Saving throw question

[Tharkon]

-So that players don't have to buy equipment/clothes from scratch every time they are hit by energy type abilities/spells.
-So that the DM/players don't lose any more time so as to roll saves for every item.

Maybe just a shared faith rule, which is what I would apply to the net as well then. However maybe for non-bulky, non-combustible items like clothing etc. only have them be damaged on failed saves. While combustibles like matches or bulky things like nets do get hit even on succeeded saves.

I like to think that when the fireball (or any other energy type area ability/spell) explodes, it is not an all encompassing red sphere of death. There are "areas/currents" more dense than others, and even a few that are almost empty. When someone rolls for a Reflex save successfully he manages to move his body in those less dense areas, while another with evasion is so good and fast at finding those harmless/less-dence/empty "areas/currents" that he manages to stay unharmed.

I clearly understand how this is far-fetched, but on the other hand in does make cense, which is enough to satisfy my "in-game" realism.

I like this explanation, and going by that I am tempted to say that bulky items like the net don't benefit from evasion because the character is not looking for a space where the net remains unharmed. Even if he wants the net unharmed its a split of a second and the first thing he cares about is his own hide, so if he finds a space where he fits and the net doesn't he takes it even if that means losing the net (or other bulky item he might not want to get hit).

So my opinion at the moment:

• Unattended objects: Affected as if failed their save, unless magical.
• Attended objects: Affected if bulky or if combustible and exposed, attended objects share the save result of the one attending but not their abilities like Evasion.
• Net (while trapping someone): Counts as attended bulky object, attended by whomever exerts control over its location. (A net might have a rope on it which would result in an opposed Strength check.)
• Net (while folded): Counts as non-bulky attended object (and as a weapon, in the case of a natural 1).

So someone wielding a match when hit by a fireball will lose it, even if he finds a spot where the heat won't be as intense to harm him the phosphorus of the match will probably still ignite. I am as of yet uncertain whether an exposed attended glass container or golden object will melt. If so what will happen to someone wielding alchemist's fire when hit by a fireball (or a lightning bolt, since this has the same effect except energy type and area of effect).

 

[Jimlock]

I think this is the point where we get overly analytical... but hey this is what this forum is about, right?

However maybe for non-bulky, non-combustible items like clothing etc. only have them be damaged on failed saves. While combustibles like matches or bulky things like nets do get hit even on succeeded saves.

Attended objects: Affected if bulky or if combustible and exposed, attended objects share the save result of the one attending but not their abilities like Evasion.

Now not only does this cost extra time for rolling item saves (which i hate... enough rules hamper combat flow already), it also goes against the RAW.

SRD:
A fireball spell is an explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area. Unattended objects also take this damage.

The explosion creates almost no pressure.

As i said before, when you say Unattended objects also take this damage, you also "mean" that: attended objects do not take the damage.

...Moreover attended objects do not take the damage even when the character fails the save, because, again, the spells states that only creatures and any unattended objects take the damage.

Of course it doesn't make cense, but thats what the rule says. And i'm not sticking to the rule just because it says so... I mostly stick to the rule because i hate losing more time with the rules being lengthy and complicated as they already are.

Does the character's shirt gets damaged when the character himself takes damage? Of course it does. But i'm not gonna take time in the middle of combat so as to treat damage to a characters shirt, nor am I gonna hamper my story by

having my character's looking for new equipment/clothes every once in a while.

I will make a description of how they are all black and scorched or how their equipment got "harmed", and i even require that they spent some money on fixing their stuff every time they go into a city between adventuring, and that's as far as i will go.

Now, as far as attended bulky/combustibles go, i might rule that they take damage in case of a failed save, only when the item in question is important plot-wise and the caster is actually intending to harm the specific object. If i need to take time rolling saves for items, it better be important to my story...

A spell component pouch, is an "exposed" item on a character right?

So are we gonna allow a 5th level Wizard, literally destroy a 20th level Wizard with a 3rd level spell?

Are we gonna allow this 3rd lvl spell destroy a rangers longbow and arrows just because they are exposed on his back?

Remember that its a 3rd level area spell that deals serious damage, even when the save succeeds. What more will you have it do?

I love realism in the game, i really do.
But realism cannot stand on its own in D&D. You always have to combine it with game balance and combat/story flow.

I like this explanation, and going by that I am tempted to say that bulky items like the net don't benefit from evasion because the character is not looking for a space where the net remains unharmed. Even if he wants the net unharmed its a split of a second and the first thing he cares about is his own hide, so if he finds a space where he fits and the net doesn't he takes it even if that means losing the net (or other bulky item he might not want to get hit).

There is contradiction to what you say there... How can the character find the space and stay unharmed, while the net doesn't? Remember that the net is all over him. Where he goes, the net goes as well.
I'm more likely to question whether the character gets a save at all (resulting in both himself and the net taking damage). Even if i allowed the save, i'd still apply a hefty penalty to the roll... and not just the -4 from being entangled. I'd even consider disallowing evasion if i wanted to go for more realism.
...But letting the character get away unharmed while the net (something that is all around him!) gets destroyed is out of the question.

So someone wielding a match when hit by a fireball will lose it, even if he finds a spot where the heat won't be as intense to harm him the phosphorus of the match will probably still ignite. I am as of yet uncertain whether an exposed attended glass container or golden object will melt. If so what will happen to someone wielding alchemist's fire when hit by a fireball (or a lightning bolt, since this has the same effect except energy type and area of effect).

IMO, an item held, can be protected from damage more effectively than the character himself. Especially if the item is small. Why can't the character protect the match willingly/unwillingly by providing cover with his own body? Why can't the character cover the match with his hand?
Do you want to go house-rulling and say that a characters takes a minus X penalty so as to save the item as well? Personally i wouldn't. But if you want to play it out more realistically, this is perhaps a better way of doing so.

 

[Tharkon]

I think this is the point where we get overly analytical... but hey this is what this forum is about, right?

Indeed

Now not only does this cost extra time for rolling item saves (which i hate... enough rules hamper combat flow already), it also goes against the RAW.

I meant shared results, so if the attender fails their save bulky items get damaged as well. If they have exposed flammable items they get damaged regardless.

SRD:
A fireball spell is an explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area. Unattended objects also take this damage.

The explosion creates almost no pressure.

As i said before, when you say Unattended objects also take this damage, you also "mean" that: attended objects do not take the damage.

...Moreover attended objects do not take the damage even when the character fails the save, because, again, the spells states that only creatures and any unattended objects take the damage.

SRD:
The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area. It can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze.

This part doesn't require objects to be unattended.

Of course it doesn't make cense, but thats what the rule says. And i'm not sticking to the rule just because it says so... I mostly stick to the rule because i hate losing more time with the rules being lengthy and complicated as they already are.

Does the character's shirt gets damaged when the character himself takes damage? Of course it does. But i'm not gonna take time in the middle of combat so as to treat damage to a characters shirt, nor am I gonna hamper my story by

having my character's looking for new equipment/clothes every once in a while.

I will make a description of how they are all black and scorched or how their equipment got "harmed", and i even require that they spent some money on fixing their stuff every time they go into a city between adventuring, and that's as far as i will go.

As long as the item has no game statistics that's probably the best way to go. Armour might get stained (assuming it isn't made of gold etc. in which case it melts), clothing might get scorched a bit, it's only a flash of heat after all and natural fibers used in medieval clothing usually take a while to catch on fire. So yes, it's obvious they got hit by a fireball or similar when describing but no game statistics

Now, as far as attended bulky/combustibles go, i might rule that they take damage in case of a failed save, only when the item in question is important plot-wise and the caster is actually intending to harm the specific object. If i need to take time rolling saves for items, it better be important to my story...

See above about extra rolls

A spell component pouch, is an "exposed" item on a character right?

So are we gonna allow a 5th level Wizard, literally destroy a 20th level Wizard with a 3rd level spell?

The pouch might be slightly exposed but what is in it isn't, it's probably strapped on the wizard's belt or something, leather doesn't catch flame easily I believe, so the contents should be save. As I said in my last post I am currently going with bulky or combustible and exposed. A pouch is exposed but not bulky nor combustible. It's contents may be combustible but not exposed.

Are we gonna allow this 3rd lvl spell destroy a rangers longbow and arrows just because they are exposed on his back?

This is an interesting one, I am not sure if the oils bows are treated with are easily flammable. The arrows are protected by the quiver, which is made of leather.

Remember that its a 3rd level area spell that deals serious damage, even when the save succeeds. What more will you have it do?

I love realism in the game, i really do.
But realism cannot stand on its own in D&D. You always have to combine it with game balance and combat/story flow.

I am trying to investigate if it is possible to maintain that balance and still give a realistic explanation, using this back and forth posting as sort of brainstorming.

There is contradiction to what you say there... How can the character find the space and stay unharmed, while the net doesn't? Remember that the net is all over him. Where he goes, the net goes as well.

The net is bigger than him, and actually partially protects him.
This is what I concluded after reading your explanation of how your dodge a fireball.

I'm more likely to question whether the character gets a save at all (resulting in both himself and the net taking damage). Even if i allowed the save, i'd still apply a hefty penalty to the roll... and not just the -4 from being entangled. I'd even consider disallowing evasion if i wanted to go for more realism.
...But letting the character get away unharmed while the net (something that is all around him!) gets destroyed is out of the question.

Isn't this also avoiding the SRD to create realism? It is hard to say what happens with a net with a rope attached though. Could the wielder of the rope prevent the one in the net from making his reflex properly, does it impose an opposite strength check like it does for normal movement?

Just in case anyone missed it, the SRD for the net:
A fighting net has small barbs in the weave and a trailing rope to control netted opponents. You use it to entangle enemies.
When you throw a net, you make a ranged touch attack against your target. A net’s maximum range is 10 feet. If you hit, the target is entangled. An entangled creature takes a –2 penalty on attack rolls and a –4 penalty on Dexterity, can move at only half speed, and cannot charge or run. If you control the trailing rope by succeeding on an opposed Strength check while holding it, the entangled creature can move only within the limits that the rope allows. If the entangled creature attempts to cast a spell, it must make a DC 15 Concentration check or be unable to cast the spell.
An entangled creature can escape with a DC 20 Escape Artist check (a full-round action). The net has 5 hit points and can be burst with a DC 25 Strength check (also a full-round action).
A net is useful only against creatures within one size category of you. For instance, a Small character wielding a net can entangle Tiny, Small, or Medium creatures.
A net must be folded to be thrown effectively. The first time you throw your net in a fight, you make a normal ranged touch attack roll. After the net is unfolded, you take a –4 penalty on attack rolls with it. It takes 2 rounds for a proficient user to fold a net and twice that long for a nonproficient one to do so.

IMO, an item held, can be protected from damage more effectively than the character himself. Especially if the item is small. Why can't the character protect the match willingly/unwillingly by providing cover with his own body? Why can't the character cover the match with his hand?
Do you want to go house-rulling and say that a characters takes a minus X penalty so as to save the item as well? Personally i wouldn't. But if you want to play it out more realistically, this is perhaps a better way of doing so.

Quite possible depending on how combustible it is. I went with the assumption that when a fireball suddenly comes at you, you would stop caring about covering up the match in your hand while you find the quickest way to put yourself out of harm. Either way I would not have the item be save if the player hasn't told me he purposely protects the match. And then go by that fact, if the player's first reaction is saving the match, then the character will try to save it too. If the player forgets about it due to the imposing threat to his character's life, then the character will forget to protect it as well. Maybe in the case of the net I would rule the same way but opposite, if the player thinks about the opportunity of letting the net be damaged by the fire then the character will find place where he can dodge the fireball but only barely so, so that the net does get hit.

But in regard to the OP, why is an allied wizard casting a fireball on him? I am assuming they're allies because of your use of the word 'our'.

 

[Jimlock]

I meant shared results

Sorry for that one, i somehow understood there was extra die rolling involved. My fault.

However even if die rolling isn't involved, its still time consuming to calculate damage for every single item on the PCs.. to decide in the middle of combat what works and what doesn't ...and to have PCs stripped of their equipment every now and then...

SRD:
The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area. It can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze.

This part doesn't require objects to be unattended.

lol ... ok we are really going back and forth with this one...
Although you've already read it 100 before, i'll repeat that it seems clear to me that this last line refers to environmental objects only...

The pouch might be slightly exposed but what is in it isn't, it's probably strapped on the wizard's belt or something, leather doesn't catch flame easily I believe, so the contents should be save. As I said in my last post I am currently going with bulky or combustible and exposed. A pouch is exposed but not bulky nor combustible. It's contents may be combustible but not exposed.

Well i stated the component pouches because in your last post as you say, you also said:

However maybe for non-bulky, non-combustible items like clothing etc. only have them be damaged on failed saves.

which means that by this ruling a wizard gets to lose it on a failed save...?
I mean... if you apply damage to clothes shouldn't you apply it to the pouches as well?
And pouches are not necessarily made of leather... Couldn't they be made of some fabric instead?

And if i understand correctly you are now going with bulky and combustible+exposed in case of a failed save, and with combustible+exposed on a successful save as well since:

I meant shared results, so if the attender fails their save bulky items get damaged as well. If they have exposed flammable items they get damaged regardless.

which also means that now you don't deal damage to clothes/pouches regardless of the save?

???...I hope i'm getting this right...wow...this debate is getting really confusing.....


....

This is an interesting one, I am not sure if the oils bows are treated with are easily flammable. The arrows are protected by the quiver, which is made of leather.

Well the longbow is certainly balky, even if you don't consider it as exposed+combustible...
...As for the arrows..... They are not entirely protected by the quiver...... Their back end, which is also the most flammable part because of the feathers, is completely exposed.... There are quivers that can close on top..... but how do you know what kind of quiver a character has? ...how do you know if it's open or not...?....Can't the whole quiver plus arrows thing be kind of bulky too?....
what do you do with the arrows? ....Are the combustible? .....If not, with the scorched feathers at the back end, are you gonna apply penalties to attack and damage rolls... or do you consider them useless?..............


....you see how you open Pandora's box by bringing attended items into the equation?

I am trying to investigate if it is possible to maintain that balance and still give a realistic explanation, using this back and forth posting as sort of brainstorming.

Same here...

Isn't this also avoiding the SRD to create realism? It is hard to say what happens with a net with a rope attached though. Could the wielder of the rope prevent the one in the net from making his reflex properly, does it impose an opposite strength check like it does for normal movement?

You are correct. It certainly avoids SRD to create realism... but i see it this way:
First of all, it is kind of obvious, how the net hampers one in evading the fireball. It's far more obvious... and it's a true realism-breaker if you allow one to roll normally his Ref save.
Also.. is this ruling a flow breaker? No... you either forbid the save or you apply a big penalty.. Quick and simple..
More over its rare... How many times will this happen? ... On the other hand, dealing damage to attended items by energy types will happen quite often if one chooses that road.

Quite possible depending on how combustible it is. I went with the assumption that when a fireball suddenly comes at you, you would stop caring about covering up the match in your hand while you find the quickest way to put yourself out of harm. Either way I would not have the item be save if the player hasn't told me he purposely protects the match. And then go by that fact, if the player's first reaction is saving the match, then the character will try to save it too. If the player forgets about it due to the imposing threat to his character's life, then the character will forget to protect it as well.

Yes... this is a good ruling if one decides that attended items get damaged.

Even I, who will not rule that attended items gets damaged, might use this rule in case of a combustible and important item.

Maybe in the case of the net I would rule the same way but opposite, if the player thinks about the opportunity of letting the net be damaged by the fire then the character will find place where he can dodge the fireball but only barely so, so that the net does get hit.

Perhaps i'd allow this on a natural 20...even then i'm thinking about it... This is heavy superhero stuff....

But in regard to the OP, why is an allied wizard casting a fireball on him? I am assuming they're allies because of your use of the word 'our'.

To free him i guess? ...don't know. If the character has evasion, and the DM allows its use in the situation, it sounds like a good plan rules wise. (even though completely unrealistic).
... Or perhaps for some reason the fighter would rather get the damage than stay entangled?
... Or perhaps the wizard has no other choice because he has to kill someone who poses a serious threat?

 

[nijineko]

regardless of logic, and i do happen to think it logical that the net would be protected, but the rules do not support it. the net is the equipment of the caster, not the victim. if the caster is no longer holding it (and nets have a line by which they can be held/controlled even after tossing them) then one could argue that the net is in the unattended category. however, the net is neither owned by, nor being worn (a voluntary activity) by the entangled party. so the net does not benefit from the protection by the rules.

however, it really should by logic. but i think we all know we are not playing a logical game. ^^

 

[Tharkon]

I am trying to investigate if it is possible to maintain that balance and still give a realistic explanation, using this back and forth posting as sort of brainstorming.

I don't think it's possible.

I still argue that it is not 100% clear that "objects in the area" excludes attended objects, but it does indeed get complicated when they don't. There would be a huge amount of objects and SRD doesn't use the shared faith houserule so this would per SRD require a lot of roles and that does indeed not sound likely to be the intended result.

This brings us back to the original matter, since it now matters whether the net is to be treated as attended?

Since natural 1 means you might lose an item you don't want to lose I don't think it's a bad idea to have a natural 20 result in losing an item that you want to lose.

The warrior does have a certain control over the location of the net, is this considered attending?
If it is attended it would not get affected regardless of the results by the SRD as they are now interpreted.
If it is not attended the net is probably (dealing 10 damage using 5d10 isn't hard [99.87% chance]) toast.

I cannot find a logical explanation to deviate item being affected based on attendedness alone, especially not in the case of failed saves.

There aren't any rules about armor getting damaged after deflecting a sword with it either, but that fits in the same basket as clothing scorched by a fireball I guess. Maybe a certain maintenance fee as long as the party regularly visits a town with the required artisan can prevent any visible effects in game statistics. The SRD also doesn't provide Cha penalties for not bathing for a certain amount of days, so when it comes to how scorched clothing work for diplomats it's up to the DM as well.

As for the match, only time you'd wield a match is when lightning something, and let's face it, whatever it is, it's gonna be lit after the fireball.

Exposed combustibles are still gone though, no rolling for damage either, just common sense, a match is lit. What is bulky is a tough one so it might be hard to judge on that one, might be the easiest to not have them affected. Then there is the soft metals, most importantly money, probably easiest to let them be saved by a wallet.