Did I make the right call?

[questionmark693]

I was thinking about a not so recent campaign I ran, and a call I made in it. My players were fighting a small group of goblins led by a shaman (sorcerer I think was the actual class used) at range. The Cleric used flame strike (lvl 4 spell I believe) to incinerate them. So I didn't let them take any of the scrolls or other small flammable rewards. Was that appropriate?

[Flickerdart]

There are rules for what happens to a creature's possessions (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#itemsSurvivingafteraSavingTh row) when it's hit by spells. The first sentence of these rules is "Unless the descriptive text for the spell specifies otherwise, all items carried or worn by a creature are assumed to survive a magical attack."

[Envyus]

I was thinking about a not so recent campaign I ran, and a call I made in it. My players were fighting a small group of goblins led by a shaman (sorcerer I think was the actual class used) at range. The Cleric used flame strike (lvl 4 spell I believe) to incinerate them. So I didn't let them take any of the scrolls or other small flammable rewards. Was that appropriate?

Yes because flamestrike and fireball do that.

[SiuiS]

There are rules for what happens to a creature's possessions (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#itemsSurvivingafteraSavingTh row) when it's hit by spells. The first sentence of these rules is "Unless the descriptive text for the spell specifies otherwise, all items carried or worn by a creature are assumed to survive a magical attack."

There is also the line under destroying objects that talks about it being the DM's right to arbitrate that you can't cut rope with a club, can break glass easier with some weapons, that fire can just destroy paper, etc.

[questionmark693]

I wasn't aware of that rule-thanks, I appreciate learning :smallsmile: But I do still think that in this case it made sense, given what flame strike does.

[Flickerdart]

Yes because flamestrike and fireball do that.

Except flamestrike doesn't.

There is also the line under destroying objects that talks about it being the DM's right to arbitrate that you can't cut rope with a club, can break glass easier with some weapons, that fire can just destroy paper, etc.
Irrelevant. The objects are never concerned about whether or not they would take damage because unless the spell specifies they always survive. You are trying to apply the wrong rule.

I wasn't aware of that rule-thanks, I appreciate learning :smallsmile: But I do still think that in this case it made sense, given what flame strike does.
Have fun rolling damage for every item in a creature's possession every time they're hit with an AoE attack, if you want your combat rounds to take a week each. Or you can keep doing what "makes sense" and then get into a fight with your players when what "makes sense" to you doesn't "make sense" to them and the consequences of their actions are wildly different from what they could reasonably expect would happen.

[questionmark693]

I didn't roll damage for everything-because I didn't think it made sense to deal with that for everything. There were two factors in my decision. The first was that they are made of simple, non magical paper, and they were immersed in fire. But even that wasn't enough-I wouldn't have even considered it if he hadn't rolled nearly full damage on the attack. Because of that though, I gave a very cinematic description of the spell, and it made sense for things to burn. And even in light of that rule....I stand by the fact that a level four spell that engulfs an area in flame should be able to burn paper, without rolling for the damage.

[Naomi Li]

I think you're looking at it the wrong way. The issue isn't "realism" in the slightest. What's important is this: Did your call improve the game for the gaming group? Your players and yourself are the only ones that can really answer this. So, if there's any question, talk to them about it.

I would guess that this ruling would NOT make their game more enjoyable, especially since it is applied semi-arbitrarily and they have little capability of predicting when the "get really high damage in and lose some gear" ruling will come in. However, I am not part of your gaming group, so I really cannot say.

[CRtwenty]

While the call may not be entirely supported by RAW I still see it as a valid judgement. I had a similar situation where my PCs opened up a locked chest by bashing it in with a Great Swore, causing several of the more fragile objects inside (Ex: Potion Vials) to be broken.

At the very least it should cause your PCs to be a little bit more strategic with their spellcasting, which is almost always a good thing.

[Baroknik]

I think you're looking at it the wrong way. The issue isn't "realism" in the slightest. What's important is this: Did your call improve the game for the gaming group? Your players and yourself are the only ones that can really answer this. So, if there's any question, talk to them about it.

I would guess that this ruling would NOT make their game more enjoyable, especially since it is applied semi-arbitrarily and they have little capability of predicting when the "get really high damage in and lose some gear" ruling will come in. However, I am not part of your gaming group, so I really cannot say.

I'd say it sounds like a wash. RAW they should have gotten the scrolls, but if it was home-written then the players have no knowledge of what they "lost" in the fire, so it is unlikely to harm the group dynamics. If the encounter was defeated by a single spell, then it is unlikely that the scrolls would have been of much use anyhow... It also shows the balance that has to be maintained with respect to challenge/reward ratios -- which are really the more important part of game balance/what's fun.

Though if you did this often then you could run into issues. Not so much of missed treasure (since it would be unknown to players and wealth could be corrected in the back end), but in equal participation for this rule... If a player later got flame strike cast on him... Would all of his scrolls potentially go "poof?"

[Kelb_Panthera]

While the call may not be entirely supported by RAW I still see it as a valid judgement. I had a similar situation where my PCs opened up a locked chest by bashing it in with a Great Swore, causing several of the more fragile objects inside (Ex: Potion Vials) to be broken.

At the very least it should cause your PCs to be a little bit more strategic with their spellcasting, which is almost always a good thing.

I can see how yelling obscenities at the chest until the lock breaks might damage glass vials inside.

[TypoNinja]

I can see how yelling obscenities at the chest until the lock breaks might damage glass vials inside.

Isn't this technically what a Warlock does with Baleful Utterance?

[CRtwenty]

I can see how yelling obscenities at the chest until the lock breaks might damage glass vials inside.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shout.htm :smallamused:

[Kelb_Panthera]

Isn't this technically what a Warlock does with Baleful Utterance?

Lol. Yes, I suppose it is. Gotta love a mechanic that says, "you issue an obscenity so foul that objects break apart when they're what you're cussing at."

Or at least that's one way to fluff it anyway.

[jaydubs]

At the very least it should cause your PCs to be a little bit more strategic with their spellcasting, which is almost always a good thing.

What exactly is the lesson to be taught though? Don't use area-of-effect spells against clumps of enemies? Don't use damage spells?

Because it seems to me that picking a spell appropriate for ending an encounter is exactly what players are supposed to do.

[CRtwenty]

What exactly is the lesson to be taught though? Don't use area-of-effect spells against clumps of enemies? Don't use damage spells?

Because it seems to me that picking a spell appropriate for ending an encounter is exactly what players are supposed to do.

"If you intend to loot the bodies afterwards, use a light touch on your Evocation spells. :smalltongue:

[TuggyNE]

What exactly is the lesson to be taught though?

"Use save-or-dies, they don't do collateral damage." :smallyuk:

[jaydubs]

"If you intend to loot the bodies afterwards, use a light touch on your Evocation spells. :smalltongue:

Right. Next time I make a caster, I'll make sure to take Minimize Spell. :smallwink:

[DarkSonic1337]

I'll be sure not to be a focused specialist Evoker while banning Transmutation, Conjuration, and Abjuration in your campaign

On a more serious note though, I personally would not be happy with that ruling because of the potential snowball effect. A LOT of spells sound like they would utterly destroy treasure (any spell that does damage really), not to mention hacking at someone with a sword would cut through paper clean along with them. Does a magical jet of water damage the scrolls? Does impaling them with magic needles damage them? Does your flame blade, or your lightning lance, or your ice axe?

What about a flaming sword? What about a breath weapon? What happens when enemies use these methods on YOU?

Damage in D&D is abstract because it needs to be. The flame strike doesn't damage their treasure because magic just works that way. While I would abide by your ruling and wouldn't raise too much of a stink because...well rule of cool, it is something that I'd want cleared up out of game so I know HOW to avoid destroying treasure in your campaign.

[sleepyphoenixx]

There's rules for that kind of thing. Unless you roll a 1 on the saving throw your items stay fine.
I'd assume the scrolls are in a case or tube of some sort since it doesn't make a lot of sense to carry around expensive and fragile items that can save your life without protection if you expect combat.

Otherwise, if you take it to it's logical conclusion nobody would carry around anything.
Potions break when you get hit in melee/get knocked down.
Scrolls are ruined the first time it rains. Your wands break in half when that troll bullrushes you.
Evocation becomes the worst school ever since not only is blasting inferior to BFC or buffing, now it also destroys all your loot.

[SiuiS]

Irrelevant. The objects are never concerned about whether or not they would take damage because unless the spell specifies they always survive. You are trying to apply the wrong rule.

How so? The rule is "if it feels appropriate to damage it even though the rules generally do not cover it, it is okay if it makes sense". DM decided paper burning made sense, so paper burned. Fini.
You also roll saves for objects if you roll a 1 on your own save, I believe. And there is a separate table which clearly and obscurely lists which fire spells set things on fire in Stormwraxk, despite those spells not saying they damage objects, isn't there?


Have fun rolling damage for every item in a creature's possession every time they're hit with an AoE attack, if you want your combat rounds to take a week each. Or you can keep doing what "makes sense" and then get into a fight with your players when what "makes sense" to you doesn't "make sense" to them and the consequences of their actions are wildly different from what they could reasonably expect would happen.

This does become a huge issue though. Best to all be on the same page.


I think you're looking at it the wrong way. The issue isn't "realism" in the slightest. What's important is this: Did your call improve the game for the gaming group? Your players and yourself are the only ones that can really answer this. So, if there's any question, talk to them about it.

I would guess that this ruling would NOT make their game more enjoyable, especially since it is applied semi-arbitrarily and they have little capability of predicting when the "get really high damage in and lose some gear" ruling will come in. However, I am not part of your gaming group, so I really cannot say.

I dunno. I think you're over-critical with your last paragraph "fire burns paper" has nothing to do with really high damage arbitrarily breaking objects.

But yes. Enjoyment – or consistency – are primary.

[Hangwind]

What exactly is the lesson to be taught though? Don't use area-of-effect spells against clumps of enemies? Don't use damage spells?

In the immortal words of Howard Tayler "Rule number one, 'Pillage, then burn.'":smallamused:

[Rain Dragon]

I was thinking about a not so recent campaign I ran, and a call I made in it. My players were fighting a small group of goblins led by a shaman (sorcerer I think was the actual class used) at range. The Cleric used flame strike (lvl 4 spell I believe) to incinerate them. So I didn't let them take any of the scrolls or other small flammable rewards. Was that appropriate?

It's been said before, but it is probably not wise to do this too often or with the wrong people. Furthermore, as we are talking about rewards and the players had no forewarning this was a little bit of a risky move. Perhaps in a more specific situation such as an important letter being carried by a careless non-magic type this would be more believable, but as is I can't imagine this sort of thing happening very often.

My wizard-friend would be incredibly outraged if this happened. He loves scrolls.

I hope I don't sound too aggressively against your call. It was interesting. I can imagine how various characters would react when they approach the bodies and find various singed items among fine ash.


I'd assume the scrolls are in a case or tube of some sort since it doesn't make a lot of sense to carry around expensive and fragile items that can save your life without protection if you expect combat.

When I draw mage-types I sometimes like to draw the scrolls in the mage's outfit much like they did with Diablo (http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20081010195131/diablo/images/3/3d/Wizard_concept_3.jpg). It's more interesting than 'I have massive pockets in my generic robe!'

[Yahzi]

If the targets were killed outright by the Flamestrike (i.e. -10 hp or less), then I would rule that they effectively failed their saves, and thus the objects were exposed just like any other unattended object.

In which case they (the objects) get a save, although modifying it due to high damage seems reasonable (say, a -1 for every 10 pts above what is necessary to destroy the object, or just a -2 Circumstance bonus would be less OCD).

[Fouredged Sword]

There are something I would add, but I think the ruling is sound.

- Don't adjust the reward based on the methods. Yes, that encounter had scrolls, and they burned, but hey, look, the leaders sword is now a +1 weapons of value = to the destroyed scrolls. Tell the party OOC that while they broke some of the loot, the total value of the encounter didn't change. The party should only be punished for doing stupid things, not for using a spell as intended.

Or maybe just the scrolls the targets had out ready to use get burned (the ones you intended them to use during the encounter and didn't count as treasure). The rest are stored in weatherproofed leather cases that are air tight. The flames scorched the containers to near uselessness, but the scrolls are intact.

Bashing a chest open, non-optimal. They draw guards to the sound or break something inside.

Fireball in a library, collateral damage.

[Xintas]

Everyone seems really harsh on this call! I agree that it 100% depends on your group; that is after all the most important aspect about D&D. That being said, I 100% support this decision.

Actions have consequences. If you want the loot, let the rogue go in and sneak attack some guys, pull them away from one another, etc. I understand what the rules say, but the rules also allow for lots of silly nonsense that was never balanced or intended. Fire burns paper seems legit to me.

[Brookshw]

I'll +1 to the reasonable call. Doesn't sound like you did it to spite them. If the players bull rush someone off a cliff to kill them I could see it destroying the victims potions. Not much harm here other than some very minor unknown loot loss.

[Diarmuid]

This call is fine if you've notified your group ahead of time of the departure from RAW.

DM's calls are always the final ones, but if a player has no knowledge that you have a very very wonky critical hit table, he might not have made that crit fishing kukri wielding character.

One-Offs like BBEG special abilities,or adjudicating things not normally handled by RAW are one thing, but changing how something works because it seems cool on the spot I dont agree with.

Houserules are fine, I support them, but they should be clearly communicated before a game starts.

[VeggieWombat]

Agreed. You may decide that scrolls are destroyed by Fireball, but then do it consistently. Having a DM who change the rules from time to time isn't enjoyable because it feels like you're going to be ****ed whenever he wants to, for random reasons, and random items.

Max damage is a bad reasoning imo. Damage is a very vague term for a reason, it spares you the realism. 125 fire damage ? Ok. Location ? Right leg ? Can i still walk ? Penality on jump ? Does it lower my stealth abilities ?
Nope, that's 125 five damage in your dude, and it's fine. As long as you have 1hp you'll operate ok.
I would be ok with it if it was espacially targeted, or "involved".
Like "ready action to fireball him if he cast a spell/read a scroll", then the shaman draw/read the scroll, which mean he has it unrolled in his hands, in front of him, and the fireball touch him in the middle of his action.

The problem of this ruling is that players will be constricted in their gameplay/options because of the maybe-foresee-able consequences. Don't smash the dude with a giant warhammer, he'll lose potions, don't axe him, that may destroy scrolls/garnment... You don't want your players to just stick pointy thing in uncovered skin. You want them crafting plans, and shenanigans.

My 2cts as a player

[Diarmuid]

I'm reminded of a game I played a while ago where the DM had some bad guys poison some guys our characters needed to talk to. They got hit with poisoned blades or arrows or something.

They seemed to survive the initial damage and poisoning but 2 rounds later they just up and died. I asked the DM what happaned and he said "you guys didnt try to help them and the poison eventually killed them". I tried explaining that's just not how poison works in 3.5, that it has a standard mechanic for onset and secondary effects but he didnt seem to care and I felt somewhat cheated.

Now I'm not saying that a DM needs to say "I have put a poison in game that can kill in 2 rounds if left unchecked", but just a heads up that things like poisons, diseases, and whatever may deviate from the norm would at least have given us a fighting chance and these are things that characters in the world would/should "know about".

[Xintas]

You have to see the other side though. The DM puts bags of loot and XP in front of you and you can get up to X benefit with multiple sources of deductions (time loss, gold usage/theft, usable items being consumed, damage, etc.). You are not entitled to maximum benefit just by blundering into the encounter. Smart play is rewarded in one way (less damage and more stuff) and efficient play can be rewarded in another (less time wasted).

Yes, it is a deviation from the rules as written, but going straight Murder-hobo down the loot hallway is never what this game was intended to be. If that is how you choose to play, that's great. "It depends 100% on the group" is still the most important sentence in this thread. That being said, it is a game based around a joint fantasy world that we inhabit together. If you break my immersion to inform me that the +1 kama that you are not proficient with and that the bad guy dropped gets a save versus destruction from the fireball you just one shot my encounter with, I'm gonna be pissed. And we're going back to counting arrows and trail rations.:smallwink:

[Faily]

If this is something that happens from time to time, I would in my own experience, say that it is very frustrating when you are being "punished", so to speak, for using one of your more effective methods of attack.

Once or twice, that's fine. But some players might find it frustrating that the loot always seems to be destroyed when they defeat a challenge.

But, there's nothing wrong with talking to your players to hear what their opinion is on the matter. I think it's important to make sure that the GM checks with his/her players to avoid future problems. :smallsmile:

[Yuki Akuma]

You screwed the PCs out of loot.

Drop more loot next encounter. If they have a Wizard (or Archivist), definitely make them scrolls. Those guys love scrolls.

[Grizzled Gryphon]

IMO, the real problem boils down to "whats good for the goose is good for the gander". If the Flame Strike destroys treasure on the enemy, then a Dragon breathing fire on the party should do the same. then you have the problem of issues like a giants boulder hits a character, his potions should break. Or wands.

That is why the rules are set up the way they are. If this realism was upheld by the rules, you would have to makes saves for items, or determine where the damage hit you, to see if any items were destroyed or not. Talk about bogging down the game.

[MukkTB]

I think haphazardly doing damage to items isn't a good deal. That said, my group wouldn't have any complaint about loot being burned if a massive aoe fireball was used. I recently lost a small pet hiding on my person when its 3HP were unable to suck up the 30 damage area of effect blast that hit me. That's the way things roll. If you want to protect your stuff you should cover it with resistant materials or hide it in an extradimensional space.

[TuggyNE]

This general question came up in my orb of X replacement homebrew spells, which of course offer no saving throw to avoid damage, and furthermore use explicitly non-magical materials (lava, acid, etc) that behave almost exactly the way you'd expect. However, since destroying loot just to kill an enemy is a pretty big no-no, I made what provisions I could to let the spells minimize that — namely, making the spell energy create partial bubbles around equipment to halve the damage dealt to it.

In the case of spells that are only doing damage through direct application of magical energy, it's far simpler: they only damage attended items in rare circumstances, because that's how the magic is designed to work. After all, if an enemy can completely avoid a fireball with sufficient spell resistance, not even being singed by hot air, then the spell can easily be selective enough to avoid attended items in general.

[Jlerpy]

Sounds like a highly appropriate call. I agree that rolling a save for each and every item one's carrying would slow the game down too much, but I have no problem abstracting or handwaving some of that.

[Dalebert]

I'd assume the scrolls are in a case or tube of some sort since it doesn't make a lot of sense to carry around expensive and fragile items that can save your life without protection if you expect combat.

My thoughts exactly. When I heard this call, I thought "Did they have the scrolls pinned to the outside of their clothing?" If I had extremely valuable and very fragile magic items, I'd probably have them protected from the elements.

It was an instantaneous effect. You can thoroughly kill someone with fire without incinerating them down to the bone along with whatever they were carrying and wearing. If they failed their reflex save, they may have inhaled just as the blast came (again, it's instantaneous), and inhaled fire into their lungs. The shock of getting the exposed skin of their faces and eyelids burned off and eyes burned out could easily kill them. An brief instant of intense fire might not burn very much or set things on fire unless they were particularly flammable and also exposed, e.g. not in a scroll case or backpack. Maybe their backpacks were badly singed but managed to protect the contents from any serious damage. Did you decide to burn off leather armor? That's got a decent chance of surviving, right? Maybe a scroll was tucked into an inside pocket underneath a leather vest.

There are plenty of rational outcomes that result in death without total destruction of all their valuables. Given that, it seems like a harsh ruling, particularly since it goes against the RAW and wasn't necessary. And it establishes precedent that the players now need to start engaging in tactics that are more risky to their own lives if they want to be rewarded with good loot. You're going to start penalizing them for being smart and rewarding them for stupidity.


Sounds like a highly appropriate call. I agree that rolling a save for each and every item one's carrying would slow the game down too much, but I have no problem abstracting or handwaving some of that.

I agree about handwaving it, but handwave it that their stored items don't get destroyed. Easy.

[questionmark693]

So basically I'm getting a few things from everybody here. The biggest thing though, is the idea of a slipper slope. I've had a DM before where I tried to do some craft (alchemy), which was all legit by RAW and RAI, and he ahd ok'ed it in advance. Then I go to buy my materials, and he says I have to hunt around town to find certain things, and because I was playing a non charismatic bookworm kinda guy, he wasn't able to convince people to sell him the apprently specific and rare materials he needed.

My point with that is I'm aware of where this slope could've gone, and it didn't go there. This was really a one time thing, I didn't make it a habit to do this with that Cleric, or the Wizard's constant fireballs, etc.

But I do see the value behind the idea of leaving damage as abstract, and for what it's worth, that's probably the mentality I'll be employing in the future.

[Yukitsu]

The biggest problem I see is that this discourages an already pitiable line of spells, making wizards that just throw out maxed out DC save or dies even more powerful by contrast to the alternatives, as they are literally the only things in game that can't break equipment.

[TuggyNE]

The biggest problem I see is that this discourages an already pitiable line of spells, making wizards that just throw out maxed out DC save or dies even more powerful by contrast to the alternatives, as they are literally the only things in game that can't break equipment.

Well, there's also disintegrate and a few others. But yes, in general that's correct; it encourages optimizing for spells that are already rather sophisticated and have unfortunate effects on gameplay, and discourages quite a few spells that are already rather underpowered but play well with others. That's not a really great outcome, so I'd advise against it.

[Jlerpy]

Well, there's also disintegrate and a few others. But yes, in general that's correct; it encourages optimizing for spells that are already rather sophisticated and have unfortunate effects on gameplay, and discourages quite a few spells that are already rather underpowered but play well with others. That's not a really great outcome, so I'd advise against it.

That is quite unfortunate. Save or dies are about as boring as it gets.

[molten_dragon]

I didn't roll damage for everything-because I didn't think it made sense to deal with that for everything. There were two factors in my decision. The first was that they are made of simple, non magical paper, and they were immersed in fire.

A couple of counterpoints here.

1. Most scrolls (I think) are written on parchment, not paper. And parchment is not nearly as flammable as paper is.

2. Most scrolls are not carried loosely in the open where a spell could affect them. They're in a scroll case, so they're somewhat protected.

Your call isn't the one I would have made. I don't typically worry about whether items get damaged or destroyed unless someone is specifically attempting to target an item and damage it.

However, as long as it didn't cause an argument between you and your players, who cares?

[Yuki Akuma]

A couple of counterpoints here.

1. Most scrolls (I think) are written on parchment, not paper. And parchment is not nearly as flammable as paper is.

2. Most scrolls are not carried loosely in the open where a spell could affect them. They're in a scroll case, so they're somewhat protected.


3. Scrolls are magic items, and magic items are tougher than non-magic items. :smallwink: