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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jackinthegreen" data-source="post: 6096152" data-attributes="member: 6678119">My point was that unless the specific item lists that it, not the spell it's based on, has a save, it is very safe to assume it doesn't have one if it's such things as wondrous items.  Your point was that because it replicated a spell in a particular way, that it would thus replicate the spell's allowance of a save.  That is the part that is wrong.  Saves are given for the various items as a convenience (because looking for the spell an item is based on is a pain to do repeatedly) and as a way to definitely determine that it has a save in the first place.But I suppose we can debate that further.  Let's look at the <a href="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#deckofIllusions" target="_blank">Deck of Illusions</a>.  It says that throwing a card produces a major image of a creature as determined by the card.  No save is listed though.  Is it reasonable to conclude the item has a save associated with it by virtue of it replicating the spell?  I would argue no, because everywhere else where an item allows a spell use, it gives a saving throw for it too.  If they wanted it to have a save, they would have trivially given it one.   Yes, it's often a joke that WotC is inconsistent, but in the case of items they are very consistent about listing saves and such.And thank you for reminding me about the magic item basics and determining an item's effect's save.  Even had I remembered that bit of information and included it, it really wouldn't have changed the point of "it doesn't list a save anyway."  But to humor you, if they had given Dust of Disappearance a save, it looks like it would have been DC 16.  @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=4937" target="_blank">Celebrim</a> : I believe Hussar is speaking from the position of the players having gotten their butts beat by the Grell, thus their immediate goal is to get revenge and kill it.   If it disappears/moves on/whatevers during their efforts to get resources to defeat it and they can't find it, the DM has robbed the players of the satisfaction of taking it down.  That and he's wasted their time and even his own in a way.  You can simulate the reality of a situation all you want, but a player expecting to get vengeance is usually going to be angered or at least indignant not to get it.  And so the situation begs a question: Which is more important: The players, or the simulation?</blockquote>

Verification