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.
No it doesn't since you still have not told us anything about rules on targeting an attended object with a ranged attack.
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.
RD "Target" is a method of aiming in Pathfinder. We are not saying the spell can't have a target(dictionary definition). A ray is under the "Effect" method of aiming, which is different from the target method.
Now for some rules.
Aiming a Spell
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.
You see how targets, effect, and area are all separated by commas, and they have their own subsections in the magic section. That means they are not the same thing.
As further proof:
Spells and spell-like effects targeted on you are turned back upon the original caster. The abjuration turns only spells that have you as a target. Effect and area spells are not affected.
Note that spells with the target aiming method are affected, but effect and area spells are not, even they the latter two have targets(dictionary version).
That also shows that target(game term) is specific and does not cross boundaries.
|
If I were a judge, I would rule in Kazaan's favor.
Valid arguments bolded.
Disintegrate
Saving Throw Fortitude partial <b>(object)</b>;
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.
<b>When used against an object</b>, the ray simply disintegrates as much as a 10-foot cube of nonliving matter. Thus, the spell disintegrates only part of any very large object or structure targeted. The ray affects even objects constructed entirely of force, such as forceful hand or a wall of force, but not magical effects such as a globe of invulnerability or an antimagic field...
(object)
The spell can be cast <b>on objects</b>, which receive saving throws only if they are magical <b>or</b> if they are <b>attended</b> (held, worn, grasped, or the like) by a creature resisting the spell, in which case the <b>object uses the creature's saving throw bonus</b> 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.
This should be the end of discussion. People who aren't seeing this are are using convoluted logic trying to argue that this spell cannot target an attended object.
