How vulnerable are familiars?

[Caliban]

Caliban - by your interpretation, a halfling in a sack is immune to fireballs. The sack is attended, cannot be damaged, and the halfling is wholly within the sack, therefore cannot be damaged without someone going through the sack.

Upon further reflection, I think I would rule that you wouldn't be "attending" an item you are inside of. You have to be carrying the item for it to be attended, it can't be carrying you.

So the halfling in the sack on the ground would just as vulnerable as normal, while a halfling in a sack being carried by an ogre would be attended and the halfling would be protected from collateral damage.

 

[KarinsDad]

Where does it say that the Alertness is caused by the Familiar noticing something? It would be just as valid to consider it a heighening of the Master's senses caused by the mere presence of the Familiar.

Good point. It doesn't. Ok, I amend my #4.

 

[KarinsDad]

KD, please stop trying to twist my words.

I'm not twisting your words. You said:

"Your equipment is undamaged, and therefore anything carried inside your equipment would be undamaged."

And I said there is no such rule.

I am not using the item rules for a familiar, I'm using the COVER rules, because the familiar is completely covered by the item. It doesn't matter whether it is a chest, a leather bag, or a cloth sack. You have to penetrate the cover before you can damage whatever is behind it (when dealing with total cover). That is very clearly defined in the rules.

hehehe

You crack me up.

The cover rules state that you get an AC bonus and a Reflex save bonus. It does not state that you are immune if you are being carried in a cloth sack unless the creature carrying you rolls a one on his save.

It matters not if you are using the Concealment rules, or the Cover rules. That is DM discretion. What is not DM discretion (without a house rule) is that a creature in the area effect of a spell does not need to make a save because he is being carried by another creature in a sack.

Do items have hit points? Yes they do.
Is cloth an item? Yes.
Does clothe have hit any hit points? Yes, it has at least one.

But, that does not mean that these items provide cover or any sort of protection.

My adventurer wears clothes, but he gets no AC or Reflex save bonus due to wearing clothes. According to your logic, if he puts completely clothes himself and jumps on a Giant's back just before a Fireball goes off, he's immune unles the Giant rolls a one on his save.

Nonsense.

In the case of a cloth sack or large pocket, by the rules it would provide 100% cover, but anythign that hits it and does at least one point of damage would instantly penetrate, and then deliver full damage to whatever is inside.

Sorry, but cloth sacks do not provide Total Cover. That is "Total" nonsense. We'll put you in a cloth sack and I'll hit you with a stick and we'll see if you get damaged and the sack remains undamaged.

Hehehe

The PHB indicates that Cover is under DM discretion, but that's going a little too far.

 

[KarinsDad]

Umm, that's the point, the bag does have hit points. You have to penetrate the hit points of the bag to do damage to the contents.

What rule is that? I'm not familiar with that rule. Does this mean that if someone is providing cover for me and gets hit by an arrow that kills him, that the arrow blows through his hit points and then still strikes me for the rest of the damage?

You can call the bag Cover, or you can call it Concealment.

"Concealment includes all circumstances where nothing physically blocks a blow or shot but where something interferes with an attacker's accuracy."

To me, this is a lot closer definition of a bag than Cover. A bag would not stop any real damage at all, especially from things like Magic or blunt weapons.

"Cover is assessed in subjective measurements of how much protection it offers a combatant."

As DM, if you think that a bag will protect someone from a Fireball, then I guess you can hide behind (sorry, I couldn't resist) the Total Cover rules. But, I think a little common sense should apply here.

A bag or a pocket should provide zero protection, it should just provide Concealment, which of course would not help at all against an Area Effect attack.

A chest, on the other hand, might provide Cover if the DM rules that it does this, but it would not be Total Cover in my game unless the chest was made out of materials which could withstand the Area Effect attack. I might make it 9/10th Cover though.

But, saying that the item carrying rules (which are there solely for the purpose of not having players and DMs roll a save for every item their characters are carrying every time) protects a creature because his "cover" never takes damage is silly. IMO. Common sense has to apply somewhat when making cover judgement calls. And quite frankly, a cloth bag should never provide cover, just like heavy foliage does not provide cover. YMMV, but that's really stretching it.

 

[Storm Raven]

To me, this is a lot closer definition of a bag than Cover. A bag would not stop any real damage at all, especially from things like Magic or blunt weapons.

Have you damaged the carried bag in any way when anything other than a 1 is rolled on a saving throw against an AOE? No. Then how do you propose damaging those things carried within it? If you want, you can try to damage the bag by targeting it, which would be fairly easy to do, but you haven't, so you don't damage stuff protected by it.

 

[Xarlen]

What rule is that? I'm not familiar with that rule. Does this mean that if someone is providing cover for me and gets hit by an arrow that kills him, that the arrow blows through his hit points and then still strikes me for the rest of the damage?

Nope, because he's a living target. If it's cleave, that's different.

As DM, if you think that a bag will protect someone from a Fireball, then I guess you can hide behind (sorry, I couldn't resist) the Total Cover rules. But, I think a little common sense should apply here.

Then I guess you're not Familiar with the rules for spells and cover (Sorry, I couldn't resist).

Items take half damage from AOE spells. A bag has hit points. How do you rationalize the contents of a bag being damaged before the exterior is?

If I smack a backpack with a mace, then it's likely going to first hurt the material, then maybe, MAYBE the stuff inside after the brunt of the strike is taken by the area of contact.

A chest, on the other hand, might provide Cover if the DM rules that it does this, but it would not be Total Cover in my game unless the chest was made out of materials which could withstand the Area Effect attack. I might make it 9/10th Cover though.

9/10ths cover is like an arrow slit. It still shows exposure. Something locked inside a chest Does Not. It covers an individual item inside Completely.

 

[Caliban]

I'm not twisting your words. You said:

"Your equipment is undamaged, and therefore anything carried inside your equipment would be undamaged."

And I said there is no such rule.

There is a rule that says your equipment is undamaged unless you roll a 1 on your saving throw.

Are you suggesting that there is a rule that says a fireball will burn whatever is inside your equipment without touching the container itself?

Due to the rule about equipment remaining undamaged, you have to choose between fireballs that phase through your equipment to damage things inside them, or having familiars being protected by a thin layer of clothe just because it is on your body.

I favor having familiars being somewhat protected. It doesn't slow down the game, and familiars are vulnerable enough as it is. (In my opinion.)

Either ruling is illogical, you just have to pick which flavor of illogic you find more acceptable. I have offered my opinion, you have chosen to ridicule that and force your opinion on me.

No thanks KD.

hehehe

You crack me up.

*shrug* And you are being smug, condescending, and superior.

The cover rules state that you get an AC bonus and a Reflex save bonus. It does not state that you are immune if you are being carried in a cloth sack unless the creature carrying you rolls a one on his save.

Total cover doesn't give an AC bonus or a Reflex bonus.

The rules state that if you have Total cover you cannot be targeted, and cannot be damaged unless that cover is breached.

It matters not if you are using the Concealment rules, or the Cover rules. That is DM discretion. What is not DM discretion (without a house rule) is that a creature in the area effect of a spell does not need to make a save because he is being carried by another creature in a sack.

*shrug* I disagree. You can be smug about it you want, but that is basically what it comes down to.

I've laid out the logic for my position, and you have done nothing to actually refute it. You have just made personal attacks. If that's how you want to handle it, that's your choice.

But, that does not mean that these items provide cover or any sort of protection.

In your opinion.

My adventurer wears clothes, but he gets no AC or Reflex save bonus due to wearing clothes. According to your logic, if he puts completely clothes himself and jumps on a Giant's back just before a Fireball goes off, he's immune unles the Giant rolls a one on his save.

Nonsense.

If that's what I said, you would be correct. Now please stop putting words in my mouth.

Sorry, but cloth sacks do not provide Total Cover. That is "Total" nonsense. We'll put you in a cloth sack and I'll hit you with a stick and we'll see if you get damaged and the sack remains undamaged.

The rules don't really cover different effects from bludgeoning or piercing damage, except in regard to certain creatures. By the rules, you would have to damage the sack and create a small hole before I would take any damage. Obviously that is not the way it works in real life, in all instances.

Certain types of materials are resistant to certain types of damage, and flexible materials will transmit most blunt damage through them, while remaining relatively unharmed.

The rules don't cover this, but then there are many grey areas the rules don't fully cover, or choose to abstract to the point where they don't really match the real world anymore. This is one of them.

However, the rules do state that your equipment is not damaged by area effects or magical effects unless you roll a 1 on your save. It's not a logical rule, it's a game play rule. But that is how things work in the D&D universe. Logically, I believe that would have the natural consequence of sparing anything inside your equipement from being damaged as well.

You do not. You think that is silly, and that people who believe that should be ridiculed and laughed at (as evidenced by your previous post).

However, your position is equally silly and illogical.

Using your interpretation, Acid and Fire damage would pass through clothing and equipment, and burn anything inside, yet leaving your clothing and equipment unharmed.

And a silly extreme example for your interpretation:

If things contained in your equipment are completely vulnerable to magical attacks that you suffer, then you should be able to delouse yourself and all your equipment with a single Flaming Sphere.

All the little mites, ticks, lice, and even smaller creatures that live on your body would be decimated by even 1st level burning hands spell.

Hehehe

I try respect your opinion, even when I disagree with it. I'm willing to shrug my shoulders and accept that we handle some things differently. You play your way and I play mine.

I do not laugh at you when I disagree with your opinion. It is sad that you do not choose to return that courtesy.

The PHB indicates that Cover is under DM discretion, but that's going a little too far.

It is unfortunate that you cannot accept a differing point of view, and instead choose to act in this fashion.

 

[KarinsDad]

There is a rule that says your equipment is undamaged unless you roll a 1 on your saving throw.

Are you suggesting that there is a rule that says a fireball will burn whatever is inside your equipment without touching the container itself?

No.

I'm suggesting that the first rule is merely there to prevent you from making a boatload of saves for your items and should not be used at all to prevent your familiar from making saves. Doing that is using one "inappropriate rule" to support another.

I favor having familiars being somewhat protected. It doesn't slow down the game, and familiars are vulnerable enough as it is. (In my opinion.)

That's not the point of this rules discussion though.

Either ruling is illogical, you just have to pick which flavor of illogic you find more acceptable. I have offered my opinion, you have chosen to ridicule that and force your opinion on me.

Actually, my ruling is only illogical if you put it in perspective of an already illogical rule. In other words, if you ignore the illogical items are protected rule, you would not run into a problem with my ruling.

I've laid out the logic for my position, and you have done nothing to actually refute it. You have just made personal attacks. If that's how you want to handle it, that's your choice.

Actually, I have refuted it. You just do not like that answer.

A cloth sack is not cover, it is concealment. It gives no protective value whatsoever. An arrow or sword or Fireball should blast right through it. If I have a curtain between me and an attack in my game, you can bet that an arrow, sword, or Fireball would go right through that curtain.

Again, if you want to make a cloth sack Total Cover, that's fine for your game. Cover is a subjective call for a DM. But personally, I really think that is not very appropriate. Obviously, YMMV.

Using your interpretation, Acid and Fire damage would pass through clothing and equipment, and burn anything inside, yet leaving your clothing and equipment unharmed.

Using any interpretation, Acid and Fire damage leaves your clothing and equipment unharmed.

You are trying to use one metagaming rule (i.e. there to speed up game play, not to emulate what should happen in the game) to invalidate another. That's more rules semantics than rules common sense. That's why we have DMs, so that cloth sacks do not provide Cover bonus. That's what a computer would calculate.

I try respect your opinion, even when I disagree with it. I'm willing to shrug my shoulders and accept that we handle some things differently. You play your way and I play mine.

I do not laugh at you when I disagree with your opinion. It is sad that you do not choose to return that courtesy.

I apologize for that.

You've had those kind of bad days when talking to me as well.

Still best friends?


PS. Maybe it is your *shrug* that annoys me and gets me in this mood. It's like you consider other peoples opinions non-sequitor when you write that.

 

[Caliban]

PS. Maybe it is your *shrug* that annoys me and gets me in this mood. It's like you consider other peoples opinions non-sequitor when you write that.

I tend to use the *Shrug* to indicate that I recognize that we have different opinions, and I am going to use my method. It's not important enought to keep arguing about. (Although I usually end up doing it anyway.)

My ruling of cover is pretty simple: does it have a physical presence (i.e. hit points)? Does it completely cover you in respect to the attack? Is it armor?

If the answer is yes to the first two and no to the third, then it is cover.

I agree that in the real world, simple clothing would provide no real barrier to a sword blow or a fireball. That is also true in the D&D world, in most cirumtances. However, in D&D terms that does not mean that it is not cover. It's just incredibly flimsy cover. Even 1 point of damage is enough to breach it, and the full damage would pass through. It's just that in D&D you cannot damage someones equipment unless you specifically target it, or they roll a natural 1 on their save. Since it doesn't take damage, it is not breached and anything it is covering doesn't take damage either.

I don't believe that clothing is "concealement". Concealment obscures without impeding. Clothe can impede a blow. You can make rope out of clothe, and you can even make armor out of cloth (padded armor anyone?).

And most of all, I dislike the illogic of acid and fire passing completely through my backpack and only damaging my familiar, and not any of my clothing or other items. If you are going to use the rule that your equipment is not damaged by these effects, then it logically follows that anything inside is undamaged as well.

If that rule was not in place, then your interpretation would be the most accurate one. But, that rule is in place, and I don't think you can just ignore it.

Given a choice between the impervious clothe or the phasing acid attack, I'll choose the impervious clothe. It seems slightly less illogical to me.

 

[KarinsDad]

Given a choice between the impervious clothe or the phasing acid attack, I'll choose the impervious clothe. It seems slightly less illogical to me.

Well, both are totally illogical and I do not like being put in the position of choosing either.

So, I will use the impervious cloth rule, but I won't like it.

And, I will pretend the impervious cloth rule is not there so that creatures do not get a cheap and free Total Cover bonus which they shouldn't get.


Hey! You didn't say if we were still best friends or not.