Hammer of Righteous Saving Throw?

[Scharlata]

Hi, fellow sanctified spellcasters!

I'd like to know your opinion on a matter of a spell from the Book of Exalted Deeds, page 100, named Hammer of Righteousness.

As it happend to be, Argos the Threefold Blind, a good cleric of a good deity cast Hammer of Righteousness against an [incorporeal, evil] allip to smite it to pieces.

The descriptor of the spell [force] and the text, which states that the hammer is considered a force effect and has no miss chance when striking an incorporeal target, indicate that the spell is (very) effective against an incorporeal, evil undead.

Alas, the spell allows a Fortitude save for 1/2 damage that does not include an object to be affected. That normally means that against an undead it has utterly no effect, because undead do not have to make saving throws against an effect that allows a Fortitude save when it does not affect objects, too.

I ruled, as the DM, that the spell's intent was to include incorporeal undead, as most of the incorporeal critters are undead, neglecting the handfull of incorporeal fey from the MM 2.

Was this a righteous decision?

What about changing the Fortitude save into a Will save to avoid rewording the text? Better stick with adding the "object clause" to the Fort save?

Kind regards

 

[Lord Satan]

I think you were right, it is obvious from the spell description that it was intended to affect undead, and all force spells affect physical objects even if not specifically stated (wall of force being a prime example), since all force spells affect all physical objects, not just creatures it stands to reason that a force effect spell does affect objects, not just creatures and the description is badly designed by making undead, the obvious targets for such a spell immune to the very spell designed for them.

 

['o Skoteinos]

Change it to Will save, that's what WoTC did with the Disruption weapon property (which suffered from the same rules contradiction your spell did).

 

[Hypersmurf]

I'd like to know your opinion on a matter of a spell from the Book of Exalted Deeds, page 100, named Hammer of Righteousness.

Does the spell have a target, or an effect?

And what is that?

-Hyp.

 

[Abraxas]

Effect: Magic Warhammer of Force
Saving Throw: Fortitude half
Spell Text - "A great warhammer of positive energy springs into existence, launches towards a target that you can see within the range of the spell, and strikes unerringly."

Does 1d6 points damage/caster level (1d8/caster level if the target is evil).

 

[Hypersmurf]

Effect: Magic Warhammer of Force

In that case, I agree with Lord Satan - the spell does work on objects.

If it were "Target: One creature", it wouldn't, and thus undead would be immune.

But the target isn't limited to creatures, and thus it can deal 1d6/level damage to objects (Fort half), and thus it can affect undead.

(It'll also be brutal against bows and wands...!)

-Hyp.

 

[Scharlata]

[...] If it were "Target: One creature", it wouldn't, and thus undead would be immune.

But the target isn't limited to creatures, and thus it can deal 1d6/level damage to objects (Fort half), and thus it can affect undead.

OK.

If I understand correctly, a spell works against/on everything if the Target/Effect entry does not specify against/on what the spell works.

If the Target/Effect entry specifies that the spell in question does only work against/on i.e. "1 creature" then I have to look whether or not the Fortitude save has the "object/harmless clause" if the spell ought to affect an undead.

So, a Sound Burst works against an undead, but a Touch of Fatigue or an Enlarge Person does not.

Thanx for clarifying that tricky little question.

Kind regards

 

[Hypersmurf]

So, a Sound Burst works against an undead...

Note that the deafening effect of Sound Burst applies to "every creature in the area". It doesn't affect objects, therefore undead are immune.

Whereas there's nothing preventing you using the Hammer on a rock.

-Hyp.