Saving throw question

[anest1s]

If you are hit by a Fleshgrinding weapon (it is a weapon that sticks in you and continues to deal damage) then the weapon would be considered part of the attacked creatures equipment?

 

[Jimlock]

If you are hit by a Fleshgrinding weapon (it is a weapon that sticks in you and continues to deal damage) then the weapon would be considered part of the attacked creatures equipment?

It's all a mater of how you like to resolve magic in the game... In this case energy protection.

I wouldn't have a problem both ways, as far as the reasoning remains consistent throughout a game.

 

[Rhun]

The spell protects the recipient’s equipment as well.

2-As for the fire protection there are two choices:
a)Fire protection does not affect the net since it not part of his equipment.
b)Fire protection does affect the net. The net is all over the warrior'd body, thus it can be treated as an item "carried" by the warrior.

As a DM I would rule option a) is correct. The net is NOT the warrior's equipment, and thus it does not share his save or fire protection.

 

[kitcik]

As a DM I would rule option a) is correct. The net is NOT the warrior's equipment, and thus it does not share his save or fire protection.

I totally agree. Since the goblin has thrown it and no longer holds or controls it, and since it is not part of the warrior's equipment, I would rule that it is currently an unattended item. It hinders the warrior, but so would a sticky floor and I wouldn't count that as part of anyone's equipment.

 

[Jimlock]

As a DM I would rule option a) is correct. The net is NOT the warrior's equipment, and thus it does not share his save or fire protection.

I totally agree. Since the goblin has thrown it and no longer holds or controls it, and since it is not part of the warrior's equipment, I would rule that it is currently an unattended item. It hinders the warrior, but so would a sticky floor and I wouldn't count that as part of anyone's equipment.

Ok i thought of something else that made finally COMPLETELY agree with (a).

When someone uses alter self while entangled in the net. His own equipment will transmute into the new form, but the net will not....

Now i see that the case (b) from my previous post is no further an option.

 

[Tharkon]

Ok i thought of something else that made finally COMPLETELY agree with (a).

When someone uses alter self while entangled in the net. His own equipment will transmute into the new form, but the net will not....

Now i see that the case (b) from my previous post is no further an option.

If a DM were to rule (b) previously then the net would transmute along with the creature.

As for Fireball, the spell description is slightly ambiguous about this:
First it says: "Unattended objects also take this damage."
Then it says: "The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area."
The latter would suggest it affects attended objects as well, if this is the case then it would not matter, since the only possible one attending the net would be the warrior, and he wouldn't want to save the net.

Normally I'd consider it unattended, however since the warrior can't move without the net moving with him and Fireball's save being Reflex common sense would say the net shares the same faith, depending on how you picture a Reflex save being made. However since a successful save only halves damage, and a normal net has only 5 hitpoints. Even if fire damage is halved (as normally done for objects), which you may rule isn't the case if you consider the net flammable, then it is still likely to be destroyed except on very low rolls. (You'd have to roll less than 20 with at least 5d10, the exact chance of which escapes me at the moment.)

As for the protection spell, magic (being magic) can be picky if it needs to be, so even though physically the warrior is considered wearing the net, the spell would probably not consider it HIS equipment. Magic spells are known to be able to determine ownership and people's choices.
If the warrior would pick up the net and wrap it around him like a cloak as per the latest fashion, then it would be his equipment and the spell would affect it as such.

And btw, entangled creatures do not lose their Dexterity bonus, they do suffer a -4 penalty to Dexterity though which may be better or worse, depending on the creature's Dexterity.

 

[Jimlock]

If a DM were to rule (b) previously then the net would transmute along with the creature.

which doesn't make cense...

As for Fireball, the spell description is slightly ambiguous about this:
First it says: "Unattended objects also take this damage."
Then it says: "The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area."
The latter would suggest it affects attended objects as well, if this is the case then it would not matter, since the only possible one attending the net would be the warrior, and he wouldn't want to save the net.

i don't see the ambiguity... The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area. is referring to other objects in the area, not just the ones unattended by the PCs.
Both the phrases combined say the following:
-If you've left your bow down on the floor, it gets damaged.
-If there is a barrel full of oil in the area of the spell, it is set on fire as well.

Normally I'd consider it unattended, however since the warrior can't move without the net moving with him and Fireball's save being Reflex common sense would say the net shares the same faith, depending on how you picture a Reflex save being made. However since a successful save only halves damage, and a normal net has only 5 hitpoints. Even if fire damage is halved (as normally done for objects), which you may rule isn't the case if you consider the net flammable, then it is still likely to be destroyed except on very low rolls. (You'd have to roll less than 20 with at least 5d10, the exact chance of which escapes me at the moment.)

Evasion could save the net as well...

As for the protection spell, magic (being magic) can be picky if it needs to be, so even though physically the warrior is considered wearing the net, the spell would probably not consider it HIS equipment.

Indeed. However it is not as ambiguous as you say it is. The warrior is not considered wearing it, he is simply entangled in it.

Magic spells are known to be able to determine ownership and people's choices.
If the warrior would pick up the net and wrap it around him like a cloak as per the latest fashion, then it would be his equipment and the spell would affect it as such.

Exactly.

And btw, entangled creatures do not lose their Dexterity bonus, they do suffer a -4 penalty to Dexterity though which may be better or worse, depending on the creature's Dexterity.

In the core books they've stupidly missed commenting on how the Dex modifier should be removed from the save when certain situations arise.

Thankfully... in Rules Compendium the've added this phrase under Reflex save:

You can make a Reflex save whenever one is called for, but your Dexterity or whether you can apply its modifier might be altered by the situation.

In the case of the warrior in the net..well it is evident he loses all his Dex modifier. Personally, i might even put an even bigger penalty...if not disallowing a reflex save at all.

 

[Tharkon]

i don't see the ambiguity... The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area. is referring to other objects in the area, not just the ones unattended by the PCs.
Both the phrases combined say the following:
-If you've left your bow down on the floor, it gets damaged.
-If there is a barrel full of oil in the area of the spell, it is set on fire as well.

What is the difference between other objects and unattended objects?
IMO both the bow and the barrel are unattended objects.
The sort of ambiguity I meant was that the spell first refers to affecting unattended objects and later to all objects in the area.

Evasion could save the net as well...

Normally an attended object makes saves using its attender's bonuses but probably not using it's features affecting the results. However the net is probably not an attended object and shares it's faith merely cause it moves with the warrior. DM's call I guess.

In the core books they've stupidly missed commenting on how the Dex modifier should be removed from the save when certain situations arise.

Thankfully... in Rules Compendium the've added this phrase under Reflex save:

You can make a Reflex save whenever one is called for, but your Dexterity or whether you can apply its modifier might be altered by the situation.

In the case of the warrior in the net..well it is evident he loses all his Dex modifier. Personally, i might even put an even bigger penalty...if not disallowing a reflex save at all.

It never says anything about losing Dex or making Reflexes impossible. The PHB (page 119) states in Net's description that being entangled results in -2 on attacks and -4 on Dex, and movement is halved.
The DMG (page 300) states the same in the description of the Entangled condition.

Oh and I did the math, not counting Evasion, but including the fact fire damage is halved on objects, even on a successful save the net has around 89% chance of being destroyed by a Fireball at caster level 5, and around 97% at caster level 6 and over 99% at caster level 7 and further. If you don't halve the damage then it's over 99% at all levels.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Our warrior, has fire protection on. A goblin throw's a net on him and captures him in it.

Our wizard casts fireball on the area the warrior is in.

Does the net benefit from the warriors protection/saving throws? Or is it independent?

It's independent. It's not attended by anyone, it's not held or WORN despite the fact that it may be wrapped around the fighter. Until he disentangles himself from it and holds or carries it it's not going to benefit from his saves. It still has to MAKE saves, obviously, but the fighter's bonuses/penalties aren't going to apply to it. It would be treated as an unattended object.

There's not only no reason to assume that it can be considered part of the equipment carried by the fighter but compelling reasons to ensure that it is treated seperately. This scenario exemplifies the whole PURPOSE of qualifying objects as "unattended".

 

[Jimlock]

It's independent. It's not attended by anyone, it's not held or WORN despite the fact that it may be wrapped around the fighter. Until he disentangles himself from it and holds or carries it it's not going to benefit from his saves. It still has to MAKE saves, obviously, but the fighter's bonuses/penalties aren't going to apply to it. It would be treated as an unattended object.

Now that's a fine example of rules-lawyering...

i hope you can still see the contradiction in there...