3
\$\begingroup\$

The spellblade enhanchement says it protects from a spell targeted on the wielder of such a weapon. But what about its items?

Say, for example, I have a spellblade that protects me from dispel magic (obviously the single target version of the spell) but my enemy casts dispel magic on my gloves of dexterity. Does the spellblade protects my item from such a casting?

More in general, if some effects protects you from targeted spells (such as spell turning) does it also protect your worn items?

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Out of curiosity, given your table's history with the spellblade, has the DM considered just banning the magic weapon special ability as more trouble than it's worth? (My campaigns include a handful of bans for things like this that I've found to be just no fun long term.) \$\endgroup\$ – Hey I Can Chan Dec 24 '18 at 12:00
  • \$\begingroup\$ There isn't a single DM in our group, we kinda rotate periodically and we all follow the same rules, so we choose what to ban or how to interpet a rule (and similar things) democratically. And while I agree spellblade is one of those things that may give issues, we had worse with other stuff (like the manyfang dagger, which i also asked a question about!) \$\endgroup\$ – valepu Dec 24 '18 at 14:13
4
\$\begingroup\$

While this DM uses the grabbing an item and the sundering a carried or worn object rules as they're written, this DM extends the object saving throw rules to have effects that target a creature's attended objects treated as targeting the creature itself unless the effect says to do otherwise. For example, in this DM's campaigns, an efreet (that possesses the subtype fire) wearing (and therefore attending) gloves of dexterity renders its gloves of dexterity immune to fire damage.

Be aware that this house rule grew from a long discussion about whether PCs needed to acquire outfits that themselves possessed innate fire resistance so as to avoid roaming around naked on the Elemental Plane of Fire. Eventually I ruled that PCs' magical fire resistance extends to their outfits because—in addition to more serious reasons—efreeti aren't naked in their illustrations and burks still call it the City of Brass rather than thinking they're funny by dropping the Br. My campaigns have been better as a result of this ruling, and I've been using it for years with success.

So far as I'm aware, though, this is merely this DM's extension of the existing rules and never stated outright by the game. That makes the possibility of other tables making different rulings high. It's even possible a table never develops a general rule and decides everything case by case. This player wouldn't walk away from a campaign that ruled differently unless the DM were obviously and deliberately using the ruling to make the game less fun.

The spell turning spell and the spellblade ability are exceptions

The 7th-level Sor/Wiz spell spell turning [abjur] (Player's Handbook 282-3) says that a spell turning effect "turns only spells that have you as a target" (emphasis mine). In other words, even if a creature affected by a spell turning effect is attending an object, if that object is specifically targeted by a spell the spell turning effect won't protect that object.

For example, a creature protected by a spell turning effect would still see a druid destroy that creature's adamantine battleaxe were the druid to target it with the 4th-level Drd spell rusting grasp [trans] (PH 273) modified with the metamagic feat Reach Spell (Complete Divine 84). (The metamagic feat's necessary for the example as the spell turning spell "also [automatically] fails to stop touch range spells.")

The magic weapon special ability spellblade (Player's Guide to Faerûn 141) (6,000 gp; 0 lbs.) is far sloppier, though, than the spell turning spell. (Also see this question.) The spellblade description says that the spellblade's picked spell "must be one that is targeted against the wielder, not one that affects an area or creates an effect," yet after the spell's picked there's no limit on the spellblade ability's capacity to affect that spell.

This means that a DM that even allows the magic weapon special ability spellblade to be keyed to a spell that offers a variety of target choices, areas, or effects—like the 3rd-level Sor/Wiz spell dispel magic [abjur] (PH 223) does—must also decide how that works… and should tell the player before the PC buys a spellblade keyed to such a spell.

Specifically, in this DM's campaigns, the magic weapon special ability spellblade (dispel magic) doesn't affect dispel magic spells that target anything other than the spellblade's possessor. To be clear, that means in this DM's campaigns, by default, the wielder of +1 spellblade (dispel magic) kukri is protected from dispel magic spells, but the +1 spellblade (dispel magic) kukri remains itself vulnerable to dispel magic spells! While this ruling may sound like it makes the weapon special ability useless, this DM tries to keep his metagaming to a minimum, and folks that find the security the spellblade ability provides necessary don't usually find their +1 spellblade (dispel magic) gauntlet targeted by dispel magic spells.

\$\endgroup\$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.