PDA

View Full Version : Shatter Shatter!



JackMage666
2007-02-10, 07:34 PM
I have a question about Shatter... Can you shatter magic items? The second use of the ability says you can shatter any solid item, regardless of composition, but doesn't say anything about magic or not.. However, earlier in the description (the fluff, as some say), says it affects non-magical items only. The target says only solid objects, or crystalline creatures, and bothing about magic. My DM and I have read this, and are still confused. So, what do you guys think?

oriong
2007-02-10, 07:36 PM
That's not the fluff, that's the description of the ability. You cannot affect magical objects.

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-10, 07:38 PM
"Shatter creates a loud, ringing noise that breaks brittle, nonmagical objects; sunders a single solid, nonmagical object; or damages a crystalline creature."

Where's the confusion coming from?

JackMage666
2007-02-10, 07:52 PM
"Alternatively, you can target shatter against a single solid object, regardless of composition, weighing up to 10 pounds per caster level."

That's the desciption of the targeted aility, and that's where we get confused. I tried to tell the player who did it that it didn't work, but he confused the DM with it. But, with outside opinions, who actually know what's going on, we can disallow it. I'll jsut have to tell him that he has to use Dispel Magic on the item first.

Mewtarthio
2007-02-10, 08:08 PM
"Alternatively, you can target shatter against a single solid object, regardless of composition, weighing up to 10 pounds per caster level."

That's the desciption of the targeted aility, and that's where we get confused. I tried to tell the player who did it that it didn't work, but he confused the DM with it. But, with outside opinions, who actually know what's going on, we can disallow it. I'll jsut have to tell him that he has to use Dispel Magic on the item first.

Common sense should take precedence in this case. Do you think you should be able to Shatter artifacts? How about lightweight monsters that weigh less than ten pounds per caster level? Can a level twenty Wizard instantly Shatter an average human? Can he instantly Shatter a +5 Flaming Screaming Wizard-Killing Vorpal Jabberwockbane Elfbane Humanban Guisarme of the Gods of the Gods of the Gods? It's more logical to interpret the spell as only affecting nonmagical objects.

Besides, the latest version of the spell reads


Shatter creates a loud, ringing noise that breaks brittle, nonmagical objects; sunders a single solid, nonmagical object; or damages a crystalline creature.

Thus, there are exactly three things shatter can do:

Break multiple nonmagical objects (area effect)
Sunder single nonmagical objects (targeted effect)
Damage crystalline creatures (targeted effect)

Douglas
2007-02-10, 08:08 PM
The first sentence is a short summary of all possible uses of Shatter. The rest of the spell description is further detailing, defining ambiguous words ("brittle"), and specifying more restrictions. Without an explicit exception to the restrictions in that first sentence, they remain in effect.

Thomas
2007-02-10, 09:06 PM
Rules that don't explicitly contradict each other are complimentary, as in this case. A general statement is made, and specified later in the spell description.

WhiteHarness
2007-02-10, 09:23 PM
I like the strict wording of this spell. Once, I had a player who wanted to shatter his opponent's mail shirt. He thought that the spell would let him do that. Nope, it says it will shatter one object. I allowed him to shatter one ring of the man's mail. To allow it to utterly destory the guy's armour, with no saving throw, is evil and unbalancing.

Emperor Tippy
2007-02-10, 09:34 PM
White, what if the guy was wearing full plate? Or a breastplate. He could shatter the chest piece or breastplate but not the mail shirt/chain shirt?

Thomas
2007-02-10, 09:54 PM
That's a silly definition. An object, in game terms, can be quite complex. Or do you require enchanters to enchant each link of maille individually, too? Each helmet and gauntlet? Each plate of a suit of plate armor?

Pft.

kamikasei
2007-02-10, 09:55 PM
White, what if the guy was wearing full plate? Or a breastplate. He could shatter the chest piece or breastplate but not the mail shirt/chain shirt?

If he had the levels to make up the armour's weight at 10lb a level, I'd say he ought to be able to use shatter on a nonmagical piece of armour, except that:


Shatter creates a loud, ringing noise that breaks brittle, nonmagical objects; sunders a single solid, nonmagical object; or damages a crystalline creature. (here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shatter.htm))

You canít sunder armor worn by another character. (here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#sunder))

If a 3rd-level caster (weight limit 30lb) wants to try to shatter a chain shirt (weight 25lb) merely being carried by an opponent, why not?

Thomas
2007-02-10, 09:58 PM
That's a better reason not to allow it, definitely.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-02-10, 10:00 PM
Ladies, look out for the pervert wizard- armed with a full array of daily uses of shatter.

Thomas
2007-02-10, 10:02 PM
Can you sunder clothes being worn? Shatter wouldn't work, but a plain old Improved Sunder fighter cutting robes into ribbons and shirts into sashes...

oriong
2007-02-10, 10:05 PM
I think that's a misuse of the term 'sunder'. You can't use the sunder action on armor worn by another character, but that's nothing like what the Shatter spell does, it is simply using the term 'sunder' literally (as in to destroy or break apart).

kamikasei
2007-02-10, 10:09 PM
Can you sunder clothes being worn? Shatter wouldn't work, but a plain old Improved Sunder fighter cutting robes into ribbons and shirts into sashes...

Well, the issue about worn armour is purely a limitation of sunder. So I guess the answer depends on whether clothing is counted as "armour". Otherwise, the thing about not being able to sunder is the last line of a paragraph all about how to sunder carried or worn items, so I'd say Zorro can still get away with his signature move.


I think that's a misuse of the term 'sunder'. You can't use the sunder action on armor worn by another character, but that's nothing like what the Shatter spell does, it is simply using the term 'sunder' literally (as in to destroy or break apart).

Not at all. It looks to me like they deliberately used "sunder" there to distinguish sundering a solid object from breaking a brittle one. Surely they would have used another word if the link to the sunder action wasn't intended... am I giving Wizards too much credit?

Wehrkind
2007-02-10, 10:09 PM
Sounds like a good feat chain for the swash buckler fighter fighter in a less than serious campaign. Put in a bonus to Intimidate if he pulls off a "sunder: cod peice" roll.

oriong
2007-02-10, 10:18 PM
Not at all. It looks to me like they deliberately used "sunder" there to distinguish sundering a solid object from breaking a brittle one. Surely they would have used another word if the link to the sunder action wasn't intended... am I giving Wizards too much credit?

I really think it's just being literal here. The effects of the shatter spell share absolutely nothing in common with the Sunder action other than their common target (objects) and goal (destroying objects). I can very definitely tell you that casting a shatter spell is not a sunder attempt. It doesn't require an attack roll, it doesn't inflict actual damage, instead it allows a saving throw and simply destroys the object.

If they did intend for it to be read in that way they're being far, far too vague by simply using the phrase 'it sunders'.

cupkeyk
2007-02-10, 10:26 PM
I have a Sonic Damage and object Question. What about Resonating Bolt. The spell description makes no limitations to the objects it can destroy. Can it basically strip another being naked (as well as damage them)?

The_Snark
2007-02-10, 10:38 PM
I have a Sonic Damage and object Question. What about Resonating Bolt. The spell description makes no limitations to the objects it can destroy. Can it basically strip another being naked (as well as damage them)?

Objects worn or carried don't take damage from area-of-effect spells unless the wearer/carrier rolls a natural 1 on the save, if I recall correctly. This spell doesn't change that, it just does full damage to those objects that it does affectóas opposed to most energy spells, which deal half damage against objects.

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-10, 10:44 PM
Really, if you want to destroy someone's objects, a chained targeted Dispel Magic followed by a chained Shatter is all you need. Doable from 11th level on--earlier if you can buy a lesser rod of chaining.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-02-10, 10:47 PM
Hmm. Could you hit someone with flesh to stone and then shatter them? Because that would be one bad ass finish.

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-10, 10:51 PM
No, because your caster level is unlikely to be able to shatter that heavy an object.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-02-10, 11:00 PM
How so? Ordinary humans weigh 120 pounds by RAW. That's only level 12.

Annarrkkii
2007-02-10, 11:01 PM
I think that you can definitely sunder worn clothing. The Epic Levels Handbook (an admittedly completely non-authoritative source) had a section, if I recall correctly, concerning the DMs potential ways to deal with epic characters. One of these was to have the NPCs use sunder or disarm to destroy/rip off robes, headbands, and the like if the PCs were relying on worn items for power.

It didn't outline the rules for this—it just referenced it as a strategy.

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-10, 11:07 PM
How so? Ordinary humans weigh 120 pounds by RAW. That's only level 12.

Now turn that volume to stone. Suddenly, they weigh much more.

kamikasei
2007-02-10, 11:09 PM
How so? Ordinary humans weigh 120 pounds by RAW. That's only level 12.

All their gear would get turned to stone, too. (Carried gear, too, which could be quite a bit.) For a male human you're looking at 175 pounds weight on average (the 120 lb is the base weight, with the actual minimum being 124 lb for a 5' tall guy); add in a modest weight of armour, weaponry etc. and you're over the limit. An average-build male human wearing a chain shirt is already at the limit for a level 20 caster.

And of course, all of this is assuming that flesh-to-stone doesn't alter the density of the transmuted person. It doesn't say anything about it in the spell specification, but it's not much of a reach to assume that the person is turned to actual, heavy stone.

Thomas
2007-02-10, 11:10 PM
Hmm. Could you hit someone with flesh to stone and then shatter them? Because that would be one bad ass finish.

I think the fundamental issue there is that the petrified person doesn't become an object, and can't be affected as an object. I might be wrong.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-02-10, 11:10 PM
Hmm. Is there any official measurement for the weight of ordinary stone in D&D?

Maelstrom
2007-02-10, 11:29 PM
Well, your standard human is just a bit less massive than water. Water is 62 pounds to the cubic foot, so let say "normal" (slightly positively buoyant in water) humans weigh in at 60 lbs per cubic foot. This puts your example of a "normal" human being of 120 lbs (shouldn't this be more like 150??) has a volume of around 2 cubic feet. Granite weighs in at 167.5 lbs per cubic foot (limestone is almost the same, about 162.5 lbs/cubic foot)

So, your "average human" turned to stone (granite in my example), disregarding all equipment, is weighing in at a hefty 335 pounds... A bit out of scope for shatter...

JackMage666
2007-02-11, 01:20 AM
Here's another question - Can Dark Speech work in a zone of magical silence, or is it mechanically immune to silence (not audibly, but would still work). Or, is it treated like a spell with verbal components?

Hario
2007-02-11, 01:49 AM
you could use Shrink Item which halfs the weight of the object, but then again, that adds another spell. Besides it could be a halfling which normally weighs 30 lbs, and that's be pretty easy to shatter right? Probably lvl 8 or so.

JimmyDPawn
2007-02-11, 03:10 AM
Really, if you want to destroy someone's objects, a chained targeted Dispel Magic followed by a chained Shatter is all you need.

If I recall, dispel magic (even targeted) doesn't remove a weapon's enhancement. It can only surpress it. The magic is still there, just non functional.

Which is good, because that would mean every 5th level caster could set back the party's fighter 2000 gp or more with one spell.

Quietus
2007-02-11, 03:15 AM
Ladies, look out for the pervert wizard- armed with a full array of daily uses of shatter.

Meh. Just use Mage Hand. 0-level, no save, no spell resistance. Look out for that nasty ghost-breeze, ladies!

Ramza00
2007-02-11, 03:16 AM
If the object that you target is a magic item, you make a dispel check against the itemís caster level. If you succeed, all the itemís magical properties are suppressed for 1d4 (javascript:void(0);) rounds, after which the item recovers on its own. A suppressed item becomes nonmagical for the duration of the effect. An interdimensional interface (such as a bag of holding) is temporarily closed. A magic itemís physical properties are unchanged: A suppressed magic sword is still a sword (a masterwork sword, in fact). Artifacts and deities are unaffected by mortal magic such as this

Yes it works, a DM shouldn't do it for much the same reason he shouldn't use Mage's Disjunction. A player shouldn't use it for he reduces the loot he gets after the encounter.

Bears With Lasers
2007-02-11, 03:18 AM
If I recall, dispel magic (even targeted) doesn't remove a weapon's enhancement. It can only surpress it. The magic is still there, just non functional.

Which is good, because that would mean every 5th level caster could set back the party's fighter 2000 gp or more with one spell.

As someone's already quoted, dispel magic temporarily makes it nonmagical. While it's nonmagical, you can shatter it.

JimmyDPawn
2007-02-11, 03:21 AM
Hmm... 'ppears so.

:-/ It still seems cheap to me, personally, but, that's how it goes.

oriong
2007-02-11, 03:34 AM
Well think of it this way, there's almost no time that this is actually the wizard's best choice. That's a dispel check, and a saving throw (with a -4 on the DC due to the chain), a 5th level spell and a 6th level spell, plus an extra round or a quicken effect on one of them. Even against just one target there are almost always better options.

The only reason any mage would actually do it is as a not-so-subtle scheme by the DM to get rid of an annoying magic item.

Ramza00
2007-02-11, 03:42 AM
A quicken rod or the imbue familiar with spell like ability makes the combo a lot more "tighter" and practical.

Ramza00
2007-02-11, 03:46 AM
Hmm... 'ppears so.

:-/ It still seems cheap to me, personally, but, that's how it goes.
Destroying all the characters loot, while also removing all there buffs, yes its cheap and shouldn't be used for its cheap.

But it works completely under the rules.

--------------------

On another note if I ever play the spellpoint UA variant with my DM. I would so play a

Wiz 3/Master Specialist 6 (Abjuration)/IotSV 7/Master Specialist 4
(Maybe a lvl of Archmage in there for Arcane Reach)

giving up evocation and necromancy. All those bonuses to dispel magic, levels, and effectively spell spontaneity due to the using of the spellpoint variant.

oriong
2007-02-11, 03:50 AM
Yes but even then a simple Hold Person will use up one third level spell slot, have a higher DC, and won't cost you an additional second level slot and a use of a quicken rod and is more likely to suceed. This will be the case in probably 40-50% of the NPC cases (where you don't really want to use this anyway since it's sacrificing loot) and probably over 90% of the PC cases.

It's possible to make the combo something you can pull off quickly and even sucessfully, but with the same amount of effort you could probably get an equivalent or greater effect.

cupkeyk
2007-02-11, 04:53 AM
Is a helpless character's equipment unattended? Therefore a resonating bolt on a paralyzed creatures technically strips him of everything. Though it would be easier to actually strip him.

If a petrified person is still counted as a person and not an object, it would be easier to have your familiar fly up as the spell's range allows or to a precipice if one is handy and let gravity do its work with a little baleful transposition. Maybe even just a Greater Slide. Heck, I chisel would be funner. Stone shape him into an amorphous mass, then stone to flesh for immortal torment.


Sundering a Carried or Worn Object: You don’t use an opposed attack roll to damage a carried or worn object. Instead, just make an attack roll against the object’s AC. A carried or worn object’s AC is equal to 10 + its size modifier + the Dexterity modifier of the carrying or wearing character. Attacking a carried or worn object provokes an attack of opportunity just as attacking a held object does. To attempt to snatch away an item worn by a defender rather than damage it, see Disarm (http://systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/specialAttacks.html#disarm). You can’t sunder armor worn by another character.



You can use a disarm action to snatch an item worn by the target. If you want to have the item in your hand, the disarm must be made as an unarmed attack. If the item is poorly secured or otherwise easy to snatch or cut away the attacker gets a +4 bonus. Unlike on a normal disarm attempt, failing the attempt doesn’t allow the defender to attempt to disarm you. This otherwise functions identically to a disarm attempt, as noted above.
You can’t snatch an item that is well secured unless you have pinned the wearer (see Grapple (http://systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/specialAttacks.html#grapple)). Even then, the defender gains a +4 bonus on his roll to resist the attempt.

Of course there are mundane ways of getting someone naked as someone mentioned earlier.

MrNexx
2007-02-11, 01:55 PM
Well think of it this way, there's almost no time that this is actually the wizard's best choice. That's a dispel check, and a saving throw (with a -4 on the DC due to the chain), a 5th level spell and a 6th level spell, plus an extra round or a quicken effect on one of them. Even against just one target there are almost always better options.

The only reason any mage would actually do it is as a not-so-subtle scheme by the DM to get rid of an annoying magic item.

A wizard? No. What about a warlock?

Voracious Dispelling + Baleful Utterance.

Arceliar
2007-02-11, 04:30 PM
A wizard? No. What about a warlock?

Voracious Dispelling + Baleful Utterance.

You just described my first warlock exactly.

He also happened to be warforged. After he'd destroy stuff he'd Flee the Scene, and the image he'd leave behind for 1 round was himself pelvic thrusting. By far the most fun I've ever had on any character...