Post/Author/DateTime	Post
TxNetWolf 05-04-05, 01:26 PM	Greetings to the list! I'd like to gather the opinions and input of multiple gamers concerning an issue that arose in our current campaign. Here are the specifics... D&D 3.0 rule set!! 19th Level Sorcerer casting 'Meteor Swarm' (MS) at a target within a 'Blade Barrier' (BB) As the player, I thought that MS would go right through the whirling blades and impact the target for 24d6 damage (no save) per the spell description. My DM felt that the BB would disrupt the MS (to some extent) and ruled that damage would be less than the 24 dice and/or a save would become involved. I know all the hooplah about DM's always being right... and if mine were, I would agree with him!! :D We argued this for a moment, and I decided to cast something different. But it's still up in the air. Points to consider... Blade Barrier does provide cover (+4 AC) so it can interact materially Meteor Swarm does not require a combat roll to hit... so AC really doesn't come into play Your considerations or thoughts on this predicament? TxNetWolf Houston, TX
tarkin 05-04-05, 01:44 PM	The difference between partial cover and full cover is clear. The problem is that this partial cover is sort of random, while most partial cover is left side vs. right side. From a RAW, partial cover (+4) does not interefere with the spell, except to give a minor bonus to the saving throw. But as a DM I think a House Rule increasing the benefit of partial cover in this odd situation is reasonable.
nightwing 05-04-05, 02:02 PM	My take: Meteor Swarm shoots 2-foot diameter chunks of space-rock at your target. I would suppose those rocks weigh about 1,000 pounds each. Because of their mass and momentum, they could *easily* knock a few whirling swords out of the way. A whirling sword (or 10 or even 50) will not do *anything* to a chunk of meteorite. In fact, it would be like whacking your sword into a solid stone wall, doing more damage to the blade than to the rock. Thus, blade barrier has absolutely no effect on a meteor swarm. Exception: the target in the blade barrier may be concealed by the blades (perhaps 50%), providing a bonus to his AC against the ranged touch attack required for the meteors to actually strike him. However, even in this case, the blades will not effect the fire damage dealt by the explosion.
kenichi 05-04-05, 02:17 PM	Nightwing, the 'blades' of a blade barrier are not actual weapons made of steel, they are bladelike things made out of magical force. They don't care about chopping into solid stone, but they might deflect it slightly enough to cause the meteor to miss it's target (+4 AC from cover). Exception: the target in the blade barrier may be concealed by the blades (perhaps 50%), providing a bonus to his AC against the ranged touch attack required for the meteors to actually strike him. However, even in this case, the blades will not effect the fire damage dealt by the explosion. The blades do not in any way grant concealment, they grant cover, so this statement does not make much sense. First off, to deal damage with no save requires a ranged touch attack to hit the target. If you miss it explodes at the corner of the targets square, but allows the target to save. So the +4 AC from cover definitely comes into play here. If you miss the attack roll, then the +2 Ref save from the cover would only come into effect if the cover is actually between the origin of the explosion and the target. In the case of a blade barrier, it has no thickness, and meteor swarm explodes in a corner of the target's square. Therefore it is impossible to have a bladebarrier between the target and the square where the meteor explodes as they are one and the same square when the meteor is aimed at a creature. I will try to illustrate. C=caster B=blade barrier, T=target of meteorswarm, F is an ally of T, X is the section of blade barrier the meteor passes through ......B... C....XT .....FB... Target gets +4 AC from cover against the ranged touch, but if the ranged touch fails, the target gets no save bonus because the meteor swarm explodes in one of the corners between X and T. There is nor cover for the target there. F however will gain the +2 bonus on Reflex saves vs. the meteor swarm as he has cover from the blade barrier. If you are not aiming the meteor swarm at a creature, but just lobbing it in an area or at a different target, then it is possible to gain the save bonus from cover, but it is impossible for the target of an aimed swarm to get the save bonus, but at least they gain the +4 AC bonus.
TxNetWolf 05-04-05, 02:22 PM	My take: >>>SNIP!!!<<< Exception: the target in the blade barrier may be concealed by the blades (perhaps 50%), providing a bonus to his AC against the ranged touch attack required for the meteors to actually strike him. However, even in this case, the blades will not effect the fire damage dealt by the explosion. Nice point (the 1,000# rock chunks vs. whirling blades) but keep in mind that under 3.0 rules, Meteor Swarm does not require a ranged touch attack. So is my DM justified in adjudicating less damage or granting a reflex save where otherwise none exists? TxNetWolf Houston, TX
Leobardis 05-04-05, 02:23 PM	Meteor Swarm Evocation [Fire] Level: Sor/Wiz 9 Components: V, S Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level) Area: Four 40-ft.-radius spreads; see text Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: None or Reflex half; see text Spell Resistance: Yes Meteor swarm is a very powerful and spectacular spell that is similar to fireball in many aspects. When you cast it, four 2- foot-diameter spheres spring from your outstretched hand and streak in straight lines to the spots you select. The meteor spheres leave a fiery trail of sparks. If you aim a sphere at a specific creature, you may make a ranged touch attack to strike the target with the meteor. Any creature struck by one of these spheres takes 2d6 points of bludgeoning damage (no save) and receives no saving throw against the sphere’s fire damage (see below). If a targeted sphere misses its target, it simply explodes at the nearest corner of the target’s space. You may aim more than one meteor at the same target. Once a sphere reaches its destination, it explodes in a 40-foot-radius spread, dealing 6d6 points of fire damage to each creature in the area. If a creature is within the area of more than one sphere, it must save separately against each. (Fire resistance applies to each sphere’s damage individually.) That's from the 3.5 rules. So... the cover would come into play from the blade barrier if you were trying to deliberatly hit the creature with the little ball. I'd say that if you missed, it impacts the blade barrier and goes off at the outer most point of the barrier at the spot closest to you.
TxNetWolf 05-04-05, 02:31 PM	So... the cover would come into play from the blade barrier if you were trying to deliberatly hit the creature with the little ball. I'd say that if you missed, it impacts the blade barrier and goes off at the outer most point of the barrier at the spot closest to you. And if you can't miss because the spell description does not require a ranged touch attack? (3.0 rule set - Meteor Swarm does not require a ranged touch attack; it strikes it's target unerringly) TxNetWolf Houston, TX
Leobardis 05-04-05, 02:44 PM	At best, I'd take my DM the rules from 3.5 and ask for a similar ruling. Especially since the 3.5 version allows you to actually pick how you want them to hit and not just the diamond/box patterns listed in the 3.0 discription :D Or, you could just skip down the the part about hitting the barrier and try and get a percent chance. Like 50% chance to hit the barrier, otherwise it goes where you want. But I'd argue against the reduction in damage either way.
Talchar 05-04-05, 02:59 PM	And if you can't miss because the spell description does not require a ranged touch attack? (3.0 rule set - Meteor Swarm does not require a ranged touch attack; it strikes it's target unerringly) TxNetWolf Houston, TX Meteor Swarm does not strike unerringly. At issue, is that the 3.0 version, did not fully incorporate the new combat system, so it did not have the range touch mechanics. That said, the spell still contains verbage that assumes that the meteor's can "miss" ie. they strike some target in rout to their detonation point. In practice, this is the normal use of the spell. You target a detonation point about 5 feet behind your real target. If the spell strikes unerringly, you could not strike an intervening target. In the context of how the spell works with blade barrier. I would rule that the barrier causes a permature detonation.
Jaid 05-04-05, 05:29 PM	it's a blade barrier, not a wall of force. why should the meteors automatically fail? it's not total cover or anything... +4 cover bonus to AC is not exactly impenetrable. personally, i would have the meteors pass through, suffer the results of cover, but otherwise be unaffected, for one simple reason: Meteor Swarm is a level 9 spell. Blade Barrier is not. A level 9 direct damage spell should really be difficult to completely block... using a type of cover that gives only +4 to AC is not adequate. it will help, but it will not completely stop it in it's tracks. in fact, come to think of it... does 3.0 Blade Barrier even officially grant any cover? anywho, if so, i think +4 AC is half cover... correct? so give the ref save bonus from half cover... and there you have it.
Talchar 05-04-05, 06:03 PM	From the SRD 3.0 Blade Barrier . Once the barrier is in place, anything entering or passing through the blades automatically takes damage. A blade barrier serves as one-half cover (+4 AC) for anyone beyond it So anything that enters the area, takes damage. The mechanics of meteor swarm enable the blade barrier spell to block it. Just as the mechanics of the fireball spell enable it to be blocked. Both spells send a missile from pont A to point B. If the missile is physically blocked, the spell detonates at the point of being blocked. The cover provided by Blade Barrier only applies to magical effects that would not be affected by the damage inflicted by the barrier.
Shatteredtower 05-04-05, 06:52 PM	Actually, the wording on the 3.0 blade barrier is misleading. Note that the spell description states earlier "Any creature passing through the blade barrier..." rather than "Anything passing through...". If one reads the later sentence "Once the blade barrier is in place, anything entering or pass through the blades automatically takes damage," to literally mean objects as well as creatures, then one is reading this spell to likewise damage every object carried, worn, or held by a creature passing through this barrier. That eventual 20d6 hp of damage (average 70) may not be signficant to a high level character, but that's ruinous to a lot of gear, even of the magical sort. (Heh heh. Imagine some poor lich getting hurled through a blade barrier along with his phylactery.) Now you can read the spell to say that (nice protection from ranged attacks too -- destroying enemy ammunition is much better than providing a cover bonus against it), but the spell description elsewhere implies something different, that the spell affects creatures (with no mention of objects). I'd recommend going with the latter ruling. (You'll find that there is no mention of the spell working against objects in 3.5, by the way, since that sentence was changed along with the damage the spell can do.)
Talchar 05-04-05, 07:18 PM	Actually, the wording on the 3.0 blade barrier is misleading. Note that the spell description states earlier "Any creature passing through the blade barrier..." rather than "Anything passing through...". If one reads the later sentence "Once the blade barrier is in place, anything entering or pass through the blades automatically takes damage," to literally mean objects as well as creatures, then one is reading this spell to likewise damage every object carried, worn, or held by a creature passing through this barrier. That eventual 20d6 hp of damage (average 70) may not be signficant to a high level character, but that's ruinous to a lot of gear, even of the magical sort. (Heh heh. Imagine some poor lich getting hurled through a blade barrier along with his phylactery.) Now you can read the spell to say that (nice protection from ranged attacks too -- destroying enemy ammunition is much better than providing a cover bonus against it), but the spell description elsewhere implies something different, that the spell affects creatures (with no mention of objects). I'd recommend going with the latter ruling. (You'll find that there is no mention of the spell working against objects in 3.5, by the way, since that sentence was changed along with the damage the spell can do.) Your object objection does not take into account the general rule on objects,"Unless the descriptive text for the spell specifies otherwise, all items carried and worn are assumed to survive a magical attack." So anything a character carries would not be affected by the barrier damage, but any missile weapon fired through the area would be affected. This type of ruling would hold more true to the spell concept then your blade barrier that does not damage objects.
DungeonMaster 05-04-05, 07:26 PM	The blade barrier spell would not stop the meteors by the rules. Only total cover, a wall of force for instance would do so. That being said your DM could rule that because of the similarities with fireball, the stated similarities no less, that you need to make an attack roll to hit an opening in the blade barrier spell. Remember that to send a fireball through an arrow slit you need to make a ranged touch attack to "hit" the opening. The arrow slit is cover, the blade barrier offers some amount of cover as well. That is definitely the way I would rule.
nightwing 05-04-05, 07:30 PM	@kenichi: Right you are about the "invisible blades of force" thing, so I'll modify my original conclusions thus: Meteor Swarm shoots 2-foot diameter chunks of space-rock at your target. I would suppose those rocks weigh about 1,000 pounds each. Because of their mass and momentum, they could *easily* knock a few whirling "blades of force that have a similar effect as swords" out of the way. A whirling sword-like blade (or 10 or even 50) will not do *anything* to a chunk of meteorite. Thus, blade barrier has absolutely no effect on a meteor passing through. The blade barrier spell description says that the person inside the barrier gets +4AC against attacks made through the barrier, but I would overrule that in this case, judging that it applies mostly to attacks made by much lighter objects, such as arrows, etc. Because the "blades" are invisible, the blade barrier cannot even grant concealment against the ranged touch attack required for the meteors to strike their target. So, a blade barrier provides absolutely no benefits against a meteor swarm. Having said that, if my DM ruled that the target did get a +4AC bonus vs. the touch attack, I would not fuss about it. As for the 3.0 rules that automatically hit, I'd stand by that. The blade barrier has no effect on the meteors, they're no where near "solid" enough to deflect a meteor.
DungeonMaster 05-04-05, 07:32 PM	Meteor Swarm does not strike unerringly. At issue, is that the 3.0 version, did not fully incorporate the new combat system, so it did not have the range touch mechanics. No it does strike unerringly like the poster said before. 3.5 meteor swarm was nerfed to hell for no reason. Resistance applies to each meteor and each meteor can miss. That said, the spell still contains verbage that assumes that the meteor's can "miss" ie. they strike some target in rout to their detonation point. In practice, this is the normal use of the spell. You target a detonation point about 5 feet behind your real target. The meteors do strike any target in the straight line path of the spell but they burst afterwards causing even more damage. They don't stop after striking a target, but they will stop if they hit a wall of force and are prevented from reaching their final destination. If the spell strikes unerringly, you could not strike an intervening target. In the context of how the spell works with blade barrier. I would rule that the barrier causes a permature detonation.[/QUOTE]
Shatteredtower 05-04-05, 08:10 PM	Your object objection does not take into account the general rule on objects,"Unless the descriptive text for the spell specifies otherwise, all items carried and worn are assumed to survive a magical attack." That's the general rule, always overruled by the specific rule. Read blade barrier to affect objects and the specific rule takes affect, in the same way that 3.0 allows for carried, worn, or held objects to be subjected to attack. As for the matter of meteor swarm being nerfed by the attack roll requirement, it's a misleading accusation. All it means is that a target now has to be hit to bypass the Reflex save option with each meteor doing an extra 2d6 hp of damage that aren't subject to fire resistance. So the 3.5 version of the spell can still do some damage to someone protected by a 3rd level spell (protection from energy[/i]) even if the caster only hits once in four tries with a ranged touch attack, while the 3.0 version wouldn't do a thing. Otherwise, the 3.0 version was a spell more likely to do 24d6 hp of fire damage (less fire resistance) to a single target, while the 3.5 version stands a fair chance of doing 24d6 hp of fire damage (less fire resistance checked per each 6d6, but the values are lower in 3.5 as well) plus 8d6 impact damage. Energy resistance is a big issue (though I approve: why should a flaming sword can burn a creature with fire resistance if I just hit it more rapidly, when hitting more quickly is worthless against damage reduction?), but it isn't the whole of the matter. But it doesn't actually strike unerringly in 3.0 either. If I'm invisible and standing directly between a spellcaster and that caster's intended target, the intended target would be hit by magic missile (since I do not block line of effect), but a meteor swarm would blow up around me, as I am in the spell's straight line path. (It's a small point in favour of the 3.5 version of the spell -- maybe not enough for some tastes, but worth considering.) It's close to unerring, but not quite close enough.
Talchar 05-05-05, 03:46 AM	That's the general rule, always overruled by the specific rule. Read blade barrier to affect objects and the specific rule takes affect, in the same way that 3.0 allows for carried, worn, or held objects to be subjected to attack. Just make sure I understand your postion. You are stating that any spell that mentions or implies (eg. the barrier damages everything) that it effects objects, forces a character to make a save for his item's? Thus, conversely are you stating that spells that do not specifically state that they effect objects, do not effect objects? IMO, the proper rule is that a spell that can affect objects, and allows for a save, can effect your objects. For example wall of fire does not mention that if effects objects, yet the DMG states that the wall can set you on fire.
DungeonMaster 05-05-05, 04:09 AM	If I'm invisible and standing directly between a spellcaster and that caster's intended target, the intended target would be hit by magic missile (since I do not block line of effect), but a meteor swarm would blow up around me, as I am in the spell's straight line path. No it wouldn't. You would take 24d6 damage and because you don't block line of effect the meteors would burst at their destination. Just because the meteors strike you doesn't mean they burst, that's not part of the spell description. If you had a wall of force up between you and the target then the meteors would simply fizzle. If the target is large enough you can do 24d6 no-save and 24d6 save for half fire damage. It's a much bigger spell in 3rd edition. 168 fire damage does not tickle, unless you have a protection spell up that is of course. A resistance spell will be useless.
Shatteredtower 05-05-05, 05:41 AM	No it wouldn't. You would take 24d6 damage and because you don't block line of effect the meteors would burst at their destination. Read the spell again. If they enter your square, they strike you. It's in the 3.0 spell description. If you had a wall of force up between you and the target then the meteors would simply fizzle. Interesting interpretation. Not the only conclusion one can draw in the circumstances, but still interesting. If the target is large enough you can do 24d6 no-save and 24d6 save for half fire damage. It's a much bigger spell in 3rd edition. 168 fire damage does not tickle, unless you have a protection spell up that is of course. A resistance spell will be useless. I did note protection from energy in this example, which is still a 3rd level spell making mockery of a 9th level spell. As for what you maintain about the damage done, I don't see that as the most likely interpretation of the spell effect as written. It's a double jeopardy interpretation, taking the same damage twice from the same effect, and rather suspect because of that. I'll stick with the impact damage and the opportunity that comes with a critical hit (even if that becomes only 4d6 hp of bludgeoning damage and the usual 6d6 hp of fire damage).
Shatteredtower 05-05-05, 05:44 AM	Just make sure I understand your postion. You are stating that any spell that mentions or implies (eg. the barrier damages everything)... Only by one interpretation that requires overriding the other sentences within the spell description in question. ...that it effects objects, forces a character to make a save for his items? If you rule "anything" to literally mean "creature or object," overruling every other mention only of creatures, then you must literally mean "everything." Simple.
DungeonMaster 05-05-05, 12:53 PM	If they enter your square, they strike you. It's in the 3.0 spell description. The spell states that " any creature in the straight line path of these spheres is struck by each one and takes 24d6 points of fire damage (no save)". That's "any creature" not "a creature". You can have more than one creature being struck by all spheres. It doesn't say they burst upon striking you, just that you're struck and take no-save damage. You could have a nice long line of creatures all taking 24d6 no save damage and at the end some unfortunate taking 48d6. I did note protection from energy in this example, which is still a 3rd level spell making mockery of a 9th level spell. Sadly it isn't the only one. Take dominate monster and compare with magic circle vs. whatever. Energy drain vs. negative energy protection and death ward (4th) vs. wail of the banshee, power word kill. I would prefer it different as I think you do but that's the nature of the 3rd edition game. However it's saving grace is protection vs. energy can only absorb 204 fire damage (17th level) so you just throw another one. :p As for what you maintain about the damage done, I don't see that as the most likely interpretation of the spell effect as written. It's a double jeopardy interpretation, taking the same damage twice from the same effect, and rather suspect because of that. Sure, no problem, we all have our opinions. It's not the same damage though, one is no-save the other is save. 168 average fire damage at these levels is not as terrible a number as most warrior's full attack routines or a rogue in a good position. I'll stick with the impact damage and the opportunity that comes with a critical hit (even if that becomes only 4d6 hp of bludgeoning damage and the usual 6d6 hp of fire damage). Mathematically you have a 5% chance to miss outright and a 5% chance to threaten a critical hit and so automatically including a touch-attack mechanic means you're lowering the average damage, not increasing it. Even resistance 12/fire reduces the spell's effectiveness by half in 3.5. 15/fire and you're better off with a magic missile in 3.5. Even 30/fire isn't enough to stop meteor swarm in 3rd edition.