Ironguard verses Arrows and Spears: What happens?

[Aotrs Commander]

On my checklist of Thinge To Do for my campaign world is something I've been meaning to check up for absolutuely ages but haven't remembered until now.

What effect would Ironguard (and Lesser Ironguard) (both from the SpC and ealier from MoF) have on non-metal hafted weapons, like arrows? Or spears? (Maybe even axes?)

The spell makes metal pass through you, so it doesn't really behave in a manner like DR (when you could just rule it bounces off).

The logic says then, that you shoot an Ironguarded guy with an arrow, the metal would pass though but the wooden bit wouldn't. You're essentially shooting him with a high-velocity blunt stick....I have no idea what I ought to be ruled for that. You ought to so some damage, as in the end, you're still smacking/shooting someone fairly hard with a chunk of fairly sturdy wood.

(I think the first time it cropped up (ages ago, actually) was when my wizard used and was promptly shot with arrows. The DM gave me half damage on the fly, which seemed fair enough at the time.)

So, should it be half damage? Minimum damage? Attack penalty? Reduce the weapon size? Fixed damage penalty? Maybe both of the previous, drop the damage on size and apply a -2 penalty to damage, because you're not attacking with the sharp bit? Damage as a club of the same size (or smaller)?

[Escheton]

Arrow, Blunt: These projectiles have blunt tips
wrapped in leather instead of pointed arrowheads. They
have a shorter range increment than normal arrows
and deal nonlethal damage.
Arrow, blunt (20) 1 gp 1d63 1d83 ×2 60 ft. 3 lb. Bludgeoning

races of the wild, closest I could find

[PId6]

Arrow, blunt (20) 1 gp 1d63 1d83 ×2 60 ft. 3 lb. Bludgeoning
Those are some scary arrows! :smalleek:

[Kaun]

Treat an axe like a club and a spear like a quarter staff?

[Aotrs Commander]

Arrow, Blunt: These projectiles have blunt tips
wrapped in leather instead of pointed arrowheads. They
have a shorter range increment than normal arrows
and deal nonlethal damage.
Arrow, blunt (20) 1 gp 1d63 1d83 ×2 60 ft. 3 lb. Bludgeoning

races of the wild, closest I could find

Interesting. Apparently the same damage dice, but dealing nonlethal damage. (I assume the D63/ D83 would actucally be D63 and D83!) And a lower crit (though to be fair I'd sort of assume that one anyway...)

I think you still might put a penalty in (as specifically blunt arrows is a slightly different affair to arrows without their tips), but that's a interesting thought.

(And would be hilarious for my Necromancer/Pale Master, when we eventually go back to that party, since he's immune to nonlethal damage...!)

Though actually, you could argue that maybe dropping the dice type by one size and making it bludgeoning and nonlethal (and crit x 2) would be enough; if you consider that you won't get the weapons enchancement bonus to damage, and you could make a case for not getting the bonus from any weapon specailisation - maybe - (unless you happen to have Ranged Weapon Mastery Bludeoning). 1-2 points less base damage plus Str alone is a modest to great hit to damage.

Sound reasonable?

[Escheton]

3 The weapon deals nonlethal damage rather than lethal damage.
yeah...

sounds reasonable

[awa]

don't just make it a club/ staff particularly if they are trying to use the metal bit. They would have used the weapon differently if they were using one of those weapons.

[Knaight]

D83!)

Wow. Potentially as high as 512*511*510...*2*1 damage? Way powerful factorial arrows for the win, I want some of these.

[Divide by Zero]

D83!Wow. Potentially as high as 512*511*510...*2*1 damage? Way powerful factorial arrows for the win, I want some of these.

Now, how does d fit in the order of operations? Is it d(83!), (d8)3!, or some other variant?

[Aotrs Commander]

Wow. Potentially as high as 512*511*510...*2*1 damage? Way powerful factorial arrows for the win, I want some of these.

Well, they do say archery tends to lag a bit...



(I would dispute that personally, as the Fighter/Ranger/Deepwood Sniper in my game is horrific, thanks to the x4 crit; easily doing 100-200 damage per round to any target he likes. And there's bugger all I can do about it without actually negating his build (e.g. spamming Airwall)...)

[Benejeseret]

I would suggest JUST converting it to blunt damage, or at least going case by case. In many cased making it non-lethal or reducing the damage dice strikes me funny.

A blunted arrow wrapped in leather would fly very differently then one with an aerodynamic metal tip, so a otherwise normal arrow whose metal tip does not affect you is going to have ALL the momentum and force of a normal arrow - just spread over a 'slightly' wider area. If anything, in DnD physics, the loss of the metal's penetrating assistance through armour would be best represented by a -X to attack rolls.

In the case of a large axe - there is still a lot of force going into that swing. The metal passes through you but the shaft still hits you with as much force and weight as the entire axe would, only blunted.


Finally, in all truth we should likely treat this spell much like the old druid weapon restrictions or special material considerations.
Consider something like this from SRD Darkwood:

Any wooden or mostly wooden item (such as a bow, an arrow, or a spear) made from darkwood is considered a masterwork item and weighs only half as much as a normal wooden item of that type. Items not normally made of wood or only partially of wood (such as a battleaxe or a mace) either cannot be made from darkwood or do not gain any special benefit from being made of darkwood.
Based on this line of logic Ironguard would make you 100% immune to "metal or mostly metal" items but would have NO EFFECT not items "not normally made of metal or only partial metal".

Swords/axes/flails/maces etc = immune
spears/arrows etc = no protection

[The Cat Goddess]

An arrowshaft is blunt, not sharply pointed. Thus, it would be less likely to pierce the skin... thus, it would do non-lethal damage. Or, if you really want to push it, it would do bludgeoning damage... most likely reducing the effective weapon size by 1 (thus a d8 arrow would do d6 instead).

[Irreverent Fool]

In the games I play in and run, we just treat such weapons as metal for the purposes of the ironguard spells, since that seems more likely to be RAI. Of course, a character who realizes what's happening may still use such weapons as improvised weapons to deal normal improvised weapon damage by hitting with the haft, etc.

I admit that arrows present a problem, but when you begin to make such considerations, you must also consider things such as a character's armor. What happens when you cast this on your meatshield who walks around in full plate? Does his armor fall off?

obnoxious
sig

[The Glyphstone]

In the games I play in and run, we just treat such weapons as metal for the purposes of the ironguard spells, since that seems more likely to be RAI. Of course, a character who realizes what's happening may still use such weapons as improvised weapons to deal normal improvised weapon damage by hitting with the haft, etc.

I admit that arrows present a problem, but when you begin to make such considerations, you must also consider things such as a character's armor. What happens when you cast this on your meatshield who walks around in full plate? Does his armor fall off?

obnoxious
sig


Armor isn't 100% metal. There's buckles, straps, undercoats, padding, etc., which could easily make up just as much of the armor by volume (though not weight) as the actual plate portions. So that would remain untouched, sitting on the character's body, and supportng the armor in turn....though it does create odd situations where he could reach in through his plate armor to adjust an itchy strap.

[Irreverent Fool]

Armor isn't 100% metal. There's buckles, straps, undercoats, padding, etc., which could easily make up just as much of the armor by volume (though not weight) as the actual plate portions. So that would remain untouched, sitting on the character's body, and supportng the armor in turn....though it does create odd situations where he could reach in through his plate armor to adjust an itchy strap.

The thing is, I would assume that the non-metallic parts are equally effected, as it would be difficult for a character to walk through an iron wall (the example given in the spell description) otherwise. So why would any non-metallic part stay attached? And even if it did, wouldn't the armor hang terribly and cause complications?

Or do those metallic weapons that pass harmlessly through the character just destroy all their normal clothing?

obnoxious
sig

[Benejeseret]

The spell specifies that it is only your skin that holds the immune/passthrough ability so you cloths would be able to support metal armour. A quarterstaff you hold does not get to pass through opponents armour - ONLY you unarmed attacks (ie. hands=skin)

However, the next part of the spell contradicts that logic as the pass-through-metal ability either A ) assumes you're naked or B ) that your held, non-metal items are also supporting the enchantment. But in that case, why limit to earlier to unarmed attack for bypassing armour??

If you can pass through walls of metal then all the coins should spill out of your pockets and onto the floor. In truth, this spell is written so badly (logic-wise) that if any character in my games cast it that is exactly what I'd rule - "You are now immune to metal! BTW, you just lost all your gold and it will take one standard action to pick up each coin by RAW (not that you can until the spell ends)"

[ScionoftheVoid]

"You are now immune to metal! BTW, you just lost all your gold and it will take one standard action to pick up each coin by RAW (not that you can until the spell ends)"

Could I get a quote on that? I've never seen it before. Also, I support the "character is naked after walking through an iron wall" interpretation, it just makes sense to me that way (considering the way the spell works).

Not sure what would happen to not-totally-metal weapons, but I'd suggest choosing two of the suggested changes (e.g. non-lethal and bludgeoning, or drop damage one size and non-lethal, etc.).

[Aotrs Commander]

Consider something like this from SRD Darkwood:

Based on this line of logic Ironguard would make you 100% immune to "metal or mostly metal" items but would have NO EFFECT not items "not normally made of metal or only partial metal".

Swords/axes/flails/maces etc = immune
spears/arrows etc = no protection

If it didn't unilaterally make you ethereal to metal I might be convinced, but as it stands, the logic in that disagress with me. Darkwood only really affects the shaft of the weapon, not the business end. If I was going for that sort of logic, I'd follow Irreverent Fool's lead and treat them all as metal weapons. But I'm a bit more pedantic than that!


The spell specifies that it is only your skin that holds the immune/passthrough ability so you cloths would be able to support metal armour. A quarterstaff you hold does not get to pass through opponents armour - ONLY you unarmed attacks (ie. hands=skin)

However, the next part of the spell contradicts that logic as the pass-through-metal ability either A ) assumes you're naked or B ) that your held, non-metal items are also supporting the enchantment. But in that case, why limit to earlier to unarmed attack for bypassing armour??

If you can pass through walls of metal then all the coins should spill out of your pockets and onto the floor. In truth, this spell is written so badly (logic-wise) that if any character in my games cast it that is exactly what I'd rule - "You are now immune to metal! BTW, you just lost all your gold and it will take one standard action to pick up each coin by RAW (not that you can until the spell ends)"

The fluff specifies your skin changes colour; the rules mechanics don't reference it at all. While as usual, the WotC staff didn't consider anything other than the most obvious paradigm (because no-one ever plays armoured arcane casters...), I don't see why Ironguard would be any different to any other similar spell in that it would affect you and all gear you're currently wearing. (Note, wearing not necessarily wielding, which also has president; Stoneskin doesn't gives you admantine attacks, nor, I don't think, protection against anyone sundering your weapon (though that's an interesting question itself.))

[Irreverent Fool]

The fluff specifies your skin changes colour; the rules mechanics don't reference it at all. While as usual, the WotC staff didn't consider anything other than the most obvious paradigm (because no-one ever plays armoured arcane casters...), I don't see why Ironguard would be any different to any other similar spell in that it would affect you and all gear you're currently wearing. (Note, wearing not necessarily wielding, which also has president; Stoneskin doesn't gives you admantine attacks, nor, I don't think, protection against anyone sundering your weapon (though that's an interesting question itself.))

But now you're arguing RAI instead of RAW, which seems to be in opposition to earlier arguments for having metal-tipped weapons such as spears and arrows deal damage in spite of a spell that appears to be intended to prevent such damage.

obnoxious
sig

[Zeful]

Now, how does d fit in the order of operations? Is it d(83!), (d8)3!, or some other variant?

The first is actually a pretty horrible die (a d512), but the second is the result of a d8 to the third power. Giving a 1, 8, 27, 64, 125, 216, 343, and 512. Average roll is 162.

[senrath]

Actually, it's a d262144.

[Zeful]

No it's not.

8*8=64
64*8=(6*8*10)+(4*8).
6*8=48
4*8=32
480+32=512
83=512

[senrath]

It's not 83, though. It's 83! which means 83*2*1.

[Divide by Zero]

And 512! is...well, really big (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=512!).

[Escheton]

thanks for that link, good site

[Aotrs Commander]

But now you're arguing RAI instead of RAW, which seems to be in opposition to earlier arguments for having metal-tipped weapons such as spears and arrows deal damage in spite of a spell that appears to be intended to prevent such damage.

obnoxious
sig

I'm not even sure what the RAI was supposed to be for Ironguard, actually. And neither RAI or RAW are very clear. Because, as usual, the writer didn't stop to actually think about anything outside of a bog-standard wizard using the spell...sigh. It's really not that hard to think about these things when writing spells and stuff. I know I do all the time. WotC were all to good at being inconsistant and vague. (I doubt they are, in reality, much better with 4E now, but they've made it much harder to anything other than what they think you're supposed to do in the first place.)

Still, not the worst spell in the SpC; that went to Sarcophagus of Stone, which I had to post up threads about three times before someone found the spell in Dragon...as the SpC was missing half the spell stat block...