Spheres of Annihilation and artifacts (from Swords thread from homebrew forum)

[Kish]

I firmly believe that the rules are more important than the flavor.

I...disagree. However.

Should any of the swords come into contact with a sphere of annihalation, it would be destroyed since that is what the sphere does.

It's weird that the D&D rules don't seem to address, at all, what happens if any other artifact comes in contact with the Sphere of Annihilation, leaving the Sphere, by the letter of the rules, as a minor artifact that can destroy any major artifact just like that, like a kind of spherical Shieldbreaker which is, yet, somehow vulnerable to a Gate spell or an 11,000 gp Rod of Cancellation.

I would never let a Sphere of Annihilation act like a universal artifact-killer. When the letter of the rules says goofy things I see no reason not to toss it out the window. But huh. The writers really didn't think that one through, did they?

(Even if, somehow, they actually meant for a minor artifact to be able to wipe out all major artifacts just like that, I'm pretty sure they would have mentioned it, instead of just leaving it to implication.)

[Greenish]

So houserule that major artifacts can only be destroyed by a single specific thing mentioned in the description of each, and nothing else can remove them from existence.

There, problem solved.

I also don't see why this is a thread and not a PM.

[hamishspence]

I would say Specific overrides general.

Specific rule on Major Artifacts:


Unlike all other magic items, major artifacts are not easily destroyed. Each should have only a single, specific means of destruction.

overrides the general rule that any matter that contacts a sphere of annihilation is destroyed.

[Alleran]

I would say Specific overrides general.

Specific rule on Major Artifacts:



overrides the general rule that any matter that contacts a sphere of annihilation is destroyed.
That said, doesn't it only say "should" there, not that they do have only one specific method of destruction? After all, Mordenkainen's Disjunction has the explicit statement that it can destroy artifacts, even though a major artifact might have it stated outright that only one thing can destroy it. Which specific statement overrules which?

[hamishspence]

Maybe it only works on minor artifacts? It doesn't always say how hard minor artifacts are to destroy.

Though at least one- the Staff of the Magi- can be destroyed simply by snapping it.

[Kish]

I also don't see why this is a thread and not a PM.
Our disagreement about whether the letter of D&D rules overrides "flavor" is, perhaps, private. My boggling at an aspect of the description of a Sphere of Annihilation I never considered in detail before is not.

Upon reflection, I'll edit the opening post to make that more clear.

[Debihuman]

The sphere of annililation is quirky that way. You have the unstoppable force meeting the imovable object and there really is no good way to adjudicate this other than to say that the sphere only works to a certain point--which then negates what the sphere says that it does.

I wish it had been better written to say that it didn't work on major artifacts. That would have solved many headaches.

I'd go out on a limb and state that if the object in question has only one means of destruction listed in the text, then one of three things can happen: 1. The sphere probably shouldn't be able to destroy the artifact though it can suck the artifact into the void. 2. The sphere destroys the artifact, which then reforms in the void. 3. Both items are destroyed (like putting a bag of holding in a portable hole).

Debby

[Eurus]

For what it's worth, the Age of Worms adventure path has an interesting part at the very end where a Sphere is available. One of the potential uses for it is to wipe out a god's personal equipment, which probably counts -- it works, but the sphere is destroyed in the process. So that's an option.

[ShurikVch]

Hey, Artifacts, major or not, are pretty easy to destroy.
Just cast Apocalypse from the Sky - and artifact will be destroyed.

Also, Pandorym, the Elder Evil, is essentially one big sentient Sphere of Annihilation. Do you think creature, who can tear universe apart, unable to destroy any single artifact?

[lunar2]

I would say Specific overrides general.

Specific rule on Major Artifacts:



overrides the general rule that any matter that contacts a sphere of annihilation is destroyed.

actually, it is specific vs. general.

the specific rule about the function of the sphere of annihilation overrides the general rule about destroying major artifacts.

nice try, but the function of a single item is more specific than the vulnerabilities of an entire class of items.

[hamishspence]

Hey, Artifacts, major or not, are pretty easy to destroy.
Just cast Apocalypse from the Sky - and artifact will be destroyed.

The FAQ said the artifact is a focus, not a material component.

[ShurikVch]

The FAQ said the artifact is a focus, not a material component.FAQ is not RAW

[hamishspence]

Page 78 BoVD:

"A corrupt spell has no material components".

[JoshuaZ]

Page 78 BoVD:

"A corrupt spell has no material components".

Specific trumps general.

Edit: Honestly, the whole thing is sort of just ridiculous, it works RAW and clearly also wasn't intended for player use. They didn't think through what would happen or all the consequences. This is not the only example of something in BoVD where they assumed without thinking too hard that it would only stay in the DM's hand.

[hamishspence]

Or, in-book error.