Disintegrate

[Janos Audron]

If you disintegrate a creature, do you destroy his equipment too?

If yes, where did you find it?

 

[Relentless]

The spell affects one target. One creature or one object.

The spell specifies this.

The gear remains.

 

[Taluron]

From the SRD: "Only the first creature or object struck can be affected (that is, the ray affects only one target per casting)."

Our group has interpreted this both ways. Currently we let the gear remain. Depends on whether you consider the gear 'part' of the creature.
If you don't you keep the gear. You also get the odd effect of leaving door knobs behind when you disentigrate a door. YMMV


/edit grammar.

 

[Murrdox]

The text of the spell specifies that equpment of a disintigrated creature is not disintigrated. Check the SRD.

 

[the Jester]

Well, you can argue it either way.

Typically, equipment is considered part of a creature for spell effects and whatnot. That's why a fighter's sword doesn't take damage from a fireball (with the possible exception of a natural 1 on the saving throw).

Personally, I say destroy the loot.

 

[Relentless]

A creature is not its equipment.

A sundered sword is not a sundered character.

A disintegrated sword is not a disintegrated character.

The sword disintegrates, the character remains. The character disintegrates, the sword remains.

One creature OR one object.

 

[the Jester]

A creature is not its equipment.

A sundered sword is not a sundered character.

A disintegrated sword is not a disintegrated character.

The sword disintegrates, the character remains. The character disintegrates, the sword remains.

One creature OR one object.

Does that mean that a creature completely covered in armor (say, magical full plate that grants blindsight) is immune to disintegrate? I respectfully argue that's not a very fun interpetation of the spell and is likely contrary to how it's intended to work, but that's where the logic leads.

As I said, it can be argued either way.

 

[Relentless]

Does that mean that a creature completely covered in armor (say, magical full plate that grants blindsight) is immune to disintegrate? I respectfully argue that's not a very fun interpetation of the spell and is likely contrary to how it's intended to work, but that's where the logic leads.

Logic is correct.

Not immune, protected until the armor is disintegrated.

Then, quite vulnerable.

As I said, it can be argued either way.

One way uses the rules as written. One does not.

 

[Murrdox]

Well, that's a GRAND idea...

But the fact is that you only have to make a ranged touch attack to hit a creature with the spell.

Armor doesn't modify your touch AC, no matter how much or how liitle you are wearing. Therefore armor does NOT protect you from Disintigrate.

The idea that you'd have to disintigrate someone's armor before you could target them is silly.

 

[the Jester]

Well, that's a GRAND idea...

But the fact is that you only have to make a ranged touch attack to hit a creature with the spell.

Armor doesn't modify your touch AC, no matter how much or how liitle you are wearing. Therefore armor does NOT protect you from Disintigrate.

The idea that you'd have to disintigrate someone's armor before you could target them is silly.

But you see my point about the logic, right?

That's why I think that it should take out equipment. Or else you could argue, "You can't disintegrate me- I'm wearing war paint over my entire body!" It shouldn't be quite that easy to protect yourself against a 6th level spell.