How would you rule this attack?

[Paragon Gnome]

Pcs encounter flesh golem. Pcs run from flesh golem. Flesh golem chases pcs. Pcs lead flesh golem under portcullis. Pc casts shatter on chain supporting portcullis. What happens now?
The portcullis in question is about 15 by 30 feet, a good deal more imposing than the 3d6 damage cr1 portcullis trap in the DMG. What kind of damage should this deal to our poor fleshy friend?

 

[Shellman]

First,

Does Shatter work on metal chains? I'm not sure it does.

Portculis 15'x30' = 3d6 damage

Normal falling damage = 1d6/ 10 ft. not including the first 10 ft. So that would be 2d6 damage from the portculis. If you consider the size and weight of the portculis you could go with 3d6 crushing damage instead.

 

[shilsen]

First,

Does Shatter work on metal chains? I'm not sure it does.

Yes, it does. You can "target shatter against a single object, regardless of composition, weighing up to 10 lbs per caster level". As long as it's within the appropriate weight, you can shatter a rock, a shoe, a door, a stuffed monkey, etc.

As for the original question, I'd stick with the 3d6 myself.

 

[S'mon]

IMHO there aren't proper rules for this. This kind of portcullis would weigh maybe 30 tons or so (assuming it's of light construction, which I'd think it'd have to be to be so big), IMO 30d6 (or d6x30) might be reasonable for that landing on someone - ie it would splat a flesh golem if it landed on it.

 

[Quinnman]

First of all the caster would have to hit the flesh golem... off the top of my head, I would call it a ranged touch attack (since we´re talking crushing dam) with a -4 penalty for improvised weapon... - should be doable I guess...

The 3d6 dam from the cr1 portcullis trap is from a door-sized (albeit large door) portcullis, which is implied in the "Portcullis blocks passageway"... in other words roughly a 6 by 9-12 feet portcullis... or thereabout...

Now... at 15 by 30 feet the mentioned portcullis has roughly four times as large an area... with a linear scaling of the damage, that gives a dam of 12d6 which I don´t find unreasonable - especially since it is a clever us of a spell in a tight spot (I presume, since the group ran) and as such should be rewarded!

 

[Lord Pendragon]

So somehow, the party managed to get the flesh golem to end its movement directly underneath the portcullis?

I like the setup. It's so improbable that they'd get it to stand in exactly the right spot. That the portcullis would have its chains exposed in just the right way. That the spellcaster would happen to have Shatter prepared (not the most common spell, IME.)

I'd allow the spell to shatter the chain (as Shilsen notes, that part is pure RAW). Then I'd probably add some damage to the portcullis if it is, as the OP notes, bigger and stronger than a standard portcullis trap. Not the 30d6 mentioned by S'mon though, unless we're talking about the portcullis on a city wall, which this isn't. Quinmann's calculation sounds good...12d6.

I wouldn't require a to-hit roll. It's so unlikely I'd just let the portcullis fall on the thing.

 

[rhammer2]

I would also give the golem a reflex save in the area of 12-16 for no damage.

So somehow, the party managed to get the flesh golem to end its movement directly underneath the portcullis?

I like the setup. It's so improbable that they'd get it to stand in exactly the right spot. That the portcullis would have its chains exposed in just the right way. That the spellcaster would happen to have Shatter prepared (not the most common spell, IME.)

I'd allow the spell to shatter the chain (as Shilsen notes, that part is pure RAW). Then I'd probably add some damage to the portcullis if it is, as the OP notes, bigger and stronger than a standard portcullis trap. Not the 30d6 mentioned by S'mon though, unless we're talking about the portcullis on a city wall, which this isn't. Quinmann's calculation sounds good...12d6.

I wouldn't require a to-hit roll. It's so unlikely I'd just let the portcullis fall on the thing.

 

[S'mon]

Now... at 15 by 30 feet the mentioned portcullis has roughly four times as large an area...

16 times the volume though, if it scales proportionately, or 48d6 on a linear scale (& 3e does use linear scale for damage from dropped objects).

15' x30' is bloody big - it does sound like a major city's gatehouse portcullis, but if it's the creation of some crazy wizard decorating his dungeon it might be much lighter (& 12d6 might be ok). A regular portcullis this size would have chains far too heavy to Shatter, unless each link was a separate object? I'd put the touch attack more like -10 (or give the golem a Reflex save), & it would require a Readied action to time it right.

 

[RigaMortus]

So somehow, the party managed to get the flesh golem to end its movement directly underneath the portcullis?

That is what Ready actions is for... Which is what I assume he did. If he didn't, then you're right. It would be a nice coincidence.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

That is what Ready actions is for... Which is what I assume he did. If he didn't, then you're right. It would be a nice coincidence.

Interesting. I have to admit I hadn't thought of readying an action at all. I tend to be a more lenient DM when it comes to crazy cinematic situations that aren't easily duplicated and result from quick-thinking and impossible circumstances. This is the main reason I wouldn't have required a to-hit roll or given the golem a reflex save. It's something that would most likely never have happened again, and the image was great.

But if you throw in a readied action, I'm more inclined to reign it in a bit. It's a lot easier to pull off that way. Still, I like the image, and it's not too easily repeatable. I'd probably allow the golem a reflex save in the case of the Readied Action. That gives it a decent chance of working still, which I want to give since it's still a clever plan, but doesn't make it an automatic success.