Shatter / Baleful Utterance and definition of 'object'

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

I'm shortly going to be playing a warlock for the first time, and one of his
invocations will be Baleful Utterance, which basically replicates Shatter.
One of the uses of Shatter is:

"Alternatively, you can target shatter against a single solid object,
regardless of composition, weighing up to 10 pounds per caster level."

Obviously, this is a generally very useful ability - but I want to be sure
of its limitations. Specifically, if you target a single object within the
weight limits, but that object is part of a larger object, is it a valid
target?

For example: Can I open a locked door by shattering the lock, or the hinges?
Could I collapse a single large structure by targetting individual support
elements - such as the ropes of a rope bridge, or individual beams of a
scaffholding? Or would the door, the bridge, and the scaffholding each be
considered a single object?

Finally, if an object is under the effects of a temporary spell, is it
considered magical (and thus an invalid target)? I.e. a pebble with Light
cast on it, or a sword enhanced by Bless Weapon.

--
Mark.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mark Blunden wrote:
> I'm shortly going to be playing a warlock for the first time, and one of his
> invocations will be Baleful Utterance, which basically replicates Shatter.
> One of the uses of Shatter is:
>
> "Alternatively, you can target shatter against a single solid object,
> regardless of composition, weighing up to 10 pounds per caster level."
>
> Obviously, this is a generally very useful ability - but I want to be sure
> of its limitations. Specifically, if you target a single object within the
> weight limits, but that object is part of a larger object, is it a valid
> target?
>
> For example: Can I open a locked door by shattering the lock, or the hinges?
> Could I collapse a single large structure by targetting individual support
> elements - such as the ropes of a rope bridge, or individual beams of a
> scaffholding? Or would the door, the bridge, and the scaffholding each be
> considered a single object?

As it isn't in the spell description, and I doubt there's anywhere else
that would apply specifically enough to the spell, that's pretty much
in the perview of the DM. I'd be inclined to limit it to whole objects
- such as the whole door. (Hanging myself here since I'm playing a
warlock with same ability myself). It's a rather large ammount of
material anyway, I'm not entirely sure how much a midieval door would
weigh, but I can't imagine much more than 50 lbs for any normal door,
of course being more if its a reinforced prison door or somesuch.

>
> Finally, if an object is under the effects of a temporary spell, is it
> considered magical (and thus an invalid target)? I.e. a pebble with Light
> cast on it, or a sword enhanced by Bless Weapon.
>

No I don't believe it is considered magical. There's nothing in the
description of say Magic Weapon that indicates the weapon gains the
other bonuses of being magical like additional hardness or hit points,
or saves when unattended.

- Justisaur

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Justisaur wrote:
>
> Mark Blunden wrote:
> >
> > Specifically, if you target a single object within the
> > weight limits, but that object is part of a larger object,
> > is it a valid target?
> >
> > For example: Can I open a locked door by shattering the
> > lock, or the hinges?
>
> As it isn't in the spell description, and I doubt there's
> anywhere else that would apply specifically enough to the
> spell, that's pretty much in the perview of the DM. I'd be
> inclined to limit it to whole objects - such as the whole
> door.

This has always been our GM's ruling and he tends to be pretty aware of
all rules and errata and such. It works pretty well against wooden doors
at least ... and ladders ... 😉

FWIW.


- Sheldon

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Justisaur wrote:
>
> Mark Blunden wrote:
> >
> > For example: Can I open a locked door by shattering the lock, or the hinges?
> > Could I collapse a single large structure by targetting individual support
> > elements - such as the ropes of a rope bridge, or individual beams of a
> > scaffholding? Or would the door, the bridge, and the scaffholding each be
> > considered a single object?
>
> As it isn't in the spell description, and I doubt there's anywhere else
> that would apply specifically enough to the spell, that's pretty much
> in the perview of the DM. I'd be inclined to limit it to whole objects
> - such as the whole door.

But isn't the door just part of the house? If the door
is a valid sub-target of the larger, whole target
(house), why isn't the lock a valid sub-target of the
larger door?

Don't get me wrong: I'm not wild about the idea of
allowing targeted /shatter/ spells on individual nails
and such...but the distinction you're making here seems
utterly arbitrary to me.

> > Finally, if an object is under the effects of a temporary spell, is it
> > considered magical (and thus an invalid target)? I.e. a pebble with Light
> > cast on it, or a sword enhanced by Bless Weapon.
>
> No I don't believe it is considered magical. There's nothing in the
> description of say Magic Weapon that indicates the weapon gains the
> other bonuses of being magical like additional hardness or hit points,
> or saves when unattended.

Oh, for god's sake...the name of the spell is MAGIC
WEAPON. How can you reasonably conclude that the
affected weapon isn't "considered magical"? Would you
also rule that it doesn't bypass DR X/magic because the
spell doesn't specifically say that it does?

The rules for hardness don't say anything about the
weapon having to be magical, either; they just say you
get extra hardness and hp for "[e]ach +1 of enhancement
bonus." (Of course, they're grouped under the heading:
"Magic Armor, Shields, and Weapons" -- but if you don't
ascribe any importance to the name of the spell /magic
weapon/, why would you do so in *this* case?)

Note that the OP wasn't asking specifically about
/magic weapon/. He asked if an object under the
effects of a spell such as /light/ or /bless weapon/ is
considered magical. The answer to *that* question is
(obviously) "no," but I would submit that /magic
weapon/ is an altogether different kettle of fish.

-Bluto

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Justisaur wrote:
> Mark Blunden wrote:
> > I'm shortly going to be playing a warlock for the first time, and one of his
> > invocations will be Baleful Utterance, which basically replicates Shatter.
> > One of the uses of Shatter is:
> >
> > "Alternatively, you can target shatter against a single solid object,
> > regardless of composition, weighing up to 10 pounds per caster level."
> >
> > Obviously, this is a generally very useful ability - but I want to be sure
> > of its limitations. Specifically, if you target a single object within the
> > weight limits, but that object is part of a larger object, is it a valid
> > target?
> >
> > For example: Can I open a locked door by shattering the lock, or the hinges?
> > Could I collapse a single large structure by targetting individual support
> > elements - such as the ropes of a rope bridge, or individual beams of a
> > scaffholding? Or would the door, the bridge, and the scaffholding each be
> > considered a single object?
>
> As it isn't in the spell description, and I doubt there's anywhere else
> that would apply specifically enough to the spell, that's pretty much
> in the perview of the DM. I'd be inclined to limit it to whole objects
> - such as the whole door. (Hanging myself here since I'm playing a
> warlock with same ability myself). It's a rather large ammount of
> material anyway, I'm not entirely sure how much a midieval door would
> weigh, but I can't imagine much more than 50 lbs for any normal door,
> of course being more if its a reinforced prison door or somesuch.

I agree that the term "whole object" is wholly arbitrary. I'm probably
going to rule this one vaguely: if you could realistically target it
with a stomping kick, you can cast Shatter on it. In other words,
individual ladder rungs, sure, individual nails in a door, no, a lock,
yes, the tumblers in a lock, no.

I realize this is pretty arbitrary... I'm open to any better ideas.

Laszlo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mark Blunden wrote:

> One other question, while we're looking at rules technicalities: Something I
> thought of doing as a tactical move was shattering the saddle of a mounted
> character, hopefully spilling them from their mount (especially effective if
> in aerial combat). As an attended object, the saddle gets a Will save - but
> does it count as being attended by the mount, by the rider, or both? And
> which of them has to save against Baleful Utterance's secondary
> stunning/deafening effect?
>
> I tend to think that the answer to each of these is "the mount", as it's the
> one wearing the saddle, but I could see possible arguments otherwise (i.e.
> if a person is sitting in a chair, would the chair be considered attended?
> If so, wouldn't the same apply to a saddle?)
>

I would tend to go with the rider in that case. The rider gets a +2
bonus on riding from using a military saddle that is on the mount. The
mount gets no benifit from wearing it.

- Justisaur

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mark Blunden wrote:

> One other question, while we're looking at rules technicalities: Something I
> thought of doing as a tactical move was shattering the saddle of a mounted
> character, hopefully spilling them from their mount (especially effective if
> in aerial combat). As an attended object, the saddle gets a Will save - but
> does it count as being attended by the mount, by the rider, or both? And
> which of them has to save against Baleful Utterance's secondary
> stunning/deafening effect?
>
> I tend to think that the answer to each of these is "the mount", as it's the
> one wearing the saddle, but I could see possible arguments otherwise (i.e.
> if a person is sitting in a chair, would the chair be considered attended?
> If so, wouldn't the same apply to a saddle?)
>

I would tend to go with the rider in that case. The rider gets a +2
bonus on riding from using a military saddle that is on the mount. The
mount gets no benifit from wearing it.

- Justisaur

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mark Blunden wrote:

> One other question, while we're looking at rules technicalities: Something I
> thought of doing as a tactical move was shattering the saddle of a mounted
> character, hopefully spilling them from their mount (especially effective if
> in aerial combat). As an attended object, the saddle gets a Will save - but
> does it count as being attended by the mount, by the rider, or both? And
> which of them has to save against Baleful Utterance's secondary
> stunning/deafening effect?
>
> I tend to think that the answer to each of these is "the mount", as it's the
> one wearing the saddle, but I could see possible arguments otherwise (i.e.
> if a person is sitting in a chair, would the chair be considered attended?
> If so, wouldn't the same apply to a saddle?)
>

I would tend to go with the rider in that case. The rider gets a +2
bonus on riding from using a military saddle that is on the mount. The
mount gets no benifit from wearing it.ing each be considered a single
object?

- Justisaur

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mark Blunden wrote:

> One other question, while we're looking at rules technicalities: Something I
> thought of doing as a tactical move was shattering the saddle of a mounted
> character, hopefully spilling them from their mount (especially effective if
> in aerial combat). As an attended object, the saddle gets a Will save - but
> does it count as being attended by the mount, by the rider, or both? And
> which of them has to save against Baleful Utterance's secondary
> stunning/deafening effect?
>
> I tend to think that the answer to each of these is "the mount", as it's the
> one wearing the saddle, but I could see possible arguments otherwise (i.e.
> if a person is sitting in a chair, would the chair be considered attended?
> If so, wouldn't the same apply to a saddle?)
>

I would tend to go with the rider in that case. The rider gets a +2
bonus on riding from using a military saddle that is on the mount. The
mount gets no benifit from wearing it.ing each be considered a single
object?

- Justisaur

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mark Blunden wrote:

> One other question, while we're looking at rules technicalities: Something I
> thought of doing as a tactical move was shattering the saddle of a mounted
> character, hopefully spilling them from their mount (especially effective if
> in aerial combat). As an attended object, the saddle gets a Will save - but
> does it count as being attended by the mount, by the rider, or both? And
> which of them has to save against Baleful Utterance's secondary
> stunning/deafening effect?
>
> I tend to think that the answer to each of these is "the mount", as it's the
> one wearing the saddle, but I could see possible arguments otherwise (i.e.
> if a person is sitting in a chair, would the chair be considered attended?
> If so, wouldn't the same apply to a saddle?)
>

I would tend to go with the rider in that case. The rider gets a +2
bonus on riding from using a military saddle that is on the mount. The
mount gets no benifit from wearing it.ing each be considered a single
object?

- Justisaur

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

I would tend to go with the rider in that case. The rider gets a +2
bonus on riding from using a military saddle that is on the mount. The
mount gets no benifit from wearing it.ing each be considered a single
object?

- Justisaur

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mark Blunden wrote:

> One other question, while we're looking at rules technicalities: Something I
> thought of doing as a tactical move was shattering the saddle of a mounted
> character, hopefully spilling them from their mount (especially effective if
> in aerial combat). As an attended object, the saddle gets a Will save - but
> does it count as being attended by the mount, by the rider, or both? And
> which of them has to save against Baleful Utterance's secondary
> stunning/deafening effect?
>
> I tend to think that the answer to each of these is "the mount", as it's the
> one wearing the saddle, but I could see possible arguments otherwise (i.e.
> if a person is sitting in a chair, would the chair be considered attended?
> If so, wouldn't the same apply to a saddle?)
>

I would tend to go with the rider in that case. The rider gets a +2
bonus on riding from using a military saddle that is on the mount. The
mount gets no benifit from wearing it.ing each be considered a single
object?

- Justisaur

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Justisaur wrote:
> Mark Blunden wrote:
>> I'm shortly going to be playing a warlock for the first time, and
>> one of his invocations will be Baleful Utterance, which basically
>> replicates Shatter. One of the uses of Shatter is:
>>
>> "Alternatively, you can target shatter against a single solid object,
>> regardless of composition, weighing up to 10 pounds per caster
>> level."
>>
>> Obviously, this is a generally very useful ability - but I want to
>> be sure of its limitations. Specifically, if you target a single
>> object within the weight limits, but that object is part of a larger
>> object, is it a valid target?
>>
>> For example: Can I open a locked door by shattering the lock, or the
>> hinges? Could I collapse a single large structure by targetting
>> individual support elements - such as the ropes of a rope bridge, or
>> individual beams of a scaffholding? Or would the door, the bridge,
>> and the scaffholding each be considered a single object?
>
> As it isn't in the spell description, and I doubt there's anywhere
> else that would apply specifically enough to the spell, that's pretty
> much in the perview of the DM. I'd be inclined to limit it to whole
> objects - such as the whole door. (Hanging myself here since I'm
> playing a warlock with same ability myself). It's a rather large
> ammount of material anyway, I'm not entirely sure how much a midieval
> door would weigh, but I can't imagine much more than 50 lbs for any
> normal door, of course being more if its a reinforced prison door or
> somesuch.
>
>>
>> Finally, if an object is under the effects of a temporary spell, is
>> it considered magical (and thus an invalid target)? I.e. a pebble
>> with Light cast on it, or a sword enhanced by Bless Weapon.
>>
>
> No I don't believe it is considered magical. There's nothing in the
> description of say Magic Weapon that indicates the weapon gains the
> other bonuses of being magical like additional hardness or hit points,
> or saves when unattended.

Thanks for the replies so far. At least I know there's some question about
this - I was afraid that I was missing some obvious definition in the core
rules.

One other question, while we're looking at rules technicalities: Something I
thought of doing as a tactical move was shattering the saddle of a mounted
character, hopefully spilling them from their mount (especially effective if
in aerial combat). As an attended object, the saddle gets a Will save - but
does it count as being attended by the mount, by the rider, or both? And
which of them has to save against Baleful Utterance's secondary
stunning/deafening effect?

I tend to think that the answer to each of these is "the mount", as it's the
one wearing the saddle, but I could see possible arguments otherwise (i.e.
if a person is sitting in a chair, would the chair be considered attended?
If so, wouldn't the same apply to a saddle?)

--
Mark.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mark Blunden wrote:

>Justisaur wrote:
>
>
>>Mark Blunden wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I'm shortly going to be playing a warlock for the first time, and
>>>one of his invocations will be Baleful Utterance, which basically
>>>replicates Shatter. One of the uses of Shatter is:
>>>
>>>"Alternatively, you can target shatter against a single solid object,
>>>regardless of composition, weighing up to 10 pounds per caster
>>>level."
>>>
>>>Obviously, this is a generally very useful ability - but I want to
>>>be sure of its limitations. Specifically, if you target a single
>>>object within the weight limits, but that object is part of a larger
>>>object, is it a valid target?
>>>
>>>For example: Can I open a locked door by shattering the lock, or the
>>>hinges? Could I collapse a single large structure by targetting
>>>individual support elements - such as the ropes of a rope bridge, or
>>>individual beams of a scaffholding? Or would the door, the bridge,
>>>and the scaffholding each be considered a single object?
>>>
>>>
>>As it isn't in the spell description, and I doubt there's anywhere
>>else that would apply specifically enough to the spell, that's pretty
>>much in the perview of the DM. I'd be inclined to limit it to whole
>>objects - such as the whole door. (Hanging myself here since I'm
>>playing a warlock with same ability myself). It's a rather large
>>ammount of material anyway, I'm not entirely sure how much a midieval
>>door would weigh, but I can't imagine much more than 50 lbs for any
>>normal door, of course being more if its a reinforced prison door or
>>somesuch.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Finally, if an object is under the effects of a temporary spell, is
>>>it considered magical (and thus an invalid target)? I.e. a pebble
>>>with Light cast on it, or a sword enhanced by Bless Weapon.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>No I don't believe it is considered magical. There's nothing in the
>>description of say Magic Weapon that indicates the weapon gains the
>>other bonuses of being magical like additional hardness or hit points,
>>or saves when unattended.
>>
>>
>
>Thanks for the replies so far. At least I know there's some question about
>this - I was afraid that I was missing some obvious definition in the core
>rules.
>
>One other question, while we're looking at rules technicalities: Something I
>thought of doing as a tactical move was shattering the saddle of a mounted
>character, hopefully spilling them from their mount (especially effective if
>in aerial combat). As an attended object, the saddle gets a Will save - but
>does it count as being attended by the mount, by the rider, or both? And
>which of them has to save against Baleful Utterance's secondary
>stunning/deafening effect?
>
>I tend to think that the answer to each of these is "the mount", as it's the
>one wearing the saddle, but I could see possible arguments otherwise (i.e.
>if a person is sitting in a chair, would the chair be considered attended?
>If so, wouldn't the same apply to a saddle?)
>
>
>
I think the issue here is who is USING the item and who is BEARING
the item. The mount might be carrying it around but it provides no
utility for it. I'd say the individual that would be adversely effected
by the removal of the saddle. You could argue that the mount gets the
nasty side effect while the rider gets dumped onto the ground. So the
rider makes a Will save for the saddle to stay whole and the mount makes
a Will save to see if it suffers an unpleasant side effect. It would be
an unusual situation mind you...

--
Tetsubo
My page: http://home.comcast.net/~tetsubo/
--------------------------------------
If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.
-- Anatole France

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <1125679679.587139.87210@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
Justisaur <justisaur@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Mark Blunden wrote:
>
>> One other question, while we're looking at rules technicalities: Something I
>> thought of doing as a tactical move was shattering the saddle of a mounted
>> character, hopefully spilling them from their mount (especially effective if
>> in aerial combat). As an attended object, the saddle gets a Will save - but
>> does it count as being attended by the mount, by the rider, or both? And
>> which of them has to save against Baleful Utterance's secondary
>> stunning/deafening effect?
>>
>> I tend to think that the answer to each of these is "the mount", as it's the
>> one wearing the saddle, but I could see possible arguments otherwise (i.e.
>> if a person is sitting in a chair, would the chair be considered attended?
>> If so, wouldn't the same apply to a saddle?)
>>
>
>I would tend to go with the rider in that case. The rider gets a +2
>bonus on riding from using a military saddle that is on the mount. The
>mount gets no benifit from wearing it.ing each be considered a single
>object?

Wow. That's the worst set of Google burps I've ever seen.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Alex Lamb wrote:
> In article <1125679679.587139.87210@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> Justisaur <justisaur@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >Mark Blunden wrote:
> >
> >> One other question, while we're looking at rules technicalities: Something I
> >> thought of doing as a tactical move was shattering the saddle of a mounted
> >> character, hopefully spilling them from their mount (especially effective if
> >> in aerial combat). As an attended object, the saddle gets a Will save - but
> >> does it count as being attended by the mount, by the rider, or both? And
> >> which of them has to save against Baleful Utterance's secondary
> >> stunning/deafening effect?
> >>
> >> I tend to think that the answer to each of these is "the mount", as it's the
> >> one wearing the saddle, but I could see possible arguments otherwise (i.e.
> >> if a person is sitting in a chair, would the chair be considered attended?
> >> If so, wouldn't the same apply to a saddle?)
> >>
> >
> >I would tend to go with the rider in that case. The rider gets a +2
> >bonus on riding from using a military saddle that is on the mount. The
> >mount gets no benifit from wearing it.ing each be considered a single
> >object?
>
> Wow. That's the worst set of Google burps I've ever seen.

Lol. I was thinking of commenting myself... 7 posts (6 dupes)...

- Justisaur

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Matt Frisch wrote:
> On 2 Sep 2005 10:09:32 -0700, "Justisaur" <justisaur@gmail.com> scribed
> into the ether:
>
> >
> >Mark Blunden wrote:
> >
> >> One other question, while we're looking at rules technicalities: Something I
> >> thought of doing as a tactical move was shattering the saddle of a mounted
> >> character, hopefully spilling them from their mount (especially effective if
> >> in aerial combat). As an attended object, the saddle gets a Will save - but
> >> does it count as being attended by the mount, by the rider, or both? And
> >> which of them has to save against Baleful Utterance's secondary
> >> stunning/deafening effect?
> >>
> >> I tend to think that the answer to each of these is "the mount", as it's the
> >> one wearing the saddle, but I could see possible arguments otherwise (i.e.
> >> if a person is sitting in a chair, would the chair be considered attended?
> >> If so, wouldn't the same apply to a saddle?)
> >>
> >
> >I would tend to go with the rider in that case. The rider gets a +2
> >bonus on riding from using a military saddle that is on the mount. The
> >mount gets no benifit from wearing it.ing each be considered a single
> >object?
>
> Quintuple posting?

Septuple actually. Google's fault. *shakes head* I'm going to try to
get back to using a real newsreader, but it will be another month at
least. I finally got my password for giganews from comcast. Now I
just have to see if I can set up for use on my laptop.

I have to say I'm quite impressed by giganews, downloaded headers for
this group, they went back a long long ways. Unfortunately I already
exceeded my usage for the month in one day!

- Justisaur

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 2 Sep 2005 10:09:32 -0700, "Justisaur" <justisaur@gmail.com> scribed
into the ether:

>
>Mark Blunden wrote:
>
>> One other question, while we're looking at rules technicalities: Something I
>> thought of doing as a tactical move was shattering the saddle of a mounted
>> character, hopefully spilling them from their mount (especially effective if
>> in aerial combat). As an attended object, the saddle gets a Will save - but
>> does it count as being attended by the mount, by the rider, or both? And
>> which of them has to save against Baleful Utterance's secondary
>> stunning/deafening effect?
>>
>> I tend to think that the answer to each of these is "the mount", as it's the
>> one wearing the saddle, but I could see possible arguments otherwise (i.e.
>> if a person is sitting in a chair, would the chair be considered attended?
>> If so, wouldn't the same apply to a saddle?)
>>
>
>I would tend to go with the rider in that case. The rider gets a +2
>bonus on riding from using a military saddle that is on the mount. The
>mount gets no benifit from wearing it.ing each be considered a single
>object?

Quintuple posting?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 3 Sep 2005 22:03:39 -0700, "Justisaur" <justisaur@gmail.com> scribed
into the ether:

>
>Matt Frisch wrote:
>> On 2 Sep 2005 10:09:32 -0700, "Justisaur" <justisaur@gmail.com> scribed
>> into the ether:
>>
>> >
>> >Mark Blunden wrote:
>> >
>> >> One other question, while we're looking at rules technicalities: Something I
>> >> thought of doing as a tactical move was shattering the saddle of a mounted
>> >> character, hopefully spilling them from their mount (especially effective if
>> >> in aerial combat). As an attended object, the saddle gets a Will save - but
>> >> does it count as being attended by the mount, by the rider, or both? And
>> >> which of them has to save against Baleful Utterance's secondary
>> >> stunning/deafening effect?
>> >>
>> >> I tend to think that the answer to each of these is "the mount", as it's the
>> >> one wearing the saddle, but I could see possible arguments otherwise (i.e.
>> >> if a person is sitting in a chair, would the chair be considered attended?
>> >> If so, wouldn't the same apply to a saddle?)
>> >>
>> >
>> >I would tend to go with the rider in that case. The rider gets a +2
>> >bonus on riding from using a military saddle that is on the mount. The
>> >mount gets no benifit from wearing it.ing each be considered a single
>> >object?
>>
>> Quintuple posting?
>
>Septuple actually. Google's fault. *shakes head*

I guess I have 2 more to look forward to then...they haven't caught up with
me yet.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mark Blunden wrote:
> I'm shortly going to be playing a warlock for the first time, and one of his
> invocations will be Baleful Utterance, which basically replicates Shatter.
> One of the uses of Shatter is:
>
> "Alternatively, you can target shatter against a single solid object,
> regardless of composition, weighing up to 10 pounds per caster level."
>
> Obviously, this is a generally very useful ability - but I want to be sure
> of its limitations. Specifically, if you target a single object within the
> weight limits, but that object is part of a larger object, is it a valid
> target?

Since that is subject to such wide interpretations, it's best to make it
a DM call. Anything that's not a creature is an object, but the DM
should decide which parts are too integral to be treated as separate.

> For example: Can I open a locked door by shattering the lock, or the hinges?

I'd say so.

> Could I collapse a single large structure by targetting individual support
> elements - such as the ropes of a rope bridge, or individual beams of a
> scaffholding? Or would the door, the bridge, and the scaffholding each be
> considered a single object?

My idea would be to require a Knowledge (architecture & engineering)
check to see if you can pick the proper beam, unless it's absolutely
obvious.

> Finally, if an object is under the effects of a temporary spell, is it
> considered magical (and thus an invalid target)? I.e. a pebble with Light
> cast on it, or a sword enhanced by Bless Weapon.

Mostly no, but there's so many spells there may exceptions I'm not aware of.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mark Blunden wrote:
> Justisaur wrote:
>
>>Mark Blunden wrote:
>>
>>>I'm shortly going to be playing a warlock for the first time, and
>>>one of his invocations will be Baleful Utterance, which basically
>>>replicates Shatter. One of the uses of Shatter is:
>>>
>>>"Alternatively, you can target shatter against a single solid object,
>>>regardless of composition, weighing up to 10 pounds per caster
>>>level."
>>>
>>>Obviously, this is a generally very useful ability - but I want to
>>>be sure of its limitations. Specifically, if you target a single
>>>object within the weight limits, but that object is part of a larger
>>>object, is it a valid target?
>>>
>>>For example: Can I open a locked door by shattering the lock, or the
>>>hinges? Could I collapse a single large structure by targetting
>>>individual support elements - such as the ropes of a rope bridge, or
>>>individual beams of a scaffholding? Or would the door, the bridge,
>>>and the scaffholding each be considered a single object?
>>
>>As it isn't in the spell description, and I doubt there's anywhere
>>else that would apply specifically enough to the spell, that's pretty
>>much in the perview of the DM. I'd be inclined to limit it to whole
>>objects - such as the whole door. (Hanging myself here since I'm
>>playing a warlock with same ability myself). It's a rather large
>>ammount of material anyway, I'm not entirely sure how much a midieval
>>door would weigh, but I can't imagine much more than 50 lbs for any
>>normal door, of course being more if its a reinforced prison door or
>>somesuch.
>>
>>
>>>Finally, if an object is under the effects of a temporary spell, is
>>>it considered magical (and thus an invalid target)? I.e. a pebble
>>>with Light cast on it, or a sword enhanced by Bless Weapon.
>>>
>>
>>No I don't believe it is considered magical. There's nothing in the
>>description of say Magic Weapon that indicates the weapon gains the
>>other bonuses of being magical like additional hardness or hit points,
>>or saves when unattended.
>
>
> Thanks for the replies so far. At least I know there's some question about
> this - I was afraid that I was missing some obvious definition in the core
> rules.
>
> One other question, while we're looking at rules technicalities: Something I
> thought of doing as a tactical move was shattering the saddle of a mounted
> character, hopefully spilling them from their mount (especially effective if
> in aerial combat). As an attended object, the saddle gets a Will save - but
> does it count as being attended by the mount, by the rider, or both? And
> which of them has to save against Baleful Utterance's secondary
> stunning/deafening effect?

Wow, good questions. I'd have to say that the mount is wearing the
saddle, not the rider, so you'd use the mount's saves. If the rider is
a paladin, note that their special mount can share saves with the
paladin. The mount would likewise have to make the stun save.

> I tend to think that the answer to each of these is "the mount", as it's the
> one wearing the saddle, but I could see possible arguments otherwise (i.e.
> if a person is sitting in a chair, would the chair be considered attended?
> If so, wouldn't the same apply to a saddle?)
>

Another good question. I'd say probably not.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mark Blunden wrote:
>
> Thanks for the replies so far. At least I know there's some question about
> this - I was afraid that I was missing some obvious definition in the core
> rules.

An object is everything that's not a creature. Other than that, who
knows. The various rules for breaking objects normally let you target
any sub-section down to a 5' square, but shatter requires a "single
solid object"; I'd have to say if you need tools to take it apart, then
it's solid, so that the door is part of the wall.

> One other question, while we're looking at rules technicalities: Something I
> thought of doing as a tactical move was shattering the saddle of a mounted
> character, hopefully spilling them from their mount (especially effective if
> in aerial combat). As an attended object, the saddle gets a Will save - but
> does it count as being attended by the mount, by the rider, or both? And
> which of them has to save against Baleful Utterance's secondary
> stunning/deafening effect?

The saddle is worn by the mount, not the rider. It's part of the
mount's equipment, like barding and bridle, even if there's a rider
touching them.
I'd house-rule that anyone sharing a space with the attendee also
has to make the save vs the sonic effect.

> I tend to think that the answer to each of these is "the mount", as it's the
> one wearing the saddle, but I could see possible arguments otherwise (i.e.
> if a person is sitting in a chair, would the chair be considered attended?
> If so, wouldn't the same apply to a saddle?)

The chair you sit in is not "attended" any more than the ground you
stand on. You really have to pick stuff up and carry it around for it to
get your saves.

--
tussock

Aspie at work, sorry in advance.