Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6981461" data-attributes="member: 4937">I would rule that spell effects travel twice as fast as arrows, and the DC to snatch them is correspondingly higher (DC 20).  However, if there was a physical manifestation, such as the bead of a fireball, I'd allow it to be done.  The result of a successful snatch would be that you'd be the new target of the spell.  Fireball beads would burst on impact with your hand.  I ad hoc rule a circumstance penalty on the saving throw, as you'd basically willingly put yourself at ground zero rather than trying to leap out of the way.  I'd probably also ad hoc an injury to hand in the event of a failed saving throw, crippling use of the hand in roughly the same way caltrop damage cripples use of the foot.And again, clearly there is no balance reason for my 'stunt check', as grabbing a spell out of the air would almost always be as you put it 'suicidal' and so the circumstances of doing it are always dramatic and almost always cool enough that 'rule of cool' would apply.  But again, I very much run a game where 'skills matter', that is loosely intuitive and realistic, and where skill monkey's ability to pull off stunts reliably is really part of their class abilities.   So a stunt check is called for because intuitively, doing that is much harder than grabbing a stationary object, and intuitively, this is using the ability in a non-standard manner outside the explicit rules which is what 'stunts' are.   But naturally, if your table runs differently and if you tend to be a RAW sort of DM, the stunt check should be foregone, though I think even for a RAW DM the rest of the rulings regarding being the new target of the spell and forgoing a save (or at least receiving a large penalty) are reasonable conclusions of the text.</blockquote>

Verification