Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="roguerouge" data-source="post: 4070955" data-attributes="member: 13855">Interesting. I generally play with people who skew towards role-playing rather than this approach. They'd rather something fits narratively than fits by power. So if I'm not responding in the proper manner here, please help me out.My take is that blade barrier, as a wall spell, has some serious limitations. The most important limitation is that it's permeable. Rogues can tumble through it, albeit with risk. You can target spells through it (which you can't with Walls of Stone, Ice, and Force) at the minor cost of its providing cover (+4 AC, +2 Reflex). As a DM, I'd argue that placing it to destroy a weapon is a kind of fine-tuned placement that the wall cannot handle. Weapons are here, there, and everywhere in melee and mostly share a creature's space. (Even reach weapons could be argued to "retreat" to this space to aid in parrying and defense after the melee attack roll.) And as an attended item, I'd rule that it requires a 1 on the save of the weapon owner to afflict it in this way, much as other posters have mentioned. But if you stick your weapon and arm into the blender voluntarily: you get to make another Reflex save (per the spell rules) and if you roll a 1, your weapon is toast.Basically, if a player told me s/he wanted to attack through a blade barrier, I'd give them a Wisdom check, DC 5. If they succeeded, I tell them exactly what's going to happen and say "Are you SURE?" If they want to risk it, great.In conclusion: PC stupidity ALWAYS makes opponents (and their spell effects) more powerful.</blockquote>

Verification