Smash from the air and disintegrate


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 54 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Hey, quick question:

Smash from the air lets you 'deflect ranged attacks generated by spell effects'.

Feat text:

Smash from the Air wrote:
Benefit: You can use Cut from the Air against unusually massive ranged weapons (such as boulders or ballista bolts) and ranged attacks generated by spell effects. Spell effects that do not require attack rolls cannot be deflected.
Cut from the Air wrote:
Benefit: When a ranged attack is made against you or a target adjacent to you, you can cut the weapon (or ammunition) out of the air, deflecting the attack so the target takes no damage. As an attack of opportunity, make a melee attack roll at your highest bonus. If the result is greater than the attack roll total of the ranged attack, the attack is deflected. You must be aware of the attack and not flat-footed. Unusually massive ranged weapons (such as boulders or ballista bolts) and ranged attacks generated by spell effects cannot be deflected.

Now one of my friends asks about the interaction of said feat and disintegrate:

Disintegrate wrote:

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.

When used against an object, 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.

A creature or object that makes a successful Fortitude save is partially affected, taking only 5d6 points of damage. If this damage reduces the creature or object to 0 or fewer hit points, it is entirely disintegrated.

Only the first creature or object struck can be affected; that is, the ray affects only one target per casting.

His angle is: disintegrate destroys the first object or the first creature is strikes. With Smash from the Air, that would be the weapon (natural or manufactured) used with the feat.

I can see his point, however, the feat doesn't mention anything about the spell effect being applied to any new target/object, just that it can be deflected.

My argument is that the feat, being published after the spell, should be correct, even if it doesn't take into account the specific conditions of disintegrate, should work as intended and deflect the ray, as it does to all other ranged attack spell effects that require an attack roll.

So now we either have a spell that breaks the mold of the feat, or we have a feat that breaks a spell.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The feat doesn't break the spell. The feat lets you deflects spells that require that attack rolls. Disintegrate requires an attack roll. Smash from the Air works on it. Disintegrate also wouldn't instantly destroy your weapon if the spell hit it outside of trying to deflect, since it gets a Fortitude save even if you failed your deflection roll. The caster would also have to intentionally be aiming at the weapon too, since if they aimed at you and you failed your deflection roll you would still be the target.

The "disintegration should take effect before you use Smash from the Air, completely negating the purpose of the feat" is the same sort of flawed reasoning as "the penalties from the Evil Eye Hex apply to the save to not be affected by the Evil Eye Hex".


I'd say that the feat should trump the spell; the feat allows them to do something that interacts with and deflects spell energies, and I see no reason that this would trigger the spell's effect at all. Perhaps the force of will extends beyond the weapon in question so it never actually touches. Maybe they do touch but the effect forces the spell to stay dormant.

Game mechanics-wise, a deflected attack just ceases to exist. (Maybe leaving a recoverable piece of ammunition behind) It might be fun to make the spell effect thus deflected take effect where the person who deflected it chooses, within a range allowed by the GM. Perhaps in a cone starting pointing toward the caster. (Including into the air or ground).


The feat doesn't say anything about the weapon being affected by the spell. Think of it as a kind of deflection, and the disintegrate bounces at a harmless angle. For flavor you can say that it scorches the ground, perhaps, but mechanically it will completely take out the spell.

I would say that if you argue against disintegrate being deflected, you would be hard pressed to also allow other rays to be deflected normally.


Rysky wrote:
..."disintegration should take effect before you use Smash from the Air, completely negating the purpose of the feat" ...

This wasn't being said at all.

The line of thinking was: With Smash from the Air, you'd put a weapon in the path of the spell (if you make the attack roll against the ranged attack of the spell). Now disintegrate says it works on the first object/creature it strikes, which now is said weapon (instead of, for example, your buddy whose being adjacent to you).
The feat would still do what it was intended to do: make the spell not strike the intended target.
The question put forth was: does the special rule of disintegrate (affect first object/creature struck) trump the general rule of this feat?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Franz Lunzer wrote:
Rysky wrote:
..."disintegration should take effect before you use Smash from the Air, completely negating the purpose of the feat" ...

This wasn't being said at all.

The line of thinking was: With Smash from the Air, you'd put a weapon in the path of the spell (if you make the attack roll against the ranged attack of the spell). Now disintegrate says it works on the first object/creature it strikes, which now is said weapon (instead of, for example, your buddy whose being adjacent to you).
The feat would still do what it was intended to do: make the spell not strike the intended target.
The question put forth was: does the special rule of disintegrate (affect first object/creature struck) trump the general rule of this feat?

Correct, disintegrate "affects" the first thing it hits. Key word being "affects". If you use SFtA that spell effect is canceled, it's not affecting anything.

Smash From the Air still works on it, and you don't lose your weapon in doing so.


The "affect first object/creature struck" verbiage from Disintegrate does strongly imply the spell is capable of affecting creatures/objects other than the intended target if they come into contact with the ray generated by the spell.

Smash from the Air/Cut from the Air contains no verbiage that prevents the weapon from taking damage. Only damage to the original target is prevented.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Snowlilly wrote:

The "affect first object/creature struck" verbiage from Disintegrate does strongly imply the spell is capable of affecting creatures/objects other than the intended target if they come into contact with the ray generated by the spell.

Smash from the Air/Cut from the Air contains no verbiage that prevents the weapon from taking damage. Only damage to the original target is prevented.

But the spell isn't damaging the weapon, it's being deflected. If it's being deflected then the spell isn't going off. The spell is going elsewhere.

Silver Crusade

By that line of thinking SFtA also wouldn't work against fireball either.

Fireball wrote:
A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point.

When you use Smash your weapon doesn't block or absorb the attack, it deflects it. If the spell goes off then that's not deflecting it.


Rysky wrote:
"affects" the first thing it hits. Key word being "affects". If you use SFtA that spell effect is canceled, it's not affecting anything.
Cut from the Air wrote:
When a ranged attack is made against you or a target adjacent to you, you can cut the weapon (or ammunition) out of the air, deflecting the attack so the target takes no damage.
Smash from the Air wrote:
You can use Cut from the Air against unusually massive ranged weapons (such as boulders or ballista bolts) and ranged attacks generated by spell effects.

I see nothing that says spells are canceled or countered.

What Cut from the Air say is "Deflected" and "target takes no damage."

Unlike most spells (general), Disintegrate (specific) has a rider stating the spell affects the first creature or object it comes into contact with. In the case of Smash from the Air, this is the deflecting weapon, not the originally intended target. In the general case, this has no negative repercussions for the weapon. In the specific case of Disintegrate, the weapon is not protected from the spell.

Silver Crusade

If it's deflected then it's pretty much countered. If the effect goes off then it obviously hasn't been deflected.

And disintegrate isn't "unlike" most spells, since fireball also has similar wording.


Rysky wrote:
By that line of thinking SFtA also wouldn't work against fireball either.
Fireball wrote:
A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point.
When you use Smash your weapon doesn't block or absorb the attack, it deflects it. If the spell goes off then that's not deflecting it.

SftA doesn't work on Fireball regardless, as that has no attack roll. (Unless fired through a small hole IIRC)


Rysky wrote:
By that line of thinking SFtA also wouldn't work against fireball either.
Fireball wrote:
A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point.
When you use Smash your weapon doesn't block or absorb the attack, it deflects it. If the spell goes off then that's not deflecting it.

Fireball does not require an attack roll.

SFtA was never able to intercept the spell.

Dark Archive

Smash from the air DOESN'T affect fireball. Smash from the air only works on spell effects that require an attack roll. Fireball does not.

Silver Crusade

Ah, my bad. Don't know why I thought I did.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fireball wrote:
If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must “hit” the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely.

That's why

Silver Crusade

Ah, Thankies!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

While I know its not the exact same the text from Crane Wing implies that "deflecting" something treats it as a miss.

EDIT: PDT agrees with that as well.

Pathfinder Design Team wrote:

FAQ updated: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qnz

New text added:
Update 5/29/13: If the attack is deflected, not only does the target take no damage, but any other effects (ability drain, negative levels, harmful conditions, and so on) associated with that attack do not occur. If the deflected attack is a touch spell or other effect that requires "holding the charge," the charge is not expended. For example, if a ghoul's claw attack is deflected, the target is not subject to the ghoul's paralysis ability from the attack. If a shocking grasp touch attack is deflected, the attacker is still "holding the charge." The Crane Wing feat will be updated in a future printing of Ultimate Combat to clarify these issues.

Silver Crusade

Thankies, I knew there was a FAQ about deflecting somewhere.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Thankies, I knew there was a FAQ about deflecting somewhere.

Not a problem!


Talonhawke wrote:

While I know its not the exact same the text from Crane Wing implies that "deflecting" something treats it as a miss.

EDIT: PDT agrees with that as well.

Pathfinder Design Team wrote:

FAQ updated: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qnz

New text added:
Update 5/29/13: If the attack is deflected, not only does the target take no damage, but any other effects (ability drain, negative levels, harmful conditions, and so on) associated with that attack do not occur. If the deflected attack is a touch spell or other effect that requires "holding the charge," the charge is not expended. For example, if a ghoul's claw attack is deflected, the target is not subject to the ghoul's paralysis ability from the attack. If a shocking grasp touch attack is deflected, the attacker is still "holding the charge." The Crane Wing feat will be updated in a future printing of Ultimate Combat to clarify these issues.

We are all agreeing the target takes no damage and is not affected by secondary affects.

In the case of Crane Wing, it is the target that is deflecting the attack; most likely with his bare hands.

The provided FAQ only states that the target of the attack is not affected by other effects beyond damage. SFtA is different. It is not the target that is deflecting the Disintegrate, but a specific piece of equipment that may or may not be in the possession of the original target.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Any other effects means what it said, if this was being done barehanded , we wouldn't be arguing that it "still hit your hands so roll a fort save" now would we?

And in fact since unarmed strikes can qualify the target could be deflecting the ray.


Talonhawke wrote:
Any other effects means what it said, if this was being done barehanded , we wouldn't be arguing that it "still hit your hands so roll a fort save" now would we?

Other effects are not applied to the target. The deflecting weapon used with SFtA was never the target.

To place in context: the FAQ implies if SFtA is used to deflect an Ray of Enfeeblement, the target takes no Strength penalty. An outcome that was never in question.


Snowlilly wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
Any other effects means what it said, if this was being done barehanded , we wouldn't be arguing that it "still hit your hands so roll a fort save" now would we?

Other effects are not applied to the target.

The deflecting weapon used with SFtA was never the target.

What about when using an unarmed strike?


Talonhawke wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
Any other effects means what it said, if this was being done barehanded , we wouldn't be arguing that it "still hit your hands so roll a fort save" now would we?

Other effects are not applied to the target.

The deflecting weapon used with SFtA was never the target.

What about when using an unarmed strike?

The target takes no damage.

If the person using unarmed strike was the target, they take no damage. If they were not the original target, they take damage as normal.


Since if I deflect with my hands nothing happens how do we determine what the first object struck with the now deflected ray is to determine what needs to save?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And here is the text for another feat, which has text indicating that the item used for it actually does take the spell.

Ray Shield (Combat)
You can even deflect rays with your shield.

Prerequisites: Dex 15, Missile Shield, Spellbreaker.

Benefit: You must be using a light, heavy, or tower shield to use this feat. Once per round when you would normally be hit with a ranged touch attack (including rays and similar magical effects), you may deflect it so that you take no damage from it. your shield suffers the full effects of the spell or effect, if applicable.


Talonhawke wrote:
Since if I deflect with my hands nothing happens how do we determine what the first object struck with the now deflected ray is to determine what needs to save?

The ability specifies the target takes no damage.

In the specific case of unarmed strike used by the target, no damage is taken because that is what the feat says. specific > general

It does not extend this same verbiage to cover anything beyond the target.

Talonhawke wrote:

And here is the text for another feat, which has text indicating that the item used for it actually does take the spell.

Ray Shield (Combat)
You can even deflect rays with your shield.

Prerequisites: Dex 15, Missile Shield, Spellbreaker.

Benefit: You must be using a light, heavy, or tower shield to use this feat. Once per round when you would normally be hit with a ranged touch attack (including rays and similar magical effects), you may deflect it so that you take no damage from it. your shield suffers the full effects of the spell or effect, if applicable.

With Ray Shield, your shield takes damage from all damage dealing spells deflected (general) and not just Disintegrate with its specific verbiage.

If you were to use SFtA with the same shield, deflected spells would, in general, deal no damage to the shield. The specific case of Disintegrate would, because the spell explicitly deals damage to the first object it contacts.


Don't get too caught up in the exact wording, because the wording is flavor text. If you smashed from the air the ray from scorching ray, you would still expect the sword to be affected (though not much) by that fire damage. But that's not what happens.

Smash From the Air works against disintegrate and will not cause damage to the weapon.


Snowlilly wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
Since if I deflect with my hands nothing happens how do we determine what the first object struck with the now deflected ray is to determine what needs to save?

The ability specifies the target takes no damage.

In the specific case of unarmed strike used by the target, no damage is taken because that is what the feat says. specific > general

It does not extend this same verbiage to cover anything beyond the target.

Talonhawke wrote:

And here is the text for another feat, which has text indicating that the item used for it actually does take the spell.

Ray Shield (Combat)
You can even deflect rays with your shield.

Prerequisites: Dex 15, Missile Shield, Spellbreaker.

Benefit: You must be using a light, heavy, or tower shield to use this feat. Once per round when you would normally be hit with a ranged touch attack (including rays and similar magical effects), you may deflect it so that you take no damage from it. your shield suffers the full effects of the spell or effect, if applicable.

With Ray Shield, your shield takes damage from all damage dealing spells deflected (general) and not just Disintegrate with its specific verbiage.

If you were to use SFtA with the same shield, deflected spells would, in general, deal no damage to the shield. The specific case of Disintegrate would, because the spell explicitly deals damage to the first object it contacts.

By your reading of target smash from the air causes your weapon to take damage from any spell as well. Since as you keep saying the target isn't affected but since the weapon isn't the target then it takes damage from ray of frost, or scorching ray, whatever else is being deflected.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snowlilly wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
Any other effects means what it said, if this was being done barehanded , we wouldn't be arguing that it "still hit your hands so roll a fort save" now would we?

Other effects are not applied to the target.

The deflecting weapon used with SFtA was never the target.

What about when using an unarmed strike?

The target takes no damage.

If the person using unarmed strike was the target, they take no damage. If they were not the original target, they take damage as normal.

Wait.

So Commoner Frank is off to the left, Evil Wizard Meklior is targeting him with disintegrate because the GM has a point to prove, and monk PC character Phil has cut from the air, using unarmed strike.

Meklior casts the disintegrate, and points his finger at at Frank with an evil grin on his face. Defender of Justice that he is, Phil decides to defend him with smash from the air.

Opposing attack rolls are made. To his chagrin, Melkior fumbles completely (a one is rolled), and Phil's reflexive strike could not have been more on point to counter wherever it would have landed (a twenty).

Are you saying that Phil takes the full effect of a disintegrate that would have missed anyway only because Melkior was targeting Frank instead of Phil?

I personally don't buy into that. I'd say that because the feats lack "the object takes the damage as normal" text that the shield version of the feat has, it's completely deflected.


Claxon wrote:
Don't get too caught up in the exact wording, because the wording is flavor text.

Yes, RAW and rules mechanics are flavor text to be disregarded when inconvenient /s


Johnny_Devo wrote:
Are you saying that Phil takes the full effect of a disintegrate that would have missed anyway only because Melkior was targeting Frank instead of Phil?

It was Phil's decision to jump in front of an attack that was not targeting him and would have missed its intended target.

So yes, the exemption to damage does not apply to Phil. Hope he makes his save.

Silver Crusade

In response to the OP, you've got 1 person who thinks the weapon is affected, and 5 that think the disintegrate is deflected to no effect. I'm not saying Snowlilly's point is invalid, just pointing out that it is a clear minority. Short of an FAQ/errata popular consensus is the best you'll get.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snowlilly wrote:
Johnny_Devo wrote:
Are you saying that Phil takes the full effect of a disintegrate that would have missed anyway only because Melkior was targeting Frank instead of Phil?

It was Phil's decision to jump in front of an attack that was not targeting him and would have missed its intended target.

So yes, the exemption to damage does not apply to Phil. Hope he makes his save.

So take the same exact situation, except Frank is hiding behind a wall, so Melkior just decides to target phil.

Melkior rolls his one and phil rolls his twenty. So now because melkior was actually targeting phil, and even though phil flawlessly blocks the disintegrate, wherever it would have landed, with his fist, he takes no damage because he was the original target?

I'm sorry, but there's RAW that says "the target takes no damage", and there is NO RAW, like there is elsewhere, that the object used takes the damage instead.


Riuken wrote:
In response to the OP, you've got 1 person who thinks the weapon is affected, and 5 that think the disintegrate is deflected to no effect. I'm not saying Snowlilly's point is invalid, just pointing out that it is a clear minority. Short of an FAQ/errata popular consensus is the best you'll get.

At the actual game table I would not disagree with you. Intent seems clear.

When discussing RAW, I try to stick to what RAW says unless the RAW is clearly using incorrect or non-standard terminology, or the RAW clearly assumes a certain level of common sense, i.e. swords are made of metal even though RAW never explicitly states this.

In this case RAW states one thing and the assumption is this extends by default to include a second thing. It does not, but most groups are not going to run around disintegrating the fighter's weapons.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

You're not discussing RAW either You're reading into the spell and Feat interactions that are not spelled out.

The feat does not say the weapon is affected. Disintegrate does not say it has an effect if it is deflected, nor if it misses its initial target for that matter.

If you want to dig into sheer unmitigated pedantry, Cut From The Air does not specify you use a weapon to deflect regardless. It says you can cut the attack, and that you make an attack roll to do it, but makes no mention of using a weapon.

Interestingly it's requirements include "Weapon Training with a melee weapon" but the Feat does not specify that you even have to use that weapon to deflect. You could have Weapon Training: Heavy Blades and use a flail...that is, if you were required to use a weapon at all, which you are not.

Clearly by RAW you use your telekinetic powers to deflect the attack, not a weapon. Problem solved.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Just remember to deflect it upwards, lest you be left with a 10-foot crater in the floor.

Unless you're in a cave or something, then you're just boned.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:

Just remember to deflect it upwards, lest you be left with a 10-foot crater in the floor.

Unless you're in a cave or something, then you're just boned.

Do you get a reflex save vs the pit you just opened beneath your own feet?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Talonhawke wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

Just remember to deflect it upwards, lest you be left with a 10-foot crater in the floor.

Unless you're in a cave or something, then you're just boned.

Do you get a reflex save vs the pit you just opened beneath your own feet?

I suppose that depends entirely on where the death beam landed. If it landed near your feet, than I suppose it could force a save to avoid falling in.

(I'm mostly tongue in cheek, but a fun, off-the-cuff GM may well rule thusly.)


Snowlilly wrote:
Claxon wrote:
Don't get too caught up in the exact wording, because the wording is flavor text.
Yes, RAW and rules mechanics are flavor text to be disregarded when inconvenient /s

No, but in this case "it disintegrates the first thing it touches" is flavor text that doesn't have anything to do with the mechanics. Especially of a feat that was written decades after that spell. (I'm guessing the text for disintegrate has been the same since at least 3.0).

And that the devs didn't think to stipulate about damage being done to the weapon, because they didn't intend for that to happen.


Okay, lets try to look at this from another angle:

Are there any other spells or weapons that have a similar condition that could trigger them before hitting the intended target?

We had fireball which isn't applicable here, because of missing ranged attack roll.

What about a grenade launched from a grenade launcher?

Grenade launcher wrote:
Grenades propelled by a launcher can be set to detonate upon impact or at the start of the wielder’s next turn.

Maybe the question is: "Does deflecting an attack count as the attack striking something for weapons and/or spells that trigger upon impact?"

If we go by the Deflecting Attacks FAQ, I'd go again with: no, referencing the line:

Deflecting attacks FAQ wrote:
If a shocking grasp touch attack is deflected, the attacker is still "holding the charge."
(But it's been said to not read more things into an FAQ than is written in that FAQ. Also the referenced FAQ, first line:
Deflecting attacks FAQ wrote:
It depends on the ability that is deflecting the attack.

, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ )


Franz Lunzer wrote:

Okay, lets try to look at this from another angle:

Are there any other spells or weapons that have a similar condition that could trigger them before hitting the intended target?

We had fireball which isn't applicable here, because of missing ranged attack roll.

What about a grenade launched from a grenade launcher?

Grenade launcher wrote:
Grenades propelled by a launcher can be set to detonate upon impact or at the start of the wielder’s next turn.

Maybe the question is: "Does deflecting an attack count as the attack striking something for weapons and/or spells that trigger upon impact?"

If we go by the Deflecting Attacks FAQ, I'd go again with: no, referencing the line:

Deflecting attacks FAQ wrote:
If a shocking grasp touch attack is deflected, the attacker is still "holding the charge."
(But it's been said to not read more things into an FAQ than is written in that FAQ. Also the referenced FAQ, first line:
Deflecting attacks FAQ wrote:
It depends on the ability that is deflecting the attack.
, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ )

The thing is going off the logic that the weapon used in the deflection isn't the target (unless it is) means that every used spell effects the weapon used not just disintegrate. And even if we shoe-horn in a special example for disintegrate we now have a case of what is the first object touched If i deflect with my bare hands?


Ravingdork wrote:
Just remember to deflect it upwards, lest you be left with a 10-foot crater in the floor.

What? You mean we can't just say we've deflected it straight back at the caster?

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pizza Lord wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Just remember to deflect it upwards, lest you be left with a 10-foot crater in the floor.
What? You mean we can't just say we've deflected it straight back at the caster?

Relevant.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

GM: The BBEG fires off a ray of sickly green energy directly at you - a Disintegration spell! He rolls... 20! Confirmation roll is an 18 vs your touch - critical hit! Roll your fortitude save to avoid death!"
Me: "Actually, GM, if you read Disintegrate you'll notice that it only affects the first creature or object struck. Therefore, it only affects my robes. It's sad to lose my favorite pair, but what can you do - it was a crit, after all. Good thing I'm wearing another two over my outer layer of long-sleeve shirts or he might get me in the next few rounds."

If you can't tell, I don't think Disintegrate works on the sword. Otherwise, prepare for the upset fighter to start treating it like Anticlothes Beam.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This is a great example of why you can't take the "it only affects the first creature or object struck" clause too seriously.

Thanks Lunias.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Air molecules are objects right? ;)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
LuniasM wrote:

GM: The BBEG fires off a ray of sickly green energy directly at you - a Disintegration spell! He rolls... 20! Confirmation roll is an 18 vs your touch - critical hit! Roll your fortitude save to avoid death!"

Me: "Actually, GM, if you read Disintegrate you'll notice that it only affects the first creature or object struck. Therefore, it only affects my robes. It's sad to lose my favorite pair, but what can you do - it was a crit, after all. Good thing I'm wearing another two over my outer layer of long-sleeve shirts or he might get me in the next few rounds."

If you can't tell, I don't think Disintegrate works on the sword. Otherwise, prepare for the upset fighter to start treating it like Anticlothes Beam.

Are those clothes made of wool? because clearly the lamb they came from would be the first creature struck by the beam.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Are you seriously going to try and convince me that you accidentally disentigrated her magesty's brazier!?

1 to 50 of 54 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Smash from the air and disintegrate All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.