Grease spell question

[apsuman]

There are a lot of spells which affect items without damaging them. An argument based on the location of the appropriate rule in the book is illogical. There is only one section on item saving throws, so that section applies to all spells in the book that state: Saving Throw: Reflex (Object), etc.

The object makes the save. The rules on page 136 of the PHB (3E) and the spell description of Grease are clear on that.

.

Fair enough, I thought I said that. Just to be clear, yes, the Grease spell says that the object gets the save. Even if I were entrenched in my position (obviously I am not) I suspect that most of the time the user's Reflex save would be better than the magic item's reflex save. But I might be wrong on that too, I am ok with that.

This is totally off. Unattended items ALWAYS fail their saves. This analogy doesn't illustrate anything with regard to the original question.

Whoa there. Again, let me be as clear as I can be. My position is that non damaging spells targeted at magic items do not give the magic item a save. Now, there are others in this thread that say the opposite, that magic items always get a save if they are a target. My counter arguement to them is that a wall of ice (hemisphere) cast over an unattened magic sword (say to keep person X from getting it) would give the sword no save. Grease in it's description takes care of this outright, if it did not then I would view Grease as a non-damaging spell and say that an unattended item (magic or not) would get no save.

It might make sense to you that the wielder gets the save, but that is not what the Grease spell states nor what the rules on page 136 state.

Apparently there is some miscommunication happening here. I thought I said that the book was clear, that the item (not the peron) gets the save. Let me try it again: The book is clear the item (not the person) gets the save.

How do you justify your position here with regard to the rules (i.e. states rules that indicate that non-damaging spells result in the wielder getting the save instead of the item)? And even if you could find such a rule (which you will not be able to), the Grease spell description still takes precedence.

I realize that this rule is counter intuitive to what we normally do (give PCs and NPCs the save), but there you have it.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. My point (at least the on in contention) is that nondamaging spells (i.e. Wall of Ice) that target an unattended magic item give it no save.

Now, I have tried to demonstrate that I am flexible and I can be wrong and admit it. I thought I did that in my last post. Since you did not read it that way, let me say: I might be wrong, feel free to change my mind. If, however, I were the DM that's how I would rule it.


g!

 

[melkoriii]

I wouldn't allow an item save since the spell doesn't alter the item in any way.

It creates a greasy coating on the item, that's all.

Much like glitterdust allows a save to avoid being blinded but not to avoid getting covered by golden particles.

Items don't get saving throws to avoid getting wet if put in water but you could argue about a (magical) weapon's defence against rust.

I agree here.

The whole point of the spell is to make the item hard to hold.
The user has to make a Reflx save when he wants to keep hold of the item.

I find it hard to believe that items can make a reflex save as they can not move.

I would also find it hard to beleive that a non-intellegent item could make a will save.

Items make Fort saves.

I beleive the spell text is a miss type and should be added to the errata.



FrankTrollman

Also remember that if you play it that they items gets the save and it fails, the user AUTOMATICLY drops the item "the creature immediately drops the item"

THe user only gets a save when he trys to pick it back up.

 

[Hurtoc]

BTW, just if you are interested, in the game I ruled that the item makes the save.

The weapon was a Vorpal sword (Caster level 18, save = 2+ (18/2) = +11) and the wielder a 10th level fighter with no Dex bonus (Reflex save = +3) which is significant difference. However, the DC was 14 (spell level 1, +3 Bard caster CHA bonus) and the roll was 11, so either would have saved.

He was the big baddy of the encounter, so I was happy to have the weapon stay in hand. Heh, next round though, a Sound Burst came at the guy, which can stun and thus disarm as well, but the Fort save for a 10th level fighter is much better than this guy's Will save!

 

[FrankTrollman]

I beleive the spell text is a miss type and should be added to the errata.

Then it's been a misprint for nearly four years - it's said the same thing in the first printing 3rd edition PHB, the second printing 3rd edition PHB, and now the 3.5 PHB.

It seems fairly obvious that whoever is in charge of the wording of this spell throughout multiple ediitons is fairly happy with the way it is worded now - namely that the object gets a save to negate, and thereafter creatures can make their own saves to pick it back up.

Now, it would be an entirely reasonable house rule that the character makes the initial save to negate the grease effect. I live far away from you, and I'm not going to kick down your door shouting "rules police!" But the rules are unambiguous here - the initial save is made by the object unless house rules come into effect (which they are free to do).

And I don't even think that's unreasonable. An object uses the character's Reflex Save if it is better than its own - so all this is really saying is that the character makes the save unless the item is really powerful - in which case the object helps the character make the save. That doesn't seem like a strange or misprinted ruling to me at all.

-Frank

 

[KarinsDad]

Whoa there. Again, let me be as clear as I can be. My position is that non damaging spells targeted at magic items do not give the magic item a save. Now, there are others in this thread that say the opposite, that magic items always get a save if they are a target. My counter arguement to them is that a wall of ice (hemisphere) cast over an unattened magic sword (say to keep person X from getting it) would give the sword no save. Grease in it's description takes care of this outright, if it did not then I would view Grease as a non-damaging spell and say that an unattended item (magic or not) would get no save.

We do seem to be having a disconnect here.

The rules (from page 136):

1) Unattended targeted non-magic item gets a save, but always fails it (this is effectively the same as not getting a save).

2) Unattended targeted magic item gets a save because it is magic.

3) Attended targeted non-magic item gets a save, the same as its user.

4) Attended targeted magic item gets a save, the same as its user or its own, whichever is better.

These rules are applicable to any save for any object, regardless of whether the source is damaging or not.


Your counter argument appears to be (and correct me if I am wrong) that an unattended magic item gets a save per the rules I quoted here, but that does not make sense for a non-mobile magic item attempt to get away from a Wall of Ice.

From the SRD: "The character can create the hemisphere so that it traps one or more creatures, though these creatures can avoid being trapped by the hemisphere by making successful Reflex saves."

It does not talk about any sort of object save with this spell. So obviously, you can trap an unattended object. This is just common sense, even if the spell does not point it out.

The ONLY times an unattended object gets a save is when the object is magic AND the object is the target of a spell that allows an object a save. In every other case, it does not get a save.

So, your example seemed non-sequitor to the issue (to me) since Walls of Ice do not give object saves for the purposing of trapping objects. It could give an attended and/or magical object a save for purposes of damaging the object. Non-magical unattended items would automatically fail the save for any damage from a Wall of Ice.


Are we closer to being on the same page, or is there another point I missed?

 

[apsuman]

We do seem to be having a disconnect here.

The rules (from page 136):

1) Unattended targeted non-magic item gets a save, but always fails it (this is effectively the same as not getting a save).

2) Unattended targeted magic item gets a save because it is magic.

3) Attended targeted non-magic item gets a save, the same as its user.

4) Attended targeted magic item gets a save, the same as its user or its own, whichever is better.

These rules are applicable to any save for any object, regardless of whether the source is damaging or not.


Your counter argument appears to be (and correct me if I am wrong) that an unattended magic item gets a save per the rules I quoted here, but that does not make sense for a non-mobile magic item attempt to get away from a Wall of Ice.

From the SRD: "The character can create the hemisphere so that it traps one or more creatures, though these creatures can avoid being trapped by the hemisphere by making successful Reflex saves."

It does not talk about any sort of object save with this spell. So obviously, you can trap an unattended object. This is just common sense, even if the spell does not point it out.

The ONLY times an unattended object gets a save is when the object is magic AND the object is the target of a spell that allows an object a save. In every other case, it does not get a save.

So, your example seemed non-sequitor to the issue (to me) since Walls of Ice do not give object saves for the purposing of trapping objects. It could give an attended and/or magical object a save for purposes of damaging the object. Non-magical unattended items would automatically fail the save for any damage from a Wall of Ice.


Are we closer to being on the same page, or is there another point I missed?

I agree with you, I think I was always was. I interpreted your post as that we were not on the same page.

My point (which might just be from my own misunderstainding of Camarth's posts) is that some people (i think camarth) belive that unattended magic item always get a save, and I don't think so. Since his SRD citation was under the label of DAMAGING MAGIC ITEMS and from the text of said citation, clearly if there is a damaging effect targeted on an unattended magic item it gets a save.

The difference (between what I think his point was and mine) is that I think that nondamaging effects do not give the unattended magic item a save. It turns out that the Wall of Ice example is not a good one (unless someone wants to claim that a magic sword get a reflex save to avoid being trapped), so this time I will pick Faire Fire, or Light, or Darkness, or Daylight, or Arcane Mark, or ok that might be the whole list. But these spells do no damage and I think should effect unattended magic items and give them no save. AS I read this thread, I think some people think that unattended magic items should get a save.

There, I think that is the point in contention.


g!

 

[Camarath]

I agree with you, I think I was always was. I interpreted your post as that we were not on the same page.

My point (which might just be from my own misunderstainding of Camarth's posts) is that some people (i think camarth) belive that unattended magic item always get a save, and I don't think so. Since his SRD citation was under the label of DAMAGING MAGIC ITEMS and from the text of said citation, clearly if there is a damaging effect targeted on an unattended magic item it gets a save.

The difference (between what I think his point was and mine) is that I think that nondamaging effects do not give the unattended magic item a save. It turns out that the Wall of Ice example is not a good one (unless someone wants to claim that a magic sword get a reflex save to avoid being trapped), so this time I will pick Faire Fire, or Light, or Darkness, or Daylight, or Arcane Mark, or ok that might be the whole list. But these spells do no damage and I think should effect unattended magic items and give them no save. AS I read this thread, I think some people think that unattended magic items should get a save.

There, I think that is the point in contention.


g!

I was saying that an if a magical item is specifically targeted by the effect that allows an object to make a save it gets to make a save whether or not the effect deals damage. I am not saying magic items get saves if an effect does not have a save, does not specifically target the item, or explicitly disallows the item a save.

I now think that I was wrong and an unattended magic item item would not get a save if targeted by the Grease spell. This is not because the spell does not deal damage but because as Mr. Trollman pointed out the Grease spell specifically denies a save to unattended item including magical ones.

In general most effects that allow a save will be damaging effects but some effects allow items to make saves agianst results other that damage, such as the Gray Ooze's Acid ability where items save vs dissolving or the Polymorph Any Object spell where items get a save vs being polymorphed.

Faire Fire - Saving Throw: None
Light - Saving Throw: None
Darkness - Saving Throw: None
Daylight - Saving Throw: None
Arcane Mark - Saving Throw: None
Daylight - Saving Throw: None
Arcane Mark - Saving Throw: None

Your example spells do not allow saves so the targeted item does not get a save because there is not save to make. But if those spells allowed a save IMO an unattended magic item would indeed get a save.