Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 2970695" data-attributes="member: 2011">I totally agree.But, I do not think that because a spell indicates that it damages creatures that it should not damage objects if it is a effect that should do so, for example, a solid force effect that creates blades.A Spiritual weapon only states that it attacks opponents (and targets, presumably creatures), but if there were a way to interpose an object, it should damage an object. Say, for the sake of discussion, that someone had a feat or PrC special ability that allowed him to interpose his shield instead of taking damage from a melee attack and it gets resolved as a sunder (I do not know of such a feat, but such things are possible).Wall of Fire does not state that it damages any unattended objects (like arrows) that pass through it, but I find it reasonable to have magical fire from a Wall of Fire damage arrows because there are rules about fire affecting unattended objects.Ditto for Blade Barrier. If I have whirling blades of solid force that can block/damage arrows (i.e. give a cover bonus, and note, arrows that hit a solid surface are automatically destroyed anyway) and can damage a metal construct, I expect that those same whirling blades will damage any other object that goes through them. Granted, a boat could be ruled to slam into them and stop (i.e. it does not pass through them, hence, it only takes ramming damage).But, I think a literal creature only translation (like arrows passing unharmed through a Wall of Force or objects passing unharmed through Blade Barrier) is not reasonable.PS. A lot of these weird force effects are sacred cow holdovers from 1E and 2E. The designers did not come up with a good definition of force for 3E, they just threw it into the game system.</blockquote>

Verification