PDA

View Full Version : Sacks Block Distentigration



Emperor Demonking
2007-11-07, 12:11 PM
First Discuss

Second, can anyone find the thread about this?

Mr. Friendly
2007-11-07, 12:18 PM
First Discuss

Second, can anyone find the thread about this?

I'm sorry, I have a high INT, but I didn't put any ranks into Decipher Script.

Can I get a translation to Common?

Swooper
2007-11-07, 12:18 PM
...Discuss what, exactly? What are you on about? :smallconfused: Find the thread about what?

So many questions! :smalleek:

dragonseth
2007-11-07, 12:21 PM
What are you talking about, exactly? Are you saying that you can use a burlap sack to stop a Disintegrate spell?

Telonius
2007-11-07, 12:23 PM
Only if the Quarterback didn't take Combat Casting.

Hannes
2007-11-07, 12:24 PM
Actually, yes, being covered in cloth -all over- would block the disintegrate spell.

goat
2007-11-07, 12:24 PM
Is this something to do with hiding in a sack, so that when hit with a disintegrate, the sack gets fried, leaving everything else alone?

The sack provides cover, the spell only acts on the first thing it hits, so in theory a sack is as good a defence as a wall?

dragonseth
2007-11-07, 12:27 PM
But this means if you get hit with a disintegrate, your armor or clothes will poof and not you (usually). And something about that seems wrong.

Hannes
2007-11-07, 12:29 PM
That's where covered all over comes in. If you wear armor, there's still holes through which the ray can be directed. Slit holes in helmets, for example.

Lochar
2007-11-07, 12:30 PM
I consider you the object of my hatred, so therefore I treat you as an object when I cast disintegrate and destroy the 10' cube that you're hiding in your sack it!

NEO|Phyte
2007-11-07, 12:30 PM
That's where covered all over comes in. If you wear armor, there's still holes through which the ray can be directed. Slit holes in helmets, for example.

Then why does it only need Touch AC?

dragonseth
2007-11-07, 12:30 PM
That's where covered all over comes in. If you wear armor, there's still holes through which the ray can be directed. Slit holes in helmets, for example.

Yes, but if you had to avoid the armor, you wouldn't ignore the armor bonus on your attack roll. And, as you do ignore it in a ranged touch attack, it means you don't have to worry about avoiding the armor. So, the ray will pass through the armor to hit you, I guess.

Edit: Oh, Blaargagh! Simu-ninja'ed.

Hannes
2007-11-07, 12:32 PM
But still, I'd say disintegrate would first destroy the sack.

13_CBS
2007-11-07, 12:33 PM
Only if the Quarterback didn't take Combat Casting.

Thread's over.

Seriousness: This sounds like, yet again, a 3.x edition screw up. By the SRD, a munchkin could easily make the case of having a burlap sack, or even armor, block disintegration.

Emperor Demonking
2007-11-07, 12:36 PM
Does it help against disjunction?

brian c
2007-11-07, 12:43 PM
If you're completely covered in a burlap sack (or whatever) then the caster of a disintegrate spell doesn't have line of sight to you

Accountant
2007-11-07, 12:53 PM
Second, can anyone find the thread about this?

And I'm assuming a hefty "no" for this one?

Citizen Joe
2007-11-07, 12:57 PM
A properly prepared archer could fire an arrow at the disintegration beam causing the arrow to disintegrate rather than the target. Of course this would be difficult, but it was a favorite trick of mine in Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind

Mr. Friendly
2007-11-07, 01:25 PM
RE: Using a sack as a shield or as armor

If you wear a burlap sack all over, you are wearing it, therefore it counts as you for the purposes of being targetted and disintegrated along with your flesh, bones, organs, equipment, rations and meat helmet.

If you hold a sack up to block the disintegrate, I would say that it is then "a device or part that serves as a protective cover or barrier" which is the definition of shield. Ergo, the sack is acting as an improvised shield and is disintegrated along with your flesh, bones, organs, equipment, rations, meat helmet and burlap armor.

daggaz
2007-11-07, 01:27 PM
Oh come one people. Its called rule zero for a reason, and reason is big ZERO ideas on how to break the game, like this one.

That said, armor doesnt stop disentegrate because yeah, it doesnt provide cover and disintigrate destroys the target and whatever they are carrying (which is why your armor poofs).

If somebody tried to pull this crap off in one of my games, I would merrily disintigrate them. But if it was an insistance on RAW, well, I can think of a LOT of nasty things to do to somebody who foolishly hides in a burlap sack in the midst of battle. Hell, just to be a pain in the arse, you could turn the sack into stone.

goat
2007-11-07, 01:34 PM
If you wear a burlap sack all over, you are wearing it, therefore it counts as you for the purposes of being targetted and disintegrated along with your flesh, bones, organs, equipment, rations and meat helmet.

The important part is in the spell text, which in the SRD at least includes the words:

"A disintegrated creature’s equipment is unaffected." and "Only the first creature or object struck can be affected; that is, the ray affects only one target per casting."

So, essentially, it destroys what you hit with it, and NOTHING else. Only one continuous object. Either you, OR your armour, not both. So it would hit the sack, disintegrate the sack and that would be it. Equally, if you targeted their clothes, it would destroy their clothes (Or more likely, whichever item of clothing you specify), but leave them unhurt.

Mr. Friendly
2007-11-07, 01:40 PM
Ok, well then that's good to know.

So Inertial Armor, Shield, and Mage Armor all render you immune to Disintegrate.

Swooper
2007-11-07, 01:46 PM
If one of my players would try to pull this, I'd rule something like this:

"You're dead. You're in a bag, but you're still dead." :smallamused:

Jack Zander
2007-11-07, 02:12 PM
Because the target is wearing the sack, and the sack is not targeted but the creature is, it ignores the sack and disintegrates the creature, while all his gear, sack includes are unaffected. Likewise with armor. That's why armor does not get disintegrated but the spell still only requires a touch attack. If the sack was being touched by the creature during the time of the casting, he would still be disintegrated but if he somehow managed to throw the sack at the ray, it would only affect the sack. However, you can't take actions during someone else's action, only before their action. Therefore, you cannot ready an action to throw a sack at a ray after it's been cast. You can ready an action to throw the sack at the caster once he starts casting the spell, but that won't do you much good.

So in short, no, you cannot do this. No DM worth his dice or any decent rules lawyer would allow this by RAW even.

....
2007-11-07, 02:13 PM
When I first read this thread, I saw, "Stat Block Disentergration" and wondered if maybe the OP meant how your character sheet always winds up smudged and wrinkled by the time you hit level seven or so.

Jack Zander
2007-11-07, 02:26 PM
Yeah, my HP block always gets a hole in it every 5 levels and I need a new sheet. That is, until we starting printing character sheets on card stock.

Jasdoif
2007-11-07, 02:41 PM
If one of my players would try to pull this, I'd rule something like this:

"You're dead. You're in a bag, but you're still dead." :smallamused:At least it saves the trouble of having to cremate them...depending on the orientation of the bag.

SadisticFishing
2007-11-07, 02:46 PM
Because the target is wearing the sack, and the sack is not targeted but the creature is, it ignores the sack and disintegrates the creature, while all his gear, sack includes are unaffected.

Thank you, I was going to post something virtually identical.

Irreverent Fool
2007-11-07, 02:47 PM
You can use a tower shield for cover. In the same entry that states this, it says a spellcaster can still hit you with spells by targeting the shield. So, if you're holding something and using it for cover, it's not going to stop someone from casting disintigrate on you. And if you managed to gain total cover with a sack, don't expect to be able to ready an action to drop it when the spellcaster finished casting because cover is a two-way street.

raygungothic
2007-11-07, 04:26 PM
Chaps, I think you're missing something important.

Don't throw the sack over yourself. Throw it over the enemy spellcaster. Any DM who does not then give you a round to come up with an escape plan (if you succeed) is being rather mean.

As for new character sheets, I get through about one every other session, pretty much independent of rules system. It's embarrassing. My last longrunning character had "Mark XXVIII" written in one corner when he rode off into the sunset.

GoC
2007-11-07, 04:27 PM
Hmm...
Are swarms immune to disintegrate?

Karsh
2007-11-07, 04:34 PM
This was argued to exhaustively great length in regards to sacks blocking Line of Effect to items contained within for the purposes of Disjunction in one of the most epic Wizard vs. Fighter threads many moons ago which established Emperor Tippy (and myself, to a lesser extent, though I have never seen my name mentioned in conjunction with it) as being a major supporter of the school of "Wizards Win D&D."

I don't want to rekindle the argument, which went back and forth for at least 10 pages, but ultimately what was determined was that sacks do not block line of effect. Most things like that have to do with things interposing between squares, not within squares.

((Point of post bolded so as to not be lost in the rest of what I said.))

WhiteHarness
2007-11-07, 04:36 PM
I just ban the disintegrate spell outright and avoid all this. It's a dreadfully overpowered spell.

Karsh
2007-11-07, 04:42 PM
Not really... Fort Partial makes it pretty weak, actually. It looks good until you see that half the time you're only doing 5d6 damage.

Ponce
2007-11-07, 04:44 PM
I just ban the disintegrate spell outright and avoid all this. It's a dreadfully overpowered spell.

Look at a scorching ray with enough metamagic to fill a slot of the same level. Energy Substitution, Admixture, Empower, Twinned, etc etc etc. Plenty more damage, no save. Disintegrate requires a successful ranged touch attack, AND allows a save, AND allows for SR. This makes it relatively weak.

Jack Zander
2007-11-07, 04:45 PM
Because it requires both a touch attacks and a Fort save, it limits you to only targeting very few creatures. Namely, other wizards (and then only those who do not have magic auras up).

Jasdoif
2007-11-07, 05:04 PM
Hmm...
Are swarms immune to disintegrate?Yes, they are.


A swarm is immune to any spell or effect that targets a specific number of creatures (including single-target spells such as disintegrate), with the exception of mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects) if the swarm has an Intelligence score and a hive mind.

Belteshazzar
2007-11-07, 05:17 PM
Rogue hides in sack to escape disentagrate. Wizard uses mass unseen servent to tied the bag shut and then drag the damn fool over caltrops, glass, rocks ext... until the screams have quited to gentle pleas for mercy. The elderly wizard then hobbles over to the still struggling sack and proceeds to whack it repeatedly with his staff until the bag no longer struggles. I then explain to the player that death by desentagration is rather quick and painless compaired to the few aggonizing hours his character felt befor his death and hand him a new character sheet with the understanding that it is not wise to disregard the ire of a elderly man with a stick when he respectfully asks you to die in such a hygenic and convenient manner.

Irreverent Fool
2007-11-07, 06:21 PM
I just ban the disintegrate spell outright and avoid all this. It's a dreadfully overpowered spell.

There's nothing really overpowered about it until you start undermining castles. I think banning it is a bit extreme.

AslanCross
2007-11-07, 06:26 PM
Yeah, I'm pretty sure there are a lot of other spells that are far more broken than disintegrate. Like the polymorph spells. Ugh.

Anyway, I agree that a sack wouldn't be enough to give cover, not to mention that it wouldn't be a very effective tactic in battle. If a wizard saw some silly fool scampering about the battlefield with a sack over his head, he'd probably just fireball 'im.

tyckspoon
2007-11-07, 06:53 PM
Because it requires both a touch attacks and a Fort save, it limits you to only targeting very few creatures. Namely, other wizards (and then only those who do not have magic auras up).

Also undead and constructs. Who conveniently tend to have bad Fort saves, low touch ACs, relatively low HP for their hit dice (thanks to no Con bonus), and immunity to most Will and Fort-based attacks. Disintegrate works quite nicely for them.

Jack Zander
2007-11-07, 08:48 PM
Also undead and constructs. Who conveniently tend to have bad Fort saves, low touch ACs, relatively low HP for their hit dice (thanks to no Con bonus), and immunity to most Will and Fort-based attacks. Disintegrate works quite nicely for them.

With the exception of golems, yes.

Eldritch_Ent
2007-11-07, 10:50 PM
I just ban the disintegrate spell outright and avoid all this. It's a dreadfully overpowered spell.

Sweet! I'm going to stock up on Walls of Force and Prismatic Spheres in your campaigns!


As for this, I'd actually allow it, depending on how it was handled. If he dived into or behind the sack for cover, or threw the sack into the disintegrate spell, then yeah. But I'd make him roll a reflex save at least. If he was hiding in the sack before battle begun, I'd also allow it. If he was walking around taking stabs at things from inside the sack or just holding the sack up or was using it as a helmet or something, then no... There's a fine line between "Good Action Roleplaying" and "Twinking". (That, and it's a touch AC spell. Thus it affects the first object it touches- IE if it misses due to cover, it hits the cover.)

I mean, if an adventurer dived into or behind a barrel to escape Disintegrate, would you still turn him into a fine powder if it struck the barrel?

tyckspoon
2007-11-07, 10:54 PM
I mean, if an adventurer dived into or behind a barrel to escape Disintegrate, would you still turn him into a fine powder if it struck the barrel?

Personally, no, but with the way turns and taking actions works that's pretty hard to do. The adventurer could ready an action to move into cover when he sees somebody casting, but since that happens entirely before the other guy casts, said other guy is now free to choose a different and presumably more effective spell.

Skjaldbakka
2007-11-07, 10:59 PM
I houserule that Disintegrate destroys the target's armor and shield if the target is disintegrated.

Jack Zander
2007-11-08, 01:27 AM
@Mojotech: No, but that's because the person isn't wearing the barrel. There's a difference between hiding on the other side of a hanging cloth and actually holding the cloth to protect yourself.

@Skjaldbakka: That will have a lot of consequences on your gaming. No PC's are ever going to want to cast this on an NPC for fear of loosing their treasure, and if any PC dies from this spell there's a much, much higher cost in resurrections now beyond the 5,000 gp.

Khanderas
2007-11-08, 10:23 AM
Disintegrate in rain is pretty much guaranteed to fail then.

(Roll)
DM: Your disintegrate hits a raindrop and is wasted.

I would not say a worn sack would protect any. Neither would a sack held between the caster and his target. Infact anything less dense then ½foot of wood would problebly not slow the beam down.

Emperor Demonking
2007-11-08, 11:14 AM
Karsh; Is the thread still around. I can't find it. It was also the real reason this was started.

Karsh
2007-11-08, 11:18 AM
Haven't the foggiest. I certainly hope not, that was one of the last Great Flamewars of the Wizards vs. Fighters debates. All these little things are brush fires in comparison. That should never be rekindled again.

Tor the Fallen
2007-11-08, 11:53 AM
What happens if a fighter uses a tower shield to gain full cover relative to the wizard that casts disintegrate at him?

Techonce
2007-11-08, 12:52 PM
The tower shield falls over as the fighter is disentigrated.

Alex12
2007-11-08, 01:43 PM
This thread reminds me of another debate (on a different forum) about Harry Potter. One person was arguing that Avada Kadevera was stopped by statues and other such nonliving things, and that therefore, wearing a bulletproof vest would really help. The response?
"Using that logic, that applies to clothing too. 'Wear an undershirt. There are Dark Wizards about.'"
In other words: it's magic, that's why it works/doesn't work.

In fact, since air is a thing, wouldn't the Disintegrate (and every other ray attack) hit the air and fizzle?

Quietus
2007-11-08, 02:41 PM
In fact, since air is a thing, wouldn't the Disintegrate (and every other ray attack) hit the air and fizzle?

Nah, it'd destroy the ten-foot cube of air directly in front of the Wizard's finger.

Jack Zander
2007-11-08, 10:58 PM
Nah, it'd destroy the ten-foot cube of air directly in front of the Wizard's finger.

Next time the DM casts disintegrate on me, I'm bringing this issue up.

Aquillion
2007-11-08, 11:37 PM
Wait, wait, wait. Let's use a cardboard box instead of a burlap sack. A really big, lightweight, 10x10 foot cardbord box. We hide inside it at the end of each of our turns.

I don't think anyone would argue that we're 'wearing' it, so it blocks disintegrate. But that's not all! It blocks disintegrate because it provides total cover (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#totalcover). Which means nothing can attack us while we're in the box. At all.

Now, we cast invisibility on the box and permanency it. Note that it still blocks line-of-effect, and therefore still grants total cover. As long as the box is less than 100 pounds, an Unseen Servant inside it can drag it along freely, so we don't have to worry about moving it around.

But the best part is the expression on your opponents' face when they try to disintegrate you and it fails because they instead disintegrated your invisible box. :smalltongue:

Karsh
2007-11-08, 11:43 PM
Of course, everything has total cover from you, too, so your combat effectiveness is zero and the wizard will wait to kill you last.

Kultrum
2007-11-08, 11:55 PM
Not only doesn't it work but if your wearing the sack all your stuff is now in an easy to carry package waiting for your enemies
Also @ Aquillion: Best Idea Ever! I award you 2 cookies and a coupon redeemable for the death of one of your enemies (not usable on the material plane)

Aquillion
2007-11-09, 12:00 AM
Of course, everything has total cover from you, too, so your combat effectiveness is zero and the wizard will wait to kill you last....

Shut up. :smallfrown:

No, wait, I have a solution! Bring an unseen servant with you. At the start of your turn, have it lift the box slightly (make it weigh less than 20 pounds, not too hard.) At the end of your turn, have it lower it again. Problem solved. Opponents can technically ready an action to attack you when the box is lifted... but since it's invisible, they'd have to figure it out first, which should give you at least a turn. And you can drag the box into a safe position before lifting it, too.

It certainly isn't perfect (opponents can attack the box once they know it's there), but it should usually buy you enough time to win, and will almost always protect you from sneak attacks, surprise attacks, and being caught flat-footed.

Guy_Whozevl
2007-11-09, 12:09 AM
Wait, wait, wait. Let's use a cardboard box instead of a burlap sack. A really big, lightweight, 10x10 foot cardbord box. We hide inside it at the end of each of our turns.

I don't think anyone would argue that we're 'wearing' it, so it blocks disintegrate. But that's not all! It blocks disintegrate because it provides total cover (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#totalcover). Which means nothing can attack us while we're in the box. At all.

Now, we cast invisibility on the box and permanency it. Note that it still blocks line-of-effect, and therefore still grants total cover. As long as the box is less than 100 pounds, an Unseen Servant inside it can drag it along freely, so we don't have to worry about moving it around.

But the best part is the expression on your opponents' face when they try to disintegrate you and it fails because they instead disintegrated your invisible box. :smalltongue:


Your plan will always fail. No D&D character can pull this off. Only someone as badass as Solid Snake can hide in a cardboard box.

Skjaldbakka
2007-11-09, 01:13 AM
@Skjaldbakka: That will have a lot of consequences on your gaming. No PC's are ever going to want to cast this on an NPC for fear of loosing their treasure, and if any PC dies from this spell there's a much, much higher cost in resurrections now beyond the 5,000 gp.

There are a great deal of enemies that do not use armor and shields. Constructs and Undead are good targets for disintegrate, for example.

As for increased consequences for death- I have no problem with death being a greater setback than 5,000gp. It bloody well should be.

Jack Zander
2007-11-09, 01:16 AM
Hey, it's your campaign.

The only problem with the cardboard box idea is that cardboard boxes do not exist in DnD. So close... great try though.

AslanCross
2007-11-09, 01:50 AM
...

Shut up. :smallfrown:

No, wait, I have a solution! Bring an unseen servant with you. At the start of your turn, have it lift the box slightly (make it weigh less than 20 pounds, not too hard.) At the end of your turn, have it lower it again. Problem solved. Opponents can technically ready an action to attack you when the box is lifted... but since it's invisible, they'd have to figure it out first, which should give you at least a turn. And you can drag the box into a safe position before lifting it, too.

It certainly isn't perfect (opponents can attack the box once they know it's there), but it should usually buy you enough time to win, and will almost always protect you from sneak attacks, surprise attacks, and being caught flat-footed.

*Wizard sets the cardboard box on fire, warming you for the rest of your life.*

tyckspoon
2007-11-09, 01:57 AM
*Wizard sets the cardboard box on fire, warming you for the rest of your life.*

1d6 damage a round is a small price to pay for never being cold again! At least, that's what I learned from "The Cremation of Sam McGee." I don't think that was quite what our English Teacher intended us to take away from that poem..

Khanderas
2007-11-09, 03:10 AM
If hiding in a box worked, regardless of how dense it is everyone but commoners would carry one around.
This would make Wizards reinvent Disintegrate so it perforates such a box before dealing its damage / effect. So they did. Now the spell will ignore things like cardboard boxes.

I like to think of Disintegrate as a green laser that will with ease pass though a sheet of paper and still be about 100% effective. If the damage exceeds what is needed to kill / destroy (depending on creature or object) the target it is reduced to dust.

AtomicKitKat
2007-11-09, 12:05 PM
This is why we need to bring back mirrors. I remember when all my characters ran around with Silver Shields and mirrors(at lower levels) to combat Medusae. Make it apply to ray attacks.:smallbiggrin:

Tor the Fallen
2007-11-10, 02:30 PM
What happens if a fighter uses a tower shield to gain full cover relative to the wizard that casts disintegrate at him?

Anyone know the answer?

Aquillion
2007-11-10, 10:31 PM
Anyone know the answer?Technically, if the fighter has full cover, the wizard can't directly target him with spells, since you need line of effect.

Karsh
2007-11-10, 10:47 PM
Hey, it's your campaign.

The only problem with the cardboard box idea is that cardboard boxes do not exist in DnD. So close... great try though.

Hmm... this inspires me.

Karsh's Overturned Cardboard Box
Conjuration [Creation]
Level: Sor/Wiz 1
Components: V, S, M (See Text)
Casting Time: 1 Standard Action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Effect: 10 ft. Cube
Duration: 2 hours/level (D)
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No

You conjure up a big cardboard box that can be used as shelter against the elements. This spell provides you with a +4 bonus to Fortitude saves against severe weather for as long as you remain within its area.

Karsh's Overturned Cardboard Box can be manually manipulated and moved, allowing the Cardboard Box's user to make a Disguise check (opposed by the observer's spot check) to avoid detection as long as they remain stationary. The Fortitude save bonus provided by Karsh's Overturned Cardboard Box is reduced to +1 until the next save is made or the user stops moving, whichever comes last.

Material Component: A scrap of paper. If no paper is on hand, this material component can be replaced with an augmented verbal component of shouting "This is so stupid" as loud as possible.

SurlySeraph
2007-11-10, 10:57 PM
This thread reminds me of the time when a friend of mine asked if Finger of Death could be aimed at bacteria, and tried to convince the DM to let him tie several dozens rats to himself to absorb death spells. Ah, good times...

Jack Zander
2007-11-11, 12:34 AM
Technically, if the fighter has full cover, the wizard can't directly target him with spells, since you need line of effect.

But can't you target the shield instead with ray spells?

Alex12
2007-11-11, 06:29 PM
Hmm... this inspires me.

Karsh's Overturned Cardboard Box
Conjuration [Creation]
Level: Sor/Wiz 1
Components: V, S, M (See Text)
Casting Time: 1 Standard Action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Effect: 10 ft. Cube
Duration: 2 hours/level (D)
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No

You conjure up a big cardboard box that can be used as shelter against the elements. This spell provides you with a +4 bonus to Fortitude saves against severe weather for as long as you remain within its area.

Karsh's Overturned Cardboard Box can be manually manipulated and moved, allowing the Cardboard Box's user to make a Disguise check (opposed by the observer's spot check) to avoid detection as long as they remain stationary. The Fortitude save bonus provided by Karsh's Overturned Cardboard Box is reduced to +1 until the next save is made or the user stops moving, whichever comes last.

Material Component: A scrap of paper. If no paper is on hand, this material component can be replaced with an augmented verbal component of shouting "This is so stupid" as loud as possible.

There should also be a high-level spell that allows boxes created this way to do PaO on anyone or anything inside (determined by caster), and serve as a teleportation circle that also teleports itself. Then call it something like Calvin's Box Enhancement.

Aquillion
2007-11-11, 11:00 PM
But can't you target the shield instead with ray spells?Yes, but with Disintegrate, the (attended) shield will get its bearer's fort save, and even if you pass it you will only manage to disintegrate the shield and not the character behind it.

Jack Zander
2007-11-11, 11:03 PM
No, no. Don't ray spells work by stating you can target the creature by targeting the shield? Isn't that the whole reason that a shield's AC bonus does not grant a bonus to touch AC?

Jothki
2007-11-11, 11:08 PM
This thread reminds me of the time when a friend of mine asked if Finger of Death could be aimed at bacteria, and tried to convince the DM to let him tie several dozens rats to himself to absorb death spells. Ah, good times...

Can he make the Spot check?

tyckspoon
2007-11-11, 11:16 PM
This massive wooden shield is nearly as tall as you are. In most situations, it provides the indicated shield bonus to your AC. However, you can instead use it as total cover, though you must give up your attacks to do so. The shield does not, however, provide cover against targeted spells; a spellcaster can cast a spell on you by targeting the shield you are holding. You cannot bash with a tower shield, nor can you use your shield hand for anything else.

Shield AC doesn't normally apply against touch attacks, no. Using a tower shield for cover is not using it for the AC bonus, however. Fortunately the equipment entry specifically says what happens. The Fighter can still get Disintegrated through his shield.

Edit: Wait, that might be wrong. There's a difference between a 'targeted spell' and a ray spell. I'll see if I can find it.

Addendum: Yeah. Under 'Aiming a spell', SpellDescriptions (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm)

A ray is not a 'targeted spell'. It is a created effect, which you then target. Which means you still have to deal with cover and concealment and whatnot. Tower Shield gets dusted, Fighter's ok. Although short one shield.

Jack Zander
2007-11-11, 11:26 PM
Ah, very good. I remained skeptical until I read the description of ray spells. Specifically:

Ray
Some effects are rays. You aim a ray as if using a ranged weapon, though typically you make a ranged touch attack rather than a normal ranged attack. As with a ranged weapon, you can fire into the dark or at an invisible creature and hope you hit something. You don’t have to see the creature you’re trying to hit, as you do with a targeted spell. Intervening creatures and obstacles, however, can block your line of sight or provide cover for the creature you’re aiming at.
Which implies that targeted spells and ray spells are indeed different. I still thought you had to 'target' someone with a ray spell, but apparently you do not. Ray spells may indeed attack the darkness if you so wish.

DisgruntledFrog
2007-11-12, 07:34 PM
Sacks (and debatably cardboard boxes) don't stop a disintegrate spell since they don't provide cover, they provide concealment. A sack is not a solid barrier and so doesn't break line of effect and so doesn't provide total cover (I guess it could be argued it provides soft cover giving a +4 to AC but still not total cover). The sack does break line of sight so would provide the appropriate concealment bonus.

Prometheus
2007-11-12, 10:25 PM
Disintegrate " When used against an object, the ray simply disintegrates as much as one 10-foot cube of nonliving matter. Thus, the spell disintegrates only part of any very large object or structure targeted. The ray affects even objects constructed entirely of force, such as forceful hand or a wall of force, but not magical effects such as a globe of invulnerability or an antimagic field. "

As long as the sack is smaller than a 10foot cube, you are going to disintegrate with it. You could argue the reason why it doesn't target two adjacent targets is that you are "grounded" by the earth and "insulated" by air. Now if it was an especially dirty burlap sack...

reorith
2007-11-12, 10:54 PM
Second, can anyone find the thread about this?

i found a thread about this topic (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=62608)

Jack Zander
2007-11-12, 11:19 PM
i found a thread about this topic (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=62608)

Haw, haw...

Aquillion
2007-11-12, 11:34 PM
Disintegrate " When used against an object, the ray simply disintegrates as much as one 10-foot cube of nonliving matter. Thus, the spell disintegrates only part of any very large object or structure targeted. The ray affects even objects constructed entirely of force, such as forceful hand or a wall of force, but not magical effects such as a globe of invulnerability or an antimagic field. "

As long as the sack is smaller than a 10foot cube, you are going to disintegrate with it. You could argue the reason why it doesn't target two adjacent targets is that you are "grounded" by the earth and "insulated" by air. Now if it was an especially dirty burlap sack...


When used against an object, the ray simply disintegrates as much as one 10-foot cube of nonliving matter.Additionally, it targets only one nonliving object or one creature, so (if targeted at the sack) it wouldn't even get your clothes.

Of course, there are other arguments to make against this whole premise, but that one doesn't work. You only get a ten foot cube out of a single nonliving object, not a ten foot cube composed of whatever you please.

(And no, let's not get back to trying to have 'nonliving' cover undead or constructs. It does, yes, but the rest of the text keeps that from working. The target is 'one creature or one object', and undead or constructs are creatures, not objects; the only way the 'nonliving' clause could be extended to them is if you could target a different object and net them as part of the deal--but disintegrate only destroys the first thing it hits. The 10-foot cube must come entirely from that, so no disintegrating part of the floor and part of the zombie.)

AtomicKitKat
2007-11-13, 03:29 AM
My next BBEG Lich will be dressed like a hobo.:smalltongue:

Helgraf
2007-11-13, 03:36 AM
Wait, wait, wait. Let's use a cardboard box instead of a burlap sack. A really big, lightweight, 10x10 foot cardbord box. We hide inside it at the end of each of our turns.

I don't think anyone would argue that we're 'wearing' it, so it blocks disintegrate. But that's not all! It blocks disintegrate because it provides total cover (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#totalcover). Which means nothing can attack us while we're in the box. At all.

Now, we cast invisibility on the box and permanency it. Note that it still blocks line-of-effect, and therefore still grants total cover. As long as the box is less than 100 pounds, an Unseen Servant inside it can drag it along freely, so we don't have to worry about moving it around.

But the best part is the expression on your opponents' face when they try to disintegrate you and it fails because they instead disintegrated your invisible box. :smalltongue:

Cute. Of course, your little box has hardness 0 (or 1 if the GM is generous), and piffle for hit points. A single fireball and it's completely gone and you're roasted as the spell fills the area after destroying the thin layer of cardboard.

Then the quickened disintegrate hits the revealed party member.