Disintegrate

[andargor]

The setup might not make sense according to real-world physics, but we're not dealing with physics. Magic has its own, entirely different set of rules. The books clearly define what happens in this situation, so it doesn't matter whether it fits common sense. (Note that "common sense" is just another term for experience, and most real people have no experience with disintegrate spells.)

Most real people? Please, give me a name, so I can go and beg that person to add it to my spellbook.

Andargor

 

[kramis]

Interesting.

And a bit contradictory.

One can target an individual while only seeing his armor.

Then disintegrate him, and not his armor.

We must dismiss logic for rules, it seems.

Were he to stand behind the armor, the armor is cover, the cover is struck, the cover is disintegrated.

Should he be in the armor, the armor is equipment, and he is disintegrated.

An object struck is only the first object struck if you are not wearing it.

Interesting, indeed.

Wow, dude you've got issues. It's a game. It's a fantasy game. It's a seriously gross (as in large scale, not disgusting) approximation of anything resembling reality. And to top it off, if you think this is the only, or even the most, contradictory and unrealistic part of the rules you either don't know the game very well, or your idea of reality is kind of scary.

It's not supposed to make total sense. It's not even supposed to be realistic. It's supposed to be a fantasy game that gives the feeling of heroic adventuring.

I recommend Squad Leader if you want something a bit more "accurate" in a board game (and much more tedious).

 

[Oni]

Thanks for the replies people.

Where is this official FAQ btw?

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a

 

[Relentless]

It's not contradictory, it's magic.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

The rules work as stated. This, I do not contest.

The rationale is nonetheless contradictory.

A ray moves through an object to target that which is inside, but not behind.

Magic, yes. Game mechanic, yes. Simplified for playability. Contradictory, yes.

Wow, dude you've got issues. It's a game. It's a fantasy game. It's a seriously gross (as in large scale, not disgusting) approximation of anything resembling reality.

No one claimed it to be otherwise.

Save your breath.

And to top it off, if you think this is the only, or even the most, contradictory and unrealistic part of the rules you either don't know the game very well, or your idea of reality is kind of scary.

Your assumptions are inaccurate and tiresome.

Your conclusions are unsubstantiated.

Your attitude is unwelcome.

 

[Tidus4444]

Thw whole rule of touch and ranged touch attacks is that it just has to touch a part of a person, whether it is armored or not. The ray doesn't pass through the armor, rather it hits the armor and disintigrates the wielder of the armor.

 

[MerakSpielman]

Ok, I think we all understand that the way the spell is supposed to work has to do with maintaining game balance and playability. After all, if disintigrate destroyed all objects carried by the target (something I don't think I'll do anymore...) it would, in effect, become even more powerful than a Mordenkainen's Disjunction, with the results of not only making a magical item useless, but destroying it altogether. Also, it's just a game and doesn't need to make sense, blah blah blah and all that.

That being said (and here's the bit you can argue with)...

If I were writing a book or short story that featured a disintigrate-type ray I would be hard pressed to come up with an explanation for why the same beam destroys a suit of armor if the armor is placed on a practice dummy (leaving the dummy unharmed) but leaves the armor unharmed if it is being worn by a creature (which is itself promptly destroyed). It lacks verisimilitude. Or however you spell it.
You could "hand wave" it, saying the magic knows the difference between the target dummy and the creature, but that lacks credibility with me. The spell, in this case, could know more than the wizard (who for reasons of his own is casting the spell on a suit of armor without finding out whether or not it's occupied first).

Also, if the creature inside the armor were to die before the ray hits, the armor would be dusted and the dead body would remain. If the creature was just bleeding to death, it would dust him and leave the armor.

 

[LGodamus]

Uhhh...how about we say it hit his eyeslit in his armor

 

[Hypersmurf]

It gets even more fun

The Sage has ruled that if a Ray spell misses its target - even if it goes on to strike something beyond that target - the Ray has no effect.

For example, if Fred the Fighter was standing in front of a door, and Wally the Wizard cast Disintegrate at him, only missing because of Bob's Dodge bonus, the Ray is presumably going to hit the door (or at least the wall)... but nothing is Disintegrated.

However, if the Ray misses the target because it strikes intervening Cover, it affects the Cover normally. So if Clem the Cleric was standing between Wally and Fred, providing half-cover, and Wally rolls in that unfortunate zone where he misses due to the Cover bonus, Clem gets Zapped.

Now. If someone is behind a tower shield, they have full cover... except against targetted spells. And the FAQ has ruled that this includes Rays. So if Fred is hiding behind his tower shield, Wally just needs to Zap the face of the shield to Disintegrate Fred (incidentally leaving the shield unharmed).

But what if it's not Fred with the shield, but Clem? Fred presumably gets at least some cover bonus for being behind a person who is cowering behind a tower shield.

If the Ray strikes Clem's shield, does the shield get Disintegrated, or the Cleric? In the previous example, the shield was being used to target the wielder. In this case, the shield-wielder is not the target at all... is the shield now treated as an object which is providing cover, or a possession of a person who is providing cover?

-Hyp.

 

[Relentless]

The spell disintegrates the target.

If the armor is the target, it is disintegrated.

If the dummy is the target, it is disintegrated.

If the creature is the target, it is disintegrated, dead or alive.

The problem, therefore, is how the ray can pass through the armor, should it cover the target in its entirety, to reach the creature or dummy.

 

[MerakSpielman]

Uhhh...how about we say it hit his eyeslit in his armor

Then it's not a ranged touch attack, is it?