Timeline for Can the Continual Flame spell be cast on an opponent's helmet to blind them?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 16, 2020 at 10:23 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| May 11, 2020 at 1:47 | comment | added | Sam Lacrumb | Lol how are there 20 upvotes to the answer bu only 2 for the question? I do not understand how this place works at all. | |
| May 10, 2020 at 9:45 | vote | accept | Sam Lacrumb | ||
| May 9, 2020 at 18:42 | comment | added | Eric Anderson | In general I agree with this answer - but as a GM I'd also require some kind of roll to succeed. A Dex save seems appropriate, but a grapple check might also work. The spell just says "an object" which is assume to be sitting there doing nothing. Generally objects held or carried by a creature or character are specifically called out. So your attempt to touch the helmet would definitely be opposed. | |
| May 9, 2020 at 18:35 | comment | added | Mołot | @Sam if part of the helmet is already in front of someone's eyes, he won't be able to see, no spells needed ;) so the analogy with torch in front of the eyes is kinda... Situational. | |
| May 9, 2020 at 16:40 | comment | added | user60913 | Not looking at RAW it would be more likely to give opponents advantage on attacking the target for the same reason as Faerie Fire. It might even be balanced to let it do so without a sve considering it costs 50 gp, consumes a higher level slot, and can be countered by dropping the item. | |
| May 9, 2020 at 15:29 | comment | added | guildsbounty | All of that said, this is a RAW ruling. If you want to try something like this in-game, you'll have to talk to your DM and see how they, personally, would rule it. | |
| May 9, 2020 at 15:14 | comment | added | Mark Wells | @SamLacrumb The nose bridge isn't generally what we'd consider an object; it's an integral part of the helm. (The guy wearing the helm is also not going to just let you do this, but that's a separate issue.) | |
| May 9, 2020 at 14:52 | comment | added | Sam Lacrumb | Yeah I see your points | |
| May 9, 2020 at 13:54 | comment | added | NotArch | @SamLacrumb As Medix2 states, there are no rules around removing helms which makes this trickier. Heck, how do you know the helm has a nose bridge? That's not a feature on every helm. And where in the rules does it say a torch in front of your face gives the Blinded condition. Non-darkvision party members may not like that ruling. | |
| May 9, 2020 at 13:51 | comment | added | Exempt-Medic | @Sam Spells do only and exactly what they say they do, or at least that's the case when reading the rules literally. You can always houserule things differently but be wary of making spells too powerful; blinded is a strong condition. There also aren't rules on the action(s) required for removing helmets or how AC changes if somebody simply removed the helmet, so you'd likely want to come up with answers for those as well. | |
| May 9, 2020 at 13:44 | comment | added | Sam Lacrumb | But if you hold a torch in front of someone's face they will get disadvatage as they will be unable to see through the flames very well. If you cast this spell on the nose bridge of a helm I would argue the same applies. Not as a direct effect of the spell but as a side effect. | |
| May 9, 2020 at 13:35 | history | edited | NotArch | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 133 characters in body
|
| May 9, 2020 at 13:30 | history | answered | NotArch | CC BY-SA 4.0 |