Warlocks Eldritch Blast can target Armor [Archive] - Wizards Community

Warlocks Eldritch Blast can target Armor [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
King_Neckchopper
04-18-07, 09:21 AM In The Complete Arcane Eratta it says that Warlocks can target worn Armor with their Eldritch Blast, that being said could a wizard Target worn armor with Disintergrate?
BrennonGoldeye
04-18-07, 10:29 AM Yep. The target is a choice you make. Whose saves are used isn't something you get to choose though. :)
King_Neckchopper
04-18-07, 02:26 PM Thanks thats is good to know. do you think that because a warlock can do this at will it is a little unbalancing to the game? In a way I think it is. Fighters cannot sunder armor that is worn by an opponent. you can have +10 epic armor and a 1 level warlock can take it out in a couple of rounds, nevermind the fact that he would die if he attacked anyone with epic armor.
BrennonGoldeye
04-18-07, 05:13 PM Well, unless said worlock has the "Hammer Blast" eldritch essence invocation his eldritch blast only inflicts half damage to objects. As to the balance thing, to Hades with it. The RW has no concept of balance, I fail to see what the need is for it the game.;)

P.S.- It might be a good idea to wait for another to answer the question. I'm biased.:)
Karsus the Mad
04-18-07, 07:06 PM To the abyss with balance I say and let him burn through armor like a plasma cutter!:D Then again, I'm heavily biased as well, as my sig says
"You're telling me that I'm being a munchkin because I expect my character to manipulate, bend, break, or otherwise wipe his arse with reality while you yourself aren't able to do the same? It's not my fault you chose to be a fighter rather than a wizard."
The Simbul
04-18-07, 10:39 PM Technically chain lightning can both target an individual being, and then arc to a number of his or her material possessions (1 per level) as secondary targets, and in turn vaporize them as well. This is possible since chain lightning, unlike most evocation spells, is directly targeted (as opposed to hitting an area), and the spell specifically allows you to target creatures or objects.

In general, directly damaging equipment with spells seems notoriously imbalanced to me, and usually requires some obscure tactics (like the one mentioned above) or obscure/new content (like the Warlock). Equipment and Magic Items are as much of a necessary statistics for any humanoid character as feats or skills, given that they do not possess abilities, AC, attacks, etc comparable to equal CR monsters.

It is probably one of the few areas of the game where I would impose an ad-hoc house rule as a DM, or where (if I was abusing the tactic as a player) would expect the same or worse from the DM running the session.
BrennonGoldeye
04-18-07, 10:54 PM :dancin:Go Bren. Go Maddy. Go Bren. Go Maddy.:dancin:
Razz
04-19-07, 08:31 AM This doesn't make sense though.

Attacking armor is against the Sunder rules in the PHB yet a Warlock's eldritch blast can target armor? A sunder is basically an attack roll against either a weapon, shield, carried or worn item but armor is not allowed to be attacked when worn.

The same would apply to ranged attacks, which is what the eldritch blast is since it requires a ranged touch attack roll, yet it can attack worn armor? And neither should disintegrate, for that matter.

I think it's silly that those can attack armor but not a hand-held weapon striking specifically the armor worn.
Razz
04-19-07, 08:33 AM Fighters cannot sunder armor that is worn by an opponent.

My point exactly. You're allowed to target armor with spells but not with weapons!?
Purple Dragon Knight
04-25-07, 08:48 PM This cutting through armor from a distance does appear a little broken... I have no use for warlocks in my campaign anyhow, but if I did, I would rule zero that or invent an extra feat allowing you to do so...
Razz
04-26-07, 04:23 PM I just looked at the Complete Arcane errata. No where does it state an eldritch blast can target armor.

So this thread is moot.

Unless I am totally blind and missed it somewhere...?
Red_Wizard
04-30-07, 11:19 AM The RW has no concept of balance, I fail to see what the need is for it the game.;)

No offense but how can you possibly consider the RW overpowered, or unbalanced....Unless of course you mean it got shafted with its revision, at which point I'll wholeheartedly agree with you.

If anything, 3.0's version was the closest to what the RW should be, and I was very annoyed when they changed DC bonuses to CL add ons.

My theory is that whoever whined about the DC bonuses being two powerful, was the person playing the fighter and finally was threatened by things that made him save with his uber fort. The fighter obviously wins in all situations statistically with spells. Anything that can hamper, or harm him negatively is fort based, which he'll almost always save against, and the will and reflex doesn't matter, as he has HP to kill, and will saves might send him reeling, or attack his friends (at which point he is still good and well, even if view as a traitor) :rolleyes:

Whats CL good for. Sure for awhile, my spells are a little more potent, but most things are making saves for half or no damage on them, and after awhile improved CL means nothing. Then with taking a third opposed school, you're shafted for selection, and without other RW's, you are left out in the cold with none of the circle magic benefits.

As is, if they turned the CL back to DC, I don't you'd see that everything would be fine and fair again.
Karsus the Mad
04-30-07, 12:33 PM No offense but how can you possibly consider the RW overpowered, or unbalanced....Unless of course you mean it got shafted with its revision, at which point I'll wholeheartedly agree with you.
Uhhh...I might be misunderstanding you. I'm pretty sure BG meant that RW means "Real World", as in the dimension, world, understanding, etc, that we, as real people, exist in. It has nothing to do with game mechanics. If I'm correct, I agree completely. RW (Real World) has no concept of balance, so why should a game which duplicates RW in a fantastic manner be subject to balance? Gameplay? I don't think so. I've DM'd for years upon years, and have never had a problem with a "lack of balance". In fact, I find the entire CR (and the balance-encentricies) of DnD to be personally abhoring. I ignore balance in favor of realism. If such and such a region is known to be populated with lots of dragons, a group of 1st level adventurers traveling through the region aren't going to find a "CR appropriate" challenge randomly decided upon from a generic table. They're going to find a black dragon that'll wipe the living snot out of them in a single round and munch their melted carcasses as an afternoon snack. Thus are the hazards of being an adventurer and stupidly wandering through regions known to be dangerous;)
Red_Wizard
04-30-07, 01:01 PM Uhhh...I might be misunderstanding you. I'm pretty sure BG meant that RW means "Real World", as in the dimension, world, understanding, etc, that we, as real people, exist in. It has nothing to do with game mechanics. If I'm correct, I agree completely. RW (Real World) has no concept of balance, so why should a game which duplicates RW in a fantastic manner be subject to balance? Gameplay? I don't think so. I've DM'd for years upon years, and have never had a problem with a "lack of balance". In fact, I find the entire CR (and the balance-encentricies) of DnD to be personally abhoring. I ignore balance in favor of realism. If such and such a region is known to be populated with lots of dragons, a group of 1st level adventurers traveling through the region aren't going to find a "CR appropriate" challenge randomly decided upon from a generic table. They're going to find a black dragon that'll wipe the living snot out of them in a single round and munch their melted carcasses as an afternoon snack. Thus are the hazards of being an adventurer and stupidly wandering through regions known to be dangerous;)

Ah, you might be right indeed. Sorry, been using the RW to mean Red Wizard a lot lately, so slipped my mind it could mean "Real World" aswell. That and I tend to use "RL" for "Real Life". ;)

My bad though, if this is the case :)
Terraneaux
04-30-07, 08:07 PM By RAW you can't sunder armor. Guess the guys who wrote the warlock class didn't read the PHB.... funny, that.
Razz
04-30-07, 11:28 PM I guess I'll say it again, but in bold:

According to the OP, he says the Complete Arcane Errata is stating that eldritch blast can target armor.

The errata does not say anything about that! Where's the OP getting this info from?
Stigger
05-01-07, 09:18 AM Wasn't there that I saw either... though I'm completely at a loss as to why one couldn't target armor with a weapon or a spell... that's a rule I've always ignored. Really, if you're damaging someone through armor, more than likely you're punching or slicing through it to do it... that and it totally negates those cool Zorro moments one could be having. Add in the idea that blunt weapons could be used to trash the crap out of hinges and deform plates... its just silly not to be able to attack armor directly as you have to attack through it in the first place.
Razz
05-01-07, 04:34 PM Wasn't there that I saw either... though I'm completely at a loss as to why one couldn't target armor with a weapon or a spell... that's a rule I've always ignored. Really, if you're damaging someone through armor, more than likely you're punching or slicing through it to do it... that and it totally negates those cool Zorro moments one could be having. Add in the idea that blunt weapons could be used to trash the crap out of hinges and deform plates... its just silly not to be able to attack armor directly as you have to attack through it in the first place.

Exactly, and what's the point of having armor hit points and hardness if the only time you can attack one is when its unequipped? Pointless, if you ask me.

I've house ruled that you can attack armor. But to make it so it isn't easy, I allow an opposed attack roll as opposed to using "targeting worn equipment" rules, which makes most armor AC 10 + Dexterity of wearer...way too easy to destroy armor that way.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
King_Neckchopper 04-18-07, 09:21 AM	In The Complete Arcane Eratta it says that Warlocks can target worn Armor with their Eldritch Blast, that being said could a wizard Target worn armor with Disintergrate?
BrennonGoldeye 04-18-07, 10:29 AM	Yep. The target is a choice you make. Whose saves are used isn't something you get to choose though. :)
King_Neckchopper 04-18-07, 02:26 PM	Thanks thats is good to know. do you think that because a warlock can do this at will it is a little unbalancing to the game? In a way I think it is. Fighters cannot sunder armor that is worn by an opponent. you can have +10 epic armor and a 1 level warlock can take it out in a couple of rounds, nevermind the fact that he would die if he attacked anyone with epic armor.
BrennonGoldeye 04-18-07, 05:13 PM	Well, unless said worlock has the "Hammer Blast" eldritch essence invocation his eldritch blast only inflicts half damage to objects. As to the balance thing, to Hades with it. The RW has no concept of balance, I fail to see what the need is for it the game.;) P.S.- It might be a good idea to wait for another to answer the question. I'm biased.:)
Karsus the Mad 04-18-07, 07:06 PM	To the abyss with balance I say and let him burn through armor like a plasma cutter!:D Then again, I'm heavily biased as well, as my sig says "You're telling me that I'm being a munchkin because I expect my character to manipulate, bend, break, or otherwise wipe his arse with reality while you yourself aren't able to do the same? It's not my fault you chose to be a fighter rather than a wizard."
The Simbul 04-18-07, 10:39 PM	Technically chain lightning can both target an individual being, and then arc to a number of his or her material possessions (1 per level) as secondary targets, and in turn vaporize them as well. This is possible since chain lightning, unlike most evocation spells, is directly targeted (as opposed to hitting an area), and the spell specifically allows you to target creatures or objects. In general, directly damaging equipment with spells seems notoriously imbalanced to me, and usually requires some obscure tactics (like the one mentioned above) or obscure/new content (like the Warlock). Equipment and Magic Items are as much of a necessary statistics for any humanoid character as feats or skills, given that they do not possess abilities, AC, attacks, etc comparable to equal CR monsters. It is probably one of the few areas of the game where I would impose an ad-hoc house rule as a DM, or where (if I was abusing the tactic as a player) would expect the same or worse from the DM running the session.
BrennonGoldeye 04-18-07, 10:54 PM	:dancin:Go Bren. Go Maddy. Go Bren. Go Maddy.:dancin:
Razz 04-19-07, 08:31 AM	This doesn't make sense though. Attacking armor is against the Sunder rules in the PHB yet a Warlock's eldritch blast can target armor? A sunder is basically an attack roll against either a weapon, shield, carried or worn item but armor is not allowed to be attacked when worn. The same would apply to ranged attacks, which is what the eldritch blast is since it requires a ranged touch attack roll, yet it can attack worn armor? And neither should disintegrate, for that matter. I think it's silly that those can attack armor but not a hand-held weapon striking specifically the armor worn.
Razz 04-19-07, 08:33 AM	Fighters cannot sunder armor that is worn by an opponent. My point exactly. You're allowed to target armor with spells but not with weapons!?
Purple Dragon Knight 04-25-07, 08:48 PM	This cutting through armor from a distance does appear a little broken... I have no use for warlocks in my campaign anyhow, but if I did, I would rule zero that or invent an extra feat allowing you to do so...
Razz 04-26-07, 04:23 PM	I just looked at the Complete Arcane errata. No where does it state an eldritch blast can target armor. So this thread is moot. Unless I am totally blind and missed it somewhere...?
Red_Wizard 04-30-07, 11:19 AM	The RW has no concept of balance, I fail to see what the need is for it the game.;) No offense but how can you possibly consider the RW overpowered, or unbalanced....Unless of course you mean it got shafted with its revision, at which point I'll wholeheartedly agree with you. If anything, 3.0's version was the closest to what the RW should be, and I was very annoyed when they changed DC bonuses to CL add ons. My theory is that whoever whined about the DC bonuses being two powerful, was the person playing the fighter and finally was threatened by things that made him save with his uber fort. The fighter obviously wins in all situations statistically with spells. Anything that can hamper, or harm him negatively is fort based, which he'll almost always save against, and the will and reflex doesn't matter, as he has HP to kill, and will saves might send him reeling, or attack his friends (at which point he is still good and well, even if view as a traitor) :rolleyes: Whats CL good for. Sure for awhile, my spells are a little more potent, but most things are making saves for half or no damage on them, and after awhile improved CL means nothing. Then with taking a third opposed school, you're shafted for selection, and without other RW's, you are left out in the cold with none of the circle magic benefits. As is, if they turned the CL back to DC, I don't you'd see that everything would be fine and fair again.
Karsus the Mad 04-30-07, 12:33 PM	No offense but how can you possibly consider the RW overpowered, or unbalanced....Unless of course you mean it got shafted with its revision, at which point I'll wholeheartedly agree with you. Uhhh...I might be misunderstanding you. I'm pretty sure BG meant that RW means "Real World", as in the dimension, world, understanding, etc, that we, as real people, exist in. It has nothing to do with game mechanics. If I'm correct, I agree completely. RW (Real World) has no concept of balance, so why should a game which duplicates RW in a fantastic manner be subject to balance? Gameplay? I don't think so. I've DM'd for years upon years, and have never had a problem with a "lack of balance". In fact, I find the entire CR (and the balance-encentricies) of DnD to be personally abhoring. I ignore balance in favor of realism. If such and such a region is known to be populated with lots of dragons, a group of 1st level adventurers traveling through the region aren't going to find a "CR appropriate" challenge randomly decided upon from a generic table. They're going to find a black dragon that'll wipe the living snot out of them in a single round and munch their melted carcasses as an afternoon snack. Thus are the hazards of being an adventurer and stupidly wandering through regions known to be dangerous;)
Red_Wizard 04-30-07, 01:01 PM	Uhhh...I might be misunderstanding you. I'm pretty sure BG meant that RW means "Real World", as in the dimension, world, understanding, etc, that we, as real people, exist in. It has nothing to do with game mechanics. If I'm correct, I agree completely. RW (Real World) has no concept of balance, so why should a game which duplicates RW in a fantastic manner be subject to balance? Gameplay? I don't think so. I've DM'd for years upon years, and have never had a problem with a "lack of balance". In fact, I find the entire CR (and the balance-encentricies) of DnD to be personally abhoring. I ignore balance in favor of realism. If such and such a region is known to be populated with lots of dragons, a group of 1st level adventurers traveling through the region aren't going to find a "CR appropriate" challenge randomly decided upon from a generic table. They're going to find a black dragon that'll wipe the living snot out of them in a single round and munch their melted carcasses as an afternoon snack. Thus are the hazards of being an adventurer and stupidly wandering through regions known to be dangerous;) Ah, you might be right indeed. Sorry, been using the RW to mean Red Wizard a lot lately, so slipped my mind it could mean "Real World" aswell. That and I tend to use "RL" for "Real Life". ;) My bad though, if this is the case :)
Terraneaux 04-30-07, 08:07 PM	By RAW you can't sunder armor. Guess the guys who wrote the warlock class didn't read the PHB.... funny, that.
Razz 04-30-07, 11:28 PM	I guess I'll say it again, but in bold: According to the OP, he says the Complete Arcane Errata is stating that eldritch blast can target armor. The errata does not say anything about that! Where's the OP getting this info from?
Stigger 05-01-07, 09:18 AM	Wasn't there that I saw either... though I'm completely at a loss as to why one couldn't target armor with a weapon or a spell... that's a rule I've always ignored. Really, if you're damaging someone through armor, more than likely you're punching or slicing through it to do it... that and it totally negates those cool Zorro moments one could be having. Add in the idea that blunt weapons could be used to trash the crap out of hinges and deform plates... its just silly not to be able to attack armor directly as you have to attack through it in the first place.
Razz 05-01-07, 04:34 PM	Wasn't there that I saw either... though I'm completely at a loss as to why one couldn't target armor with a weapon or a spell... that's a rule I've always ignored. Really, if you're damaging someone through armor, more than likely you're punching or slicing through it to do it... that and it totally negates those cool Zorro moments one could be having. Add in the idea that blunt weapons could be used to trash the crap out of hinges and deform plates... its just silly not to be able to attack armor directly as you have to attack through it in the first place. Exactly, and what's the point of having armor hit points and hardness if the only time you can attack one is when its unequipped? Pointless, if you ask me. I've house ruled that you can attack armor. But to make it so it isn't easy, I allow an opposed attack roll as opposed to using "targeting worn equipment" rules, which makes most armor AC 10 + Dexterity of wearer...way too easy to destroy armor that way.