Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Sigil" data-source="post: 191881" data-attributes="member: 2013">Points...That is of course your perogative. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Agreed that it is the only reasonable way. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  However, the "negative" list I referenced could not include "some unknown harmful object" - you must have the ability to identify the object using one of your five senses ("the thing around my neck choking me" is okay - thanks to touch - but "whatever it is that is causing my clothes to catch fire" is not).  It does walk a fine line, though, and requires some use of Rule 1 - "Use your head" on the part of the DM.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I must disagree with your definition of equipment.  "My equipment"  to me means "the stuff that I have decided to bring along."  I certainly am not going to think "my, these manacles I have been chained with are nice... they're part of MY equipment."  It's a semantics game, and since we are disagreeing on definitions, we're obviously going to be at odds on this one.  But I would say that casting "reduce" on yourself to slip out of manacles is not only a good possibility, but well within the classical fictional uses of such a spell.  You can't reduce out of the necklace if you put it on (or told someone else to put it on), though - you accepted it as "your equipment" when you did so.  That's why I don't let the player tell me "oh, that's not my equipment any more."  Essentially, as the DM, this ruling tells me, sloppy bookkeeping aside, "if it's on your character sheet, it's your equipment; if it's not on your character sheet, it's not."  One presumes that the garrotte is not something I'm going to write on my character sheet.An interesting point... reminds very much of the "clothes shrinking ray" from Mystery Men. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  But do you really need to shrink the hood to do that?  Once it's over the face, one presumes that's enough... if the hood is of such sheer material that it can be breathed through, shrinking it won't help.That is a good point - I give you full marks here. Don't have a way to weasel out of that one <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I would rule the arrow basically "falls out" as you shrink... it's all in a matter of perspective.  If it's not in too deep, wouldn't you shrink away from the arrowhead faster than you shrank around it?  Now we get into all sorts of arguments over "how deep is the wound" and D&D isn't set up to handle that. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />That is probably a better ruling than the one I gave, and I am willing to adopt it.This was a fancy way of saying, "check the character's character sheet... if it's not on there (barring bad bookkeeping), it's not equipment."  Make a logical exception for a "planted" item that the character has been carrying but is unaware of.Again, it was admittedly a fix to try to avoid a player putting on a cursed helm then trying to tell me, "I don't want it anymore so it's not mine."Not quite sure what is meant here... perhaps I'm just not understanding what you're getting at... how would the spell be prevented from taking effect despite a failed save?You have raised a couple of flags with regard to my argument, and posited an equally useful solution... but I do have one question...I really like the "if the wearer can be targeted by the spell, you can't target a worn object unless trying to sunder/break it" rule and am happy to adopt it as it solves several problems (not all of them).  I do have a couple of questions though, just to satisfy my own curiosity... as it refers to objects not "worn" but in similar situations to those that might be worn.In the case of tying two trees together and shrinking the rope, what happens?  Do the trees get bent together?  Sliced in two?  IOW, what happens when the question of a character/creature wearing something is not an issue as far as targeting a spell?  Will your ruling have self-consistency?My other unhappiness is that I am STILL inclined to say that the garrotte is *not* part of a character's equipment, but that is because we fundamentally disagree on the definition of equipment, so I don't think there can be much fruitful discussion there. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />  I won't give you your definition of equipment and you won't give me mine, so we have no common ground for argument.  I'll agree to disagree with you on this one. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> Your definition of equipment is "anything worn/carried" while mine is "only what is on the character's character sheet (barring recordkeeping sloppiness) with exceptions made on a case-by-case by the DM for items transported by the character of which the character is totally oblivious."  By your definition, the garrotte - or manacles - or hood - is equipment.  By mine it is not.  Nothing really to discuss since I doubt either of us is going to change his definition. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />--The Sigil</blockquote>

Verification