Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- Pocket Sized Adventures! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed for 1-2 game sessions.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="apsuman" data-source="post: 1195970" data-attributes="member: 1769">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.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.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.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!</blockquote>

Verification