Striking an Object rules question

[Zenon]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Striking an Object rules question

Right. I think that's the AC for a wand that's _not being held_ by anybody. You can break it down as follows -- 10 + size bonus (+2, tiny) + Dex bonus (-5, inanimate object) = AC 7. If the wand is being used by someone, I would just treat it as AC 12 base, since it's no longer "inanimate".

I think you're right, hong. I guess I shorted him by 5 points of AC, I'll use a 12 base next time. Thanks for the catch!

I think you are overinterpreting the rules and sticking to the letter to carefully.

Many times in 3E exactly what they state in the rules is exactly what they meant. I am just trying to determine if this is one of those times.

You guys do realise that the Shield spell does provide a cover bonus to AC but DOES NOT provide cover right?

It has been placed in erratta.

Yes, I am aware of this. This means that even though it gives a "cover" bonus, it does not prevent AoO's against the user like true cover does since you are able to see through the disk of force. I try to keep up on the errata ( I know it's hard to do because there's so much of it! )

 

[hong]

You guys do realise that the Shield spell does provide a cover bonus to AC but DOES NOT provide cover right?

It has been placed in erratta.

Actually, it hasn't. People have _talked_ about it being an error, but there's been nothing official so far -- not in errata, in Sage rulings, or anywhere else.

 

[Dr. Zoom]

You guys do realise that the Shield spell does provide a cover bonus to AC but DOES NOT provide cover right?

It has been placed in erratta.

No official errata on the shield spell. By the core rules, it still provides 3/4 cover.

Some of the designers and others have said that it is too powerful and should just provide a cover bonus, not cover, but that is not the official rules. That being said, this might be a very popular house rule among D&D players.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Striking an Object rules question

There is nothing in this passage that states you must first hit the opponent's AC. The above passage also mirrors the PHB, pg 136: Striking a Weapon exactly. Do you have a reference where it states you must hit the opponent AC first?

When you gain the benefit of having a weapon or shield (threat area, AC bonus), it is presumed you are actively waving it about in a useful active manner. So I can see why there may be no AC roll involved if I attempt to attack your weapon or shield. You are already waving the weapon under my nose.

I would not make the same assumptions about any random object I happen to be holding in my hand.

From the SRD:
Attacking a held, carried, or worn object provokes an attack of opportunity. Objects that are held, carried, or worn by a combatant, are harder to hit. The object uses the combatant's Dexterity modifier (not its own –5) and any magic deflection bonus to AC the combatant may have. The attacker doesn't get any special bonus for attacking the object. If the target object is in the opponent's hand, it gets a +5 AC bonus because the opponent can move it quickly out of harm's way.

This does not say anything about only the deflection bonus applying. Reading this, I would certainly say cover applies.

Note that if it did not mention deflection bonus, we would not be debating cover bonus but whether deflection applies to held objects or not. It would be ambiguous.

Remember these rules apply not only to objects in the hand, but any objectI am wearing on my body. Ignoring cover bonuses will start to get really weird results.

 

[Zenon]

Ridley's Cohort, you raise a good point that may affect a whole slew of actions.

I shot an email off to Skip and Custserv at Wizards to try to get some clarification. When I hear something back, I'll post it.