Force Damage AOE

[Ferronach]

So a particularly annoyed NPC wizard in my game sent a wizardly party member a letter with an post script of explosive runes.
Unfortunately for him, he wears all of his magic items on his person, either on a chain around his neck, or tied to a walking staff. Even worse, the paladin and the other blaster were peeking over his shoulder/stood next to him.

Fast forward to the damage part. I was always under the impression that force damage with an AOE, like explosive runes, will affect everything in it's AOE. Meaning that the three party members (the pal and other wizard failed their reflex saves), all of their gear, and the ship wall by them all took some serious damage.

This would have effectively destroyed all of the main wizard's gear, most of the second wizard's gear, and seriously damaged the paladin's plate, as well as dropping the second wizard's familiar to -9 hp. Feeling like a horrible person for unleashing that on the party (despite it being in character for the NPC who is looney and was effectively given, by the targeted wizard, to a scary guy to be mind probed against his express will), I reneged and only rolled damage to the players and familiar.

But this did open up the discussion in my group and we could find no supportive text, one way or the other, if it would only affect "beings" or if their worn gear in the AOE (and not receiving cover from the line of fire die to something being between it and the source) was also fair game to force damage.

I know that elemental usually mentions that materials subject to burning for fire etc. are affected. But can't really seem to see if sonic/force would hit everything or not.

How do the fine folks on these forums handle force/sonic spells/traps with AOEs?

Thank-you!

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Unless an effect specifically mentions it, AoE effects only affect equipment on critically failed saves.


Automatic Failures and Successes
A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on a saving throw is always a failure (and may cause damage to exposed items; see Items Surviving after a Saving Throw). A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a success.

So it's not an issue at least 95% of the time.

[Darg]

Ok, so items are only in danger if they are targeted specifically or if the character rolls a natural 1 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#itemsSurvivingafteraSavingTh row). The link to the SRD will tell you how to resolve it after rolling that 1.

[Ferronach]

Thanks,

What about when the PC doesn't get a save?

[InvisibleBison]

What about when the PC doesn't get a save?

If the PC doesn't get a save, then they can't roll a natural 1 and their items can't be affected.

[Darg]

Thanks,

What about when the PC doesn't get a save?

They are assumed to have survived. Rolling a 1 is a critical fail. If there is no roll, there can be no critical failure as there is no failure anyway. The spell would need to specifically affect objects/items to bypass that assumption. An example of this would be the spell Shatter. If you have a glass bowl in your bag, it will shatter if it fails it's save unless it is protected by sound proofing.

Edit: ninja'd twice.

[Ferronach]

Thank-you kindly! I will let my players know that they have less to fear hahah!

[Fouredged Sword]

I think this deserves a cavate.

See, stacks of explosive runes are not a single effect. They are many many effects all stacked on top of one another with a single trigger.

The character's equipment would be immune to damage right up until the character died. At that point you just have a number of objects in a space not being wielded by anyone and they would take damage as unattended objects in an AOE like normal.

[Darg]

I think this deserves a cavate.

See, stacks of explosive runes are not a single effect. They are many many effects all stacked on top of one another with a single trigger.

The character's equipment would be immune to damage right up until the character died. At that point you just have a number of objects in a space not being wielded by anyone and they would take damage as unattended objects in an AOE like normal.

Being a corpse, whether a dead creature or object, has no bearing on this. The rule is whether or not the object is attended by a character (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/exploration.htm#savingThrows). Because a corpse is still a character; the attended items are still assumed to survive. It's up to the DM to decide if you drop items, but if you died like a string is cut it's highly unlikely you dropped anything. It would also be a house rule.

[Tzardok]

Being a corpse, whether a dead creature or object, has no bearing on this. The rule is whether or not the object is attended by a character (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/exploration.htm#savingThrows). Because a corpse is still a character; the attended items are still assumed to survive. It's up to the DM to decide if you drop items, but if you died like a string is cut it's highly unlikely you dropped anything. It would also be a house rule.

I'm pretty sure a corpse stops being a creature and starts being an object in the way the rules handle it. You can for example share your space with a corpse, but not with a character (not even a prone one, I think).

[Fouredged Sword]

Being a corpse, whether a dead creature or object, has no bearing on this. The rule is whether or not the object is attended by a character (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/exploration.htm#savingThrows). Because a corpse is still a character; the attended items are still assumed to survive. It's up to the DM to decide if you drop items, but if you died like a string is cut it's highly unlikely you dropped anything. It would also be a house rule.

No, your PC stops being a living character on the prime material and starts being an NPC petitioner in whatever outer plane corresponds with his or her alignment and religion. The body left behind is an object. A corpse is not capable of attending anything.

[Darg]

I'm pretty sure a corpse stops being a creature and starts being an object in the way the rules handle it. You can for example share your space with a corpse, but not with a character (not even a prone one, I think).

Yes you can. How else do you initiate a bullrush or grapple? You are also allowed to move passed an ally.


No, your PC stops being a living character on the prime material and starts being an NPC petitioner in whatever outer plane corresponds with his or her alignment and religion. The body left behind is an object. A corpse is not capable of attending anything.

The rules don't say that you stop attending the objects just because you died. Nor do they say that a corpse can't attend objects. The rule is that the character does. I honestly must question the validity of a rule that allows a character's items to be burnt to crisp with fireballs while the body remains in pristine nude condition because it wasn't given any stats.

[InvisibleBison]

I think this deserves a cavate.

See, stacks of explosive runes are not a single effect. They are many many effects all stacked on top of one another with a single trigger.

The character's equipment would be immune to damage right up until the character died. At that point you just have a number of objects in a space not being wielded by anyone and they would take damage as unattended objects in an AOE like normal.

I don't think this is correct. Either the explosive runes are being triggered by being read, in which case they stop being triggered when the reader is killed; or they're being triggered by a failed dispel magic or erase spell, in which case they're all detonating and inflicting their damage simultaneously.

Also, the OP was talking about a single explosive runes spell, not a stack, so I'm not sure why you brought this up to begin with.

[Tzardok]

Yes you can. How else do you initiate a bullrush or grapple? You are also allowed to move passed an ally.

Yes, you are allowed to move past an ally. You aren't allowed to share his space, as in, stand in it the whole time. Bullrush doesn't allow you to enter a space at all; it moves the target's space. The only exception is grappling, and grappling already does a lot of exceptions.


The rules don't say that you stop attending the objects just because you died. Nor do they say that a corpse can't attend objects. The rule is that the character does. I honestly must question the validity of a rule that allows a character's items to be burnt to crisp with fireballs while the body remains in pristine nude condition because it wasn't given any stats.

Now you are strawmanning. Nobody claimed something like that.
Many objects aren't given stats because the GM is expected to invent their hardness and hp based on the examples in the book. So look up or invent the hardness of meat (propably 0) and asign a value of hp for a human-sized piece of meat, and you know how much damage the explosion needs to deal to flay the flesh from the bones in addition to breaking the equipment. Easy as meat pie.

[Rynjin]

Yes you can. How else do you initiate a bullrush or grapple? You are also allowed to move passed an ally.



The rules don't say that you stop attending the objects just because you died. Nor do they say that a corpse can't attend objects. The rule is that the character does. I honestly must question the validity of a rule that allows a character's items to be burnt to crisp with fireballs while the body remains in pristine nude condition because it wasn't given any stats.

The 3.5 rules also don't say that a dead creature can't take actions. Apply a bit of common sense, here.

[Fizban]

I know that elemental usually mentions that materials subject to burning for fire etc. are affected. But can't really seem to see if sonic/force would hit everything or not.

How do the fine folks on these forums handle force/sonic spells/traps with AOEs?
Fire magic only sets things on fire if it specifically says it does- so Fireball does, but some other spell like say Blast of Flame, may/will not. The rules for damaging objects state that fire and electricity deal 1/2, cold deals 1/4, and acid and sonic stay the same (and then once you've applied the multiplier, you subtract hardness). "Force" isn't actually a foundational damage type (it has no fundamental resistance like the energy types do)- but spells with the [force] descriptor and no given damage type are so commonly referred to as such by even the writers that it effectively becomes a damage type, which is not accounted for in any base rules. With no rule to modify it, "force" damage deals normal damage to objects, just like acid and sonic, and is reduced by hardness, just like all damage to objects (from effects that don't explicitly say they ignore hardness).

All area spells hit all unattended objects within their area, unless they specifically say they do not harm objects. Magic items that aren't armor or weapons have no special increase in their durability. Objects have hit points based on thickness, and most things you wear or carry are less than an inch thick. This means that just about any AoE will annihilate an unattended cloth item, mid level spells will start smashing wooden items, and at high levels even steel items can be easily destroyed. This is indeed much more likely if the party is slinging around the "better" less resisted acid, sonic, and force spells, though there few true force AoEs.

However, there is the question of cover. Bursts are blocked by something in the way, and even a spread can't spread to something that is laying beneath a body. If one wishes to spare the players the destruction of their own loot without modifying the rules, they might roll randomly to see if a fallen foe has landed on top of the hand that's wearing their rings or covered most of their cloak, if their cloak has covered their necklace or boots, etc. Note that while many spells say that they can break through barriers (Fireball and Lightning Bolt and those that copy their language), that's not a base part of the area rules- so just like magical fire not setting things on fire, some AoE spells will be stopped cold by a mere cloth barrier (which they will destroy). Standard Fireballs are indeed very dangerous to unattended items, but Explosive Runes itself lacks such a blowthrough clause.

And of course, magic items get their own saving throw when unattended- it's not great, but it's not nothing. And since it's a saving throw, it can benefit from cover and improved cover: so even if you can't say the item is completely covered by something else, it might claim a hefty +4 or +8 bonus on that save.

The takeaway is that as cool as magical cloaks and gloves and boots are, no rational crafter should ever be making an item out of cloth, or at least, no adventurer should purchase such an item. Many items have arbitrary descriptions of being this or that precious metal, or gemstone, or even being adamantine, but those all have different statistics and those statistics can matter, while cloth is never more than cloth, no hardness, 1 hit point. If you're allowed to freely designate such materials at no cost, every item should be a band of adamantine. If you have to pay for it, every (non-weapon non-shield) item should still be a band of at least steel, and then mithral or adamantine once the magic is expensive enough. Anything less is liable to be destroyed as collateral damage by common attack spells- unless you're actually doing it on purpose to ensure repeat business/make your items less likely to be captured if you're killed.

Or you can give all non-weapon/armor items some minimum amount of hardness and hit points. The gut response would be to base this on caster level, but then plenty of cheap items have inflated caster levels, and expensive items can have low levels.

[Fouredged Sword]

I don't think this is correct. Either the explosive runes are being triggered by being read, in which case they stop being triggered when the reader is killed; or they're being triggered by a failed dispel magic or erase spell, in which case they're all detonating and inflicting their damage simultaneously.

Also, the OP was talking about a single explosive runes spell, not a stack, so I'm not sure why you brought this up to begin with.

You read ONE explosive rune. That explosive rune then goes off. This destroys the fragile object the other runes are on. This counts as attempting to erase the other runes. Attempting to erase an explosive rune sets off an explosive rune. You get a chain reaction of boom.

[InvisibleBison]

You read ONE explosive rune. That explosive rune then goes off. This destroys the fragile object the other runes are on. This counts as attempting to erase the other runes. Attempting to erase an explosive rune sets off an explosive rune. You get a chain reaction of boom.

Incorrect. The spell doesn't say that destroying the object on which the runes are written causes it to detonate.

[Darg]

The 3.5 rules also don't say that a dead creature can't take actions. Apply a bit of common sense, here.

I did. Common sense says that the items unaffected by explosions while on your person would be unaffected while you are collapsed on the ground. What does not make sense is a lack of continuity saying that because a body is lifeless and not just motionless the items on their person are destroyed.

[Zanos]

I think this deserves a cavate.

See, stacks of explosive runes are not a single effect. They are many many effects all stacked on top of one another with a single trigger.

The character's equipment would be immune to damage right up until the character died. At that point you just have a number of objects in a space not being wielded by anyone and they would take damage as unattended objects in an AOE like normal.
Thankfully this usually isn't relevant, since the correct response to a DM sending your character an instant kill letter that destroys all your equipment is not to roll any dice, but to stand up and leave. :smalltongue:

[Rynjin]

I did. Common sense says that the items unaffected by explosions while on your person would be unaffected while you are collapsed on the ground. What does not make sense is a lack of continuity saying that because a body is lifeless and not just motionless the items on their person are destroyed.

There's a lack of continuity because there's a lack of continuation of your mortal existence. Corpses can't "attend" anything. Therefore, items worn or held by a corpse become unattended. A corpse likewise cannot "wield" anything, so if one had a sword that gave them a bonus to AC when wielded (like a Defending sword), it would no longer apply either.

[Ferronach]

Lots of really good info

Thanks!
I will have to share your last little bit with my players. They are adamant that they want to play house and craft every time they get to a town/village/city etc. between adventure hooks.
And they try to do it as cheaply as possible....

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Thanks!
I will have to share your last little bit with my players. They are adamant that they want to play house and craft every time they get to a town/village/city etc. between adventure hooks.
And they try to do it as cheaply as possible....You should point them at the enveloping pit (Magic Item Compendium) and the dedicated wright (Eberron Campaign Setting). Set up some scaffolding in the enveloping pit to store crafting materials, and store the dedicated wright in the pit so it can craft for the party while they're adventuring. If there're more than one crafter in the party, get one wright for each of them. They're relatively cheap, after all. And when they're not spending 8 hours crafting magic items, they can craft alchemical items and other such nonmagical things.

[Fouredged Sword]

Incorrect. The spell doesn't say that destroying the object on which the runes are written causes it to detonate.

It does if you consider damaging the surface they are on to be attempting to erase the runes. Any attempt to erase the runes that fails to completely erase them sets them off. You need something strong enough to not get completely destroyed by the initial rune going off, so something that can survive 36 damage that ignores hardness.

[Tzardok]

It does if you consider damaging the surface they are on to be attempting to erase the runes. Any attempt to erase the runes that fails to completely erase them sets them off. You need something strong enough to not get completely destroyed by the initial rune going off, so something that can survive 36 damage that ignores hardness.

The text doesn't say "any failed attempt to erase the runes sets them off", it says "any failed attempt to use the spells dispell magic or erase to destroy the runes sets them off".

[Fouredged Sword]

The text doesn't say "any failed attempt to erase the runes sets them off", it says "any failed attempt to use the spells dispell magic or erase to destroy the runes sets them off".

Huh. I guess that's a reading that's valid as well. It doesn't quite say what you posted.



Another creature can remove them with a successful dispel magic or erase spell, but attempting to dispel or erase the runes and failing to do so triggers the explosion.


Now, with you pointing out the way you are parsing that, it makes sense the way you read it. It also parses that you can remove them with ether of those two spells, but any attempt to dispel or erase them via any means, those spells inclusive, that fails sets them off. Erase spell attempts to erase them, yes, but the verb erase is not exclusive to the erase spell itself. Any method of erasing them, mundane or magical, should trigger that clause.

I will give you that your reading sounds perfectly correct, but it's not the reading that I have ever seen used on a table.

Though it would posit a different chain of events. A stack of explosive runes would be nearly impossible to set off all at once without dispel magic due to the damage interrupting the action used to read them, meaning you could at most set off one rune at a time. This would mean equipment would be safe because as soon as the character dies they stop reading.

[Lukalaly]

It doesn't quite say what you posted.

Odd. Looking at both the srd and the actual phb (page 228, in case you want to check), it's much closer to what Tzardok posted.

Another creature can remove them with a successful dispel magic or erase spell, but attempting to dispel or erase the runes and failing to do so triggers the explosion

The srd even links to the erase spell, in case there was any confusion. I'm not sure where you're getting that text from. I don't know that the spell was reprinted or errata'd, but if it was then I'd like to know, since explosive runes is a fun spell that I'd like to be using correctly.

[InvisibleBison]

It does if you consider damaging the surface they are on to be attempting to erase the runes. Any attempt to erase the runes that fails to completely erase them sets them off. You need something strong enough to not get completely destroyed by the initial rune going off, so something that can survive 36 damage that ignores hardness.

Even if we accept your position that any sort of erasing, not just the erase spell, triggers the runes if it fails, blowing up the paper wouldn't trigger the explosive runes because it's not erasing. Erasing means to remove writing from a surface. Destroying a surface with writing on it is not erasing.

But even if we accept that destroying a surface with writing on it does constitute erasing, blowing up the paper still wouldn't trigger the explosive runes, because the rules only detonate if you fail to erase them, and blowing up the paper means that you've successfully erased them.

[Darg]

There's a lack of continuity because there's a lack of continuation of your mortal existence. Corpses can't "attend" anything. Therefore, items worn or held by a corpse become unattended. A corpse likewise cannot "wield" anything, so if one had a sword that gave them a bonus to AC when wielded (like a Defending sword), it would no longer apply either.

Except you are conflating a corpse as always being an object. Dead is a condition on a creature just as petrified is. If a dead creature is an object then so too is a petrified creature as it is 100% stone. As such, it cannot be targeted by the stone to flesh spell as it requires the target to be a creature or it then uses the alternate targeting rule where it affects a fixed area. If a statue is a creature it returns to normal. If it is not a creature it becomes a corpse. A corpse is not always a dead creature as is the case with stone to flesh.


A living or otherwise active being, not an object. The terms "creature" and "character" are sometimes used interchangeably.

If we take the definition at face value, then conditions only apply when a creature is a creature. Dead is a creature condition. This means if a corpse is always an object it cannot be a dead creature and can never actually be targeted by raise dead/resurrection spells. We all know that this does not work. So while a dead creature is a corpse it is still a creature. Especially considering the stone to flesh spell which can create corpses that are not dead creatures, or flesh objects if you prefer.

[Seerow]

Ok, so items are only in danger if they are targeted specifically or if the character rolls a natural 1 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#itemsSurvivingafteraSavingTh row). The link to the SRD will tell you how to resolve it after rolling that 1.

I had never seen this rule before. Thanks, I hate it.

[Zanos]

I had never seen this rule before. Thanks, I hate it.
You hate that a fireball doesn't instantly destroy every magic item in the AoE, or you hate that it's possible at all?

[Seerow]

You hate that a fireball doesn't instantly destroy every magic item in the AoE, or you hate that it's possible at all?

That it's possible at all

I already have a strong distaste for fumble rules because they typically punish mundane/melee types disproportionately. This is more of that, but with even worse long term consequences than your typical fumble, and is apparently a core rule rather than a badly thought out house rule.

[Lukalaly]

That it's possible at all

I already have a strong distaste for fumble rules because they typically punish mundane/melee types disproportionately. This is more of that, but with even worse long term consequences than your typical fumble, and is apparently a core rule rather than a badly thought out house rule.

It takes enemy spellcasters from "threatening because they have the same spells as my wizard friend" to "threatening because there's a 5% chance that I lose half my wbl." Plus, I feel like it's the same as having enemies sunder your weapons/other magic items, except way worse because it can effect the entire party at once while also dealing damage.

Though this makes me wonder, what if they made the wealth by level guidelines with the idea that you're going to be losing half your gear one in twenty times you get hit by an AoE? "Yes, a 20th level character should have roughly 700k gold pieces, but about 250k of that should be in the form of burnt scrolls and shattered full plate"

[MaxiDuRaritry]

It takes enemy spellcasters from "threatening because they have the same spells as my wizard friend" to "threatening because there's a 5% chance that I lose half my wbl." Plus, I feel like it's the same as having enemies sunder your weapons/other magic items, except way worse because it can effect the entire party at once while also dealing damage.

Though this makes me wonder, what if they made the wealth by level guidelines with the idea that you're going to be losing half your gear one in twenty times you get hit by an AoE? "Yes, a 20th level character should have roughly 700k gold pieces, but about 250k of that should be in the form of burnt scrolls and shattered full plate"This is why I like spending my WBL on self-augmentation (such as bodily enhancements and grafts), and crafting items out of aurorum and riverine. Either they can't be destroyed or they can be put back together again without issue.

[Zanos]

That it's possible at all

I already have a strong distaste for fumble rules because they typically punish mundane/melee types disproportionately. This is more of that, but with even worse long term consequences than your typical fumble, and is apparently a core rule rather than a badly thought out house rule.
It's not a fun rule, I agree.

If your DM uses it there's steps you can take to mitigate it. Objects take inherently reduced damage from all energy types besides acid and sonic, and the hardening spell is pretty cheap. The most likely pieces of equipment are shield, armor, headband, and weapon, which usually tend to be more durable. Only 1 item is ever effected, and it does get its own save too.

So a fireball would have to hit you more than 40(half fire damage, -20 hardness) damage to deal any damage to a hardened chain shirt, even if the chain shirt itself fails its save, and before accounting for its extra durability from enchantments.

I would still pack some save reroll items, though. Nothing is gonna stop a robe or tiny headband from getting destroyed.