|
| 10 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Simple version of question for the devs: Does Acid Fog damage attended items? Will a few rounds in one melt all the party's potions, pit their blades and unravel their cloaks?
|
|
Ambiguity:
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.
The question is whether Acid Fog "specified otherwise" - because the spell description does specifically call out objects and creatures as being damaged. In addition, the spell has no saving throw, so the above entry (under "Saving Throws") may not even apply.
Alternatively, all items may be affected, but only in the order specified by "Table: Items Affected by Magical Attacks." Under this reading, the fog would have to eat through a shield first, then armor, then headband etc. with potions and the like being last in line.
It seems that the spell does in fact specify otherwise. I can't think of any other spell off the top of my head that specifies attended objects are damaged (shoot, even disintegrate goes to the point of not destroying equipment in the spell description), so I don't know what the standard syntax for that would be.
But "the fog deals 2d6 points of acid damage to each creature and object within it" seems clear.
That being said, I don't know if this is the intention of the spell designer.
|
|
It seems that the spell does in fact specify otherwise. I can't think of any other spell off the top of my head that specifies attended objects are damaged (shoot, even disintegrate goes to the point of not destroying equipment in the spell description), so I don't know what the standard syntax for that would be.
But "the fog deals 2d6 points of acid damage to each creature and object within it" seems clear.
That being said, I don't know if this is the intention of the spell designer.
Agreed - I'm hoping a FAQ response will clear this up.
I had always played that until you roll a natural 1 attended items are not affected, but you bring up a good point from the wording. +1 FAQ
Firstly, the designers frown upon "FAQ request" threads, as it suggests that the original poster of the thread considers their question to be more important than other threads that have been FAQ flagged.
Secondly, one of the unwritten rules (cue BBT coming in to kick off about them) is that effects that destroy treasure unintentionally should not exist (I'm pretty sure Sean K Reynolds has waxed lyrical on the subject a time or two), so the chances are it's a case of poor wording and the damage should only apply to unattended objects.
Still, considering the ambiguity, I'm happy to FAQ it, as it is not clear how the spell interacts with attended objects (bear in mind that a character's clothes wouldn't survive it at all, and lots of naked characters is probably not the intent).
|
|
Firstly, the designers frown upon "FAQ request" threads, as it suggests that the original poster of the thread considers their question to be more important than other threads that have been FAQ flagged.
Secondly, one of the unwritten rules (cue BBT coming in to kick off about them) is that effects that destroy treasure unintentionally should not exist (I'm pretty sure Sean K Reynolds has waxed lyrical on the subject a time or two), so the chances are it's a case of poor wording and the damage should only apply to unattended objects.
Still, considering the ambiguity, I'm happy to FAQ it, as it is not clear how the spell interacts with attended objects (bear in mind that a character's clothes wouldn't survive it at all, and lots of naked characters is probably not the intent).
Thanks for the FAQ hit. I edited the "FAQ Requested" out of the title.
I fully agree that treasure/gear-destroying effects, especially potentially automatic ones, are not fair. That's why I'd like this addressed; it seems the text was copied from 3.5 without considering the full ramifications. Totally understandable given all the moving parts in this game, which is of course why the FAQ system exists, so we can highlight potential problems like this. (Doubly so for a spell which can feasibly make it into PFS play.)
|
|
I do not believe for one instant that the intent of the wording was to create a complicated effect to damage all the exposed gear on creatures within the area of effect.
I believe this brief language exists only to indicate that unattended objects are also affected.
Creatures and objects are affected. It does not state specifically that all exposed objects worn or carried are affected. Not to mention that a spell that actually did this with acid damage should be at least an 8th level spell.
Ambiguity:
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.The question is whether Acid Fog "specified otherwise" - because the spell description does specifically call out objects and creatures as being damaged. In addition, the spell has no saving throw, so the above entry (under "Saving Throws") may not even apply.
Alternatively, all items may be affected, but only in the order specified by "Table: Items Affected by Magical Attacks." Under this reading, the fog would have to eat through a shield first, then armor, then headband etc. with potions and the like being last in line.
That isn't the complete passage.
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).
The latter sentence is a special case modifying the former sentence. Acid fog damages attended objects, but only if the bearer rolls a natural 1 on her saving throw.
That said, since there is no saving throw, attended objects should not be affected.
It would be impossible to damage any metal item (hardness >8), or any +1 wood item (hardness 7), with this spell, since the 2d6 gets halved before applying hardness.
Even if you rolled two 6s, a regular wood item would only take a max of 2 damage.
You are going to get a lot of table variation on that:
Some energy types might be particularly effective against certain objects, subject to GM discretion.
|
|
That isn't the complete passage.
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).The latter sentence is a special case modifying the former sentence. Acid fog damages attended objects, but only if the bearer rolls a natural 1 on her saving throw.
1) The spell DOES specify otherwise, because it specifically states that it damages all objects (and furthermore does not distinguish between "attended" and "unattended." It simply says everything. That's the problem with invoking the additional portion you're quoting.
2) Your line is also from under the "Saving Throws" header, and this spell doesn't have one.
Basically I'd like clarification whether or not it is intended to damage attended objects. I think in the general sense that it should not, both due to the unfairness of it to an unprepared party and the amount of bookkeeping it would entail... but there is a third option, i.e. that it damage objects strictly in the order given on the table I linked, which would keep potions and other fragile items out of harm's way. I'd be fine with either of these rulings, personally.
I agree on both counts: Clarification would be a good thing, and either ruling would be fine.