Striking an Object rules question

[kreynolds]

Re: Re: Re: Striking an Object rules question

It goes onto say it protects from attacks, but the stated bonus to your AC is cover, not deflection.

I know, this is the problem I'm wrestling with.

It doesn't matter. An AC bonus is an AC bonus. The wand should have received that bonus, IMO.

 

[dvvega]

I think you may be ignoring the fact that striking an object specifically states that only deflection bonuses count for objects being held by the opponent.

And what if I tried to disarm the wand instead. According to diarming rules I just have to roll higher than the opponent to disarm - there is nothing about AC in that whole option. And since I am disarming a wand, it is the weapon of the opponent for disarming rolls. Shield (or any AC bonus for that matter) does not help at all.

Would you count the AC from the shield if instead of hitting the wand, an attempt to grapple was made. The combatant is coming straight on, the shield is in the way, shouldn't that give protection? It would if it was a deflection bonus, however it's not a deflection bonus, just a cover bonus. And so doesn't count for grappling.

What if I am a spell caster with either a ranged touch attack or melee touch attack spell. I'm right in front of the shield using defender, they have the shield facing me. Why would the shield not count there? Using your theory it should. The attack has to go through the shield does it not.

I know that grappling, and spell casting are touch attacks, however the point is made. The shield spell only protects the caster's physical body, not objects carried, and only against non-touch attacks.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Only counting the Deflection bonus is obviously wrong.

Think about Cover bonuses other than Shield.

If I try to grab or hit your wand when I am on the other side of an arrow slit, you better believe you should get Cover.

Standing out in the open and standing behind an arrow slit cannot give the same AC. That is just common sense.

The confusion arises from the fact that Cover bonuses are really a special type of Circumstance bonus. Circumstance bonuses always apply, and need not be mentioned explicitly. The distinction is made only because Cover bonuses do not stack.

Now whether the wand benefits from Shield still can be debated. But there is really no question that a wand can benefit from a Cover bonus.

 

[Zenon]

The confusion arises from the fact that Cover bonuses are really a special type of Circumstance bonus. Circumstance bonuses always apply, and need not be mentioned explicitly. The distinction is made only because Cover bonuses do not stack.

Now whether the wand benefits from Shield still can be debated. But there is really no question that a wand can benefit from a Cover bonus.

This is what I'm looking for. Is there something in the rules which clarifies this? Am I missing anything?

 

[kreynolds]

This is what I'm looking for. Is there something in the rules which clarifies this? Am I missing anything?

In short...yeah...I think it does protect the wand. The spell description states that the shield protects you from all incoming attacks. It also states that the shield only moves when you attack. Thus, if you're just standing there, the shield protects you and your equipment, mostly because it would be just plain silly otherwise. Think about it, a shield that perfectly outlines your figure but leaves your wand exposed? (whoa...that sounded bad!)

 

[Zenon]

In short...yeah...I think it does protect the wand. The spell description states that the shield protects you from all incoming attacks. It also states that the shield only moves when you attack. Thus, if you're just standing there, the shield protects you and your equipment, mostly because it would be just plain silly otherwise. Think about it, a shield that perfectly outlines your figure but leaves your wand exposed? (whoa...that sounded bad!)

The problem with taking this stance is how does it apply to Striking at a Weapon? When you try to strike a weapon to sunder it, you are only comparing opposed attack rolls, looking for the highest total. AC has nothing to do with these rolls, but by your reasoning, Shield must figure into it somehow.

Disarm is the same. Only opposed melee attack rolls, looking for highest total. No AC involved.

Changing this might open loopholes I haven't considered, so I think I'm just going to keep doing it "by the book", and not count the cover bonus from the Shield spell. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, so my bad guys may have this happen to them in return.

After all, the more "bad guy" wands they break, the less treasure they get!

If anyone feels motivated, they could submit this one to the Sage and see what he has to say about it. If you do, post back an answer.

Thanks for everyones thoughts on this!

 

[kreynolds]

The problem with taking this stance is how does it apply to Striking at a Weapon? When you try to strike a weapon to sunder it, you are only comparing opposed attack rolls, looking for the highest total. AC has nothing to do with these rolls, but by your reasoning, Shield must figure into it somehow.

It applies because you must first hit the AC of the object you are attacking, then you make opposed attack rolls. So, technically, you're not even doing it "by the book".

 

[hong]

Re: Re: Re: Striking an Object rules question

Since these are the stats for a wand, and they don't mention either way if they increase in enchanted, or that these are the stats for an enchanted one, I assume they are for the finished product. I don't know if the DMG gives the same stat line, I don't have it available for reference at the moment.

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".

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

This is what I'm looking for. Is there something in the rules which clarifies this? Am I missing anything?

I do not think that is clarified in the rules. It is my interpretation based on how the rules work.

Think about what the AC of an object behind something is.

If I try to shoot an arrow through an arrow slit at a prisoner shackled down and completely unable to move because I do not want him to spill the beans, does he gain the benefit of the cover bonus? Yes.

If I try to shoot an arrow through an arrow slit at the lantern providing light so I can attempt rescue, does the lantern gain the benefit of cover? Yes.

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

Maybe your PCs shoot stop shooting their arrows at Orcs, but aim at the lint in the Orc's belly button? After all, the lint does not gain the benefit of armor or cover, right?

I am being ridiculous, but I expect you see the point.

 

[dvvega]

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.