Harm a held object with a ranged spell? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Harm a held object with a ranged spell? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
lucas_william
10-08-07, 10:30 AM My DM made a ruling at this weekend’s game that the only way to destroy a held object (such as a holy symbol worn by a cleric) was to use the sunder action- using either a melee weapon or weapon-like spell in melee.

This meant that a ranged spell like a ray of flame or an energy ray that requires an attack roll could not harm the held object. The DM believes that you cannot specifically target a held object with a ranged attack, and because you cannot target it you cannot harm that object.

I argued that they were wrong, and the DM asked me to prove my argument at the game by showing them where in the rules it says otherwise, but unfortunately I could not prove my case in the few minutes I was allowed to take. But, the DM offered to look into it after the game, and to give me the opportunity to prove them incorrect by showing them where in the rules it states my claims specifically.

So, is the DM correct that a spell cannot target nor harm a held object? And if not where in the rules does it say its possible.
Arr MiHardies
10-08-07, 10:57 AM As I recall, you can target an object, but the wielder gets some sort of will/reflex save depending on the effect. There are many spells that can target a held object, such as using mage hand to take something away from someone and what have you. I think as long as you hit the target with your spell, and that spells' target descriptor doesnt prevent you from targeting the object, all you have to do is worry about wether it will do enough damage to destroy the object.

You can also take this approach with him: hold an object in your own hand and ask him if the only way to destroy it would be to sunder it. if he says yes, place it on the ground and ask again. HGe can't say yes to this, because the by definition, you cant sunder something that is not held.
Also, you can hold a piece of parchment up, and ask if the only way to destroy it was to sunder it with a melee attack, as he claims. Then shoot it with a flaming arrow, or detonate a fireball nearby and ask again. His logic is flawed.

I think your dm is ruling under the basis that there are no called shots in d&d, ie: you can't aim for the eyes, and thus can not aim for a worn/held object. however, to me, since the object is not a physical sub part of something else, the item itself could be the target. Really, it is just a matter of how difficult it would be to hit.

And, your DM is using the spirit of the rules incorrectly. You dont have to prove that what he says is wrong, it needs to be proven that what he claims is correct.

By all means, dont hold up a game on it, unless someones life was be at stake. Figuring it out after the game is the correct way to go.
weasel0
10-08-07, 05:58 PM Now that it's on the ground, it's an unattended object and he can line up a shot to do crit dmg on it.Also, you can hold a piece of parchment up, and ask if the only way to destroy it was to sunder it with a melee attack, as he claims. Then shoot it with a flaming arrow, or detonate a fireball nearby and ask again. His logic is flawed. Actually, the only way this would work with a fireball is if the subject rolls a 1 on his reflex save and then rolls up that the parchment is what is hit. As far as shooting it with a flaming arrow, how do you hold it and then shoot it with a two-handed weapon? If you're putting it down, go back to the "Breaking and Entering" section for destroying unattended objects.
Empirate
10-09-07, 09:44 AM Yeah, I always hated this rule. I'm wearing Paper Armor. I'm the target of a Fireball. I make my save, but half damage is still enough to kill me. Lucky me, when I get rezzed, my Paper Armor is still there waiting for me, undamaged!
wonlee76
10-12-07, 10:40 AM the only ranged spell that could harm a "held" object would be Shatter and that's presuming the held object is non-magical. Of course the person holding it would use his saves against the spell.

Otherwise, Sunder is the other way to destroy a held item. Sunder is limited to melee attacks. There is a feat that expands sunder to range attacks (Ranged Sunder in CW). Take that feat and weapon-line range spells that require attack rolls such as Scorching Ray could be used to sunder held items.
Someone
10-13-07, 12:45 PM If ray of flame is equivalent to ray of frost (the cantrip), then yeah, you couldn't hurt the holy symbol. 1d3 damage isn't going to get past the item's hardness, let alone hit points.

But the prohibition here is that you can't use ranged attacks to sunder (at least not without a specialized feat), not that you can't use magic to sunder. And most magic is ranged.
calronmoonflower
10-14-07, 03:24 AM This came up today on another thread.

The spell must have "(object)" in the saving throw entry. It is on page 177 of the Player's Handbook if you want to look it up yourself.
Rood_Inverse
10-14-07, 09:42 AM If he won't let you destroy a held object, how about removing it from play?

By the rules, can you target a ray spell (such as the above-mentioned Ray of Frost to a hand holding on object or holy symbol? You can't freeze his hand off - the 1d3 still gets taken from his core HP - but the effect, if your DM is generous, should be a divine caster without a holy symbol now.

It's just like the gunfighters in the movies. Shoot the gun out of his hand.
Marcus Majarra
10-14-07, 11:54 AM In order to damage or remove a held (not worn) item with a spell, you'd need the Ranged Sunder and Ranged Disarm feats respectively, taken for Ranged Spells.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
lucas_william 10-08-07, 10:30 AM	My DM made a ruling at this weekend’s game that the only way to destroy a held object (such as a holy symbol worn by a cleric) was to use the sunder action- using either a melee weapon or weapon-like spell in melee. This meant that a ranged spell like a ray of flame or an energy ray that requires an attack roll could not harm the held object. The DM believes that you cannot specifically target a held object with a ranged attack, and because you cannot target it you cannot harm that object. I argued that they were wrong, and the DM asked me to prove my argument at the game by showing them where in the rules it says otherwise, but unfortunately I could not prove my case in the few minutes I was allowed to take. But, the DM offered to look into it after the game, and to give me the opportunity to prove them incorrect by showing them where in the rules it states my claims specifically. So, is the DM correct that a spell cannot target nor harm a held object? And if not where in the rules does it say its possible.
Arr MiHardies 10-08-07, 10:57 AM	As I recall, you can target an object, but the wielder gets some sort of will/reflex save depending on the effect. There are many spells that can target a held object, such as using mage hand to take something away from someone and what have you. I think as long as you hit the target with your spell, and that spells' target descriptor doesnt prevent you from targeting the object, all you have to do is worry about wether it will do enough damage to destroy the object. You can also take this approach with him: hold an object in your own hand and ask him if the only way to destroy it would be to sunder it. if he says yes, place it on the ground and ask again. HGe can't say yes to this, because the by definition, you cant sunder something that is not held. Also, you can hold a piece of parchment up, and ask if the only way to destroy it was to sunder it with a melee attack, as he claims. Then shoot it with a flaming arrow, or detonate a fireball nearby and ask again. His logic is flawed. I think your dm is ruling under the basis that there are no called shots in d&d, ie: you can't aim for the eyes, and thus can not aim for a worn/held object. however, to me, since the object is not a physical sub part of something else, the item itself could be the target. Really, it is just a matter of how difficult it would be to hit. And, your DM is using the spirit of the rules incorrectly. You dont have to prove that what he says is wrong, it needs to be proven that what he claims is correct. By all means, dont hold up a game on it, unless someones life was be at stake. Figuring it out after the game is the correct way to go.
weasel0 10-08-07, 05:58 PM	Now that it's on the ground, it's an unattended object and he can line up a shot to do crit dmg on it.Also, you can hold a piece of parchment up, and ask if the only way to destroy it was to sunder it with a melee attack, as he claims. Then shoot it with a flaming arrow, or detonate a fireball nearby and ask again. His logic is flawed. Actually, the only way this would work with a fireball is if the subject rolls a 1 on his reflex save and then rolls up that the parchment is what is hit. As far as shooting it with a flaming arrow, how do you hold it and then shoot it with a two-handed weapon? If you're putting it down, go back to the "Breaking and Entering" section for destroying unattended objects.
Empirate 10-09-07, 09:44 AM	Yeah, I always hated this rule. I'm wearing Paper Armor. I'm the target of a Fireball. I make my save, but half damage is still enough to kill me. Lucky me, when I get rezzed, my Paper Armor is still there waiting for me, undamaged!
wonlee76 10-12-07, 10:40 AM	the only ranged spell that could harm a "held" object would be Shatter and that's presuming the held object is non-magical. Of course the person holding it would use his saves against the spell. Otherwise, Sunder is the other way to destroy a held item. Sunder is limited to melee attacks. There is a feat that expands sunder to range attacks (Ranged Sunder in CW). Take that feat and weapon-line range spells that require attack rolls such as Scorching Ray could be used to sunder held items.
Someone 10-13-07, 12:45 PM	If ray of flame is equivalent to ray of frost (the cantrip), then yeah, you couldn't hurt the holy symbol. 1d3 damage isn't going to get past the item's hardness, let alone hit points. But the prohibition here is that you can't use ranged attacks to sunder (at least not without a specialized feat), not that you can't use magic to sunder. And most magic is ranged.
calronmoonflower 10-14-07, 03:24 AM	This came up today on another thread. The spell must have "(object)" in the saving throw entry. It is on page 177 of the Player's Handbook if you want to look it up yourself.
Rood_Inverse 10-14-07, 09:42 AM	If he won't let you destroy a held object, how about removing it from play? By the rules, can you target a ray spell (such as the above-mentioned Ray of Frost to a hand holding on object or holy symbol? You can't freeze his hand off - the 1d3 still gets taken from his core HP - but the effect, if your DM is generous, should be a divine caster without a holy symbol now. It's just like the gunfighters in the movies. Shoot the gun out of his hand.
Marcus Majarra 10-14-07, 11:54 AM	In order to damage or remove a held (not worn) item with a spell, you'd need the Ranged Sunder and Ranged Disarm feats respectively, taken for Ranged Spells.