Acid, Blades, and Balance?

[Kae'Yoss]

This does not, moreover, solve the issue.

Oh, I don't know. Seems acid does that, alright

 

[Camarath]

I'm rather of opinion that that passage refers to generalized area attacks, such as fireball, where taking into account held possessions would be prohibitive in terms of time spent adjudicating combat and devestation on top of the already high damage. In the case of targetted spells, this is not so however. There are spells which speak of targetting held items, although I suppose it might be reasoned that such statements are what allows such spells to be used in this manner.

Spells that state that they affect attended items or have Traget: Object can affect attended items. Spell with Traget: Creature can not traget items because items are not creatures. Spells the require ranged attack rolls can not be use to attack attended items because ranged weapons can not be use with sunder.

However, it defies logic that a targetted spell which does not precisely specify that it cannot be used to target objects cannot be used to target a held item.

Can you target attended object with other range weapons with out a feat or ability such as Ranged Sunder? I do not think so and similarly I do not believe that spells can do do unless other wise stated.

This does not, moreover, solve the issue. Note that acid flasks are non-magical. Even worse, there is a feat in the Complete Warrior that specifically allows one to make sundering attacks (if you'd need something so specific with an acid flask) with ranged weapons.

My stance is that to attack attended items you must use the method laid out in the rules (i.e. sunder) which does not allow the use of ranged attacks including ranged spells or you must use a spell, effect, or ability which states that it affects attended items or that gives you the ability to affect attended items with attack that would not normally be able to attack items such as ranged attacks. The fact thet there is a feat that allows one to Sunder items with range attacks IMO supports the assertion that you can not do do normally since if you could why would you need the feat.

 

[Shadowdweller]

I must disagree:

Spells that state that they affect attended items or have Traget: Object can affect attended items. Spell with Traget: Creature can not traget items because items are not creatures. Spells the require ranged attack rolls can not be use to attack attended items because ranged weapons can not be use with sunder.

And Melf's Acid Arrow scrupulously avoids stating that it's target must be a living creature. (And PS: Assuming you're not using some form of "elite-speak", it IS spelled t-a-r-g-e-t). On the other hand, in all cases where a spell ONLY affects creatures, that is stated in the spell description.

Can you target attended object with other range weapons with out a feat or ability such as Ranged Sunder? I do not think so and similarly I do not believe that spells can do do unless other wise stated.

Trying to do damage to an object with a weapon is a very different thing than merely trying to hit it with something. You have to apply force at the proper angle, and hit it with the proper edge of said weapon. This is a very different thing than merely breaking a flask of acid over something or hitting it with an energy bolt. There is no rule that specifically forbids targetting attended objects with spells, and there ARE rules for what the consequences would be. When I say the inverse defies logic, I mean this: Can you think of a reason why someone would somehow, magically NOT be able to target a held item?

The fact thet there is a feat that allows one to Sunder items with range attacks IMO supports the assertion that you can not do do normally since if you could why would you need the feat.

The feat allows one to damage held items with arrows, bolts, and the like. That is, BREAK a sword, or CUT AWAY a belt from afar with a lightweight, PIERCING weapon. Once again, this is a far cry from simply striking something.

 

[Christian]

It's when opponents start trying tactics like these that you suddenly realize that Mending is the very best 0-level spell ... As I read the description, it seems that when cast on an item that hasn't yet been broken (reduced to zero hit points), it restores it to full hit points. And unless it's a magic item (and magic items rarely get taken to zero in one round), it'll fix it even after a sunder.

Every spellcaster should keep one of these babies prepared, just in case ...

 

[Brother MacLaren]

I believe Mending only applies to objects of one pound or less. Good for some light weapons, and if you're small it applies to more, but it's still very limited.

 

[Camarath]

And PS: Assuming you're not using some form of "elite-speak", it IS spelled t-a-r-g-e-t

Sorry about the misspelling.

I must disagree:
And Melf's Acid Arrow scrupulously avoids stating that it's target must be a living creature. On the other hand, in all cases where a spell ONLY affects creatures, that is stated in the spell description.

Could you please state a section of the rules that deals with the targeting of attended items, specifically what is an attended item's AC? With an attack roll if you equal or beat the target’s Armor Class you hit and deal damage but I can not find the rules for the AC of attended items. There are provisions for the saves of attended and unattended items and the AC of unattended items but as far as I can see no provision for the AC of attended items. I am unwillling to speculate or house rule something since IMO if you could attack attended items some would be some provision for their AC.

Trying to do damage to an object with a weapon is a very different thing than merely trying to hit it with something. You have to apply force at the proper angle, and hit it with the proper edge of said weapon. This is a very different thing than merely breaking a flask of acid over something or hitting it with an energy bolt.

That would seem to me to be the difference between a Touch Attack and a normal Attack. I still think that spells that require attack rolls are counted as weapons and must follow most of the same rules as normal weapons.

There is no rule that specifically forbids targetting attended objects with spells, and there ARE rules for what the consequences would be.

I would like to state again "Unless the descriptive text for the spell specifies otherwise, all items carried or worn by a creature are assumed to survive a magical attack.". You may think that this does not apply but I believe it does.

When I say the inverse defies logic, I mean this: Can you think of a reason why someone would somehow, magically NOT be able to target a held item?

Two reasons 1) I can not find rules for attacking attended items except through the use of Sunder 2) I believe that spells that can damage or affect attended item state that they can or have Target: Object.

The feat allows one to damage held items with arrows, bolts, and the like. That is, BREAK a sword, or CUT AWAY a belt from afar with a lightweight, PIERCING weapon. Once again, this is a far cry from simply striking something.

Could you please post the rules for striking an attended item with a range or melee attack other that through the use of Sunder I have not been able to find these rules?

 

[Camarath]

I realize that I am taking a very hardlined and narrow view of what the rules allow and provide for and what they do not. This may not be helpful (or amusing) for you. If it is not and you would like to allow attacks against attended items I would suggest using this sentence as a guideline for the AC of attended items.

An attended item has an AC equal to the touch AC of the creature carrying it except the item uses it's size modifier in place of the creature's size modifier.

That would IMO be a house rule (unless of course a similar sentcence does actually appear in the rules) but I think it would be a good way to handle item AC if you choose to allow the attacking of attended items.