If I were to allow this to happen, there'd be at least a grapple check to have the Balor grab the target, and then (likely) a Wis save to resist the ability. I generally agree that there's some wiggle room for interpretation of some spells and other rules, but an important aspect here is that a player's agency shouldn't be violated without at least a chance to fight back. If the Balor could relocate unwilling victims, there'd have to be a corresponding check, and it would be called out, or a specific exemption from this general rule. Any spell or spell-like ability that has any potential to affect additional targets will state what conditions must be met to affect those additional targets. Second, you can't generally use a spell or ability on an enemy without some sort of opposed roll or ability check, unless a rule specifically says otherwise. It even goes further to say you can't target an object held by an unwilling creature. For example, see Teleport, where you can transport up to eight willing creatures of your choice. That said, if a spell or ability allowed additional targets, it'd definitely call it out in the spell text. The rules are meant to lean heavily on common sense. There's no rule that says that a dropped object falls to the ground, but we take it for granted it does, short of magical items like an Unmovable Rod. There are no rules about what kind of nutrition a creature must eat, just that they must eat. There's a lot of rules that we just assume. It is reasonable to assume that, unless otherwise stated in the rules, a character's effects would travel with them, regardless of the mode of transportation. I've already seen the comments about how some argue about other spells leaving the teleporter naked, where I'd just call that a rule oversight. First, spells and abilities can generally only do what they say.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |