Disintegrate

[MerakSpielman]

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.

But it also disintigrates cover, if the target is behind it, even if the cover was not a target. But if the target is in FRONT of the object that could have been cover, and the ray misses the target and hits the object, it is unharmed....

 

[Norfleet]

Sometimes 2E just makes more sense, you know? I recall back in 2E, it worked like Star Trek phasers, and everything associated with the target went poof.

By the letter of the 3E rules, however, you can disintegrate the target, in full armor, without affecting the armor.

It makes no sense, but hey, that's just how it is, until you start applying the house rules....but that is a subject for another forum.

Life is like a sandwich. Some days you eat the sandwich, other days the sandwich eats you.

 

[MerakSpielman]

Life is like a sandwich. Some days you eat the sandwich, other days the sandwich eats you. [/B]

Life is like a jar of pickles. Sometimes you feel a little dill, but other days you feel just brine.

 

[Firzair]

Hi everybody,

IMC we use the rules as written (only one creature or an object gets disintegrated). We envisioned the selection of the target as a process during the casting, i.e. you select an object (e.g. armor) by just pointing the index finger but you target the creature if you put your thumb and middle finger together while pointing your index finger. We're talking 'bout casting magic spells, I guess that magic has it's own rules in [insert your game world here], rules that are well beyond our grasp

Greetings
Firzair

 

[green slime]

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.

Yeah for the sage.... Where would we ever be without his advice?

 

[Plane Sailing]

Janos,

I know that you've recieved a whole lot of good-quality answers now about what the rules say about disintegrate (plus a link to the FAQ!).

I'd like to mention what my players and I find unsatisfactory about the rules and why:


I know that I and my fellow players rejected the computer-game vision of disintegrating a bad guy and have all his equipment go "pop" and land on the floor next to him to be picked up.

It is far more common in our game for equipment and even magic items to be destroyed by gouts of dragon fire, disintegrations and so forth. It fits our conception of what is "right, proper and believable in our fantasy context".

I could understand if WotC decided to make it hard to destroy items in order to avoid overturning the "balance" of gp value of goods at particular character levels... but I think that is putting the cart before the horse.

As a DM, I know that in some situations the PC's can and may lose some magic items. However, I keep track of the value of items which they each have at any one time and make an effort to ensure that appropriate items can be found in future treasure hordes. We prefer leaving DM's to balance the amount of treasure in a campaign rather than making spells that cause huge amounts of damage crisp a character but leave all his goods intact.

(we use a massive damage ST for items, if you are interested)

Cheers

 

[AuraSeer]

Your attitude is unwelcome.

Well, this is a case of the pot telling the kettle about its attitude problem.

For somebody who's been registered for less than a month, you have a lot of nerve telling anyone whether they're "welcome" or not. Especially when the other poster has been around for over a year more than you.

:lonk::

 

[DreamChaser]

Well, this is a case of the pot telling the kettle about its attitude problem.

For somebody who's been registered for less than a month, you have a lot of nerve telling anyone whether they're "welcome" or not. Especially when the other poster has been around for over a year more than you.

:lonk::

Put it away. If you need to prove who's bigger, do it somewhere other than the boards.

Back to the subject...

I personally don't think that game balance will be thrown out the window if disintegrate destroys everything in direct association with the target. In fact, I've always played that way. Here's my rationale.

If I were to disintegrate a cart or wagon (allowing for it being within the size limit), I would not destroy merely the bed or the tailgate or the axel. The entire thing would be disintegrated. Why? Because the different objects are working/moving/operating together to be a single unit. I see people wearing/using things the same way. If I disintegrate a fighter in chain mail armor, the chain mail (is in terms of "magical resonance") a part of him. It moves with him, it takes damage with him (or doesn't technically because he takes the damage), it has become an extension of him. So is the sword he's wielding and the back pack on his back and everything in it.

My rational for this (further).
A person is walking through a market an sees a robed figure of a race she does not recognise. She turns to her friend and asks "What is that?" pointing at the robed figure. The friend is not (barring some wierd joke) going to answer "That is a robe." The friend will intuitively understand the the whole kaboodle is just part of the half-orc/half-halfling walking through town. The answer would be "that is a horrific freek of nature that I don't even want to envision being conceived"

As a caveat, I would say that a magical item that has a caster level (or whatever) higher than the wielder should get its own save to "resist" the effect. So the artifact-level long sword doesn't get destroyed just because it was wielded by Feeble Frank the First-level Fighter. Intelligent items should also be treated sepearately (they can choose their own save or their user).

Now, the game stuff:
Disintegrate targets...

1 creature (counting all equipment but not everything touched) as part of the creature. A similar "field" as the invisiblity spell's ability to make things invisible.

1 object (counting all constituent parts of the object as part of it).

In both cases, the volume limit must be observed. And cannot be ignored either. I would rule that a caster could not attempt to disintegrate just the armor a character is wearing or just the axel of a cart. The spell desires to destroy a particular volume of matter and it will continue to destroy until it reaches its limit or the "object" or "creature" is gone.

Overall, I've found that this makes my players think more before throwing around disintegrates. They have to decide if it is worth destroying whatever the creature is carrying, since there is no going back.

And I have to say, that the Sage's ruling on Rays is complete trash. There is a mechanic for hitting other creatures in melee with a missed ranged attack. Use it (and I do).

Wow...that was longer than it seemed in my head. *shrug* Oh well. Those are just my thoughts.

DC

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Must fill this space

Maybe disintegrate should not ignore armour, an exception to the rules so to speak.

 

[Hypersmurf]

And I have to say, that the Sage's ruling on Rays is complete trash. There is a mechanic for hitting other creatures in melee with a missed ranged attack. Use it (and I do).

Um, that is the mechanic for hitting other creatures in melee with a missed ranged attack.

Unless they're grappling, the only way you can accidentally hit the wrong person with an arrow is if a/ they're providing your target with cover, b/ you miss your target's AC by a number less than or equal to the cover bonus the person is providing, and c/ the attack roll is sufficient to beat the interposing person's AC.

That's the exact mechanic the Sage is using to determine if the wrong thing is hit with a Ray.

Which mechanic did you have in mind?

-Hyp.