Consequences of destroyed jewelry in relation to a chronicle boon?


Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild

**

I'm currently running a scenario on PbP. One of my players was unfortunate enough to have his expensive (but non-magical) finery destroyed by a Black Pudding's acid. This player has a chronicle boon that gives him a benefit for wearing fancy clothes and jewels, but if he loses them he is sickened until he spends 500 gp/HD to replace. I'm unclear about the best way to adjudicate this.

Relevant Black Pudding ability:
Each time a creature suffers damage from a black pudding’s acid, its clothing and armor take the same amount of damage from the acid. A DC 21 Reflex save prevents damage to clothing and armor.
The character in question failed the Reflex save and took 19 points of acid damage.

The chronicle boon in question (I'm not mentioning where it's from to avoid any spoilers):
"Shard of Greed: Select one of the following three abilities, crossing the others off the Chronicle sheet. When active, this shard’s influence grants you the selected ability, and imparts upon you the listed penalty.
• Gain a +2 insight bonus on saves versus transmutation spells and spell-like abilities.
• Gain haste as a spell-like ability usable 1/day.
• Gain a +1 insight bonus on attack rolls.
Penalty: You become greedy, and are sickened whenever you are not wearing nonmagical jewelry and fine clothing worth at least 500 gp per Hit Die in total. Each time you sell a belonging or give one away, you must succeed at a DC 20 Will save or take 1d4 points of Wisdom damage."
The PC in question is level 8, so if the items are completely destroyed it effectively means that he is permanently sickened until he spends 4000 gp to replace them.

A few questions:

1) Is 19 points of acid damage sufficient to completely destroy the jewelry? Or does it retain some value?

2) Can it be repaired with Make Whole, Mending, or some other option?

3) If the jewelry is permanently destroyed, is the player's only choice to pay 4000 gp to remove the permanent sickened condition?

I realize that the answer to many of these questions may be simply a GM call, so I'm not only asking for whether there is any specific PFS "rule" to handle this, but also, to the extent that this is a GM call, for opinions about how other GMs out there would handle this? 4000 gp is a pretty big hit for a level 8 PC, so if I impose that I want to be sure that I'm being as fair as possible.

I welcome your thoughts and opinions, and thanks in advance.

Scarab Sages ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I might rule jewelry as separate from clothing, since clothing is a specific category in Pathfinder. Although jewelry is listed under that general heading, it still feels separate. So, his fancy clothes would almost certainly be destroyed from 19 points of damage, but I wouldn't rule rings and necklaces and things like that also took the damage.

If you do apply it to his jewelry, I wouldn't rule that every item takes 19 points. I'd deal 19 points of damage total to all of his items of clothing/jewelry.

And, remember that energy damage is halved against objects, so that becomes 9 points of damage.

Cloth has 2 hps per inch. Let's just call it 2 hps for simplicity. That leaves 7.

Gold has a hardness of 5, so that leaves 2. It doesn't list a number of hit points, but it has the fragile quality. I think it's fair to say his gold items are broken and not destroyed. Even if you count the full 9 points, it might still just be damaged.

I also think it's fair to say that gemstones probably have a higher hardness than gold, and would likely not take any damage.

Energy Attacks wrote:
Energy attacks deal half damage to most objects. Divide the damage by 2 before applying the object’s hardness. Some energy types might be particularly effective against certain objects, subject to GM discretion. For example, fire might do full damage against parchment, cloth, and other objects that burn easily. Sonic might do full damage against glass and crystal objects.

Acid vs gold/gemstones is probably not a combination that would do full damage.

Sovereign Court **** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

Gold might be particularly resistant to any but the most extreme acids. Being a precious metal and all.

That said, this sort of thing can happen. 4000gp or be sickened? Compare that to dying and needing 5450gp for a Raise Dead + 2x 1280gp for Restoration. Setbacks happen to PCs and it's not the end of the world. I suspect PFS adventure payouts actually factor in that you occasionally need to spend some of them on remedies.

Scarab Sages ****

Yeah, if you end up ruling it’s all destroyed, it’s clear what the cost is. I just want to encourage looking at the situation more closely than 19 points is a lot, so everything is automatically destroyed.

And again, even the boon item in question distinguished between clothing and jewelry. That combined with how energy damage works and the metal having at least some hardness, and I’d probably let it go just destroying their royal outfit. They’ll still be sickened until they replace it. Also, there may be items in the scenario they can temporarily adorn themselves with to overcome the condition.

Shadow Lodge ***** ⦵⦵

Damaging objects

Paper or cloth 0 2/in. of thickness

So even some REALLY thick underwear has 2 hitpoints and no hardness.

Energy Attacks

Energy attacks deal half damage to most objects. Divide the damage by 2 before applying the object’s hardness. Some energy types might be particularly effective against certain objects, subject to GM discretion. For example, fire might do full damage against parchment, cloth, and other objects that burn easily. Sonic might do full damage against glass and crystal objects.

so the default is half damage. 9 points is more than enough to go through the non existant hardness and disolve the clothes 4 times over. The only way they'd survive is if you decided that clothes were particularly resistant to acid ...I mean maybe if they specifically had glass slippers those would be good but anything else is toast.

That item DOES come with a downside. It is supposed to come up on occasion.

Dark Archive **** Venture-Agent, Finland—Turku aka Tomppa

Disclaimer: I'm a player in this game but not the one that had his clothes/jewelry destroyed.

I want to point out that the PC took 8 acid damage from the Ooze's Slam attack, and then the ooze grappled and constricted, dealing another 11 points of damage.
I believe the PC would be entitled to two Ref saves (one per source), since there's effectively two "attacks" - slam and constrict.

The most PC friendly ruling would be to rule that since it's "energy damage", the damage is halved for the objects, dealing 4 and 5 points of damage. This would still be enough to ruin the clothes, but the jewelry, with gold having pointed out to have hardness 5, would probably be fine, taking no damage in the attacks.

The Harshest ruling would be that the Constrict is sorta rider on the attack and it's just 1 save and the damage is combined. You could rule that the acid, since it's mentioned as dissolving organic materials and metal, is not halved for attacking objects. At 19 damage, the clothing is obviously ruined. The gold jewelry reduces damage by 5 with hardness, taking 14 damage, and considering how "thin" gold jewerly is, is ruined. This would leave the actual precious gems in the jewelry. They aren't metal, they aren't organic, they probably have higher hardness and possibly more hitpoints depending on what type of gems they are, but problem is that they aren't defined and we'd be in total GM fiat territory on what happens to them or how big part of the jewelry was actual jewels. Since they aren't defined, GM could just say that all the jewelry was gold/precious metals and is gone/the gems won't resist in either. There's also the question of whether or not they can be mended or made whole with magic.

A middleground somewhere would probably be adjucating that actual gems aren't destroyed, which would lower the cost of having the jewelry remade, but again, this isn't defined so GM fiat. In a homegame I'd probably rule somewhere in between, but I don't think there's a clear rule. For PFS, to be consistent I'd rule either the friendliest, or the harshest version, probably going with the friendly version in this case. After all, the character will still be sickned Unless they are very lucky and can somehow acquire a new set of noble's clothing in a middle of a dungeon :P

Scarab Sages ****

I don't think there's any question that it would destroy the noble's outfit (or whatever fancy clothes the player has). But that's different from crossing out 4,000gp worth of gear from the character's sheet.

Constrict damage is separate. It applies to DR separate, energy resistance separate, etc. That's why it adds everything extra to the damage again. So this should be applied against hardness twice. If the constrict were just additional damage on the main attack, it wouldn't deal the acid damage a second time.

I missed the line about the acid dissolving metal quickly. That is probably enough to say the damage shouldn't be halved, if the GM chooses.

It's far into GM interpretation anyway that you look at it. GM interpretation that the character loses ALL of their jewelry feels like taking it too far, given all of the unknown variables in the rules around items and hardness and hit points.

There should also be a second save. In fact, there's even an ability on the creature that references the save when being constricted.

Corrosion wrote:
An opponent that is being constricted by a black pudding suffers a –4 penalty on Reflex saves made to resist acid damage applying to clothing and armor.

So by my reading, that should be an initial save on the hit DC 21 taking 2D6 acid damage. Then a second save after the grab for the constrict damage, still DC 21, but at -4 to the roll, taking an additional 2D6 acid damage. And if either save is made, the clothing doesn't take that acid damage.

Do note, this means even if the first save is made, there's still a second save at -4 for the damage from the constrict.


Unrelated, but I am curious about where you can meet a black pudding. I've played a lot of PFS and run a lot of PFS but I dont recall seeing one.

Silver Crusade *** Venture-Lieutenant, Online—PbP aka Redelia

Jewelry is neither clothing nor armor, so should not take any consequences from the attack.

Dark Archive **** Venture-Agent, Finland—Turku aka Tomppa

That's a fair point, too. Otherwise just about all wondrous items would also be in danger of getting destroyed.

Silver Crusade *** Venture-Lieutenant, Online—PbP aka Redelia

RealAlchemy:
It's in one of the multi-table specials, and only at one tier.

Shadow Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Texas—Dallas & Ft. Worth aka Azothath

you are in GM's grey area. I'd remember that PFS is a simple game that strives to stick close to RAW. Rules sometimes clash with what's sensible.
(this is going to be a long post)

being conservative and going with a literal reading is a "safe" call that nobody is going to argue with. Is it sensible? ehhh... that's the conundrum you have. In a literal reading "clothes and armor" are affected. So we know those take damage.

The PC has an item that requires a specific value of "clothes and jewelry" to be worn or suffer a penalty. The value is a total and each item is usually bought separately with an individual price. People can write, "Noble's outfit with rubies, 575gp" and we'd have to assume that since 75gp is a regular noble's outfit, the 500gp is the value of the added gemstones.

From a literal reading the value of the clothes bought on the Item Tracking Sheet (they're worth more than 25gp, right?) take 19pts of acid damage. This would exceed the hit points of any mundane clothing in the game and destroy the clothing. There are a few exceptions; a Fortifying Stone attached to the clothing, or an ongoing spell effect or magical protection. As this is PFS note the price and then check that the jewelry is costed and bought. Note if the jewelry is part of the clothing or priced separately(which is the usual case).

Expanding the damage to worn jewelry seems sensible as they are just worn items of conspicuous consumerism. For guidance I'd refer to the list of failed item saves to see how the game treats these various items.

CRB wrote:

Table: Items Affected by Magical Attacks

Order* Item
1st Shield
2nd Armor
3rd Magic helmet, hat, or headband
4th Item in hand (including weapon, wand, or the like)
5th Magic cloak
6th Stowed or sheathed weapon
7th Magic bracers
8th Magic clothing
9th Magic jewelry (including rings)
10th Anything else
* In order of most likely to least likely to be affected.

Damaged Objects
A damaged object remains functional with the broken condition until the item’s hit points are reduced to 0, at which point it is destroyed.
Damaged (but not destroyed) objects can be repaired with the Craft skill and a number of spells. (eg. make whole or mending).

so based on the above, I'd say the game treats magical jewelry as a different category than magical clothing. Clearly a magical (and thus masterwork) item is a superior version of the mundane item (as it costs more). Alas, literal rulewise, this is of no consequence unless you accept that what affects the magical will affect the mundane. That will translate the categories to the mundane and imply that jewelry will escape unscathed from a Black Pudding's acid attack.

The PC suffers the penalty if the total value drops below his proscribed value. He would have to purchase or "upgrade" items to meet that value.

Masterwork Transformation and Magic Weapon spells don't target clothing. Armor doesn't count as clothing for purposes of the value requirement. In PFS you buy at full and sell at half so the temporary effects of these spells would not help towards the value (the actual cost the PC paid) of any item.

IF you accept the downgrade of targeted effects from magical to mundane, then Make Whole and Mending should restore destroyed mundane items.

The game isn't realistic when you get to the detailed level. It's a problem home GM's constantly wrangle with in order to maintain believability and their sense of fairness.

A prudent PC with this particular "issue" should have had their outfit enhanced with a +1 armor bonus (as per the CRB rules) AND bought a Fortifying Stone (should they have that book). That would have increased the value of the item, provided protection, and allowed said spells to affect it without question.

Shadow Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Texas—Dallas & Ft. Worth aka Azothath

*dangit* ran out of edit time on the last paragraph. I recalled an armor bonus being applied to clothing (Magic Vestment) but in a conservative manner I couldn't quickly find a published item of that nature to prove the statement and PFS abhors custom items. I didn't want to move the clothing into the armor category with a simple enhancement.
sadly armor enhancement to clothing or specifically wondrous items for the body slot appear at 22000gp or more, notably at 75000gp for Robe of the Archmagi. This is beyond normal play parameters (level 1-12) for PFS. Monk's Robes are available at less but may not provide an AC bonus...

**

I think that it is important to note, as people haven't mentioned it and it was in the second spoiler, the PC would risk *death* (especially at that level and especially with the sicked condition and potentially more and more as the Wisdom damage acrued) by trying to sell his equipment to replace his jewelry. Or else also pays for multiple lesser restorations after each failed save.

So it's not just, "Oh, he has to sell 4,000 gp worth of equipment to remove the sickened condition."

Sovereign Court **** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well he could also pay for new jewelry out of the gold he gets for completing the scenario. Looking at which PBP it seems to be, the payout for that tier should be 5334GP, so easily enough to cover it.

Dark Archive **** Venture-Agent, Finland—Turku aka Tomppa

Blake's Tiger wrote:

I think that it is important to note, as people haven't mentioned it and it was in the second spoiler, the PC would risk *death* (especially at that level and especially with the sicked condition and potentially more and more as the Wisdom damage acrued) by trying to sell his equipment to replace his jewelry. Or else also pays for multiple lesser restorations after each failed save.

So it's not just, "Oh, he has to sell 4,000 gp worth of equipment to remove the sickened condition."

You're sorta right. It's a not a "oh he hast to sell stuff", it's "oh he gains no gold for one scenario."

Rewards at tier 8-9 are around 5000-5500gp, tier 6-7 would be around 3200 or so (depending on adventure, obviously). It's highly unlikely that he'd need to sell his own equipment to get the gold.

Edit: Ninja'd

Shadow Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Texas—Dallas & Ft. Worth aka Azothath

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not sure that it is the GM's job to manage player risk, especially when it is something the PC willingly took on for more power. That's a risk assessment the player did and accepted the consequences.
That's especially true in PFS where GMs are more hands off.

Silver Crusade *** Venture-Lieutenant, Online—PbP aka Redelia

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't see how the 'most punishing' to the player is automatically RAW. The monster's ability says clothing and armor; jewelry is neither clothing nor armor, unless you can provide a rules quote that says otherwise. By the table from the CRB posted above, non-magical jewelry would be in #10, something else.


Eh, in the most simplistic/non-mechanical sense, the player took an advantage in exchange for a drawback. He knew the drawback could come into play and accepted the risk. If you soft pedal it too much, then the player got this advantage for free.

My rule of thumb would be to charge him half price, as it's the first time, and give a reason of the split attacks.

But next time, full price.

Sovereign Court **** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

I don't think anyone said "automatically RAW". It's an unclear situation that needs a GM ruling.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I would say the jewelry is damaged but not destroyed. Make Whole or Mending would likely work to restore it, but the character would suffer the penalty until that was complete.

**

Lau Bannenberg wrote:
Well he could also pay for new jewelry out of the gold he gets for completing the scenario. Looking at which PBP it seems to be, the payout for that tier should be 5334GP, so easily enough to cover it.

That isn't that bad, then.

Back to the rules discussion: I don't think it's soft pedaling to say jewelry is not clothing. The ability targets 'clothing' and 'armor.' It does not say 'all worn equipment' or 'all equipment' or 'equipment.'

For those argue it would destroy/damage jewelry as clothing. What protects a wooden holy symbol (or any holy symbol) but not a gold band with a diamond?

In general, what protects your backpack? Your belt pouches? Only the wording of the ability: clothing and armor.

So, if the valuable clothing being destroyed drops him below the gold piece threshold, he suffers the penalty until he replaces it.

Dark Archive ***** Venture-Agent, Ohio—Columbus aka Cirithiel

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have been pondering this, since it’s an interesting question. As far as the rules go, I would like to suggest that jewelry should be considered as ”clothing.”

The only specific entry for “Jewelry” available to purchase is in Ultimate Equipment on page 90 and listed in Table 2-9, both of which have the heading of “Clothing.” All the other items listed in this section are clearly worn items that most would consider as clothes. Therefore, the jewelry should take damage, albeit applying some hardness when calculating the overall damage seems appropriate.

You could argue that jewelry is also mentioned in the Core Rulebook since it is listed in the entry for Courtier’s Outfit and Noble’s Outfit, and obliquely referenced in the Royal Outfit. But these are all still in the “clothes” category.

Holy Symbols, for example are “Adventuring Gear,” not “Clothing.” Clearly, the Gods protect them. ;)

Philosophically, it does not seem unreasonable to me that the character should have to either suffer the -2 penalty or spend most of their chronicle gold to replace the items. This is significantly less costly than, for example, Raise Dead. Will it hurt to lose most of the gold for the scenario? Yup. But benefits have costs.

**

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, jewelry did not exist until Ultimate Equipment was published?

No, prior to that it was listed as 'Treasue.' The one itemized jewelry, signet ring, is listed as Adventuring Gear.

UE listing jewelry under Clothing rather than spending the print space to create another heading does not make jewelry clothing anymore than listing a stirge and pseudodragob under Animal makes it an animal rather than a magical beadt or a pseudodragon an animal rather than a dragon.

Dark Archive ***** Venture-Agent, Ohio—Columbus aka Cirithiel

Blake's Tiger wrote:

So, jewelry did not exist until Ultimate Equipment was published?

No, prior to that it was listed as 'Treasue.' The one itemized jewelry, signet ring, is listed as Adventuring Gear.

UE listing jewelry under Clothing rather than spending the print space to create another heading does not make jewelry clothing anymore than listing a stirge and pseudodragob under Animal makes it an animal rather than a magical beadt or a pseudodragon an animal rather than a dragon.

Hmmm...

By a strict reading of the rules, I still think the only jewelry available for PFS characters to purchase are those I listed above from the Core Rulebook or Ultimate Equipment, both under the category of Clothing. (I do not own every Paizo book to check, but these are the only two sources I found when I searched.)

Treasure is not an item a PC has ever allowed to purchase and keep.

As you note, Signet Rings are Adventuring Gear — they are practical items with a specific purpose. In the examples I’ve seen, they are generally plain items, not decorative ones. They imprint a symbol into the sealing wax of a letter. It is no more “jewelry” than a pocket watch would be.

If I were really in Rules Lawyer mode, I might point out that Striges and Pseudodragons are in table 2-3 “Pets and Familiars”, as well as table 2-4 “Hunting and Guard Animals”, so they count as both animals and pets.

**

1 person marked this as a favorite.

And them being listed under an organizational heading of "Animal" does not allow Calm Animal to work on a stirge. So, I don't see that as sufficient to say an ability that targets your clothing also targets your jewelry.

Jewelry is *not* listed under clothing in the CRB, so by your logic, a Core character can never benefit from Noble Outfit or Royal Outfit.

Definition of jewelry as 'Treasure' on CRB pages 400-401, jewelry as 'Gear' (more specifically an abstract representation of how value is carried by an adventurer) on page 453.

So, in PFS where the default is that your character's wealth is a total of coins, gems, jewelry, and IOUs, you need to decide how much of every character's unspent wealth is destroyed by the black pudding's ability.

I don't know what the intent was with the black pudding's ability, but I think if they wanted jewelry damaged (and there's lots of magical jewelry to damage) then they would have said so, and it seems to me like people are stretching to make the boon sting the player more than it probably should because I doubt if a character without that boon was struck, they wouldn't pause to say, "OK. How much of your wealth is comprised of jewelry? That takes damage, too."


Blake's Tiger wrote:
if they wanted jewelry damaged (and there's lots of magical jewelry to damage) then they would have said so

I think it's worth noting that the majority of the relevant text is from the 3.5 Monster Manual or even earlier, making it older than some PFS players I know. Speculating about intent is difficult when dealing with material so old, especially since 3rd Edition hadn't yet completely removed the Dungeon Master's role as arbiter and rules interpreter. On top of that, it certainly wasn't written with the existence of Paizo-specific organizational and sorting methods in mind.

In addition, let me assure you, wordcount is a harsher mistress than you think. And it's easy as an author to just assume your audience is on the same page as you when it comes to this stuff... and even if you do include it, your editor or developer may make that assumption and trim the relevant text from your material.

Speaking from an authorial perspective, if I were writing a creature with such capabilities... back when I was just starting out, I probably would have just assumed that GMs would see that it affects clothing and armor and is fully effective against metal, and inherently understand that it affects jewelry as well. (I'm not claiming intent in this case, though. I didn't write it.) Having more experience with these forums... I absolutely would specify whether it did or not. Assuming it even occurred to me that it would come up. ^_^


2 people marked this as a favorite.

On an off-topic note, I quite like this new avatar. ^_^

**

Quote:
Paizo-specific organizational and sorting methods in mind.

Having played both, it was the same. So that's not a valid argument.

EDIT: And I would be very hesitant to play the word count card in a rules discussion because that is a Pandora's box. Every debate would include, 'Oh, they obviously would have included that but for word count.'

This is a GM call; I'm not going to pretend it isn't; I'm just trying to work out how I would adjucate it.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Okay.

Shadow Lodge *****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blake's Tiger wrote:
Quote:
Paizo-specific organizational and sorting methods in mind.
Having played both, it was the same. So that's not a valid argument.

Having played both, with this much content and this many authors, claiming to have any idea of the intent of an ability or especially its interaction with another is the height of hubris.

**

TOZ wrote:
Blake's Tiger wrote:
Quote:
Paizo-specific organizational and sorting methods in mind.
Having played both, it was the same. So that's not a valid argument.
Having played both, with this much content and this many authors, claiming to have any idea of the intent of an ability or especially its interaction with another is the height of hubris.

...was that aimed at me?

If it was, I was trying to argue an ability that damages 'clothing and armor' on a failed Reflex save doesn't also damage 'jewelry' (the ill defined percent of your wealth--or defined if you've got a reason to define it--made up of jewelry), your holy symbol, your neck slot, ring slot, etc. Although, I guess I presume that since these things are mechanically different that had they intended to include them they would have... but thst's not a stretch, is it?

**

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Many thanks to everyone for your input. I'm the OP and the GM who has to make a ruling about this in a (currently underway) PbP game. Based on the comments you've all given, and my further investigations in the rules, here is how I'm handling this:

1) I'm persuaded by the argument that jewelry should NOT be included in the category "clothing and armor." In this, I'm guided by my general view that, at least in PFS, when in doubt go with RAW. As several people have pointed out, if the jewelry is damaged, why not his scrolls, or backpack, or etc.? Since the jewelry is not included, the PC's chronicle boon is not affected. (For what it's worth, I did check with the PC to see how he had listed the purchases since it would be more ambiguous if he had written '4000 gp of clothes and jewels', but in fact he did make the purchases as exclusively jewelry). As for the argument that since the PC took an advantage (from accepting the boon in the first place), he should be prepared to get the drawbacks, I see the appeal of not wanting such boons to be 'risk-free,' but on the other hand, there's a real slippery slope here. For example, every time an ooze engulfs a PC's musket master, should all of his alchemical cartridges explode, leaving him with no ammo, on the grounds that he took an advantage so he should get a drawback? This is where I find it particularly helpful to just stick to RAW.

2) Thanks to those who pointed out that I should have halved the energy damage before applying it to objects. So 19 points of acid damage becomes 9 acid dmg.

3) The question of whether or not the damage should be considered to have come from one attack or two is an interesting and important one. The exact sequence was: a) successful attack deals x dmg + 2d6 acid; b) successful attack triggers grab attempt, which was successful; c) successful grab triggers constrict which deals x dmg +2d6 acid; d) being grappled triggers the Black Pudding's corrosion ability, which gives the target a -4 on its Reflex vs the acid applying to clothing and armor. Personally, it's always seemed to me that two distinct attack rolls (one for the initial attack and one for the grab) indicates that they are two separate attacks; however, I've been overruled on this every time it's come up locally by a variety of 5 star GMs (the argument seems to be that riders on an initial attack are considered part of that attack, unlike, say, Cleave, which simply gives you the ability to make a new attack) and so I've deferred to that interpretation and have used the single attack interpretation in this case. This does make it tougher on the PC, not only because he gets only one save instead of two, but also because it means that he has a -4 on his save (from the Black Pudding's corrosion ability), and also because it means that any item hardness applies once, not twice. Still, as noted, that's how I've consistently been told to handle "rider" attacks. Out of curiosity to see how widely that view is shared, I've created another thread here in the Rules forum, but in the interest of moving our game along, in this particular instance I'm going to just rule it as a single attack and move forward.

4) Aside from his ordinary clothing, the PC has three items that fit in the category of "clothing and armor": +3 agile breastplate of luck, boots of the cat, cloak of resistance +1. Even if the save is failed, the +3 breastplate cannot be harmed by 9 points of acid damage (it has hardness 16), so it is unaffected. However, the boots and the cloak both could be harmed. Leather boots have hardness 2 and 5 hp (assuming 1 inch of thickness). The cloak has hardness 0 and 2 hp (assuming 1 inch of thickness).

5) The PC already failed a Reflex save against the acid damage to clothing and armor, but my reading is that each item should get its own saving throw (CRB p. 174: "Magic items always get saving throws. A magic item's Fort, Reflex, Will save bonuses are equal to 2+half its caster level. An attended [i.e. worn] magic item either makes saving throws as its owner or uses its own saving throw bonus, whichever is better."). Also: "A magic item doesn't need to make a saving throw unless it is unattended, it is specifically targeted by the effect, or its wielder rolls a natural 1 on his save (Note: this seems to suggest that if a PC rolls a "1" against, say, a fireball, he or she should have to save for all their items! I have to say that I've *never* seen this rule applied...)... Magic items, unless otherwise noted, take damage as nonmagical items of the same sort." (CRB p.459). Therefore, I'll treat the already-failed saving throw as indicating the destruction of his mundane clothing (fortunately another PC had a spare set and has already provided them, lending new meaning to "Cooperate!") and give him two new saves for the boots and cloak. Since a successful save means that the item takes no damage at all, both items have a chance of surviving. However, a failed save will destroy either item, since neither has hardness + hp greater than 9 (incidentally, I was surprised to learn that the enhancement bonus increase to hardness and hp only applies to weapons, armor, and shields, not general magical items).

6) If either item is destroyed, a Make Whole spell of sufficient CL should be able to restore it. The PC will have to play the rest of the scenario without the items (unless someone has a Make Whole handy), but later the cost will only be 60 gp per casting (or 1 Prestige each).

7) For future reference (for the benefit of others who may find this thread), if one *did* need to determine whether or not jewelry was damaged by an energy attack, I would use hardness 5 and 15 hp per inch of thickness for gold items (this is a little ambiguous, but extrapolating from what the rules say about gold armor).

8) Another interesting thing I learned (for future reference): the broken condition has no effect on misc items (i.e. items that are not weapons, armor/shield, tools for skills, wands/staves).

Once again, many thanks to all for your input. I'll continue to read any thoughts that anyone may wish to add with great interest (though I'd suggest moving the specific discussion about whether the attack should count as one or two, to the thread I referenced above) but now, I'd better get back to murdering those PCs! When I last saw them, one was unconscious and nearing death...

Sovereign Court **** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

GM Abraham wrote:
Also: "A magic item doesn't need to make a saving throw unless it is unattended, it is specifically targeted by the effect, or its wielder rolls a natural 1 on his save (Note: this seems to suggest that if a PC rolls a "1" against, say, a fireball, he or she should have to save for all their items! I have to say that I've *never* seen this rule applied...)...

This refers to an obscure rule:

CRB p. 217 wrote:
Items Surviving after a Saving Throw: Unless the descriptive text for the spell specifies otherwise, all items carried or worn by a creature are assumed to s­u rvive a m­a gical 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 9–2: 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. 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.

So a '1' on a fireball might destroy one item. That table incidentally, sort of works "outside in"; items worn under other items tend to be lower in the line of fire.

It's a little-known and rarely applied rule. When I pointed it out as a player once I got looks...

**

Lol. I'll bet you did! :-)

Shadow Lodge *****

Creatively forgetting rules is one of many GM tools.

*

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I love the rule and apply it every chance I get, but rarely does the energy attack (after being halved) chew through enough hardness and hit points to do much. Occasionally I do burn up a cloak of resistance though :)

Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild / Consequences of destroyed jewelry in relation to a chronicle boon? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.