disintegrate clerical symbols

[Hypersmurf]

I suppose you could do it if the symbol was unattended, and royally screw him over, but if the cleric was holding or wearing it, I wouldn't allow a "called shot" at the holy symbol any more than I'd allow people to aim for a wizard's spell component pouch, or to let them try to hit him in the mouth and sever his tongue... That way lies cheese.

So what are the rules for "Strike a Held Object" in the Combat Section for?

-Hyp.

 

[Staffan]

I suppose you could do it if the symbol was unattended, and royally screw him over, but if the cleric was holding or wearing it, I wouldn't allow a "called shot" at the holy symbol any more than I'd allow people to aim for a wizard's spell component pouch, or to let them try to hit him in the mouth and sever his tongue... That way lies cheese.

IMO, attacking people's equipment is fair game, especially if they're actually holding it (as opposed to having it in a backpack or something). I mean, if you can break someone's sword or bow, why not their holy symbol?

If it's on a chain around their neck and not being actively used, I might require some grappling instead of a straight attack.

 

[mmu1]

So what are the rules for "Strike a Held Object" in the Combat Section for?

-Hyp.

They're definitely not there so you can neuter a PC with one easy attack roll. Destroying a holy symbol or a component pouch isn't like disarming a fighter or sundering his weapon, it's like allowing someone to make a called shot against the fighter's sword hand.

It might be legit, but if you start playing like that people will just start carrying back-up holy symbols in multiple forms, and using multiple spell component pouches, or lots of little pockets all over the place a la Mialee... If you insist on it, it can be gotten around easily, and just ends up unnecessarily screwing up the feel of the game.

 

[hong]

They're definitely not there so you can neuter a PC with one easy attack roll. Destroying a holy symbol or a component pouch isn't like disarming a fighter or sundering his weapon, it's like allowing someone to make a called shot against the fighter's sword hand.

It might be legit, but if you start playing like that people will just start carrying back-up holy symbols in multiple forms, and using multiple spell component pouches, or lots of like pockets all over the place a la Mialee... If you insist on it, it can be gotten around easily, and just ends up unnecessarily screwing up the feel of the game.

Maybe you guys should check out this thread in House Rules, which came out of the "is sunder too easy" thread:

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46437

 

[DreamChaser]

Bards can cast anything.

They're almost as good at spellcasting as Rogues...

-Hyp.

Right. So why would you hand it to the bard when the rogue would be much better at casting it.

"I am Dark Knife, the rogue. I command the gods to bring you back to life. HUZZAH!!!"

DC

 

[hammymchamham]

Right. So why would you hand it to the bard when the rogue would be much better at casting it.

"I am Dark Knife, the rogue. I command the gods to bring you back to life. HUZZAH!!!"

DC

Who says the rogue is better at casting it?

 

[Pax]

Right. So why would you hand it to the bard when the rogue would be much better at casting it.

"I am Dark Knife, the rogue. I command the gods to bring you back to life. HUZZAH!!!"

DC

Because the rogue's "fees" are higher.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

I've never played a cleric without at least one spare, by the levels where I'm worried about disinigrate I'm going to have a lot of spares.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Since UMD is a CHR based skill, chances are the abrd is a better caster by far. Better at UMD and can actually cast spells on their own.

 

[Christian]

They're definitely not there so you can neuter a PC with one easy attack roll. Destroying a holy symbol or a component pouch isn't like disarming a fighter or sundering his weapon, it's like allowing someone to make a called shot against the fighter's sword hand.

It might be legit, but if you start playing like that people will just start carrying back-up holy symbols in multiple forms, and using multiple spell component pouches, or lots of little pockets all over the place a la Mialee... If you insist on it, it can be gotten around easily, and just ends up unnecessarily screwing up the feel of the game.

It's the same problem with sundering weapons, though. If the tactic is used a lot, PC's end up carrying around lots of spare weapons. But if most characters carry around lots of spare weapons, then sundering isn't all that useful, so it won't be a common tactic ...

It's not going to be all that easy to hit a Tiny or Diminutive object like a spell component pouch or a holy symbol-and they've probably got some concealment from the character's clothing, possibly as much as 100%. I don't see anything in the rules the demands a cleric wave his holy symbol around in the air to cast a spell with a DF component, and a wizard could easily slide his hand into his robes to grab his material components-he doesn't have to pull out the whole pouch. High AC, 50% miss chance, and the possibility that the character has a spare = very low return on this tactic. I'd say a mid-level + character would probably be wise to carry a spare somewhere, especially in the case of the cleric, who isn't encumbered by his symbol (and can cast very, very few spells without it). Then in the unusual case that a foolish or desperate foe tries to whack it and succeeds, he'll have a spare.

Oh, and one last thing. Mending, Clr0, Components V,S + broken holy symbol = perfectly good holy symbol. But I know, you probably have much better uses for your 0-level spell slots.