Striking an Object rules question

[Zenon]

Here's a question that came up last game:

First, some background-

The barbarian/sorcerer(PC) is pelting the evil cleric(NPC) with his trusty Wand of Magic Missiles. After losing 2/3 of his hit points to the wand, and since the barb/sorc is the only one hitting him, the evil cleric decides the wand has to go. He charges the barbarian/sorcerer and strikes at the wand. The barbarian/sorcerer gets his AoO for the attempt and misses.

We figure out what is needed to hit the wand. AC 7 base(per DMG/SRD), the barb/sorc Dex modifier of +2, object in opponents hand +5, size modifier for wand (tiny) +2 for a total of 16.

So far, so good.

But now the question comes up - the barb/sorcerer has cast Shield on himself, providing a +7 cover bonus. The facing is correctly aligned to the direction of attack. The barbarian/sorcerer asks if the Shield spell will help.

Checking the section in the PHB, we read that the only thing which would also apply is any magical deflection bonus.

Ahh, here's the rub.

The Shield provides a cover bonus, not a deflection bonus, so by the book, it would not apply to the AC of the wand.

That's the way I ruled it, but it doesn't seem to sit right with me. I am having a hard time reconciling why the Shield would not protect the wand also, it being a held piece of equipment.

Opinions?

BTW, the NPC rolled max for damage with his heavy mace (in front of the players) for 8+4str=12 pnts (the wand has a 5 hardness/5 hit points), shattering the wand. The PC isn't complaining (he's a good player), but I just want to be sure I did everything right.

 

[dvvega]

You answered your own question .. .the bonus is a cover bonus, not a deflection bonus.

Yes it sounds harsh, however the shield protects the user nothing else. If you wanted to be technical, the spell says the disk moves out of the way when the character attacks.

A clever spell caster who made a successful Spellcraft check could guess "That's a Shield spell" and Ready an action for just before the guy attacks (I think that's stretching it a little but might be possible).

 

[Kershek]

BTW, the NPC rolled max for damage with his heavy mace (in front of the players) for 8+4str=12 pnts (the wand has a 5 hardness/5 hit points), shattering the wand. The PC isn't complaining (he's a good player), but I just want to be sure I did everything right.

Since the wand is magical, doesn't it get a bonus to its hardness/hit points? I don't remember where I might have read that..

 

[kreynolds]

If you wanted to be technical, the spell says the disk moves out of the way when the character attacks.

True. But from the sounds of it, the barbarian/sorcerer wasn't attacking at the time. Sounds like the cleric simply rushed him. If that's the case, I'd say not allowing the shield spell to add a cover bonus to the wand was a big mistake. I have a hard time picturing the shield spell projecting a forcefield that perfectly matches the outline of your body, stopping at your fingertips and thus leaving the wand exposed. For some reason, when I think of that, I picture the hole that Daffy Duck would leave behind when he ran straight through a wall. Oh well.

 

[hong]

We figure out what is needed to hit the wand. AC 7 base(per DMG/SRD), the barb/sorc Dex modifier of +2, object in opponents hand +5, size modifier for wand (tiny) +2 for a total of 16.

Why is it AC 7 base?

 

[hong]

Re: Re: Striking an Object rules question

Since the wand is magical, doesn't it get a bonus to its hardness/hit points? I don't remember where I might have read that..

Magic weapons get a bonus to hardness and hp equal to their enhancement bonus.

 

[dvvega]

kreynolds: i would agree with you ... however since the shield spell specifcally says cover bonus, "by the book" it doesn't count.

It's really a DM call. If you don't think it's right, change it. It won't mess up anything big time.

But remember that a shield spell providing Deflection would also give you a +7 to touch attack spells, against ghost attacks and so forth, whereas cover just gives you cover.

 

[Zenon]

Re: Re: Striking an Object rules question

Why is it AC 7 base?

Per the SRD:

Physical Description

A typical wand has an AC of 7, 5 hit points, a hardness of 5, and a break DC of 16.

Since these are the stats for a wand, and they don't mention either way if they increase in enchanted, or that these are the stats for an enchanted one, I assume they are for the finished product. I don't know if the DMG gives the same stat line, I don't have it available for reference at the moment.

True. But from the sounds of it, the barbarian/sorcerer wasn't attacking at the time. Sounds like the cleric simply rushed him. If that's the case, I'd say not allowing the shield spell to add a cover bonus to the wand was a big mistake. I have a hard time picturing the shield spell projecting a forcefield that perfectly matches the outline of your body, stopping at your fingertips and thus leaving the wand exposed. For some reason, when I think of that, I picture the hole that Daffy Duck would leave behind when he ran straight through a wall. Oh well.

That's about right. The barb/sorc had a mace in his other hand, so he was armed and got an AoO for the strike at the wand.

However, the Shield spell doesn't create a forcefield that matches the outline of your body.

From the SRD, Sheild spell description:

Shield creates an invisible, mobile disk of force that hovers in front of the character.

It goes onto say it protects from attacks, but the stated bonus to your AC is cover, not deflection.

I know, this is the problem I'm wrestling with.

 

[Zenon]

But remember that a shield spell providing Deflection would also give you a +7 to touch attack spells, against ghost attacks and so forth, whereas cover just gives you cover.

It also wouldn't stack with items that provide a deflection bonus.

Now you see my quandry. Do I just want to say "by the book, that's the way it is". or do I want to open up a can of worms by changing it, or do I want to introduce a house rule that might cause more problems than it solves.

 

[dvvega]

Zenon: it is your option Since you are the DM ...

you could justify it not counting:

attack wand starts and is ongoing (shield is up)
AOO (shield is down while attacking)
wand attack completes with shield down

you could justify it counting:

attack wand starts and is ongoing (shield is up)
AOO (shield is down while attacking but goes up straight after)
wand attack completes with shield up

Personally I rule it as a cover bonus, full stop. It's a 1st level spell. You can't expect a 1st level spell to give you everything. If he wants to protect his wand in cases like this, go buy deflection items.