Ability damage and tentacles [Archive] - Wizards Community

Ability damage and tentacles [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Nazrat
04-14-08, 01:00 AM If you hit a Kraken's tentacle with a Ray of Enfeeblement, does it affect the creature as a whole? For example, if Bob the Wizard hit one of its exposed limbs with a Ray of Enfeeblement while fighting on the deck of a ship, would all of the creatures subsequent attacks suffer the penalties associated with the strength penalty? Or would each limb be treated as being, in effect, a separate creature, and not subject to the penalty unless specifically hit?

It recently came up in a game, and there was slight contention on the issue. Ultimately, the DM went with the logic that since the tentacles were all attached to the same beast, they all suffered. I was happy about this of course, since, you know, I was the one casting the spell. But another player argued that since each tentacle has its own HP pool, you would have to target the tentacles separately in order to effect them.

I'm curious to see what the consensus is on this issue, since I can't seem to find a definitive ruling on it in the admittedly brief amount of time I spent searching the web about it.
Kouk
04-14-08, 02:04 AM You have the special option of making Sunder attempts against the tentacles, dealing damage directly to them, but they don't have their own AC, Saves, HD or anything.

It should affect the creature as a whole, because the arms are not creatures, just a part of the Kraken.
Shadowfax7
04-14-08, 09:21 PM For consensus purposes, I agree with Kouk.
zeratulcraft
04-14-08, 09:24 PM As do I.
risner
04-14-08, 11:24 PM If you hit a Kraken's tentacle with a Ray of Enfeeblement, does it affect the creature as a whole?

You target creatures, not body parts. There are no called shots in EQ except for things like the Hydra sundering head options.
Nazrat
04-15-08, 11:44 PM Thanks all! I agree it makes the most sense, both from a rules and from a logic standpoint. I just wanted to hear if anyone had any firm arguements for the opposing side. Apparently it doesn't have much support, so my DM's ruling was correct. Thanks again!

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Nazrat 04-14-08, 01:00 AM	If you hit a Kraken's tentacle with a Ray of Enfeeblement, does it affect the creature as a whole? For example, if Bob the Wizard hit one of its exposed limbs with a Ray of Enfeeblement while fighting on the deck of a ship, would all of the creatures subsequent attacks suffer the penalties associated with the strength penalty? Or would each limb be treated as being, in effect, a separate creature, and not subject to the penalty unless specifically hit? It recently came up in a game, and there was slight contention on the issue. Ultimately, the DM went with the logic that since the tentacles were all attached to the same beast, they all suffered. I was happy about this of course, since, you know, I was the one casting the spell. But another player argued that since each tentacle has its own HP pool, you would have to target the tentacles separately in order to effect them. I'm curious to see what the consensus is on this issue, since I can't seem to find a definitive ruling on it in the admittedly brief amount of time I spent searching the web about it.
Kouk 04-14-08, 02:04 AM	You have the special option of making Sunder attempts against the tentacles, dealing damage directly to them, but they don't have their own AC, Saves, HD or anything. It should affect the creature as a whole, because the arms are not creatures, just a part of the Kraken.
Shadowfax7 04-14-08, 09:21 PM	For consensus purposes, I agree with Kouk.
zeratulcraft 04-14-08, 09:24 PM	As do I.
risner 04-14-08, 11:24 PM	If you hit a Kraken's tentacle with a Ray of Enfeeblement, does it affect the creature as a whole? You target creatures, not body parts. There are no called shots in EQ except for things like the Hydra sundering head options.
Nazrat 04-15-08, 11:44 PM	Thanks all! I agree it makes the most sense, both from a rules and from a logic standpoint. I just wanted to hear if anyone had any firm arguements for the opposing side. Apparently it doesn't have much support, so my DM's ruling was correct. Thanks again!