Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Elspooky 04-18-06, 01:14 AM	'Evening all, Strange (perhaps) question for you all regarding the way that the special abilities of some magic items operate. Opinions greatly appreciated, facts and rules quotes moreso :) The general question is this: do objects which convey special abilities to their owners as use-activated items (weapons, rings, armor etc.) also have the same abilities themselves? (a) Let's say that a character had a Ring of Counterspells on their finger. Per the SRD: Counterspells: This ring might seem to be a ring of spell storing upon first examination. However, while it allows a single spell of 1st through 6th level to be cast into it, that spell cannot be cast out of the ring again. Instead, should that spell ever be cast upon the wearer, the spell is immediately countered, as a counterspell action, requiring no action (or even knowledge) on the wearer’s part. Let's say that the character in question loaded a Greater Dispel Magic into the ring. If a targeted Greater Dispel is cast at the wearer, it is countered. That's a no-brainer. What happens if the ring (item) is targeted, though? Does it still counter the spell? What about if the ring is unattended? (b) Similar example to the above. Let's say a character had a breastplate with the Spell Resistance ability. From the SRD: Spell Resistance: This property grants the armor’s wearer spell resistance while the armor is worn. The spell resistance can be 13, 15, 17, or 19, depending on the armor. If the person wearing the armor gets targeted by a spell that is SR=yes, spell resistance comes into play. Again, a no-brainer. But what if the armor itself is targeted? Does it get SR as well? This all comes about because a party member in our current campaign has a weapon enchanted with the "Spellblade" enchantment from Magic of Faerun (yes, it's 3.0, but has grandfathered into our current campaign). This enchantment essentially causes the weapon to absorb one particular targeted spell, decided upon at the weapon's creation. Our party Paladin infused it with Greater Dispel Magic, which means when he gets hit with a targeted Greater Dispel it is absorbed harmlessly by his weapon. But what happens if the weapon itself gets targeted? Is it treated as a normal targeted magical item (item's caster level vs. the caster level of the Greater Dispel to determine if it is suppressed for 1d4 rounds), or is the spell absorbed as if it were cast on the character wielding the weapon? I can't help but think this has to do with attended (worn, wielded, etc.) items "acting like they are the character" in some ways, but I can't find any help in the DMG/PHB for this particular question. Maybe I'm missing something... Many thanks in advance
Nom 04-18-06, 04:26 AM	B is easy. Attended objects gain the same benefit from the owner's SR as they do from the owner's saves (PH pg 177). A is trickier. I'd use the precedent of the attended object rules to say that if the ring is attended then it benefits from any protections that protect the wearer, including the ring itself. It's not hard to extend this to say that as a magical ring it can protect itself when unattended, just as it could if it needed to make a saving throw. Note that all of the above assume that the attack in question even allows saves / SR / ... .
Elspooky 04-18-06, 01:05 PM	{...} I'd use the precedent of the attended object rules to say that if the ring is attended then it benefits from any protections that protect the wearer, including the ring itself. It's not hard to extend this to say that as a magical ring it can protect itself when unattended, just as it could if it needed to make a saving throw. Hmmm... excellent point. So to paraphrase: Attended items are granted the same saves as the character (per the PHB). Those saves can actually be a function of the items themselves... for example, the way Gloves of Dexterity increases a character's reflex save, and therefore increases the equivalent reflex save of the originating item (gloves) as well. So then it's logical that all effects which affect a character -- granted by items -- also affect all of the character's attended items, including the originating item. It passes the giggle test -- when a character casts Protection from Energy on themselves, their items are also protected. At least, that was a "house interpretation" in our campaign. This wouldn't be any different if the Protection came from an item -- all items, including the originating item, would be equally protected. So items and characters are one-in-the-same for attended items, there is no difference. This sound reasonable? You'd think there'd be some passage somewhere about use-activated items (or items in general) being afforded the same effects (not just saves) that they grant the user/wearer...
Nom 04-18-06, 11:19 PM	Attended items are granted the same saves as the character (per the PHB).... and the same applies to SR (again as per the PH). You need to be a little careful generalising to other abilities. Creatures with natural immunities shouldn't necessarily pass them on to their items. A black dragon might be immune to acid, but that probably shouldn't allow it to take scrolls (or treasure) swimming in acid with impunity. As for items that grant such protections: I have no problem with an item that granted (say) permanent acid resistance 10 also having acid resistance 10 when treated as an unattended object.
Elspooky 04-18-06, 11:52 PM	You need to be a little careful generalising to other abilities. Creatures with natural immunities shouldn't necessarily pass them on to their items. A black dragon might be immune to acid, but that probably shouldn't allow it to take scrolls (or treasure) swimming in acid with impunity. Agreed. Effects generated by items or spells are one thing, natural immunities (or armor, etc.) are a cat of a different stripe. I've dumped this in the DM's lap to get her take on it, but it makes sense. Targeting an attended item with a spell (assuming the spell can target an item) is like targeting the person holding/wearing it, including the magical effects currently affecting the person. Don't know why that didn't make sense before. Thanks for the input Nom, very much appreciated