The rule is for targeting (excluding crystalline creatures). So it is not a matter of being unable to damage, but just being unable to target them.
Think of the spell having to encase the entire creature being similar to the maximum radius of a [/i]create pit[/i]. If the creature is too big for the pit, the creature will not fall down into it. In the case of shatter, the creature is just too big to be encased in the vibration zone.
That'd be just one way I see to describe why it will do no damage to a target too big (weight being used as the equivalent to mass in the spell if you'd prefer a sciencey answer).
EDIT: Though I should note, the single object, weight version of the spell does not work on most creatures because it is for objects only. Crystalline creatures can be targeted regardless of their weight.
i was recently murdered well my Pc was murdered by a well placed shatter spell. he was not the target of the spell but all his alchemist fire glass vials were effected which encased my Pc in fire that lit the fuses to the many hand grenades (of differing types) he was also carrying because fuses be flammable.
Moral of the story, don't carry enough expendables to one-shot yourself. J/K. I am sorry to say that if I had been a player in that game, I probably would have laughed uncontrollably. Terrible luck there.
Shatter should not affect any attended objects unless it aimed at them individually.
No, your DM just likes to screw over your character. Shatter wouldn't have done that to you.
Having read many of Zainale's stories... you're right.
His/her GM is screwing him/her and Zainale must be the most patient person ever.
|
Shatter should not affect any attended objects unless it aimed at them individually.
I believe it affects items stored in your pack, as those are not "attended" items. Attended is actually holding them (like with your hands). That said, lots of GMs don't handle it like this because it's a real pain to manage, and the spell is often much more lethal than it probably should be.
Anyway, I think the idea what that he targeted a single alchemist fire, and that destroyed the others.
|
|
Also, it wouldn't have 'destroyed the others' anyways because that's not an effect of alchemist fire.
Up to the GM, I suppose. I'd certainly have a chain reaction if a PC storing a bunch of alchemist fire vials all next to eachother, had one erupt. Even if we only count splash damage (and don't consider each direct hit on the character), Glass Flasks are hardness 1 and 1 HP as per the CRB (under potions). And I don't think glass has any special defense against explosive fire, so I would not apply the hardness.
And I don't think you'd need to be a dick GM to suggest that players shouldn't storing stockpiles of explosives on their person. Just like how gunslingers should be careful with their blackpowder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Attended means "on your person" not merely in your hands.
Making it work like that to add some flavor could be interesting, as long as there were no important consequences. But using it to kill a PC is GM abuse.
|
|
No, it's not 'up to the GM' unless the GM wants to ignore how the rules work. If the player needs to make a save and rolls a 1, the rules say you can choose up to 4 damaged objects to affect, and there is a specific order to the affected objects: shield, armor, head gear, stuff in hand, cloak, sheathed weapon, and so on. Stored gear is basically last on the list.
Otherwise, no. There's no 'burning off clothes' with alchemist fires or bombs, no chain reactions of vials, no exploding cure light wounds potions, or any of that, unless the spell or effect specifically says otherwise.
Objects can be damaged by being specifically targeted, via sunder or similar means, but not by collateral damage.
Also, hardness is always applied unless an attack is specifically designed to affect a material. Glass does very well against fire, actually.
Edit: and energy attacks are halved against objects. Alchemist fire splash would do nothing.
Tempered glass itself would do well against explosive fire. A stoppered glass flask of liquid, when heated, would explode. Even a flask of water would explode in such a case. Maybe just the top would pop off, and the contents disgorged, but that would be the same problem with a flask of alchemist's fire.
As for the spell, shatter, which is what we are talking about, yeah, it works against glass. The targeted version would affect one alchemist fire, which would very likely trigger the others. Telling me that it is outside of reasonable GM discretion that an alchemist's fire, when subject to fire damage, would not explode, sounds like BS.
Maybe if you have a special container designed to keep them seperate, but them all being in a backpack or on a bandolier is not enough. I suggest Fire Resistance, if you plan to carry lots of alchemist's fire on your person.
Attended means "on your person" not merely in your hands.
Up to the GM if items in your backpack considered attended. I would certainly agree that the backpack is an attended object, but it's contents might not be. Just like I'd consider the cart that a mule was strapped to, to be on the "attended by the mule" but I wouldn't treat the contents of the cart as such. To be attended objects, the person must have control over them enough to manipulate them individually. Merely controlling the general area that the object is within, is not enough to claim to be attending it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I tried to find a definition for attended object in the PRD (as opposed to the d20pfsrd which lists "carried" in addition to the below), and only came across this phrase: "An item attended by a character (being grasped, touched, or worn) makes saving throws as the character," and this phrase: "they are attended (held, worn, grasped, or the like) by a creature."
Unless there's another definition (quite possible with all the books not included in the PRD), it would seem that items within a worn backpack/bandolier/other container would be counted as unattended since they are not grasped, touched, held, worn, or the like.
You could argue the "or the like" since it is somewhat subjective.
Regardless, I think a backpack would protect its contents from most spells since a "line of effect is canceled by a solid barrier."
That still leaves all the items in a bandolier free game for a shatter spell
@_Ozy_
You could argue the subjective instance covers them, that would be up to your table. Furthermore, while I don't run my games like this, without further supporting proof, the RAW does not protect the items you mention.
I disagree with the DM's use of the shatter spell in the context presented by the OP, but I cannot at the same time claim he violated any rules, except as noted above vis-a-vis line of effect.
|
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.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment/damaging-objects/
There. Happy?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
a definition for attended object in the PRD (as opposed to the d20pfsrd which lists "carried" in addition to the below),
Emphasis added for visibility.
I'm not happy, since d20pfsrd doesn't site its source for adding "carried" to the prd definitions.
|
|
Hate how the Paizo site cuts off long quotes.
Alchemist fire is an instant heat source that does 1hp of damage on a splash. This would do exactly nothing against just about any glass object, especially since energy damage is halved against objects. 1hp halved is 0. Furthermore, what makes you think alchemist vials aren't tempered glass? Does it say it's not tempered? Or is it fused silica? Or borosilicate? Of course it doesn't say. Because this level of detail is absolutely stupid, so why are you even talking about tempered glass in Pathfinder?
Your serious here? You think that all glass objects are just as resistant to fire as others?
A glass marble, or another object made entirely of glass with no hollow points. Sure, fire resistant. A hollow glass object with trapped air, trapped explosives, or trapped liquid, yeah, heat is going to break that object. The liquid, air, or explosive will expand faster than the solid, and it will burst. Common sense.
And the hardness of objects vs elemental damage is specifically up to the GM. There's no hidden or surprise rules if the GM decides that item "x" doesn't quite have the hardness you thought it did when subject to damage.
No, penalizing a player for not realizing unwritten rules about the storage of alchemical items, which an alchemist PC would have actually know, is BS. Especially when that sort of detail does nothing but penalize characters. How many GMs are going to let a PC sunder an alchemsit fire on an NPC and have the NPC instantly killed by a chain reaction.
Exactly: 0
I would be one of those GM's. If my NPC has lots of explosives on their person, yeah, I'd half expect the PCs to blow them up. Fact of the matter is that most NPCs wouldn't be transporting more than one or two alchemist fires at the same time, just because any more is normally excessive for non-adventurers (and kinda excessive for adventurers too).
Mind you, they'd need more than one alchemist fire to create such a chain reaction. At 1st level, if the PC is toting 8 alchmist's fire and they go to thrown one in melee, and it provokes, which allows the NPC to attempt to sunder their alchemist's fire, that would explode in their hand dealing splash damage to all of them, and that would trigger the others, which would deal about 8 damage to each character due to splash dealing 1pt each for 8 alchemist fires.
Under potions, one of the suggested actions in the CRB is sundering the potion when they draw it. That's why potions shouldn't be used in melee of the enemy.
And for the record, the dick GM thing to do, would be to treat them as direct hits on the character. Treating it as splash is more than generous.
I suggest not using unwritten, overly detailed, and instantly invented 'rules' to kill PCs.
I'm not killing any PCs, that's the OP.
I think that if a PC has more alchemist fire on his person than he does hit points, that being subject to shatter would very likely destroy all of them and deal as many HP in splash fire damage to that PC as is alchemist's fire.
I think the unreasonable issue is the PC with 10 hp and 9 CON that thinks it is reasonable to carry 20 alchemist fires... that's 20lbs of explosives.
And that's the issue here. To Kill a PC (or NPC) in this manner, they have to have an unreasonable quantity of explosives on their person.
So you keep barking that I'd be killing PCs in this horrible manner. No, most of the time, the main issue is that you'd lose your 20gp item. The 1pt of fire damage is annoying, but not a big deal. Killing PCs or NPCs in this manner requires really hording explosives in an obviously unsafe manner.
|
Hate how the Paizo site cuts off long quotes.Alchemist fire is an instant heat source that does 1hp of damage on a splash. This would do exactly nothing against just about any glass object, especially since energy damage is halved against objects. 1hp halved is 0. Furthermore, what makes you think alchemist vials aren't tempered glass? Does it say it's not tempered? Or is it fused silica? Or borosilicate? Of course it doesn't say. Because this level of detail is absolutely stupid, so why are you even talking about tempered glass in Pathfinder?Your serious here? You think that all glass objects are just as resistant to fire as others?
A glass marble, or another object made entirely of glass with no hollow points. Sure, fire resistant. A hollow glass object with trapped air, trapped explosives, or trapped liquid, yeah, heat is going to break that object. The liquid, air, or explosive will expand faster than the solid, and it will burst. Common sense.
And the hardness of objects vs elemental damage is specifically up to the GM. There's no hidden or surprise rules if the GM decides that item "x" doesn't quite have the hardness you thought it did when subject to damage.
Are you serious? Glass don't transmit heat so well or instantaneity. If you have a reasonably tick glass container (ar something made to carry an incendiary liquid will be reasonably tick to avoid casual breakage) it will not melt for 1 point of splash damage. And you need to heat the liquid in the container considerably before if exert enough pressure to break the container.
On the other hand, rule wise, 1 point of lethal energy damage, halved, would become 1 point of non-lethal energy damage. I.e. the equivalent to be exposed to hot, but not boiling, water for a very brief time. Not enough to make a container burst.|
|
It's because of this weapon-grade level of obtuseness that I used to stay far away from the rules section. Tempered glass, pedantic definition of "attended"...are you all serious or what?
Used as an area attack, shatter destroys nonmagical objects of crystal, glass, ceramic, or porcelain. All such unattended objects within a 5-foot radius of the point of origin are smashed into dozens of pieces by the spell. Objects weighing more than 1 pound per your level are not affected, but all other objects of the appropriate composition are shattered.
Alternatively, you can target shatter against a single solid nonmagical object, regardless of composition, weighing up to 10 pounds per caster level. Targeted against a crystalline creature (of any weight), shatter deals 1d6 points of sonic damage per caster level (maximum 10d6), with a Fortitude save for half damage.
The AoE affects only unattended nonmagic objects of a certain composition.
"But how to define unattended? It's not specified in the book!"
You know what else is not specified in the book? What's a cat. Unattended is not a game-term, is an English word which means "taken care of", "guarded". So yeah, a wielded sword? Attended. A worn circlet? Attended. A flask of acid in the bag carried by the character? Attended. A collection of ugly vases in the middle of a room? That's unattended.
Do you want to shatter the battleaxe of the evil barbarian? In this case, unless he's disarmed, you can't do this through AoE, but you can target the specific object, since it doesn't specify it has to be unattended.
You know what else is not specified in the book? What's a cat.
Page 131 of the Bestiary describes a cat as a tiny animal with two claws and a bite, in addition to specifying their preferred environment, organization, and weight. Judging from their bonus on CMD to trip, one might also derive from other rules that they are quadrupedal.
Page 82 of the Core Rulebook additionally describes them as a familiar available to wizards that grants them a +3 bonus to Stealth checks.
So, the books do in fact specify what a cat is, more or less!
I tried to find a definition for attended object in the PRD (as opposed to the d20pfsrd which lists "carried" in addition to the below), and only came across this phrase: "An item attended by a character (being grasped, touched, or worn) makes saving throws as the character," and this phrase: "they are attended (held, worn, grasped, or the like) by a creature."
Unless there's another definition (quite possible with all the books not included in the PRD), it would seem that items within a worn backpack/bandolier/other container would be counted as unattended since they are not grasped, touched, held, worn, or the like.
You could argue the "or the like" since it is somewhat subjective.
Regardless, I think a backpack would protect its contents from most spells since a "line of effect is canceled by a solid barrier."
That still leaves all the items in a bandolier free game for a shatter spell
Thank you for your research. Since I use only the PRD for rules, unless I've found something cool and specifically announced it as a houserule, I'm grateful to see someone here differentiating between sources. However, I'd think you would agree that a bandolier is every bit as much "worn" as a sheath on one's belt or wrist. Since you just suggested that items in a backpack or belt-pouch are safe by virtue of lack of line of effect, whether or not they're "attended," and an item "grasped" is specifically called out as "attended," it sounds to me like adding the word "carried" in this case does not materially change the PRD rule.
The thing is, I'm not as worried about a Shatter spell. But the image of a fireball or lightning bolt setting off all of the alchemical fires in a hapless character's bandolier or belt-pouch is eye-opening. And I'm deducing that if a character without a lot of gear to line up and take the blow ahead of the bandolier or appropriate belt-pouch rolls a nat-1 for Reflex, that's what would happen. {EDIT: No, it's what MIGHT happen. Presumably, the first item, whether pouch or bandolier, would get to make a reflex save using the character's Reflex. But if it failed... KABOOM!}
Also, Murdock, thanks for reasonably pointing out that the vials should do only 1 point of splash to the character's square and all surrounding squares apiece. Above 2nd-level, one could suppose that the economic loss might be as aggravating as the hit point damage.
It's not just that, it's also all items in a quiver. These wouldn't be protected against line of effect. So, if items in containers don't count as attended, you lose everything in a quiver when you get hit with something like a fireball or other AoO damaging spell.
I'm saying I do count them as attended. But if the guy rolls a nat-1, something has to make a Reflex save, right? And I as GM am NOT going to say that it's 1 arrow that saves or fails. No, providing there isn't other gear at the top of the list, it's the quiver. If the quiver goes up... everything in it takes the damage, too.
Is this too harsh?