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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jimlock" data-source="post: 5575268" data-attributes="member: 6674931">I think this is the point where we get overly analytical... but hey this is what this forum is about, right? <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/glasses.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt="B-)" title="Glasses    B-)" data-shortname="B-)" />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 byhaving 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.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.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.</blockquote>

Verification