Feather token + Ship

[Nich_Critic]

Hey all,

For next session, my PC's plan to use a feather token (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#tree) to summon a 60' tree in the hold of a ship (in order to bring about it's eventual sinking). I have no idea how to adjudicate this. The text of the item is unhelpful ("Suddenly, tree!"), and doesn't give any indication of what would/should occur if a tree suddenly materializes in a closed space.

Here's what I have:

1) (What the PC's want) The tree bursts forth, holing decks and causing tons of damage to the ship.

2) The tree appears, but it's contiguous with the ship (the parts of the ship that would be part of the tree are grown into the tree). No damage is done to the ship, but the ship has a good chance of tipping over from the extra weight

3) The tree appears, but stops growing when it reaches the hight of the hold

4) The item simply doesn't function

Which do you think is appropriate for a 400 gp single use item, or are there any other ways of ruling the use of this item?

[myancey]

I liked options 1 and 3, personally.

You're entering basic house rule territory here, so I'd do whatever feels comfortable.

You could go with option 1 with the ship beginning to sink. When the tree reaches water level it begins to float, either ripping through the weakened hull or acting as the ships new method of buoyancy.

I'm not very solid with my science though, so this could all be the imaginings of a liberal arts major...

[Greenish]

There are many ways to sink a ship, and the PCs settled for one that's both inventive and highly amusing. Do you have any particular reason for not letting it to work?

[Lateral]

Well, if the boat's made of wood. If it's thick metal, something like this is pretty ridiculous, and you should use option 3.

Anyone else reminded of the Siege of Isengard?

[Greenish]

Anyone else reminded of the Siege of Isengard?That was ents and moving trees. I'm reminded of The Mansions of the Gods.

[Lateral]

That was ents and moving trees. I'm reminded of The Mansions of the Gods.

You mean the ending of it? That too, I suppose.

[Greenish]

You mean the ending of it?I meant the "instant trees" bit. That was near the beginning, when they were trying to sabotage the construction.

[Darrin]

1) (What the PC's want) The tree bursts forth, holing decks and causing tons of damage to the ship.


This I generally put in the "If it takes the plot in the right direction (or maybe just a really *interesting* direction), then it works" category.



3) The tree appears, but stops growing when it reaches the hight of the hold


This is probably a bit closer to RAW or RAI... if we assume the growth works similar to enlarge person (the tree is technically a creature, after all), then from the spell description we have this:

"If insufficient room is available for the desired growth, the creature attains the maximum possible size and may make a Strength check (using its increased Strength) to burst any enclosures in the process. If it fails, it is constrained without harm by the materials enclosing it— the spell cannot be used to crush a creature by increasing its size."



2) The tree appears, but it's contiguous with the ship (the parts of the ship that would be part of the tree are grown into the tree). No damage is done to the ship, but the ship has a good chance of tipping over from the extra weight


This option has the most humor potential, so I'd be really tempted to go with this one, unless it gets trumped by plot considerations (Option #1).



4) The item simply doesn't function


No humor potential at all... unless I could work in the tree appearing unexpectedly later (the tree suddenly expands when taken out of the hold, or someone opens a hatch above it, etc.)

[Seonor]

2) The tree appears, but it's contiguous with the ship (the parts of the ship that would be part of the tree are grown into the tree). No damage is done to the ship, but the ship has a good chance of tipping over from the extra weight

3) The tree appears, but stops growing when it reaches the hight of the hold

4) The item simply doesn't function

Which do you think is appropriate for a 400 gp single use item, or are there any other ways of ruling the use of this item?

As Darrin said, 3 is probably the most RAW/RAI possibility.
For 2 depending on ship type and load the extra weight is probably not that much of a problem if it is evenly distributed. But if the party can place the tokens only on one side of the ship it might capsize, especially if the party considers things like wind direction and waves.

[bloodtide]

I'd never let so cheap and simple an item damage or destroy a ship, or any other of such thing mass destruction. A feather token makes a simple helpful effect, it's not a mass weapon of war.

I'm more of the mind that magic is 'programed' to do what it was made to do. And that it's not 'inventive' to use something in the wrong way.

After all you don't want folks with just a couple thousand gold buying/making tokens and then sinking whole fleets of ships. And I do play in an extremely high level of magic game. So if folks could destroy whole fleets of ships, plus buildings...then it would have been done long, long ago and the 'new' tokens made after that would have a fail safe.

Though I'd be fine with a magical item just like a token(but costing more) that can destroy structures or ships.

[Tvtyrant]

I'd never let so cheap and simple an item damage or destroy a ship, or any other of such thing mass destruction. A feather token makes a simple helpful effect, it's not a mass weapon of war.

I'm more of the mind that magic is 'programed' to do what it was made to do. And that it's not 'inventive' to use something in the wrong way.

After all you don't want folks with just a couple thousand gold buying/making tokens and then sinking whole fleets of ships. And I do play in an extremely high level of magic game. So if folks could destroy whole fleets of ships, plus buildings...then it would have been done long, long ago and the 'new' tokens made after that would have a fail safe.

Though I'd be fine with a magical item just like a token(but costing more) that can destroy structures or ships.

An orb specialist can sink a ship in a single shot for free. A high level fighter with an adamant weapon can sunder as many as it can take actions in a day; I don't think there is anything wrong with using an item to do it, especially if your below decks rather then 300 feet away.

[AsteriskAmp]

I'd never let so cheap and simple an item damage or destroy a ship, or any other of such thing mass destruction. A feather token makes a simple helpful effect, it's not a mass weapon of war.

I'm more of the mind that magic is 'programed' to do what it was made to do. And that it's not 'inventive' to use something in the wrong way.

After all you don't want folks with just a couple thousand gold buying/making tokens and then sinking whole fleets of ships. And I do play in an extremely high level of magic game. So if folks could destroy whole fleets of ships, plus buildings...then it would have been done long, long ago and the 'new' tokens made after that would have a fail safe.

Though I'd be fine with a magical item just like a token(but costing more) that can destroy structures or ships.

The very precept of magic is it's versatility, you take that away, along with creativity and you fare better playing a MMORPG. The thing is that the versatility of magic is it's strong point (and what kinda makes it broken beyond believe). As for the mass destruction potential, 400 gp is actually A LOT for a commoner or anyone, WBL is ridiculous in it's conception and the equivalences are rather silly too, but that's beyond the point, it's KINDA cheap for a PC but not that much, and you actually have to board before destroying the ship, normally a wizard can do that from afar, and even artillery is a better approach since even after boarding and clearing enough people to safely place the tree and escape, it could actually be better to just take over the ship at that point.

Also, why in the inside? Why not on the side of the deck as to unbalance the ship and sink it, or even better, in the ship's steering wheel, you've just made the ship uncontrollable, go back to your own ship, gust of wind it and suddenly they travel to the horizon with no way of going back or even steering.

[bloodtide]

An orb specialist can sink a ship in a single shot for free. A high level fighter with an adamant weapon can sunder as many as it can take actions in a day; I don't think there is anything wrong with using an item to do it, especially if your below decks rather then 300 feet away.

There is nothing wrong with using an item to do it. But not a cheap and simple item. A tree token is almost the cheapest item in the DMG at 400 gp. And no 400 gp item should be able to sink a ship.

A wizard with a couple days and a couple thousand gold can sink a whole fleet of ships with one cheap item? Sounds a bit much, right?

[AsteriskAmp]

There is nothing wrong with using an item to do it. But not a cheap and simple item. A tree token is almost the cheapest item in the DMG at 400 gp. And no 400 gp item should be able to sink a ship.

A wizard with a couple days and a couple thousand gold can sink a whole fleet of ships with one cheap item? Sounds a bit much, right?

Thousand gold is A LOT in terms of economy (not in terms of WBL), and the Wizard could potentially do it for free.

[Tvtyrant]

There is nothing wrong with using an item to do it. But not a cheap and simple item. A tree token is almost the cheapest item in the DMG at 400 gp. And no 400 gp item should be able to sink a ship.

A wizard with a couple days and a couple thousand gold can sink a whole fleet of ships with one cheap item? Sounds a bit much, right?

A whole fleet of ships if they teleport from ship to ship and activate a different item in each one you mean? If you put the ability to be wherever you want into RL you can use a five dollar wrench to destroy an entire fleet. Its the getting to the important parts that is hard, and the item does nothing to help with that. So no, it doesn't sound like a bit much. And as I said, after a certain point every character will be able to sink ships basically at will. Even the rules from Spelljammer won't save you from a metamagicked orb or a sunder attempt by a maxed strength barbarian.

[IthroZada]

A wizard with a couple days and a couple thousand gold can sink a whole fleet of ships with one cheap item? Sounds a bit much, right?

:smallconfused: You consider that overpowered when a wizard with the right spells can do the same thing from hundreds of feet away?

[dgnslyr]

I don't see any problem with it, just because it's a pretty hilarious mental image. Feather Tokens are all pretty fun items, conductive to creative usage.

[bloodtide]

The very precept of magic is it's versatility, you take that away, along with creativity and you fare better playing a MMORPG. The thing is that the versatility of magic is it's strong point (and what kinda makes it broken beyond believe).

OK, lets say you make the ruling that a tree token can destroy a ship. So what is the limit? Can the tree destroy any ship? What about other structures and buildings? Is there any limit to what the tree can destroy? Can it destroy stone buildings? Metal ones?

How about using the tree as a weapon? If it instantaneously grows in a small space does it automatically kill a foe? Do they get a save? Does the tree do damage? If so, how much? Does an instantaneously growing tree have to over come spell resistance? Would you let a player do things like 'place the token under someone and cause it to grow and cause instant death? Or toss the foe 90' in the air and drop them?

How about if they put the feather inside someones mouth and then activate it and turn it into a tree...instant death?

See why it's better to keep the token a simple item?

[AsteriskAmp]

OK, lets say you make the ruling that a tree token can destroy a ship. So what is the limit? Can the tree destroy any ship? What about other structures and buildings? Is there any limit to what the tree can destroy? Can it destroy stone buildings? Metal ones?

How about using the tree as a weapon? If it instantaneously grows in a small space does it automatically kill a foe? Do they get a save? Does the tree do damage? If so, how much? Does an instantaneously growing tree have to over come spell resistance? Would you let a player do things like 'place the token under someone and cause it to grow and cause instant death? Or toss the foe 90' in the air and drop them?

How about if they put the feather inside someones mouth and then activate it and turn it into a tree...instant death?

See why it's better to keep the token a simple item?

Why limit creativity?

As for the lethality of it, direct killing through people crushing is frowned upon in the Enlarge Spell description, so I believe that ruling can be extrapolated. I believe metal hardness would destroy the tree and not the tree the metal or stone.

As for the tree lunging someone into the air, one could simply say it grows trunk first so it would get pushed to the side instead of lunged to the air.

As for placing it in someone's mouth, if they reach the person, force their jaw open, and cramp the feather there, why not?


But at the end, it's DM dependant. If the DM believes it's creative and isn't a blatant physics abuse (which to me it isn't), then xe will probably allow it.

[Skaven]

400gp is only cheap my PC WBL standards.

Its actually a pretty costly way to take down a ship. It would be more economical to buy a cannon and some cannonballs and be able to take down multiple ships.

You can take down a ship by buying a flask of oil and a torch.

The players are being creative. They could have just lined oil to the ships powderroom and lit it from the deck, or just poured oil all over the keel and set it alight.

[Gamer Girl]

It's nice to see so much support for the Feather Token of Instantaneous Death and Destruction. But I wonder, for the people that answered that say 'putting the feather in a foes mouth to cause instantaneous death' or 'putting a foe in a small room and activating the feather to cause instantaneous death' are the same with everything in thier games, or is this just a special exception for the Feather Token of Instantaneous Death and Destruction.

I thought most people liked all the safety rules and special nerf padding in the 3.5E rules.

So if you allow the 'creative' use of the Feather Token of Instantaneous Death and Destruction do you:

*Also use the poison = death, instead of the ability damage
*Also use all the old 2e and before save or die effects for spells
*Also don't use the 'save every round' thing from 3E and let things like paralzation last it's full duration
*Also use the old fashion energy drain permanently takes levels

And if you don't use such effects, then why does the Feather Token of Instantaneous Death and Destruction get a special pass?

You would not allow some one to cast disintegrate as the old 1/2 E save or die version but if the 'creative' play placed a feather on the dragons head you'd allow it to grown into a tree and cause the instant death of the dragon?

[Tvtyrant]

It's nice to see so much support for the Feather Token of Instantaneous Death and Destruction. But I wonder, for the people that answered that say 'putting the feather in a foes mouth to cause instantaneous death' or 'putting a foe in a small room and activating the feather to cause instantaneous death' are the same with everything in thier games, or is this just a special exception for the Feather Token of Instantaneous Death and Destruction.

I thought most people liked all the safety rules and special nerf padding in the 3.5E rules.

So if you allow the 'creative' use of the Feather Token of Instantaneous Death and Destruction do you:

*Also use the poison = death, instead of the ability damage
*Also use all the old 2e and before save or die effects for spells
*Also don't use the 'save every round' thing from 3E and let things like paralzation last it's full duration
*Also use the old fashion energy drain permanently takes levels

And if you don't use such effects, then why does the Feather Token of Instantaneous Death and Destruction get a special pass?

You would not allow some one to cast disintegrate as the old 1/2 E save or die version but if the 'creative' play placed a feather on the dragons head you'd allow it to grown into a tree and cause the instant death of the dragon?
Maybe because we don't ascribe to your arbitrary and binary interpretation of editions :smallsigh: Just because we use a different ruleset then you do doesn't mean we have some cuddly design philosophy, and the constant accusation of such is getting tedious. And not one of those things you listed is about creativity, those are just ways to raise mortality levels.

[The-Mage-King]

It's nice to see so much support for the Feather Token of Instantaneous Death and Destruction. But I wonder, for the people that answered that say 'putting the feather in a foes mouth to cause instantaneous death' or 'putting a foe in a small room and activating the feather to cause instantaneous death' are the same with everything in thier games, or is this just a special exception for the Feather Token of Instantaneous Death and Destruction.

Who said anything about putting someone in a small room? The "Wedging a magical item that creates something much larger than the victim's head into their mouth" thing is reasonable. It would take a lot of effort, yes, but if they managed to do it, then why not?


I thought most people liked all the safety rules and special nerf padding in the 3.5E rules.

If you want to play a game of NERF D&D, take it to the 4E forums. I hear they like it over there. That and World of Warcraft.

Oh, wait. WoW doesn't allow creativity. It sounds like your favorite game!


So if you allow the 'creative' use of the Feather Token of Instantaneous Death and Destruction do you:

*Also use the poison = death, instead of the ability damage
*Also use all the old 2e and before save or die effects for spells
*Also don't use the 'save every round' thing from 3E and let things like paralzation last it's full duration
*Also use the old fashion energy drain permanently takes levels

And if you don't use such effects, then why does the Feather Token of Instantaneous Death and Destruction get a special pass?

Let's see... Which of these doesn't have actual rules written for the DM to use?

Hm... Wait, could it be? The feather token has nothing saying that you can't use it to kill someone? HERESY! The next thing you know, people will be saying that they can use rope to kill people!


You would not allow some one to cast disintegrate as the old 1/2 E save or die version but if the 'creative' play placed a feather on the dragons head you'd allow it to grown into a tree and cause the instant death of the dragon?

No, I wouldn't. That would just be silly. If it was put on top of the dragon, it would just fall off, now wouldn't it?

Now, inside the dragon's mouth, with a way to keep it from simply spitting it out, that's a different matter entirely.

[Jaster]

I've had this problem before. My players were in a massive ship battle and stocked up on tree tokens before hand. Using the rules for falling objects we calculated that the trees would reach the 20d6 damage cap from a 10 ft fall. As per the stats in Stormwrack, this would be enough to crash through the deck of most ships, then fall 10 ft to the next deck, again reaching the damage cap and likely bursting through it, all the way through the ship.
I let them get away with it that one battle, but from that point on we have had new rules for the tokens. They only grow when placed on solid ground and grow to either their full height, the weight limit of the ground they are on, or as high as they can without being obstructed, whichever is least.

[Geigan]

I've had this problem before. My players were in a massive ship battle and stocked up on tree tokens before hand. Using the rules for falling objects we calculated that the trees would reach the 20d6 damage cap from a 10 ft fall. As per the stats in Stormwrack, this would be enough to crash through the deck of most ships, then fall 10 ft to the next deck, again reaching the damage cap and likely bursting through it, all the way through the ship.
I let them get away with it that one battle, but from that point on we have had new rules for the tokens. They only grow when placed on solid ground and grow to either their full height, the weight limit of the ground they are on, or as high as they can without being obstructed, whichever is least.

Why didn't they just find some big rocks or something instead of spending 400 gp for all the tokens? I'd think a wand of shrink item and a stone quarry would be easier to find than that many tokens.

I don't think the feather tokens are that big a deal compared to the rest of what a band of adventurers could pull off. Shrink item and some boulders and they could've just dropped a rock on it. Launch item and it would be even easier.

[AsteriskAmp]

It's nice to see so much support for the Feather Token of Instantaneous Death and Destruction. But I wonder, for the people that answered that say 'putting the feather in a foes mouth to cause instantaneous death' or 'putting a foe in a small room and activating the feather to cause instantaneous death' are the same with everything in thier games, or is this just a special exception for the Feather Token of Instantaneous Death and Destruction.

I thought most people liked all the safety rules and special nerf padding in the 3.5E rules.

So if you allow the 'creative' use of the Feather Token of Instantaneous Death and Destruction do you:

*Also use the poison = death, instead of the ability damage
*Also use all the old 2e and before save or die effects for spells
*Also don't use the 'save every round' thing from 3E and let things like paralzation last it's full duration
*Also use the old fashion energy drain permanently takes levels

And if you don't use such effects, then why does the Feather Token of Instantaneous Death and Destruction get a special pass?

You would not allow some one to cast disintegrate as the old 1/2 E save or die version but if the 'creative' play placed a feather on the dragons head you'd allow it to grown into a tree and cause the instant death of the dragon?

There is a difference between creativity, permissiveness and lethality.

Also, effectiveness equals cost/results. The amount of effort required to get the token into someones mouth should equate the a similar amount of effort, also, the creativity required to come up with that course of action should be factored in as well, and the effort to actually grapple someone and hold him, and then open his jaw (I don't have any idea which mechanic would represent this, as a DM I would make an oposed STR check against yours, and the resisting part would get a +2 bonus) and insert your 400 gp token and activate it, elevate the required result to justify all the costs to death of whatever you hate so much as to do this.

Also, the idea that players should be kept poor, with broken bones, being constantly disjunctioned and forced to survive on save-or-dies is pretty psychopathic from the get go. The idea is to have fun, the dragon getting pierced by a tree is at least a creative solution, running save-or-dies from the GM side is little more than sadism unless the players now the campaign is like that from the get-go and they are OK with the don't get attached to your character mentality. Older editions had a different premise in the way to fun, the fun was in surviving, the system was based around that, it was different, not hardcore-er, the DM was opposed to you and the rules were the judge in this match. The evolution lead to the DM being the judge, and a collaborative storytelling of sorts, happening, with the DM creating the World while the PCs shaped history.

[HalfDragonCube]

-snip-

I see your point and counter it with this:

Breaking things with trees exploding into existence is freakin' awesome.

[Curmudgeon]

Breaking things with trees exploding into existence is freakin' awesome.

Yes, it is. I see great potential for brigands to do this to the homes and businesses of all the friends and allies of the PCs ─ with notes left behind explaining this retaliation ─ just to point out how you should reap what you sow. :smallbiggrin: That would really be awesome.

[HalfDragonCube]

Yes, it is. I see great potential for brigands to do this to the homes and businesses of all the friends and allies of the PCs ─ with notes left behind explaining this retaliation ─ just to point out how you should reap what you sow. :smallbiggrin: That would really be awesome.

To be honest, that applies to things like the fireball spell and power attack as well.

[Alleine]

Yes, it is. I see great potential for brigands to do this to the homes and businesses of all the friends and allies of the PCs ─ with notes left behind explaining this retaliation ─ just to point out how you should reap what you sow. :smallbiggrin: That would really be awesome.

As a PC, I think I'd actually be okay with this.

Of course it then starts an arms race. People begin collecting tokens, mass producing tokens. An entire city becomes a forest overnight. Crafters are killed on sight or kidnapped in order to fuel one side's need for more tree tokens. In the end, only the druids win.

[HalfDragonCube]

As a PC, I think I'd actually be okay with this.

Of course it then starts an arms race. People begin collecting tokens, mass producing tokens. An entire city becomes a forest overnight. Crafters are killed on sight or kidnapped in order to fuel one side's need for more tree tokens. In the end, only the druids win.

Druids: Because when someone begins a tree-dropping arms race, it's up to you to set them all on fire remove them carefully so as not to harm the wildlife.

[theForce017]

I would say that it could very easily do damage to the ship because the description states that a tree "springs" up and is an "instantaneous" effect.


A token that causes a great oak to spring into being (5-foot diameter trunk, 60-foot height, 40-foot top diameter). This is an instantaneous effect.

But as said before, home rule it if you need to.

As for it sinking, a tree is made of wood (duh) but wood floats so the ship may loose balance and tip on its side causing an interesting combat terrain.

[HalfDragonCube]

As for it sinking, a tree is made of wood (duh) but wood floats so the ship may loose balance and tip on its side causing an interesting combat terrain.

Please explain the phrase 'sinking ship' then.

[PollyOliver]

As a PC, I think I'd actually be okay with this.

Of course it then starts an arms race. People begin collecting tokens, mass producing tokens. An entire city becomes a forest overnight. Crafters are killed on sight or kidnapped in order to fuel one side's need for more tree tokens. In the end, only the druids win.

Silly creature. The druids always win. :smalltongue:

[Knaight]

Please explain the phrase 'sinking ship' then.

1) A great many ships are made of metal.
2) When your ship has stuff in it that is much denser than water, and it fills up with water, you are hosed.
3) Shipwrecks can leave lots of little floating pieces of wood.

Back to the point, I personally like option 2, where the tree grows up from the bottom of the ship, punches through upper decks, and expands out to fill the space it punched through, warping the wood of the upper deck. Said ship may then tip over, tossing its passengers into the sea, but it probably won't sink quickly, though waves will fill the lower deck area with water, and slowly drag it down.

[Gamer Girl]

Maybe because we don't ascribe to your arbitrary and binary interpretation of editions :smallsigh: Just because we use a different ruleset then you do doesn't mean we have some cuddly design philosophy, and the constant accusation of such is getting tedious. And not one of those things you listed is about creativity, those are just ways to raise mortality levels.

I was just wondering how many people don't use the 3E ish rules. See the instant death by token feather in the mouth is an old style D&D approach. So I wondered, if you let the instant death token work, you you add back in all the other instant death things that 3E worked so hard to cut out and modify.

It's not 'my interpretation'. In 1/2E if you failed your save vs disintegration your character died. In 3E you just take damage. In 2E if you failed a save vs poison your character died. In 3E you just take ability damage. And so on. In 2E you could drop summoned monsters on foes, 3E has an explicit rule that you can't do this at all.


I do find it odd that people think the Feather Token of Death is great and cool, but would not allow anything else similar. So putting a feather token inside someones mouth to cause instant death is ok, but you would not let polymorph turn a human into a fish out of water and die(and again baleful polymoprh in 3E can't do this).

So the assassin can stab the target with poison for 1d4 dex damage or put a feather tree token in it's mouth to cause instant death? Very odd...

[HalfDragonCube]

1) A great many ships are made of metal.

Weren't we talking about wooden ships? They sink to.


2) When your ship has stuff in it that is much denser than water, and it fills up with water, you are hosed.

And most ships do have stuff denser than water inside. Smashing all of the decks wide open is likely to sink it after a while, not just make it a tad wobbly.


3) Shipwrecks can leave lots of little floating pieces of wood.

I'm not saying that wood does not float. Bits will indeed come off the ship.

[Knaight]

Weren't we talking about wooden ships?



And most ships do have stuff denser than water inside. Smashing all of the decks wide open is likely to sink it, not just make it a tad wobbly.



I'm not saying that wood does not float. Bits will indeed come off the ship.

1) Sure, but if one is justifying terminology like "sinking ship", one includes all scenarios.

2) Yes, but the assumption wasn't that decks were being smashed wide open in the post you were responding to, it was that a tree would punch a relatively small hole through the top deck, then tip the ship, and said tree would then act as a flotation device. Essentially, the ship would become a counterweight on some sort of horrible catamaran.

[HalfDragonCube]

1) Sure, but if one is justifying terminology like "sinking ship", one includes all scenarios.

2) Yes, but the assumption wasn't that decks were being smashed wide open in the post you were responding to, it was that a tree would punch a relatively small hole through the top deck, then tip the ship, and said tree would then act as a flotation device. Essentially, the ship would become a counterweight on some sort of horrible catamaran.

1) Touché.

2) Tree. Flotation device. Just punched straight through multiple decks.

Am I missing something here? Some would indeed float, but the ship would be severely damaged, possibly to the extent where the might not be enough of it holding together to actually have a structure to overbalance. A falling tree would not simply damage one deck, what with being heavy and all that.

Suppose it depends on the type of tree, and that isn't mentioned on the magic item description. Some would sink through the water.

[Knaight]

Am I missing something here? Some would indeed float, but the ship would be severely damaged, possibly to the extent where the might not be enough of it holding together to actually have a structure to overbalance. A falling tree would not simply damage one deck, what with being heavy and all that.

Its probably just a different mental picture. I pictured a tree growing from the bottom of the ship, with roots spreading into and through the wood, supporting it, but with a watertight seal. While it does this, it pushes a hole in the top deck, but it grows gradually from that, bending the outer planks slightly around the tree, but not creating any large gaps. It also gradually grows branches, up above the upper deck, and it is the mass of branches that causes the ship to fall over sideways. Said sideways ship is floating, the mass of branches is sort of floating, and the trunk runs down the water. However, waves would gradually fill the ship through the smaller holes in the top deck that is now on a side, and once it was full of water it would eventually sink fully.

[Tvtyrant]

I was just wondering how many people don't use the 3E ish rules. See the instant death by token feather in the mouth is an old style D&D approach. So I wondered, if you let the instant death token work, you you add back in all the other instant death things that 3E worked so hard to cut out and modify.

It's not 'my interpretation'. In 1/2E if you failed your save vs disintegration your character died. In 3E you just take damage. In 2E if you failed a save vs poison your character died. In 3E you just take ability damage. And so on. In 2E you could drop summoned monsters on foes, 3E has an explicit rule that you can't do this at all.


I do find it odd that people think the Feather Token of Death is great and cool, but would not allow anything else similar. So putting a feather token inside someones mouth to cause instant death is ok, but you would not let polymorph turn a human into a fish out of water and die(and again baleful polymoprh in 3E can't do this).

So the assassin can stab the target with poison for 1d4 dex damage or put a feather tree token in it's mouth to cause instant death? Very odd...
No mate, your relating the one to the other is "your interpretation" and its a silly one. In the one case your arguing for rules based SoD, the other one is people arguing for the ability to creatively apply items to the game. If you can unshrink a boulder over someone's head it will hurt them badly, if you grow a tree in their stomach it will probably kill them, if you reverse gravity the ocean to create a geyser it will create a geyser. None of these is based on "and I insta-kill it because it failed a save." The game already has over a dozen of those in it; they aren't creative, they are just more weapons.

[HalfDragonCube]

Its probably just a different mental picture. I pictured a tree growing from the bottom of the ship, with roots spreading into and through the wood, supporting it, but with a watertight seal. While it does this, it pushes a hole in the top deck, but it grows gradually from that, bending the outer planks slightly around the tree, but not creating any large gaps. It also gradually grows branches, up above the upper deck, and it is the mass of branches that causes the ship to fall over sideways. Said sideways ship is floating, the mass of branches is sort of floating, and the trunk runs down the water. However, waves would gradually fill the ship through the smaller holes in the top deck that is now on a side, and once it was full of water it would eventually sink fully.

Oh, I was picturing it appearing in the air and crashing through the decks in a massive splintery mess.

[theForce017]

Its probably just a different mental picture. I pictured a tree growing from the bottom of the ship, with roots spreading into and through the wood, supporting it, but with a watertight seal. While it does this, it pushes a hole in the top deck, but it grows gradually from that, bending the outer planks slightly around the tree, but not creating any large gaps. It also gradually grows branches, up above the upper deck, and it is the mass of branches that causes the ship to fall over sideways. Said sideways ship is floating, the mass of branches is sort of floating, and the trunk runs down the water. However, waves would gradually fill the ship through the smaller holes in the top deck that is now on a side, and once it was full of water it would eventually sink fully.

I like that! The only thing I would change however is that the party would have to fight on the sideways ship and the trunk of the tree before it sunk. Way cool description thou :smallbiggrin:

[Gamer Girl]

No mate, your relating the one to the other is "your interpretation" and its a silly one. In the one case your arguing for rules based SoD, the other one is people arguing for the ability to creatively apply items to the game. If you can unshrink a boulder over someone's head it will hurt them badly, if you grow a tree in their stomach it will probably kill them, if you reverse gravity the ocean to create a geyser it will create a geyser. None of these is based on "and I insta-kill it because it failed a save." The game already has over a dozen of those in it; they aren't creative, they are just more weapons.

I guess my point is 1/2 E had tons of save or die, or even just die effects from poison, magic and such. 3E went the way of making all that stuff unavailable. And everyone rejoiced when all the instant death was removed from the D&D game. And no one wants to go back to the instant death days.

Yet a lot of people sure like the Feather Token of Death. If your 'creative' and put it in a foes mouth you can instantly kill them. Yet the same people would say that save or die spells or wrong and won't use them. What is the difference?

[Tvtyrant]

I guess my point is 1/2 E had tons of save or die, or even just die effects from poison, magic and such. 3E went the way of making all that stuff unavailable. And everyone rejoiced when all the instant death was removed from the D&D game. And no one wants to go back to the instant death days.

Yet a lot of people sure like the Feather Token of Death. If your 'creative' and put it in a foes mouth you can instantly kill them. Yet the same people would say that save or die spells or wrong and won't use them. What is the difference?

One requires creativity, getting close to the creature, winning a grapple to force it into the creatures mouth, and the ability to pin it so it doesn't spit it out. The other requires you to cast a spell. The difference is that the feather token of death takes a tremendous effort to actually use, the SoDs just take casting a spell.

[HalfDragonCube]

One requires creativity, getting close to the creature, winning a grapple to force it into the creatures mouth, and the ability to pin it so it doesn't spit it out. The other requires you to cast a spell. The difference is that the feather token of death takes a tremendous effort to actually use, the SoDs just take casting a spell.

And it's funnier than 'I zap them for a fort save'.

[Tvtyrant]

And it's funnier than 'I zap them for a fort save'.

Rule of cool is always cool with me.

:smallfrown: The wordplay hurts my soul.

[HalfDragonCube]

Rule of cool is always cool with me.

:smallfrown: The wordplay hurts my soul.

Rule of awesome = Rule of hilarity > Rule of cool = Rule of funny > RAW

[Knaight]

I like that! The only thing I would change however is that the party would have to fight on the sideways ship and the trunk of the tree before it sunk. Way cool description thou :smallbiggrin:

I'd recommend rewording it heavily if you use it. Right now its got a bit of passive voice to it, and is written as a hypothetical. If describing it as it actually happened, breaking it up a bit, adding more sensory details, and adding a description of how people react to it would bring it up to an acceptable description levle.

As for the party fighting on the sideways ship and the truck of the tree, that much was just assumed, as it would take a while to sink.

[theForce017]

I'd recommend rewording it heavily if you use it. Right now its got a bit of passive voice to it, and is written as a hypothetical. If describing it as it actually happened, breaking it up a bit, adding more sensory details, and adding a description of how people react to it would bring it up to an acceptable description levle.

As for the party fighting on the sideways ship and the truck of the tree, that much was just assumed, as it would take a while to sink.

Thanks! I am definitely going to try and use this in my campaign at some point in time. Could make an interesting road bump. :nale:

[Knaight]

Oh, I was picturing it appearing in the air and crashing through the decks in a massive splintery mess.
I could see this happening if you put the tree on top of the mast. Which would be all sorts of entertaining.

[Urpriest]

It's not 'my interpretation'. In 1/2E if you failed your save vs disintegration your character died. In 3E you just take damage.

Your decision to lie to make your points is troubling. This is blatantly false to anyone who played D&D during the 3.0->3.5 transition, and repeating it on multiple threads does little to encourage others to listen to your points.

[Diarmuid]

I guess my point is 1/2 E had tons of save or die, or even just die effects from poison, magic and such. 3E went the way of making all that stuff unavailable. And everyone rejoiced when all the instant death was removed from the D&D game. And no one wants to go back to the instant death days.

Yet a lot of people sure like the Feather Token of Death. If your 'creative' and put it in a foes mouth you can instantly kill them. Yet the same people would say that save or die spells or wrong and won't use them. What is the difference?

You also seem to fail to remember that 1E/2E also had plenty of save or damage effects. Every poison wasnt save or die. Every spell wasnt save or die. Stop cherry-picking/exaggerating for effect.

Putting the token in someone's mouth to kill them isnt inherent to an "edition". Creativity and resourcefulness arent something unique to 1E/2E.

AD&D's DMG didnt have anything in the writeup for any of the figurines of wondrous power stating what would happen if you could make someone eat it and then activate it, just as 3.5's DMG doesnt govern the tree token.

[Salanmander]

The groups I've played with usually rule that the tree grows to something resembling its normal size, but grows around already existing objects. So, a tree placed in the hold would generally result in a mass of branches in the hold, with possibly part of the trunk coming out of an existing hatch, but no damage to the boat.

We also tend to play that trees can be used for very creative purposes, but only if used sparingly, and tending to be in line with what an action could do otherwise at that level. For example, I've seen a tree used to break out of a T-rex that swallowed someone whole. The way the DM ruled was that the tree did the amount of damage required to cut your way out normally, followed by the usual "muscular action" hocus pocus, and then there was a tree lying on its side on the battlefield.

[Malkav]

Let it happen. Unless you are treating it like the Enlarge Person spell reads. Then number 3(I think).

[Gamer Girl]

Your decision to lie to make your points is troubling. This is blatantly false to anyone who played D&D during the 3.0->3.5 transition, and repeating it on multiple threads does little to encourage others to listen to your points.

Where is the lie? In 1/2 E Disintegrate was a save or die effect. Period. See the spell description in the 1 or 2 E players handbook, or even the 2E Spell Compendium.

1/2 E was full of instant save or die effects. And most of the effects, such as poison and a great many of the spells were changed for 3E on purpose.

And I do find it odd that anyone who plays 3E likes the Token Feather of Instant Death idea, but does not like all the other instant death things removed from 3E. Everyone sure like the 'creative' instant death idea.

I guess I should ask the obvious: If your character in the game was 'cleverly tricked' into opening their mouth and then a foe placed a feather token in your characters mouth and instantaneously killed your character(no save), would you be OK with that?

[Tvtyrant]

Yes. I would be fine with being killed if they managed to trick me into putting a death feather in my mouth and it going off. Better if there were a save to spit it out, but if not it would still be entertaining enough a way to die I would be okay with it.

And never again would I put a feather in a character's mouth.

[Urpriest]

Where is the lie? In 1/2 E Disintegrate was a save or die effect. Period. See the spell description in the 1 or 2 E players handbook, or even the 2E Spell Compendium.


Grab your 3.0 Player's Handbook. Look up Disintegrate. Then tell me you somehow forgot how that spell worked.

[Tvtyrant]

Grab your 3.0 Player's Handbook. Look up Disintegrate. Then tell me you somehow forgot how that spell worked.

You mean this one :P Disintegrate
Transmutation
Level: Destruction 7, Sor/Wiz 6
Components: V, S, M/DF
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Effect: Ray
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Fortitude partial
Spell Resistance: Yes
A thin, green ray springs from the character's pointing finger, causing the creature or object it strikes to glow and vanish, leaving behind only a trace of fine dust. The character must make a successful ranged touch attack to hit. Up to a 10-foot cube of nonliving matter is affected, so the spell disintegrates only part of any very large object or structure targeted. The ray affects even magical matter or energy of a magical nature but not a globe of invulnerability or an antimagic field. A creature or object that makes a successful Fortitude save is only partially affected. It takes 5d6 points of damage instead of disintegrating. Only the first creature or object struck can be affected (that is, the ray affects only one target per casting).

[SilverClawShift]

400gp is only cheap my PC WBL standards.

Its actually a pretty costly way to take down a ship.

This.

A common unskilled laborer (a huge chunk of any given populace, especially in kingdoms where your average passerby is an unwashed commoner) makes 1 silver piece a day, on average.

That's a little over 36 gold pieces a year. If they don't buy food, clothes, housing, or anything else they want or need, that means that they can save up enough to buy a feather token in a little over 11 years. If they work every single day and are never sick or unemployed or take a day to rest.

So to your average person on the street, using a 400 gold feather token to destroy a ship is an extravagant display of wealth power and excess. Someone making minimum wage in america would save up around $170,000 in the same 'unwashed commoner' scenario. Actually more, because the modern unwashed commoner only works 5 days a week and gets paid extra on holidays.

Remember. Player characters. Adventurers. They are insanely wealthy violent hobos. They crawl into the dark corners of the earth and fight zombies and dragons, knowing they might get their faces melted off by acid spraying traps, because the reward for that profession is being able to use more money than anyone else will see in their lifetime to sink an enemy ship with a magic tree. Because it's funnier than just hitting it with an axe over and over.

I'd give it to them.

[ericgrau]

I'm gonna agree with the notion that a 400 gp item should not destroy a 20,000 gp ship with a single standard action. And no it's not particularly clever either, not enough to warrant such a huge outcome anyway.

Similar magical effects cause the expanding object or creature to stop growing once they hit a barrier unless the expanding thing is strong enough to break that barrier, so I'd go with that.

[Knaight]

I'm gonna agree with the notion that a 400 gp item should not destroy a 20,000 gp ship with a single standard action. And no it's not particularly clever either, not enough to warrant such a huge outcome anyway.

However, its not a single standard action. Getting to this involved quite a few areas where the boarders outdid the people on the ship. They got to the ship, which presumably means they managed not to get shot down by the people on the ship, they got on the ship, which means they didn't get pushed off by the people on the ship, and only then did they release the feather token. Moreover, they still need to get off the sinking ship afterwards.

Besides, that is a weapon that costs 2% as much per shot as its target, and one that can miss if it isn't used from point blank range, that is to say actually on the ship. Compare, in the real world, an anti tank round and a tank, or a fighter plane and a missile a fighter plane has, or if you want to dial down the technology a bit, a single ship and a whole bunch of artillery rounds or even cannon balls. Odds are it costs much less than 2% in every case.

[ericgrau]

Lots of people board ships yet not so many instantly sink them by themself.

Those things listed are in fact very expensive considering what is necessary to launch them and so on. And not really applicable to D&D anyway where not too many non-broken things are a no-save no miss chance 1 shot. Nor applicable to anything really... or they'd only need to carry 1 missile and bullet instead of several and they'd launch it from a $0.50 handheld barrel instead of a million/billion dollar sophisticated machine.

[only1doug]

1) A great many ships are made of metal.
2) When your ship has stuff in it that is much denser than water, and it fills up with water, you are hosed.
3) Shipwrecks can leave lots of little floating pieces of wood.

Back to the point, I personally like option 2, where the tree grows up from the bottom of the ship, punches through upper decks, and expands out to fill the space it punched through, warping the wood of the upper deck. Said ship may then tip over, tossing its passengers into the sea, but it probably won't sink quickly, though waves will fill the lower deck area with water, and slowly drag it down.

Some Wood Floats, other wood doesn't:

Hardwoods are denser than water, these types of wood do not float. Hardwood is ideal for hull planking as it is resilient and so is hard to damage.

Softwoods are less dense than water (and therefore float), these were used internally within ships as the are cheaper and easier to work than hardwoods.

Wooden Hulled ships do not float because the wood is lighter than the water, they float because they have trapped air inside them and the (wood + air) is lighter than the water.


The feathertoken tree will sink or float dependant on which type of tree it is, but if the roots breach the hull then the ship is likely to sink (unless the breaches are sealed to prevent the water from filling the hull). If the tree grows up above decks it will certainly foul the rigging making sailing difficult and will increase the risk of the ship capsizing (toppling over). If the sea is calm (little wind, only small waves) the danger of capsizing isn't too bad if the tree is amidships (on the center line from the bow to the stern).

I'd allow this: it requires that the PC's are in position to use it, they could achieve a similar result with a handaxe.

[Curmudgeon]

Some Wood Floats, other wood doesn't:

Hardwoods are denser than water, these types of wood do not float.
That's pretty far off base; almost all hardwood floats. Only a very few species of hardwoods like ebony are heavier than water (density greater than 1 metric ton/m3). See here (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/wood-density-d_40.html).

Edit: It's interesting to point out that balsa, famous for its low density, is classified as a hardwood.

[opticalshadow]

You would not allow some one to cast disintegrate as the old 1/2 E save or die version but if the 'creative' play placed a feather on the dragons head you'd allow it to grown into a tree and cause the instant death of the dragon?

honestly, a feather token would be harder and prolyl more expensive to walk up to a dragon get in its mouth and force it to eat a token, rather then take like 2 or 3 max.lesser shiver touch arrows and down the dragon from far away.


(and yes, i would say the costs of walking up to a dragon, climping his body to get to his mouth to shove in some small token to be far more then the cost of the arrows)

and as its been pointed out, there are far cheaper items to sink a ship with. like a torch, or given enough time (plausible with a rouge) a small manual hand drill, or any spell caster with a handful of levels (though technically i think first level spells would be enough)
if your going to argue a 400gp item should not sink a ship, then you have to argue a fireball shouldnt either, its only a 3rd level spells. honestly, you should argue no spell should break a ship. because they are all (mostly) free to cast. so what if the player had to level up? hes still breaking a 20kgp ship for (if we includ regrent prices) less then a few hundred worth?


as for the edition cheese with things not being as lethal. poison might not insta kill, unless it deals you to 0 scores, it can still kill. that aside, just because the rules exsist in some items why should it effect items not ruled that way? but if you want to go strictly by raw anyways, save or dies are pointless to pcs anyway, immortality is far to easy to come by, so why even give dmg to the pcs? lets just assume were pun pun.


to the op, id say it destroys the ship, the item doesnt give any specific rulings, and so its your call, as the dm. IMO this option works presumably as the party wished, and it also will cause them the problem of being on a sinking ship, which would address the balence of power even farther.

[ericgrau]

Hulls of warships can be over a foot thick which means 120 HP or more plus 5 hardness. Fire does half damage to objects before subtracting hardness. You can't punch a hole in a hull in a round or two with an axe nor a fireball. By the spell description it won't even light the hull on fire. Basically there's no affordable non-cheesy way to do it quickly.

[agahii]

Hulls of warships can be over a foot thick which means 120 HP or more plus 5 hardness. Fire does half damage to objects before subtracting hardness. You can't punch a hole in a hull in a round or two with an axe nor a fireball. By the spell description it won't even light the hull on fire. Basically there's no affordable non-cheesy way to do it quickly.

125 isn't actually very much damage especially for someone with power attack.

[ericgrau]

At level 10 you're getting +20 damage from power attack and not much from everything else. Short of an ubercharger you're looking at 3-5 rounds by which time most fights are over.

[agahii]

Any build trying to PA effectively should be doing some kind of charge tactic so I wouldn't say it like "only an ubercharger")

Also it would be much easier for a caster to do anyway.(PS I wouldn't use a fire spell, I'd use Shatter a second level spell or several other awesome ship sinking spells)

[ericgrau]

Shatter affects a single object with a weight limit not a section. Come to think of it if the token is such a good insta-win someone might buy one as early as level 5 when they can't even approach the hull's HP by other means.

[AsteriskAmp]

Hulls of warships can be over a foot thick which means 120 HP or more plus 5 hardness. Fire does half damage to objects before subtracting hardness. You can't punch a hole in a hull in a round or two with an axe nor a fireball. By the spell description it won't even light the hull on fire. Basically there's no affordable non-cheesy way to do it quickly.
Stormwrack disagrees and that's the main book for naval combat. Hulls have a lot less HP per section and Fireball does ignite fire, it's damage is halved though.

[Kantolin]

1/2 E was full of instant save or die effects. And most of the effects, such as poison and a great many of the spells were changed for 3E on purpose.

But (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fingerOfDeath.htm)... there (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fleshToStone.htm)are (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wailOfTheBanshee.htm)quite a few (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/cloudkill.htm)save (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/circleOfDeath.htm)-or (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/implosion.htm)-dies (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/phantasmalKiller.htm).

(This was a random assortment, and doesn't include say Dominate Person [which is worse] or noncore things nor probably all of them... nor the fact that 20d6 is a ridiculous amount and is probably there so it can be used the same way to break through barriers and stuff... nor save and lose type of effects which are also existant...).

[NNescio]

Hulls of warships can be over a foot thick which means 120 HP or more plus 5 hardness. Fire does half damage to objects before subtracting hardness. You can't punch a hole in a hull in a round or two with an axe nor a fireball. By the spell description it won't even light the hull on fire. Basically there's no affordable non-cheesy way to do it quickly.

Why won't fireball light a ship on fire? Wood is combustible. Wood treated with tar or pitch (to be waterproof) even moreso.

That said, a smart wizard would probably just target the sails and rigging from far away. That should be enough to disable a ship, at the very least, and sails and rigging are usually rather costly to replace.

[agahii]

Shatter affects a single object with a weight limit not a section. Come to think of it if the token is such a good insta-win someone might buy one as early as level 5 when they can't even approach the hull's HP by other means.

One board sounds like a single solid object to me. I also doubt a single board would be over the 10lbs per cl limit either.

Regardless you are wrong on the hp of a ship anyway. Stormwrack lists it as 80 with 5 hardness on the toughest wooden ship.

I don't think anyone is saying it would be ok for the ship to like spontaneously combust from the token. What we are saying is that a decent sinking is pretty much ok because the same thing can be accomplished for free in 1 or maybe 2-3 rounds(plus it sounds cooler than "I full attack the ship for two rounds").

On the instagib note. I'd give the tree in the mouth a set(high) damage and a reflex save to spit it out.

[Urpriest]

On the instagib note. I'd give the tree in the mouth a set(high) damage and a reflex save to spit it out.

I just wouldn't allow it period frankly. There are plenty of items that are explicitly RAW and RAI deadly when put in someone's mouth, and there are no rules anywhere to force them in. If in D&D you could force someone's mouth open and put something in it then that would be mentioned in the context of the poison rules somewhere, if only in an obscure PrC, and nothing of the sort exists.

[agahii]

Im a rule of cool DM typically. RAW doesn't really concern me 100% of the time. I will almost always go RAW/RAI, but if you let a dragon eat you to feed em a feather token I will at least throw you a bone instead of saying well RAI is that it wont work, so you died for nothing :P

If it was just a grapple, it would need to be pinned imo, and the person pinned is as good as dead anyway so next turn id be fine with it. If the player wants a 600gp coup de grace more power to em honestly.

[Paintomancer]

Well, do you want them to be able to sink the ship? Go ahead. A powder keg and some tindertwigs are way cheaper than a feather token tree. You should reward your group for good thinking.

If you don't want them to sink the ship, just not letting it happen is a no-no, imo. Just saying "Well, there goes your magic item, but thinking won't get you anywhere" may look like railroading or just plain d-baggery.

How about some creativity? You need to cast major creation to craft a feather token. So it's a conjuration effect. If I am not mistaken, conjuration can, under certain circumstances, call forth energies energy (at least force and acid). So this tree could be either summoned (heh... outsider tree) or build out of energy (life, in this case, so positive energy). Magic is tricky:

The tree got summoned? Send the parts of the ship blocking the tree to the plane you summoned it from. No damage to the ship accurs, you just replace wood with live outsider wood.

The tree is made out of life? Let the magic go awry. A cool way: The life force creating a tree - living wood - lets the ships wooden planks come back to life. Or the tree is now part of the ship. You could do it in a way that the sturdy oak tree REINFORCES the ship your party was trying to sink.

Mix with some good narrating, and you won't have to many complaints. After all, an epic fail is a win from a certain point of view.

[Thurbane]

The answer to the OP really depends on the game, and the group...

If using a 400gp item to sink a ship seems like an acceptable outcome, is likely to be a one-off (or rare) occurence, and is a fair reward for "creative" thinking (which, AFAIC, it really isn't - wrecking things is one of the most common uses of the Tree Token that you hear about), then I'd allow it.

If it's likely to lead to an "arms race", where everyone with 400gp to spare is using the Tokens as irresistable siege weapons and auto-kill weapons, then probably best not to allow it.

[Morph Bark]

Why won't fireball light a ship on fire? Wood is combustible. Wood treated with tar or pitch (to be waterproof) even moreso.

That said, a smart wizard would probably just target the sails and rigging from far away. That should be enough to disable a ship, at the very least, and sails and rigging are usually rather costly to replace.

Because according to the descriptions of spells and maneuvers that create fire, the fire doesn't last long enough to set flame to combustibles. A torch could be used though.

[NNescio]

Because according to the descriptions of spells and maneuvers that create fire, the fire doesn't last long enough to set flame to combustibles. A torch could be used though.

Where? If it's the non-instantaneous magical fire clause:

Characters exposed to burning oil, bonfires, and noninstantaneous magic fires might find their clothes, hair, or equipment on fire. Spells with an instantaneous duration don’t normally set a character on fire, since the heat and flame from these come and go in a flash.

...it only applies to creatures and attended objects.

Regardless, Specific trumps General, and Fireball explicitly mentions that it can set fire to combustibles:


... The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area. ...

Page 29 of Stormwrack, the authoritative source on 3.5e naval combat, also explicitly mentions that Fireball can "start a fire."

[Curmudgeon]

Why won't fireball light a ship on fire? Wood is combustible. Wood treated with tar or pitch (to be waterproof) even moreso.
But wood immersed in water isn't combustible. That means most exterior hull surfaces and anything aboveboard that's hit with spray won't catch on fire. Fireball is only coarsely targetable (distance and height), so you can't aim for specific dry bits of wood. And unless you've got range-finding equipment, you're unlikely to even get a Fireball's radius close to the right place at ship-to-ship ranges. The ocean doesn't come with grid squares you can count.

You are allowed to used a ranged touch attack in the specific case of a narrow opening, so if there happens to be something dry and flammable on the other side of one such aperture you might be able to do better. than just height and distance. Of course you'd need to be able to see that small opening, so I hope you've got something better than the standard 2x spyglass.

[NNescio]

But wood immersed in water isn't combustible. That means most exterior hull surfaces and anything aboveboard that's hit with spray won't catch on fire. Fireball is only coarsely targetable (distance and height), so you can't aim for specific dry bits of wood. And unless you've got range-finding equipment, you're unlikely to even get a Fireball's radius close to the right place at ship-to-ship ranges. The ocean doesn't come with grid squares you can count.

You are allowed to used a ranged touch attack in the specific case of a narrow opening, so if there happens to be something dry and flammable on the other side of one such aperture you might be able to do better. than just height and distance. Of course you'd need to be able to see that small opening, so I hope you've got something better than the standard 2x spyglass.

I was assuming it was targeted from the interior of the ship (taking care to avoid friendly fire), similar to what was described in the OP. At farther (and practical) ranges, the wizard is better served targeting the sails and rigging.

A deck-targeted fireball from above would probably still deal damage though.