2 Questions

[Rev666]

First off does a glyph of warding on a treasure chest destroy the contents inside when the acid blast goes off and are drow affected by sleep poison?

[Yuki Akuma]

1. Depends what the acid spell you're using is. If it catches the container in its AoE, it would affect the contents.

2. Drow are elves and are therefore immune to sleep.

[Invader]

Aren't elves only immune to magical sleep effects. I'd classify sleep poison as something different. Aren't drow subject to their own sleep poison?

[Invader]

Yes in fact they are.

From the SRD:
Since this poison is not a magical effect, drow and other elves are susceptible to it.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/elf.htm

[nyjastul69]

These types of questions are better suited for the Simple Q&A D&D 3.5 thread stickied at the top of this sub-forum.

[Rev666]

1. Depends what the acid spell you're using is. If it catches the container in its AoE, it would affect the contents.

2. Drow are elves and are therefore immune to sleep.

Im not using an acid spell. The glyph of warding was set to go off when the chest was opened and it hit everyone within 5 feet with an acid effect.

And someone else pointed out the SRD rules which confirms my initial suspicion of drow not being immune to their own sleep poison.

[nyjastul69]

Im not using an acid spell. The glyph of warding was set to go off when the chest was opened and it hit everyone within 5 feet with an acid effect.

And someone else pointed out the SRD rules which confirms my initial suspicion of drow not being immune to their own sleep poison.

If the chest and contents are within 5' of the creature that triggered the ward then they will be affected. Whether or not they are destroyed depends on the material the chest is constructed from and what the contents are constructed from.

Edit: Drow (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/elf.htm#drow) are not immune to their own sleep poison.

[Invader]

Glyph of warding says if the spell has a target then the person that sets off the glyph is the target, there's no reason to believe the item would take any damage.

[nyjastul69]

Glyph of warding says if the spell has a target then the person that sets off the glyph is the target, there's no reason to believe the item would take any damage.

Glyph of Warding doesn't target a creature. It targets an item or area. When set of by an intruder it affects the intruder and all within 5'.

Edit: I'm assuming the OP is referring to the 'blast' effect and the type of energy assigned to the glyph was acid.

[Invader]

Glyph of Warding doesn't target a creature. It targets an item or area. When set of by an intruder it affects the intruder and all within 5'.

Edit: I'm assuming the OP is referring to the 'blast' effect and the type of energy assigned to the glyph was acid.

In which case it says the intruder takes the damage and everyone within 5 feet. It doesn't say it does damage to any items or the object it was guarding.

[nyjastul69]

In which case it says the intruder takes the damage and everyone within 5 feet. It doesn't say it does damage to any items or the object it was guarding.

Not exactly. The spell says the intruder and all within 5'. Whether all means all creatures or all creatures and objects isn't entirely clear. I believe this goes into the 'ask your DM' basket.

Edit: Changed 'not quite' to 'not exactly'.

[Invader]

Not exactly. The spell says the intruder and all within 5 hether all means all creatures or all creatures and objects isn't entirely clear I believe this goes into the 'ask your DM' basket.

Edit: Changed 'not quite' to 'not exactly'.

Other spells specifically call out when items can be damaged by the spell. If it said the intruder and everything in five feet I'd probably agree but the wording specifies a creature and the "all" would refer to any additional creatures.

[nyjastul69]

Other spells specifically call out when items can be damaged by the spell. If it said the intruder and everything in five feet I'd probably agree but the wording specifies a creature and the "all" would refer to any additional creatures.

I agree the wording is poor. I agree that what you're saying is RAI. I can't agree it's strictly RAW though. I don't read anything in the spell description that would prevent it from affecting objects within 5' of the intruder. The spell itself makes no exception in regards to damaging the targeted item. It should, and I believe that that is RAI.

[Invader]

I agree the wording is poor. I agree that what you're saying is RAI. I can't agree it's strictly RAW though. I don't read anything in the spell description that would prevent it from affecting objects within 5' of the intruder. The spell itself makes no exception in regards to damaging the targeted item. It should, and I believe that that is RAI.

Fair enough :smallsmile:

[nyjastul69]

Fair enough :smallsmile:

I should also add that my suggestion that the glyph element of the OP's question was a better fit for the Q&A thread wasn't, in retrospect, a good fit. Glyph of Warding clearly needs some DM interpretation.

[Yuki Akuma]

Well apparently I completely fail at questions today.

Carry on.

[nyjastul69]

Well apparently I completely fail at questions today.

Carry on.

You didn't fail, and we all shall. :smallcool: There is a reason this is a solid community.