptions have been offered up.
So, let's say your party encounters a fighter and a wizard. You, being the party's martial, engages the NPC fighter in melee. The enemy Wizard Disintegrates your armour, then the NPC Fighter full round attacks you. Just how screwed are you? I think more screwed than if he had just hit you with the disintegrate. Remember, it's not just your weapon, it's any single piece of equipment you have. You're fighting in the air with an item that gives you fly? Enjoy your fall. Under water with a ring of water breathing? Enjoy drowning. Your belt of physical perfection, which some of your feats and/or carrying capacity may be depending on? Good luck to you friend. Which, if it was any physical item giving Constitution, does HP damage in the reduced Con bonus. A +6 at level 20 would be 60HP.
Actually, on that note, what would the HP of your rings, headbands, belts, gloves, other magic items that aren't armour or weapons, be? Would they even survive the failed save of 5D6? Probably not. Ignore the caster advantage problem I mentioned, casters are boned.
You know, you just reminded me of another spell that I think can be quite useful in this discussion. Grease.
"Grease
School conjuration (creation); Level bard 1, sorcerer/wizard 1
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M (butter)
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target one object or 10-ft. square
Duration 1 min./level (D)
Save see text; SR no"
Grease explicitly targets either a single object, or an area. If you target an object:
"The spell can also be used to create a greasy coating on an item. Material objects not in use are always affected by this spell, while an object wielded or employed by a creature requires its bearer to make a Reflex saving throw to avoid the effect. If the initial saving throw fails, the creature immediately drops the item. A saving throw must be made in each round that the creature attempts to pick up or use the greased item. A creature wearing greased armor or clothing gains a +10 circumstance bonus on Escape Artist checks and combat maneuver checks made to escape a grapple, and to their CMD to avoid being grappled."
The spell itself provides the exact text to what happens. The object gets the use the creatures saving throw to avoid the effect. However, if the creature fails, they drop the item.
Can you grease someone's ring of fly and if they fail the save, it flies off their finger? What about their headband of int? Spell component pouch?
Obviously, if you grease their armor, they merely get a +10 bonus to escape artist and combat maneuver checks/defense for grapples. Which is odd, because you'd think the armor would just slide off too.
There is a flaw with your argument. Disintegrate doesn't have a target.
My point was to contrast Disintegrate with Grease.
Grease specifically has a target of object, disintegrate does not.
Ah. You correctly show the difference then and I agree with your interpretation of disintegrate.
Well then what is the (object) part of Disintegrate for? I'm not being sarcastic or snide or anything, this is confusing me since I've always seen Disintegrate played being able to target objects.
While I await that tomorrow I'm gonna do (as mentioned all the time by me) my new favorite thing and ask my local PFS GM's, ever since finding out that they are actually reasonable people and not just RAW hungry idiots (as people make them out to be) I find asking them ends a lot of arguments since the most basic reason for people to want RAW answers even when common sense says otherwise is for PFS.
The (object) means it can affect objects, but there is no way within the rules to attack attended objects with a ranged attacks. You even need a special archetype to do it.
Now if you can find a way to make disintegrate into a melee attack like the magus can then you can bypass that issue.
I just don't see any evidence that the two categories are mutually exclusive.
All spells that effect creatures, characters, or objects have targets (using both the standard definition as well as the game's definition). If they didn't, then one could argue that disintegrate automatically finds invisible creatures (since it doesn't target them, it just makes an attack roll).
Each method of aiming is its own thing, and there are no rules for making ranged attacks against attended objects. You provided the rules to help with that.
Your quote about invisible creatures is lost on me. A disintegrate would suffer the 50% miss chance just like any other ranged attack roll. Why would it be argued that it gets a free pass?
ok if it only for unattended object then what is the point of the bolded part below...
(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.If it cannot be cast on attended objects then why say right there that apparently they can, and it list attended objects get saves if they are attended. So if you cannot target attended objects when this says you can then why would it need to say that they get a save if they are attended when you cannot target them.
I can make that sentence literally run FOREVER. So please give an actual explanation of why since I cannot for the life of me see it.
That is just a general rule. Most magic spells can affect any object, but you still need way for ranged attacks to affect objects. The fact that disintegrate can affect objects does not give it a free pass to behave like a melee attack.
Disintegrate has two modes one that targets only organics (and specifically mentions ignoring equipment) and one that targets only inorganics (and specifically mentions ignoring organic matter), if you decide to target inorganics matter it affects everything inorganic in a ten foot cube. So I don't see why you can't target the pc with the inorganic portion of the spell and destroy all his equipment (all within ten feet cube) leaving him naked.
It says "When used against an object, the ray simply disintegrates as much as a 10-foot cube of nonliving matter."
That means the one object can have that much of it damaged. It does not say all objects in a 10 foot cube area. The spell specifically says the first object hit so even if it could affect attended items, which it can't, only that item would be destroyed.
Nobody has provided proof that the object line exclusively refers only to unattended objects. Only conjecture and assumptions have been offered up.I ask again...what is the (object) part of Disintegrate there for if not to use what is says under (object) in Saving Throws?For unattended objects or 1's.
Actually we shown that by lack of rules for a ranged attack to hit an attended object it does not work. If we were incorrect then such rules would be presented.
If they exist then quote them. You can't use the Sunder rules, and the smash an object rules also do not apply.
If disintegrate can target someone's armor then I am going to have my ranger start targetting weapons with adamantine arrows and shattering swords with them. If one ranged attack can target attended items then all ranged attacks can.
If this sounds ridiculous then maybe disintegrate cannot target attended objects.
It's not that it's ridiculous, just that it's mean to be exceptionally hard outside specific archetypes.. For example, an Archer Fighter's trick shot says:If disintegrate can target someone's armor then I am going to have my ranger start targetting weapons with adamantine arrows and shattering swords with them. If one ranged attack can target attended items then all ranged attacks can.
If this sounds ridiculous then maybe disintegrate cannot target attended objects.
Trick Shot (Ex)
At 3rd level, an archer can choose one of the following combat maneuvers or actions: disarm, feint, or *sunder*. He can perform this action with a bow against any target within 30 feet, with a –4 penalty to his CMB. Every four levels beyond 3rd, he may choose an additional trick shot to learn. These maneuvers use up arrows as normal.
At 11th level, he may also choose from the following combat maneuvers: bull rush, grapple, trip. A target grappled by an arrow can break free by destroying the archer’s arrow (hardness 5, hit points 1, break DC 13) or with an Escape Artist or CMB check (against the archer’s CMD –4).
This ability replaces Armor Training 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Why would this be an archetype specific ability if every joe fighter could do it? And this isn't some 3P one either, this is from the APG.
Fact of the matter is, you can't attack an attended object with a ranged attack unless something says otherwise.
First off I don't want to do it and never said I did...I don't like playing casters a lot if times
My point is I have always seen it played that way and am still confused by the part of (object) that mentions attended items...if there are no rules for targeting attended items then why would a spell have (object) for you to refer to that tells you that you can target them and if you do they use the creatures saving throws if better
As for the NPC bad guy doing it just because he doesn't have to worry about his own stuff is a meta game thing...if your GM bases your big battles with the BBEG as if he were not a real person in the game and literally meant to be there just for that battle then I'm sorry for you...maybe find a GM that has an imagination and plays the game beyond mechanics
As for the ranged attack thing I will have to look into...as again I was under the impression that since the spell says it can target objects and then under (objects) it mentioned attended objects that it worked that way
I was unable to speak with a PFS GM today...the store was closed due to the storms and tornados near me so I'll have to ask him some other time
For some reason that posted twice and will not let me delete one from my phone :(
I answered this in my previous post here.
In short, spells can affect attended items so the general rule for attended item saving throw is included, as a general rule, to cover those situations.
Disintegrate can affect objects so the word Object appears in its target line. But Disintegrate is limited to unattended objects only, as stated in the body of the spell text, so the general rule about saving throws for attended objects won't apply to this spell.
First off I don't want to do it and never said I did...I don't like playing casters a lot if times
My point is I have always seen it played that way and am still confused by the part of (object) that mentions attended items...if there are no rules for targeting attended items then why would a spell have (object) for you to refer to that tells you that you can target them and if you do they use the creatures saving throws if better
As for the NPC bad guy doing it just because he doesn't have to worry about his own stuff is a meta game thing...if your GM bases your big battles with the BBEG as if he were not a real person in the game and literally meant to be there just for that battle then I'm sorry for you...maybe find a GM that has an imagination and plays the game beyond mechanics
As for the ranged attack thing I will have to look into...as again I was under the impression that since the spell says it can target objects and then under (objects) it mentioned attended objects that it worked that way
I was unable to speak with a PFS GM today...the store was closed due to the storms and tornados near me so I'll have to ask him some other time
For a spell that uses the target aiming system they can just choose the target.
Disintegrate has no special rules for attacking attended objects with a ranged attack. If it did then the spell would have to describe how it worked, and it does not.
We know the game does not allow for it normally because there are no rules for it, and because you have to have a fighter archetype to do it.
So your PFS GM is going to have to provide rules quotes if he allows it in PFS.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It bothers me that many people here seem to think it is impossible to do something as iconic in Fantasy literature as shooting an arrow at the attended noose around a (falsely accused?) criminal's neck just as he is about to be hanged.
No one will ever convince me this is impossible (which, by the by, is different from convincing me that rules do or do not cover it). It seems clear to me that the intent of the designers is that such things be possible, even if it hasn't been adequately expressed within the rules (yet).
I don't play PFS...I ask the PFS GMs here since most people want straight RAW answers for PFS and a lot of people are under the assumption PFS GMs have to make senseless calls because of RAW which I recently found out was not the case at all
I'm not arguing so much as trying to understand...I'm not the only one that reads it the way I do...many of the people I have played with have read and played it that way
And can we just stop with this assumption that an enemy would waste a chance to kill you to instead destroy a piece of your armor or clothing that may or may not cripple your character. Beyond your GM meta gaming and having the NPC magically know that if he destroyed your headband/belt of +(whatever) would deny you spells or feats destroying your armor is about the only serious issue that would come up. I'm sorry but I have seen characters utterly destroyed during certain campaigns by a few lucky rolls and I've seen people lose powerful magic items from rolling 1's on saving throws. Bad stuff can happen during a game...most GMs will give a chance for redemption or even a special item if the encounter survived.
And can we just stop with this assumption that an enemy would waste a chance to kill you to instead destroy a piece of your armor or clothing that may or may not cripple your character. Beyond your GM meta gaming and having the NPC magically know that if he destroyed your headband/belt of +(whatever) would deny you spells or feats destroying your armor is about the only serious issue that would come up. I'm sorry but I have seen characters utterly destroyed during certain campaigns by a few lucky rolls and I've seen people lose powerful magic items from rolling 1's on saving throws. Bad stuff can happen during a game...most GMs will give a chance for redemption or even a special item if the encounter survived.
It has already been pointed out earlier that at high level play a character could fail a save and live while an object failing a save means it is simply gone. Is it meta-gaming for the evil wizard to destroy the hero's sword? Wouldn't the presumably highly intelligent wizard know fighters are much less effective without a weapon? Is the bad guy, bent on taking over the world, thinking: "I could sell that sword for a lot of money so better not destroy it!"?
It bothers me that many people here seem to think it is impossible to do something as iconic in Fantasy literature as shooting an arrow at the attended noose around a (falsely accused?) criminal's neck just as he is about to be hanged.
No one will ever convince me this is impossible (which, by the by, is different from convincing me that rules do or do not cover it). It seems clear to me that the intent of the designers is that such things be possible, even if it hasn't been adequately expressed within the rules (yet).
Fantasy literature is not a factor in what is possible in a game. I would also not consider the noose be an attended object, anymore than I would the chopping block someone is attached to.
It is not RAI, and I know you disagree. If you think it is an rules oversight that they forgot to make a special case for disintegrate in 3.5 and PF then FAQ it. As for now the rules don't make it possible.
I don't play PFS...I ask the PFS GMs here since most people want straight RAW answers for PFS and a lot of people are under the assumption PFS GMs have to make senseless calls because of RAW which I recently found out was not the case at all
I'm not arguing so much as trying to understand...I'm not the only one that reads it the way I do...many of the people I have played with have read and played it that way
And can we just stop with this assumption that an enemy would waste a chance to kill you to instead destroy a piece of your armor or clothing that may or may not cripple your character. Beyond your GM meta gaming and having the NPC magically know that if he destroyed your headband/belt of +(whatever) would deny you spells or feats destroying your armor is about the only serious issue that would come up. I'm sorry but I have seen characters utterly destroyed during certain campaigns by a few lucky rolls and I've seen people lose powerful magic items from rolling 1's on saving throws. Bad stuff can happen during a game...most GMs will give a chance for redemption or even a special item if the encounter survived.
Nobody thinks PFS GM's have to always make senseless calls. They just have less room to maneuver than a home GM does. I understand you are not the only one that reads it like you do, but the rules provide no way to do it, and if a PFS GM is going to say it can be done he would have to find a quote showing how.
The point being made is that it is often better for the enemy and more crippling for you to have your equipment destroyed. In a game where magic items are common that is not metagaming. It makes tactical sense to do so, but since most of us want our players to succeed we don't go around sundering equipment.
It bothers me that many people here seem to think it is impossible to do something as iconic in Fantasy literature as shooting an arrow at the attended noose around a (falsely accused?) criminal's neck just as he is about to be hanged.
No one will ever convince me this is impossible (which, by the by, is different from convincing me that rules do or do not cover it). It seems clear to me that the intent of the designers is that such things be possible, even if it hasn't been adequately expressed within the rules (yet).
Most fantasy I've seen they shoot the rope somewhere between the gallows and the knot, not the noose itself.
I'm glad you agree that the case is not adequately covered in the rules.
I too would like to have rules for ranged attacks against attended objects to be better spelled out. Not only to allow this, but also for things like ranged sunder/disarm for anyone instead of making it an archetype's niche.
It bothers me that many people here seem to think it is impossible to do something as iconic in Fantasy literature as shooting an arrow at the attended noose around a (falsely accused?) criminal's neck just as he is about to be hanged.
No one will ever convince me this is impossible (which, by the by, is different from convincing me that rules do or do not cover it). It seems clear to me that the intent of the designers is that such things be possible, even if it hasn't been adequately expressed within the rules (yet).
Most fantasy I've seen they shoot the rope somewhere between the gallows and the knot, not the noose itself.
I'm glad you agree that the case is not adequately covered in the rules.
I too would like to have rules for ranged attacks against attended objects to be better spelled out. Not only to allow this, but also for things like ranged sunder/disarm for anyone instead of making it an archetype's niche.
I guess they could open it up to everyone. I think it should be open to everyone anyway. They can always just give the fighter archtype something new or say it does full damage instead of half when using ranged sunder.
I doubt they will do it though..
Anyone else notice this vital part of the (object) descriptor? Doesn't this tell you anything? Hmmm? Think about it :)
(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.
Great. That works for Grease and other spells with Target: Object
Now because disintegrate is a ranged attack ray spell, please show me how you can target a characters armor with a ranged (touch) attack. RAW quotes only.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My take is that the rules do not normally allow for a caster to target the armor or any other attended item. It just doesn't. Even if you don't like it, that is fine, but it does not change the rules.
However, if you decided to allow the variant rules for a Called Shot from Ultimate Combat, then I can see how that could be allowed. There are some issues with this as well.
First, any ranged touch attack with a Called Shot becomes a normal ranged attack. So the character's AC (Yes the WHOLE AC) would have to be hit and not just the character's touch AC.
Second, there would be a -2 penalty associated with it as I would assume to hit the armor you are attacking the chest.
Third, all of the various additional rules would apply as well so that the shot could not be magically enhanced to hit, etc.
So my conclusion on this discussion is that a called shot on armor or any other attended item with Disintegration is not normally allowed unless the variant rules for Called Shots are used and then you would have to look at the specifics of the situation.
|
|
My point is I have always seen it played that way and am still confused by the part of (object) that mentions attended items...if there are no rules for targeting attended items then why would a spell have (object) for you to refer to that tells you that you can target them and if you do they use the creatures saving throws if better
As for the ranged attack thing I will have to look into...as again I was under the impression that since the spell says it can target objects and then under (objects) it mentioned attended objects that it worked that way
The reason it says "Saving Throw Fortitude partial (object)" is because it can affect objects. The spell can absolutely affect objects. And as it can affect objects, that appears under saving throws, and that is the general rule for all spells that can target any kind of object. No one is arguing that it can't affect objects, just what objects it can affect.
The other part of the spell, that is just as important as that mention of (object), is "Effect ray". Which, when we go to the Magic section of the CRB, says
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, Disintegrate, being a ray, is a ranged touch attack. Why is this important? Because attacking an item held or worn by another being in Pathfinder, an attended object, as it were, with the intent of breaking it, without harming the holder, is a Sunder maneuver.
You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack. If you do not have the Improved Sunder feat, or a similar ability, attempting to sunder an item provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.
If your attack is successful, you deal damage to the item normally. Damage that exceeds the object's Hardness is subtracted from its hit points. If an object has equal to or less than half its total hit points remaining, it gains the broken condition (see Conditions). If the damage you deal would reduce the object to less than 0 hit points, you can choose to destroy it. If you do not choose to destroy it, the object is left with only 1 hit point and the broken condition.
Note how it says melee attack up there? That's because, outside of a few specific cases, such as the Fighter Archer Archetype mentioned elsewhere in this thread, you can't Sunder with a ranged attack. It's not possible, can't be done, is not supported by the rules in any way. If it could, the Fighter Archer's Trick Shot wouldn't be a thing, because everyone could do it anyways.
In short, attacking an attended item, such as one worn or held, is a Sunder maneuver. You can't Sunder with a ranged attack. A ray is a ranged attack. Disintegrate is a ray. You can't attack an attended item with Disintegrate.
And before you say "But then why is (object) there" again, because, as I said at the start, it can, in fact, affect objects. Unattended ones, and attended ones in the specific instance of a natural one being rolled on the save. In that case, the wielder would then be unaffected by the spell, as it can only affect one target. That's the specific objects it can affect. The (object) rule is the general rule for all spells that can affect objects. As it is for all spells that can target objects, it is very general in its language. It does not magically change Disintegrate so that it is no longer a ray, or changes the rules for rays, or the rules for Sunder maneuvers. It has absolutely no affect whatsoever on who/what the spell can target. That is decided entirely by the Target or Effect parts of a spell, in this case "Effect ray".
Sorry if I'm repeating myself/others (Darth Grall, Robert A Matthews, wraithstrike, DM Blake, Tarantula), but I don't think it can be any clearer.
It bothers me that many people here seem to think it is impossible to do something as iconic in Fantasy literature as shooting an arrow at the attended noose around a (falsely accused?) criminal's neck just as he is about to be hanged.
No one will ever convince me this is impossible (which, by the by, is different from convincing me that rules do or do not cover it). It seems clear to me that the intent of the designers is that such things be possible, even if it hasn't been adequately expressed within the rules (yet).
Although Pathfinder tries to emulate a lot of iconic fantasy tropes, it's a game, limited by dice and numbers and rules and balance. It can't do everything that can be done in literature. The iconic moment I can think of is the arrow splitting the rope as the lever is pulled/chair is kicked from under the victim of the hanging, literally saving them at the last possible moment. Even if it was possible in the rules, rolling a natural one, missing and having the poor sod's neck break because you were trying to be dramatic is also possible. Because dice based system here.
I can't speak for every GM in the world, nor can I find the definition of an attended object. However, I would rule that, while the noose itself is attended, the rope connecting the noose to the gallows isn't, and absolutely could be shot. Just shoot more than one arrow, in case of 1's.
I do agree with you, in that it should not be impossible. Merely that, currently, within the rules of Pathfinder, it is not possible in Pathfinder. I do not think this is likely to be changed though, for balance reasons. Where Disintegrate can be used to target attended objects, a Sunder martial is pointless, not to mentioned make the already instituted Archer Fighter Archetype irrelevant.
As for the NPC bad guy doing it just because he doesn't have to worry about his own stuff is a meta game thing...if your GM bases your big battles with the BBEG as if he were not a real person in the game and literally meant to be there just for that battle then I'm sorry for you...maybe find a GM that has an imagination and plays the game beyond mechanics
The NPC bad guy doesn't do it "just because he doesn't have to worry about his own stuff". That's a meta gaming reason to do it, sure and true. He does it because your expensive magic gear, which he picks up with Detect Magic, is empowering you, and he reckons his chances of survival are better if you don't have it any more. Why does he target it and not you? Because if you're a martial, you'll survive it and most likely be healed before he gets off a second. At the same level as Wizard's get Disintegrate, Cleric's get Heal, 110 HP restored in an instant. I don't know about the Clerics you know, but my level 11 Cleric would have survived a Disintegrate, even with slightly above average damage. Not with max damage mind, but I try not to think about a max damage Disintegrate. *shudders*
Let's take an example, shall we? High level Caster meets high level Fighter. High level Fighter has high level fortitude saves, and is most likely going to make his save just fine. His will save isn't as high, but high enough that it's no sure thing. High level Caster targets the Fighter's Headband (of Wisdom), should he have one. Even on the successful save, the headband is gone. It's a headband, it doesn't have much HP. Maybe he targeted his Cloak (of Resistance), or Belt (of Physical Perfection)? Are these uncommon, unheard of items, that it would be meta gaming for a Caster to know exists? Suddenly the Fighter's saves aren't looking too hot, and he's an easy target for other spells. This strategy makes no sense to you? You can't see the advantage for the Caster of taking away the items that shore up the Fighter's weaknesses? Like, for example, destroying anything that could be giving him a will save bonus, then Dominating him into killing all his friends for you? Even if not for the bad guy in question, maybe he's the Lieutenant of the BBEG, and he's doing it for his boss. Maybe he's a mad ex-monk with a vow of poverty, who thinks everyone else should be taking a vow of poverty too, and is putting it in force himself.
My GM does play his BBEG's as real people. If they're Casters, they're high Intelligence. And Disintegrate, Quickened Teleport would be a brutal strategy for an Intelligent Caster to use. You wake up in the morning and prepare to set off from camp. A green ray emerges from the trees and the Fighter's sword of winning vanishes from his hands. Before you can even react, the perpetrator is gone. You move on, furious and determined to track down your assailant. You come upon a small settlement being set upon by Ogres, and move them help them. Halfway through the battle, a green ray appears, and the party Wizard's Robes of the Archmagi are gone. Even if he passed the save, robes don't have much hit points. In fairness, any BBEG caster played as intelligently as their stats would suggest would do away with any adventuring party with ease. But we're getting into Schrodinger's Wizard there, so let's not.
I disagree with everyone claiming disintegrate isn't a target spell just because it doesn't have a target line. I believe that all ray spells, and indeed any spell that requires an attack roll, is inherently a target spell (since you have to choose a target with which to make an attack against). Remember, this isn't a computer game, and GMs aren't robots. The designers assumed that gaming groups would have some basic critical thinking skills. They likely figured it wasn't necessary to put a target line in spells like disintegrate, because the fact that you need to target someone with it (thus making it a target spell) is pretty freaking obvious.
Sure you can interpret it the other way perfectly fine within the RAW, but it seems like more of a reach to me.
I disagree with everyone claiming disintegrate isn't a target spell just because it doesn't have a target line. I believe that all ray spells, and indeed any spell that requires an attack roll, is inherently a target spell (since you have to choose a target with which to make an attack against).
Well Disintegrate is not a "Targeted" spell it is an "Effect: Ray" spell. Don't confuse the difference between a spell with a target, such as Charm Person or Baleful Polymorph, and a spell that has an effect that can hit a target (I know another example of where a Thesaurus would have been great!). In fact if it were a targeted spell then this conversation would be moot because it would usually say something like "Target: One Creature."
Either way, I am not sure how that changes what has been said. It still cannot target (or aim at or choose as the recipient of, etc.) an attended item like armor. Like in the post that was linked to above, it would not be within the spell description or normal play to be able to target the flying carpet as it is an attended item.
Ok; so the Disintegrate spell creates a Ray that affects the first creature or object it strikes. It will typically hit the breastplate before the thing wearing it so the breastplate is the first thing it strikes because that's what I'm "aiming" the ray at. I'm not targeting the ray, but I'm pointing it towards a particular thing I'm intending to hit. Think about it; it hits the first thing along the path, but you still need to make a roll to see if you hit. If there are two valid "affectees" in the same spot (ie. a person and a breastplate), how do you determine which one was hit? Or are people trying to imply that a "worn" breastplate will be disregarded by the spell and the "energy" will channel either through or around the armor to affect the creature wearing it while a breastplate lying on the ground will be instantly affected by the spell, even if a person were, say, sitting behind it? Even without a declared "target", you still have to aim the spell and you still have to make a roll against the target's AC. How do you know what target to check AC against if there's no target "at all"?
We are just saying that the spell requires a ranged touch attack and the spell description gives damage to the "target" of the spell and it also says "a disintegrated creature's equipment is unaffected."
Again, the rules do not have any real clauses for stuff like, does the armor get hit or the person wearing the armor?
It is a game mechanic of the spell. It is not that hard. Just point, shoot, and roll damage. Anything else is a DM's house rule.
|
|
I disagree with everyone claiming disintegrate isn't a target spell just because it doesn't have a target line. I believe that all ray spells, and indeed any spell that requires an attack roll, is inherently a target spell (since you have to choose a target with which to make an attack against). Remember, this isn't a computer game, and GMs aren't robots. The designers assumed that gaming groups would have some basic critical thinking skills. They likely figured it wasn't necessary to put a target line in spells like disintegrate, because the fact that you need to target someone with it (thus making it a target spell) is pretty freaking obvious.
Sure you can interpret it the other way perfectly fine within the RAW, but it seems like more of a reach to me.
Okay, now I get what you're saying. I misunderstood your problem with this, and I apologise for mistaking your argument.
Please see - Magic - Aiming a Spell as per the Core Rulebook, specifically ;
You must make choices about whom a spell is to affect or where an effect is to originate, depending on a spell's type. The next entry in a spell description defines the spell's target (or targets), its effect, or its area, as appropriate.
Target or Targets: Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell.
... (text I felt unnecessary for this discussion removed, see above link for rest of text should you disagree with me)
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.
Target spells and Effect spells are two different types of spells, as made abundantly clear in the text of the CRB above. Of course a spell with an Effect line doesn't have a Target line. If it did, it wouldn't be an Effect spell, it would be a Target spell. As Disintegrate has an Effect line, and not a Target line, it is not a Target spell, it is an Effect spell. The developers would not have made this specific distinction in the CRB if this distinction was not intentional. If what you are suggesting is correct, Ray would be under the Target section, and not under the Effect section. It is not.
To reiterate, it is not an Effect spell because it lacks a Target line. It is an Effect spell because it has an Effect line. If it was "pretty freaking obvious" that all Rays were Target spells, then why is Ray under the Effect section, and not the Target section?
As an exercise for the purposes of furthering this discussion, are there any spells with both a Target and an Effect line? Also, are there any Target spells that require a ranged attack roll? I would be surprised if there were, as these would run contrary to my understanding of the rules above, namely that Rays require a ranged touch attack, being part of that which makes them Effect spells, as opposed to Target spells, which merely occur at the desired Target without rolling. As such, their existence would certainly make me more likely to accept your argument as plausible. However, I currently do not see any evidence to suggest the above reading is incorrect.
Ok; so the Disintegrate spell creates a Ray that affects the first creature or object it strikes. It will typically hit the breastplate before the thing wearing it so the breastplate is the first thing it strikes because that's what I'm "aiming" the ray at. I'm not targeting the ray, but I'm pointing it towards a particular thing I'm intending to hit. Think about it; it hits the first thing along the path, but you still need to make a roll to see if you hit. If there are two valid "affectees" in the same spot (ie. a person and a breastplate), how do you determine which one was hit? Or are people trying to imply that a "worn" breastplate will be disregarded by the spell and the "energy" will channel either through or around the armor to affect the creature wearing it while a breastplate lying on the ground will be instantly affected by the spell, even if a person were, say, sitting behind it? Even without a declared "target", you still have to aim the spell and you still have to make a roll against the target's AC. How do you know what target to check AC against if there's no target "at all"?
You're right in a conceptual visualisation of the above. Think about it, the iconic Wizard facing off against the mighty Fighter. The green ray of death, Disintegrate, explodes from the Wizard's fingers, striking the Fighter's plate mail, reducing it to dust. Then the Fighter beats the Wizard up and down the room, because he and his weapon were unaffected.
Oh, wait, that doesn't happen. Not that I've ever heard of anyhow. When the ray strikes the Fighter's armour, the Fighter is the one turned to dust, his equipment striking the ground with a thud, lightly dusted with the Fighter's remains.
The same is the case in Pathfinder. "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." If you needed to target the Fighter, and not his armour, then you'd need to hit his normal AC, not his touch AC. But you don't, per the rules as written. "You must make a successful ranged touch attack to hit." It does magically channel through your armour, killing you, but leaving the armour unaffected. Does this make sense given the rest of the spell's effects/description? No. But it's how it works, RAW, and I'd bet money on RAI too. If that's not sufficient? A Wizard did it. It's bloody magic!
If we wanted to house-rule it to make more sense, then when Disintegrate hits you between your touch and full AC, it would affect your armour but not you, seeing as the difference between hitting you and hitting your armour is your armour's AC bonus. Though even then, we'd need a roll to determine where it hit your armour, and whether any other equipment was damaged. I mean, you have a dozen magic item slots, any one of them could have also taken the hit. Not to mention, the amount of Fighter's going around with sheets of paper hanging off their armour to absorb Disintegrates would be ridiculous.