Does Shatter break a web?

[CoffeeIncluded]

So my players are in a boss battle and the very first move the bosses (yes there are two, and they pinned the players in a corridor and are firing spells from above) did was to trap the players in a Web. Everyone but the ranger and the wizard failed their saves. The warlock cast Shatter on the webs that entangled him.

Does he have to make a concentration check? Can he even use the spell to get himself out of the web?

[Cespenar]

Quoting SRD:


An entangled character who attempts to cast a spell must make a Concentration check (DC 15 + the spell’s level) or lose the spell.


Alternatively, you can target shatter against a single solid object, regardless of composition, weighing up to 10 pounds per caster level.

So, yes and yes to your questions.

[CoffeeIncluded]

Thanks, I'll let him know. I don't know warlocks well.

[HaikenEdge]

That really depends on whether you consider the Web magic, given the following in the description of Web (emphasis mine):


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

If the Web is a magical object, then it doesn't work. If the web produced is nonmagical, then it works.

[prufock]

If the Web is a magical object, then it doesn't work. If the web produced is nonmagical, then it works.
Since it has a timed duration (rather than instantanous), I'm inclined to say it's magical, since detect magic would read it that way. So shatter wouldn't work, in my opinion.

[Draz74]

You also have to rule what definition of "solid" is in the Shatter rules.

Lots of people on this forum assume it's the definition of "solid" meaning "not liquid, gas, or plasma." But that's not the only meaning of the word. Another meaning is "rigid," which (IMO) was pretty clearly the intended definition here. And a web probably wouldn't qualify.

[Ernir]

I'd also put a question mark near spider goo counting as "solid".

Regardless, at a real table, I'd probably let it slide - players are happy when their toys work. Possibly at reduced effectiveness in this case, because I find the idea of someone "shattering" a web using loud noises slightly far-fetched...

[Lord Vukodlak]

I'd also put a question mark near spider goo counting as "solid".

Regardless, at a real table, I'd probably let it slide - players are happy when their toys work. Possibly at reduced effectiveness in this case, because I find the idea of someone "shattering" a web using loud noises slightly far-fetched...
I'd allow it... how often do you really get to use shatter?

[Silva Stormrage]

I'd allow it... how often do you really get to use shatter?

If you are a warlock with that invocation a LOT :smalltongue:

I don't think I would allow it as I go with the "Solid as in rigid" approach and a web isn't really rigid.

[HaikenEdge]

I'd allow it... how often do you really get to use shatter?

Shatter is one of the big five in my bag of tricks, the others being Time Hop, Disintegrate, Prestidigitation, and the tree token. Those five spells/powers/item can pretty much solve any problem if you just apply it properly, and if you're able to use it at will, Shatter is one of the best effects in the game.

[Phelix-Mu]

Shatter is one of the big five in my bag of tricks, the others being Time Hop, Disintegrate, Prestidigitation, and the tree token. Those five spells/powers/item can pretty much solve any problem if you just apply it properly, and if you're able to use it at will, Shatter is one of the best effects in the game.

Oh, I do like this list. I think we need an arena where everyone has to solve as many problems as possible using just these powers. For added difficulty, make some of them a restricted resource.

[HaikenEdge]

Oh, I do like this list. I think we need an arena where everyone has to solve as many problems as possible using just these powers. For added difficulty, make some of them a restricted resource.

Better yet, make it an arena where each contestant gets to pick their "Big X", where X is a number, and those are the only spells/powers/items they can use. That way, more spells/powers/items can be looked at for creative use, than if the power/spell/item set was restricted to a set of power/spell/items.

[Phelix-Mu]

Being a druid at heart, the existence of tree token itself is basically an invitation for me to break the game with as many uses for that item as possible.

To the OP, I'd probably say no, shatter doesn't work. The spell effect itself seems to be to power the web's function, since it isn't permanent. Even when made permanent, it doesn't seem like a normal web, since it regrows itself.

Also, there's that thought about "solid."

But I don't see any real harm in allowing it to work. Just remember that you ruled that way if you do, because the players certainly will.

[HaikenEdge]

Being a druid at heart, the existence of tree token itself is basically an invitation for me to break the game with as many uses for that item as possible.

Because the GMs I've played with have all always ruled that the tree from the tree token doesn't just instantly appear out of nowhere, but sprout up out of the token, I've used it alternatively as (A) a launching pad, (B) as a weight, and (C) a battering ram or a bridge after turning it sideways, making it one of the most effective weapons for taking down large enemies with a minor expenditure of resources. Yeah, it's a blow to my WBL, but the tree token is, in my opinion, the singular undervalued magical item in the game, and whenever I play an artificer, I make sure I have a dedicated wright that makes nothing but those things.

[Chronos]

I can see the argument for "solid" as meaning "rigid", but I think that's ruled out by the spell specifically stating "regardless of composition".

[pwykersotz]

Shatter is one of the big five in my bag of tricks, the others being Time Hop, Disintegrate, Prestidigitation, and the tree token. Those five spells/powers/item can pretty much solve any problem if you just apply it properly, and if you're able to use it at will, Shatter is one of the best effects in the game.

I've never been able to use Time Hop myself. All my creativity just seems to dry up when I try to think of uses. Do you have a short (or long) list of how you use it?

[Lord Vukodlak]

I've never been able to use Time Hop myself. All my creativity just seems to dry up when I try to think of uses. Do you have a short (or long) list of how you use it?

1: Say your fighting six enemies, time hop three of them so they are no longer a threat. It can take a foe(s) out of combat for a few rounds giving the PC's time to recover or deal with the other threats. The spell lacks the teleportation subschool, mind-affecting or death. So it bypasses a whole host of immunities.

2: Time hop allies, the psion in my group has used the ability to save allies would otherwise have been killed. Their incapacitated or otherwise one enemy action away from death and the cleric can't reach them in time. So he time hoped the character so he's no longer a target.

[Deophaun]

I can see the argument for "solid" as meaning "rigid", but I think that's ruled out by the spell specifically stating "regardless of composition".
Not necessairly. The condition works regardless of interpretation. A solid globe will shatter regardless of whether it is made of crystal, plastic, concrete, paper mache, or styrofoam, even if a plastic tarp would not.

[ericgrau]

"Liquid" is also a composition, but obviously not included. In context it still means regardless of solid composition and we're back to square 1.

[Curmudgeon]

"Liquid" is also a composition, but obviously not included.
Liquid is not included because liquids and gases are not D&D objects. Thus "solid object" cannot mean "neither liquid nor gas" for another reason (beyond being anachronistic in a society using alchemy rather than chemistry).

"Solid" can mean any of the following:

rigid, not flexible
without interior voids
formed of only a single substance
It's a responsibility of each individual DM to pick one (or more) of these definitions in order to adjudicate Shatter.

[Dimers]

Not-intended-to-be-RAW answer: For a spell versus spell situation, I generally go for an opposed caster level check.

[DeusMortuusEst]

I've never been able to use Time Hop myself. All my creativity just seems to dry up when I try to think of uses. Do you have a short (or long) list of how you use it?

You can use it on objects as well. Time hop is the ultimate key, you just remove the door for a few seconds.

[HaikenEdge]

I've never been able to use Time Hop myself. All my creativity just seems to dry up when I try to think of uses. Do you have a short (or long) list of how you use it?

The entire text of Time Hop, courtesy of the SRD (spoilered for size):


Time Hop
Psychoportation
Level: Psion/wilder 3
Display: Auditory and visual
Manifesting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One Medium or smaller creature, or one object weighing 300 lb. or less
Duration: 1 round/level; see text
Saving Throw: Will negates
Power Resistance: Yes
Power Points: 5

The subject of the power hops forward in time 1 round for every manifester level you have. In effect, the subject seems to disappear in a shimmer of silver energy, then reappear after the duration of this power expires. The subject reappears in exactly the same orientation and condition as before. From the subject’s point of view, no time has passed at all.

In each round of the power’s duration, on what would have been the subject’s turn, it can attempt a DC 15 Wisdom check. Success allows the subject to return. The subject can act normally on its next turn after this power ends.

If the space from which the subject departed is occupied upon his return to the time stream, he appears in the closest unoccupied space, still in his original orientation. Determine the closest space randomly if necessary.

Augment

You can augment this power in one or both of the following ways.

For every 2 additional power points you spend, you can affect a creature of one size category larger, or double the weight of an object to be affected.
For every 2 additional power points you spend, this power can affect an additional target. Any additional target cannot be more than 15 feet from another target of the power.



In addition to being the ultimate key, in the sense that it can make any door vanish for a brief period, it also leaves the door otherwise unaltered, meaning, no tool marks or signs of forced entry. It's like you were never there, except, well, you were, and you got past it. Also, works on manacles. And annoying NPCs. And be suppressed to make no light or noise.
Like Shatter, it can be used as a Will-based disarm, except (A) it works on magic items and (B) the item isn't destroyed, so you can loot it later.
With the correct augmentations, size becomes no barrier; every 2 pp spent explicitly doubles the weight, meaning 4 pp will quadruple the base weight, etc. This means you can make practically anything vanish for a brief period, given high enough ML and enough power points. Or, time hop individual bricks out of a house and make it fall over; you'll probably need ranks in Knowledge (Architecture and Engineering) for that, though.
If your DM allows the use of Quickened Power as an immediate action, you can Time Hop yourself out of fireballs and other instantaneous AoE effects. Or, a boulder being launched by a catapult, so the people in the vicinity can get out of the way. Or, a charger, so, in the following turn, you can use one of your other abilities to set a trap for the charger, since, when they return, they're still doing previously, so, say, disintegrate a pit for them.
People often look at objects as a whole; with things like Time Hop and Shatter, it's necessary to look at component parts. If you want to stop of a wagon, and it doesn't matter if the wagon gets damaged, you could time hop the axle or one of the wheels. If the door is too big and heavy, time hop the locking mechanism.
If your rogue detects a trap (s)he cannot disarm, time hop it, or the triggering mechanism. Or, in the case of a ward, time hop the ward.
Put yourself into a portable hole, then time hop while in the hole to conserve air.


Time hop is very versatile; it just requires geometric thinking, and a DM who is willing to describe environments in detail.

[Zaq]

Yeah, Time Hop is pretty much abuse in a can. There's lots of magic to say "this thing in your way is no longer in your way," but Time Hop is one of the only ones that puts it back afterwards. And it's relatively low-level; hell, you can get it in E6.

You do have to ask your GM about frame of reference. If you use Time Hop on a dude in a chair, then you move the chair, does he fall to the floor when he comes back, or does the chair suddenly get much heavier? Most GMs will say that he falls to the floor, but that can have you end up with some weird consequences when dealing with a moving vehicle (or other large moving things).

For real shenanigans, Burrowing Power gets rid of the need for LoE. You need a way to cheese around LoS, but if you can do that, then you can time hop away things that are inside other things. That gets fun.

Even if your GM rules that hopping a container hops all its contents too, you can still do some shenanigans, especially with Burrowing Power.

But yeah. It basically gives you control over what objects exist and don't exist to an extent that nothing else will, at least not so early on. Hop away a door. Hop away a single link in a chain. Hop away a pressure plate. Hop away a ceiling tile. Hop away some possession that a dupe walking by isn't paying attention to (and then grab it when it reappears after he leaves). Hop away the enemy's sword (sure, it gets a save, but who cares?) or other important item that he'll be much easier to fight without. It's hax. Pure hax.

[Curmudgeon]

You can use it on objects as well. Time hop is the ultimate key, you just remove the door for a few seconds.
And how are you going to target a door attached to a wall? You need an object for your target, and you can't target a door attached to a wall independently any more than you can target one plank of that door. To be a targetable object it's got to be independent of other parts of the environment. This is why you can't target a (nonmagical) bowstring instead of the (magical) bow it's part of; the string isn't a separate object unless you unstring it first. So you're free to use Time Hop on a door — but only after you first remove the door from the wall.

[Rubik]

And how are you going to target a door attached to a wall? You need an object for your target, and you can't target a door attached to a wall independently any more than you can target one plank of that door. To be a targetable object it's got to be independent of other parts of the environment. This is why you can't target a (nonmagical) bowstring instead of the (magical) bow it's part of; the string isn't a separate object unless you unstring it first. So you're free to use Time Hop on a door — but only after you first remove the door from the wall.Can you can sunder a door? Can you can Disintegrate a door? Can you can Silence a door? Can you can Animate a door?

Basically, if you can do those things independent of what they're attached to, you can target them, meaning you can affect them with Time Hop.

[Curmudgeon]

Can you can sunder a door? Can you can Disintegrate a door? Can you can Silence a door? Can you can Animate a door?
Sunder: Not unless the door is carried or worn.
Disintegrate: depends on the targeting.
... the ray simply disintegrates as much as one 10-foot cube of nonliving matter. Thus, the spell disintegrates only part of any very large object or structure targeted.
Silence: can be cast on a point in space and thus could cover the door and surroundings.
Basically, if you can do those things independent of what they're attached to, you can target them, meaning you can affect them with Time Hop. You can't do any of those things independent of the environment around the door.

[TuggyNE]

Liquid is not included because liquids and gases are not D&D objects.

Beg pardon? What's the source for this?

Within core, purify food and drink targets a volume of "food and water", with no particular container specified, and has the (object) tag on its saving throw and SR entries. Thus, the spell considers an indefinite quantity of water to be an object in its own right.

[Aquillion]

Sunder: Not unless the door is carried or worn.
Disintegrate: depends on the targeting.
Silence: can be cast on a point in space and thus could cover the door and surroundings. You can't do any of those things independent of the environment around the door.A better example is Shatter. Few people would disagree that Shatter can target a door (provided it's within your weight limits); since it's a spell that targets an object, if it can work on a door, Time Hop probably can, too.

[Deophaun]

And how are you going to target a door attached to a wall? You need an object for your target, and you can't target a door attached to a wall independently any more than you can target one plank of that door.

So in order to break down a door you have to destroy the castle it is attached too...:smallconfused:

[Curmudgeon]

A better example is Shatter. Few people would disagree that Shatter can target a door (provided it's within your weight limits); since it's a spell that targets an object ...
I disagree. Shatter can't target a door that's part of a wall. Detach the door from the wall first and it becomes a valid target for the spell.

A door is an assembly of parts: wood, fasteners, handle, hinges, & c. The hinges are firmly attached to both the door and the jamb (part of the wall). Until you separate something, all you've got for a target is the wall.

[Rubik]

I disagree. Shatter can't target a door that's part of a wall. Detach the door from the wall first and it becomes a valid target for the spell.

A door is an assembly of parts: wood, fasteners, handle, hinges, & c. The hinges are firmly attached to both the door and the jamb (part of the wall). Until you separate something, all you've got for a target is the wall.How do you explain the Knock spell, then? It explicitly targets a lock (which is an individual component of a door or chest), or a door itself, and there are other similar spells, as well. If you can target a lock with Knock, why couldn't you target it with Time Hop, or the door it's attached to?

[HaikenEdge]

And how are you going to target a door attached to a wall? You need an object for your target, and you can't target a door attached to a wall independently any more than you can target one plank of that door. To be a targetable object it's got to be independent of other parts of the environment. This is why you can't target a (nonmagical) bowstring instead of the (magical) bow it's part of; the string isn't a separate object unless you unstring it first. So you're free to use Time Hop on a door — but only after you first remove the door from the wall.

I'm sorry, but by this logic, you can't even target the wall, since it's attached to the rest of the building, and you can't even target the building, since it's attached to the ground, which is in turn attached to the rest of the world.

[Curmudgeon]

How do you explain the Knock spell, then? It explicitly targets a lock (which is an individual component of a door or chest), or a door itself, and there are other similar spells, as well.
Target: One door, box, or chest with an area of up to 10 sq. ft./level You can do only what a spell or power allows, and no more. Knock allows you to target a door or a lock.

If you can target a lock with Knock, why couldn't you target it with Time Hop, or the door it's attached to? Why couldn't I? Mainly because these have different target specifications, and I didn't fail my reading comprehension check. :smallwink:
Target: One Medium or smaller creature, or one object weighing 300 lb. or less
The power doesn't allow targeting a door when it's part of a wall; you can only target creatures and objects. To make a door that's attached to a wall a separate object and thus subject to Time Hop you need to detach it first.

[Rubik]

You can do only what a spell or power allows, and no more. Knock allows you to target a door or a lock.

Why couldn't I? Mainly because these have different target specifications, and I didn't fail my reading comprehension check. :smallwink:

The power doesn't allow targeting a door when it's part of a wall; you can only target creatures and objects. To make a door that's attached to a wall a separate object and thus subject to Time Hop you need to detach it first.If one spell allows you to target one type of object, and another allows you to target any type of object (of which the first is a subset), how does one being more specific than the other render the other invalid, exactly?

Knock shows that the door can be targeted to the exclusion of the building it's attached to, which means it's a separate object, and thus Time Hop can affect the door if said door is within the weight limits. The surrounding building doesn't affect that whatsoever.

[Jack_Simth]

I'm sorry, but by this logic, you can't even target the wall, since it's attached to the rest of the building, and you can't even target the building, since it's attached to the ground, which is in turn attached to the rest of the world.

With the correct augmentations, size becomes no barrier; every 2 pp spent explicitly doubles the weight, meaning 4 pp will quadruple the base weight, etc. This means you can make practically anything vanish for a brief period

This combination begs a question: What manifester level (and how many power points) do you need to Time Hop a planet like Earth? Also, what happens to everyone and everything not considered part of the planet when you do?

[Rubik]

This combination begs a question: What manifester level (and how many power points) do you need to Time Hop a planet like Earth? Also, what happens to everyone and everything not considered part of the planet when you do?You'd have to have a manifester level of, I think, 125 to Time Hop the Earth, while ignoring all the plants, animals, atmosphere, and water. 5 just to manifest Time Hop, and 120 for the number of power points you'd need to augment it to 300 x 260 pounds.

As for what happens after that, I think everything would basically scatter in all directions due to lack of gravity pulling the atmosphere and everything else toward a central spot, so they'd be flung in all directions from the momentum they'd have due to spinning around a central axis, as well as spinning around the sun.

[Deophaun]

I'm sorry, but by this logic, you can't even target the wall, since it's attached to the rest of the building, and you can't even target the building, since it's attached to the ground, which is in turn attached to the rest of the world.
Which is attached to four elephants, so the spell needs to be able to target multiple creatures. The good news is that the door is now a valid target for charm animal.

[Curmudgeon]

If one spell allows you to target one type of object, and another allows you to target any type of object (of which the first is a subset) ...
That's not this situation at all. Knock allows you to target a portion of an object. A spell which can only target whole objects doesn't have the same capability.

[olentu]

That's not this situation at all. Knock allows you to target a portion of an object. A spell which can only target whole objects doesn't have the same capability.

You know, I am kind of wondering why you are not just pointing people to the place in the rules which states that doors are not separate objects from the walls that they are attached to. Since you obviously must have something that you are basing your argument on would it not be more sensible to give the name of a book and a page number so as to unquestionably prove that you are correct.

[Rubik]

That's not this situation at all. Knock allows you to target a portion of an object. A spell which can only target whole objects doesn't have the same capability.And I assume the fact that doors are statted up as singular objects (as are locks and hinges) means nothing. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/dungeons.htm#doors)

[Curmudgeon]

And I assume the fact that doors are statted up as singular objects (as are locks and hinges) means nothing. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/dungeons.htm#doors)
Interesting "doors" link; thanks for sharing it. Of course, checking the content there shows the word "object" isn't used to refer to doors at all. So I appreciate you shoring up my argument. :smallsmile:

A door is part of the environment (the wall of a structure), until you detach it. The rules at this link tell you how to go about breaking a door that's part of a structure by attacking it. The rules there don't say you can use a spell which only targets objects on an attached door.

Magic in D&D can accomplish many of the same things you can do with weapons and tools — but not everything, and not necessarily as easily.

[Rubik]

Interesting "doors" link; thanks for sharing it. Of course, checking the content there shows the word "object" isn't used to refer to doors at all. So I appreciate you shoring up my argument. :smallsmile:

A door is part of the environment (the wall of a structure), until you detach it. The rules at this link tell you how to go about breaking a door that's part of a structure by attacking it. The rules there don't say you can use a spell which only targets objects on an attached door.

Magic in D&D can accomplish many of the same things you can do with weapons and tools — but not everything, and not necessarily as easily.You're really stretching here, saying how the evidence that backs my argument makes yours stronger, especially since it does nothing of the sort. You have yet to put forth any proof whatsoever that your argument is in any way valid.

[olentu]

Interesting "doors" link; thanks for sharing it. Of course, checking the content there shows the word "object" isn't used to refer to doors at all. So I appreciate you shoring up my argument. :smallsmile:

A door is part of the environment (the wall of a structure), until you detach it. The rules at this link tell you how to go about breaking a door that's part of a structure by attacking it. The rules there don't say you can use a spell which only targets objects on an attached door.

Magic in D&D can accomplish many of the same things you can do with weapons and tools — but not everything, and not necessarily as easily.

Huh, still not going to bother actually pointing people at the rules that would clearly demonstrate that you are correct. I mean, it would be as easy as saying something like PHB p. 166, or DMG p. 263, or something. Well not necessarily as easy, since you might need to go look up the page number of the rule that says that doors are treated as part of the walls they are attached to, but still very easy. So easy, in fact, that one might start to believe that your argument is not actually based on the rules and is merely some stuff you made up. But, of course, that would be silly.

[Just to Browse]

Curmudgeon, argumentum ex negativo is a fallacy unless no other alternative can be gleaned.

[Phelix-Mu]

I'm not sure I agree, but I think the argument is about possible arbitrary subdivisions of objects when using spells that target objects. If I want to cast shatter on, say, a tree, but it's too big, I can't just target a smaller part of that tree.

I think that's the crux of the matter at hand. Not sure where any evidence supporting either position would be found.

[Draz74]

Participating in de-railing (because I've been nerd-sniped):

As for what happens after that, I think everything would basically scatter in all directions due to lack of gravity pulling the atmosphere and everything else toward a central spot, so they'd be flung in all directions from the momentum they'd have due to spinning around a central axis, as well as spinning around the sun.

Things wouldn't "scatter" very dramatically without some kind of force to do so; I think the net effect would be that the object arranged all over the surface of the planet, to a first approximation, would merely continue following earth's orbit while maintaining the shape of a spherical shell.

There would be some gravitational attraction of these surface-objects to each other, but it would be utterly dwarfed by gravitational effects from the moon and sun. The air, being a gas that is too light to be captured by bodies such as Mercury, would indeed "scatter" and disperse into space, but not, I think, within the time scale of a Time Hop.

Actually, a lot depends on the DM's ruling of what happens when the planet re-appears if a small fraction of its former space is now occupied by other, much less massive objects (since some surface objects inevitably will have fallen below their former altitude, just due to statistically Brownian motion). By strict RAW, the planet would then re-appear off to the side of its former position, which would cause pretty crazy results. But I think it would be much more sensible to have all the little objects that have "fallen" a little bit into the planet's space get shunted back upwards to their former altitude.

[Zanos]

Interesting "doors" link; thanks for sharing it. Of course, checking the content there shows the word "object" isn't used to refer to doors at all. So I appreciate you shoring up my argument. :smallsmile:

A door is part of the environment (the wall of a structure), until you detach it. The rules at this link tell you how to go about breaking a door that's part of a structure by attacking it. The rules there don't say you can use a spell which only targets objects on an attached door.

Magic in D&D can accomplish many of the same things you can do with weapons and tools — but not everything, and not necessarily as easily.
http://replygif.net/i/147.gif

To answer the OPs original question, you can't Shatter a web because a Web is a magical effect with a duration. If you had an instantaneous conjuration version of web that created something, then you could shatter it. In this case of web, you would need something like dispel magic.

[DeusMortuusEst]

And how are you going to target a door attached to a wall? You need an object for your target, and you can't target a door attached to a wall independently any more than you can target one plank of that door. To be a targetable object it's got to be independent of other parts of the environment. This is why you can't target a (nonmagical) bowstring instead of the (magical) bow it's part of; the string isn't a separate object unless you unstring it first. So you're free to use Time Hop on a door — but only after you first remove the door from the wall.

I would tell my DM "I use time hop on the door" to which he/she would reply something like "Ah, clever. The door disappears for a few moments, giving you enough time to pass through the doorway." Because no one I have ever played with has ever reasoned that everything which happens to be touch in some way is therefore part of the same object. We use a lot of common sense. I don't think that anyone that I play with IRL would object to time hopping a single plank of the door nor sundering/breaking a single plank of the same door.

Also: Rules reference please. I know that you are generally very good at providing sources for your arguments.

/Posted from my phone, apologies if something looks weird.

[Drachasor]

There's nothing in the rules that says one object can't be composed of other objects. Pretty sure you are supposed to use whatever resolution works for the issue at hand.

Edit: You can't target a bow string with a sunder attack, because you have to target a weapon. The string itself is not a weapon; the whole bow is the weapon.

But you can certainly hack at a door. Break a pane of glass. Cut the bowstring on the bow (outside of combat).

Want to break a window with 9 panes of glass in a grid? Sure, no reason why you can't do that. Want to just break one? Sure, no reason why you can't do that. For game purposes you use whatever is a reasonable definition of an object for the purpose at hand.

[Fitz10019]

A door is part of the environment (the wall of a structure), until you detach it.

Your argument is interesting. Let's address other examples of 'attachment' to find the edges.

With manacles attached to a wall, can I target a link? Can I target the manacles as a whole? Can I target the ring that anchors the manacles?

Can I target a wheel or an axle of a cart?

Can I target a rope or chain that keeps a drawbridge or chandelier up?

Can I target a rope that binds someone to a huge tree? Or just a branch of that tree?

Can I target a bridge?

Can I target a net that is engulfing an ally and is held by a foe?

Overall, are "target:Object" spells less specifically 'targetable' than melee and range attacks?

[geekintheground]

actually, a door would be attatched to hinges, which are attached to the wall. and if youre gonna use the transitive property that far, then you can never target ANY object, because they are all in some way connected.

[Deophaun]

And let's not forget the difficulty in getting the material to make the door, as you would be unable to cut down trees, mine ore, or quarry rock.

[Zaq]

actually, a door would be attatched to hinges, which are attached to the wall. and if youre gonna use the transitive property that far, then you can never target ANY object, because they are all in some way connected.

Don't even get started thinking about what this implies for things being "attended."

[HaikenEdge]

And let's not forget the difficulty in getting the material to make the door, as you would be unable to cut down trees, mine ore, or quarry rock.
Player: "I attack this here rock with my axe!"
DM: "Why ever would you ever want to do that?"
Player: "So I can get wood from that tree over there."

[Fitz10019]

actually, a door would be attached to hinges, which are attached to the wall. and if you're gonna use the transitive property that far, then you can never target ANY object, because they are all in some way connected.

That's an exaggeration. The argument refers to attachment, not contact. The idea is to limit the applicability of spells. You can't make part of something invisible, because either the whole target is valid or none of it is. Disintegrate is worded differently, so that partial is okay.

If Shatter could be applied partially, you could Shatter the last inch where a balcony attaches to a structure, and thereby destroy the entire balcony even though it is too big for your spell level. This is the kind of power creep and abuse that the all-or-nothing idea stops.

So I see Curmudgeon's point, but I'm trying to wrap my head around the idea that a door is merely an aspect of the wall, and not an object unto itself. Imagine that a mage can't make a painting invisible until someone takes it off the wall. The idea is so painful, it's beautiful.

Interestingly, Grease specifically says you can coat a weapon handle, and it uses the word 'item' in addition to 'object'.

Is there a distinction to be made between an item, an object and the environs?

[Phelix-Mu]

Item seems synonymous with object, as far as I can tell. "Magic item" is the main use of the word item, though it is used in a mundane context as well. I think the distinction that usually applies is one of size; "items" are somehow vaguely smaller, generally speaking, while "object" has no such context.

But even that is poorly substantiated. "Object" itself is not particularly well-defined, and is used inconsistently at best. For instance, objects have no Wis/Cha, according to PHB...except when they do, as per intelligent items in the DMG. Except those are constructs (which are creatures), except when constructs count as objects (for numerous spells and effects, usually relating to saving throws).

So, basically, they done botched it big time. Ain't no fixin' somethin' that broke.

[Curmudgeon]

So I see Curmudgeon's point, but I'm trying to wrap my head around the idea that a door is merely an aspect of the wall, and not an object unto itself. Imagine that a mage can't make a painting invisible until someone takes it off the wall. The idea is so painful, it's beautiful.
Where does the door end and the wall begin? The door is firmly attached to the hinges, and the hinges are firmly attached to the jamb. The entire point of this sort of construction is to make the door, when closed, be a solid barrier with the rest of the wall. If you've got a wooden door hinged and locked to a wooden wall, what's special about that portion that would allow it to be targeted as if it were a separate object? As far as I can see, there's nothing.

[HaikenEdge]

Where does the door end and the wall begin? The door is firmly attached to the hinges, and the hinges are firmly attached to the jamb. The entire point of this sort of construction is to make the door, when closed, be a solid barrier with the rest of the wall. If you've got a wooden door hinged and locked to a wooden wall, what's special about that portion that would allow it to be targeted as if it were a separate object? As far as I can see, there's nothing.

And now, I can see why he cast magic missile at the darkness, because that darkness was firmly attached to the air, which is firmly attached to the air inside the lungs of all living enemies.

[TuggyNE]

Is there a distinction to be made between an item, an object and the environs?

There's certainly a difference in RAW between items and objects; look no further than intelligent magic items, which are of course still items, but are considered Constructs. Or golems, which are constructed using an [item creation] feat, but are obviously creatures.


But even that is poorly substantiated. "Object" itself is not particularly well-defined, and is used inconsistently at best. For instance, objects have no Wis/Cha, according to PHB...except when they do, as per intelligent items in the DMG. Except those are constructs (which are creatures), except when constructs count as objects (for numerous spells and effects, usually relating to saving throws).

Intelligent items are not objects. Constructs nowhere count as objects to my knowledge, but they are immune to many effects that objects are immune to.

[Rubik]

Participating in de-railing (because I've been nerd-sniped):


Things wouldn't "scatter" very dramatically without some kind of force to do so; I think the net effect would be that the object arranged all over the surface of the planet, to a first approximation, would merely continue following earth's orbit while maintaining the shape of a spherical shell.

There would be some gravitational attraction of these surface-objects to each other, but it would be utterly dwarfed by gravitational effects from the moon and sun. The air, being a gas that is too light to be captured by bodies such as Mercury, would indeed "scatter" and disperse into space, but not, I think, within the time scale of a Time Hop.

Actually, a lot depends on the DM's ruling of what happens when the planet re-appears if a small fraction of its former space is now occupied by other, much less massive objects (since some surface objects inevitably will have fallen below their former altitude, just due to statistically Brownian motion). By strict RAW, the planet would then re-appear off to the side of its former position, which would cause pretty crazy results. But I think it would be much more sensible to have all the little objects that have "fallen" a little bit into the planet's space get shunted back upwards to their former altitude.
The speed of the surface of the Earth at the equator is just over 1,000 mph relative to the Earth's core, and the Earth itself is traveling around the Sun at a speed of around 67,000 mph. The Earth's radius at the equator is approximately 6,371 miles from the center of the core.

Tell me, what do you think would happen if you swung a ball at the end of a 5' tether in a circle as fast as you can and then let go? The same thing would happen to the objects on the surface of the Earth (slower nearer the poles, of course). Now add in swinging around on the edge of a giant gyroscope at a few hundred miles an hour?

That's pretty much the situation for everything but the poles, and even the penguins and icebergs will be flung off, since the Earth would still be in the exact position it was 12.5 minutes prior (ie, about 14,000 miles away, which is larger than the diameter of the Earth).

So basically, everything's flung off of the Earth, with stuff flying off faster nearer the equator, and even at the poles everything would be well away from what it was when the Earth was still there. The Moon would be flung off into space or crash into the Earth itself, depending on its position relative to the Earth when it disappeared, and very little of the detritus would make it back to the Earth due to gravity, although I imagine some of it would.

And that's not even including the fact that the Earth is now potentially 14,000 miles closer to or farther from the Sun, which may or may not leave it unsuitable for life, depending on exactly how wide the circumstellar habitable zone of the Earth is (which is a widely contested topic, as nobody's entirely sure just how wide that is).


Where does the door end and the wall begin? The door is firmly attached to the hinges, and the hinges are firmly attached to the jamb. The entire point of this sort of construction is to make the door, when closed, be a solid barrier with the rest of the wall. If you've got a wooden door hinged and locked to a wooden wall, what's special about that portion that would allow it to be targeted as if it were a separate object? As far as I can see, there's nothing.Since the doors and hinges are statted as separate objects, the door ends at the door, and the hinges end at the hinges.

Duh.

Please tell me you're just trolling everyone.

[olentu]

Where does the door end and the wall begin? The door is firmly attached to the hinges, and the hinges are firmly attached to the jamb. The entire point of this sort of construction is to make the door, when closed, be a solid barrier with the rest of the wall. If you've got a wooden door hinged and locked to a wooden wall, what's special about that portion that would allow it to be targeted as if it were a separate object? As far as I can see, there's nothing.

Hmm, still not going to point to any rule that supports your argument. Yeah, it kind of seems like you are just making this up based on nothing but personal opinion.

[Hague]

That has to be the thinnest argument I've ever heard.

If a rust monster targets me and all I have is a steel belt clasp, then by virtue of your reasoning, the rust monster can't target it because it's a part of my belt, which is a part of my clothing. If it has to target my clothing then it should be able to eat ALL pieces of metal on my person at once or none at all.


I mean, for all the protection from power creep you intend your argument to have, what it would do is drag your game to a screeching halt as the GM and players constantly argue about what exactly their abilities can/cannot target.

A door is an object and its hinges are also their own objects otherwise they wouldn't have their own names. If you can't point out what that disparate part is by name, then obviously it's not its own object. Pillar, column, lock, chest, brick, barrel, beer, boulder, pebble, boot, string

Can I use telekinesis to secretly tie the storm giant's bootlaces in a knot? Well, since the bootlaces are a part of the boots and my telekinesis isn't strong enough to manipulate the entire boot (or both boots since the object is "a pair of boots" through some ultimately trivial and useless point) the answer must be "no," right? Well that sounds incredibly boring and pedantic. Bending over backwards to say "no" to the players is self-defeating and any experienced GM will tell you that.

[Curmudgeon]

If a rust monster targets me and all I have is a steel belt clasp, then by virtue of your reasoning, the rust monster can't target it because it's a part of my belt, which is a part of my clothing.
While Rust monsters are attracted to metal objects, their attack can target any metal, not just objects.
Rust (Ex)

A rust monster that makes a successful touch attack with its antennae causes the target metal to corrode, falling to pieces and becoming useless immediately. The touch can destroy up to a 10-foot cube of metal instantly. Magic armor and weapons, and other magic items made of metal, must succeed on a DC 17 Reflex save or be dissolved. The save DC is Constitution-based and includes a +4 racial bonus.

A metal weapon that deals damage to a rust monster corrodes immediately. Wooden, stone, and other nonmetallic weapons are unaffected.

[Drachasor]

I'm still wondering how you move from room to room if you can't tell where the wall ends and the door begins. I mean...seriously?

[Aquillion]

Can I use telekinesis to secretly tie the storm giant's bootlaces in a knot? Well, since the bootlaces are a part of the boots and my telekinesis isn't strong enough to manipulate the entire boot (or both boots since the object is "a pair of boots" through some ultimately trivial and useless point) the answer must be "no," right? Well that sounds incredibly boring and pedantic. Bending over backwards to say "no" to the players is self-defeating and any experienced GM will tell you that.Indeed. I personally think that one of the most important things a DM can learn is what Nobilis calls The Monarda Law (http://nobilis.wikia.com/wiki/The_Monarda_Law):


Never Say "No"

The Monarda Law is, simply put, never saying no. Saying no to your players doesn't motivate them to come up with imaginative and creative ways to roleplay in Nobilis. Instead of putting the established campaign plot ahead of your players' fun, adhere to this rule instead and you will not only save your Soul from peril, but you also provide an enjoyable time to your players.

Its application is simple. When a players asks you: "Can I do X?" where "I" means their character and "X" is some course of action, use one of the four answers bellow.


"Yes", if their course of actions seems interesting and harmless;
"How?", if you can't figure out a plausible way to pull it off;
"You can try!", if it's seems believable yet statistically impossible;
"Maybe, but there's a catch", if you can think of a good catch.


Each of these answers can add enjoyment and possibilities to a game. Saying "No" rarely does.

[Zanos]

Indeed. I personally think that one of the most important things a DM can learn is what Nobilis calls The Monarda Law (http://nobilis.wikia.com/wiki/The_Monarda_Law):
My group has always found "Sure, but rolls will be involved." to be a good response.

[Thurbane]

Just as well that glass has been proven to be a solid, not a liquid. When I was at school, my science teacher taught us that glass was a super-viscous liquid.

Would be quite hilarious if Shatter didn't work on glass...

[olentu]

While Rust monsters are attracted to metal objects, their attack can target any metal, not just objects.

Really, even a small range of pages could work (Something like PHB. 247-248, though probably not those exactly) if there are not too many included.

[HaikenEdge]

My group has always found "Sure, but rolls will be involved." to be a good response.

My group calls it, "Rollplay your roleplay."

[Deophaun]

While Rust monsters are attracted to metal objects, their attack can target any metal, not just objects.
I'm sorry, but I read the quoted passage three times, and missed the word "any." My eyes must be going, or perhaps it was attached to another word and so my mind is unable to target it.

[Drachasor]

I think it is important to remember that "object" is not a well-defined concept in 3.X. There are things that imply something is an object, but they never specify all the characteristics of an object. It's mostly left up to be intuitive and physical stuff that's not a creature.

So again, there's nothing that stops one object from being composed of other objects.


While Rust monsters are attracted to metal objects, their attack can target any metal, not just objects.

Barring creatures made of metal, I think you are making a distinction here where none exists.

[Fitz10019]

I think the rust monster ability is written as an area effect for exactly this reason (that 'components' of an object are generally not treated as 'targetable' 'objects').

Consider:

Should a mage be able to use the 'gather' function of Prestidigitation to 'gather all the nails' of a wooden structure or vehicle? or 'all the bolts' of a bridge? or 'all the sand' of a brick-and-mortar structure (which must have sand in the mortar)?

Should a mage be able to use the 'change' function of Prestidigitation to change the prong of the clasp that keeps your shield on your arm from metal to glass (or to sand)?

Should a mage be able to use the 'tie' function of Prestidigitation to tie your bowstring to an arrow?

I think these are an obvious 'no.' D&D is a simulation, and bringing too much object-component detail hurts it just as much as bringing too much physics. Every GM or group has to decide where the 'too much' barrier lies.

I'm leaning towards a rule like this: "if the text refers to a component, it exists and is targetable for spells with LoS, but if the text does not refer to it components, only the whole object is targetable for spells." Result: A shield has straps, but no clasps. Any weapon has a handle, because the Grease spell says so. Carts have wheels but not axles. You can target a door, or its hinges or lock, but not the nails or bolts that the door 'must' have (although the Greatclub may have nails). Saddles have no targetable straps or clasps. If you want to pull every nail from a wooden bridge, get a hammer (or a rust monster).

So I support the spirit of Curmudgeon's argument, but not it's application to doors, because I feel they are named. That's my 2 cents as a DM.

[TuggyNE]

Barring creatures made of metal, I think you are making a distinction here where none exists.

What's MM3 say about warforged and rusties again?

Edit:
Should a mage be able to use the 'gather' function of Prestidigitation to 'gather all the nails' of a wooden structure or vehicle? or 'all the bolts' of a bridge? or 'all the sand' of a brick-and-mortar structure (which must have sand in the mortar)?

It'd require considerably more force than prestidigitation can muster, so no, any more than you can use it to gather all the nearby mountains or harvest all the nearby potatoes.


Should a mage be able to use the 'change' function of Prestidigitation to change the prong of the clasp that keeps your shield on your arm from metal to glass (or to sand)?

It's an attended object. Should a mage be able to use that function to change a worn magic ring into a mundane coin or loop of iron wire?


Should a mage be able to use the 'tie' function of Prestidigitation to tie your bowstring to an arrow?

What would you tie it to, and how? There's no slack in a bowstring, nor a loose end, and an arrow is not any kind of string to tie it to anyway. (And again: attended object. Not to mention the possibility of, oh, tying a worn necklace into a tight strangling knot.)

In none of these cases is the idea of untargetable minor objects of any particular value; it stops no class of abuses and is in no way more logical.

[olentu]

I think the rust monster ability is written as an area effect for exactly this reason (that 'components' of an object are generally not treated as 'targetable' 'objects').

Consider:

Should a mage be able to use the 'gather' function of Prestidigitation to 'gather all the nails' of a wooden structure or vehicle? or 'all the bolts' of a bridge? or 'all the sand' of a brick-and-mortar structure (which must have sand in the mortar)?

Should a mage be able to use the 'change' function of Prestidigitation to change the prong of the clasp that keeps your shield on your arm from metal to glass (or to sand)?

Should a mage be able to use the 'tie' function of Prestidigitation to tie your bowstring to an arrow?

I think these are an obvious 'no.' D&D is a simulation, and bringing too much object-component detail hurts it just as much as bringing too much physics. Every GM or group has to decide where the 'too much' barrier lies.

I'm leaning towards a rule like this: "if the text refers to a component, it exists and is targetable for spells with LoS, but if the text does not refer to it components, only the whole object is targetable for spells." Result: A shield has straps, but no clasps. Any weapon has a handle, because the Grease spell says so. Carts have wheels but not axles. You can target a door, or its hinges or lock, but not the nails or bolts that the door 'must' have (although the Greatclub may have nails). Saddles have no targetable straps or clasps. If you want to pull every nail from a wooden bridge, get a hammer (or a rust monster).

So I support the spirit of Curmudgeon's argument, but not it's application to doors, because I feel they are named. That's my 2 cents as a DM.

Eh, things being open to abuse and things being the rules are not really necessarily related. From what I can tell the doors are actually walls argument is supposed to be the latter. Now sure, if his argument was that doors not being walls is abusable so a good houserule might be that doors are actually walls then that would be a different matter, but that does not seem to be what he is saying.

[Fitz10019]

It'd require considerably more force than prestidigitation can muster, so no, any more than you can use it to gather all the nearby mountains or harvest all the nearby potatoes.
I was referring to 'gather' from this article:
https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20010707

And I chose nails assuming they fit the category fine (unlike mountains or potatoes), individually weigh less than a pound, and their heads would be in LoS.


Eh, things being open to abuse and things being the rules are not really necessarily related.
Well, we're discussing a later edition, so I think the rules often attempt (with varying degrees of success) to block abuse. The creature conjuration requirement "on a surface that supports it" comes from abuse. Specifying the size and weight of a spell's applicability is an attempt to limit that spell's uses.

It's not much different than the HD-based spells. What if a player wants to cast Sleep on a 14HD Frost Giant and say, "I'm just putting his weapon hand to sleep." Monarda's Law, or an outright "no"?

[olentu]

Well, we're discussing a later edition, so I think the rules often attempt (with varying degrees of success) to block abuse. The creature conjuration requirement "on a surface that supports it" comes from abuse. Specifying the size and weight of a spell's applicability is an attempt to limit that spell's uses.

It's not much different than the HD-based spells. What if a player wants to cast Sleep on a 14HD Frost Giant and say, "I'm just putting his weapon hand to sleep." Monarda's Law, or an outright "no"?

Yeah, not necessarily related. Oh there are surely some areas of the rules that are not especially prone to abuse, and similarly there are also areas that are. In the end that is rather less important with regards to trying to figure out what they do say.

Now like I said, if the argument being put forth was about whether or not the rules are prone to abuse and what might be good houserules to fix them that would be a different matter. However that does not seem to be the case here. So far as I can tell the doors are actually walls argument is about what the rules are and not what they should be houseruled to be to best curb abuse.

[Drachasor]

I was referring to 'gather' from this article:
https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20010707

And I chose nails assuming they fit the category fine (unlike mountains or potatoes), individually weigh less than a pound, and their heads would be in LoS.

Yeah, but Prestidigitation is also limited in the amount of force it can exert and so forth. I would think that would limit it here. Though I'd say you could temporarily change the shape of a nail so it slips out. You'd have to do this one nail at a time.


Well, we're discussing a later edition, so I think the rules often attempt (with varying degrees of success) to block abuse. The creature conjuration requirement "on a surface that supports it" comes from abuse. Specifying the size and weight of a spell's applicability is an attempt to limit that spell's uses.

It's not much different than the HD-based spells. What if a player wants to cast Sleep on a 14HD Frost Giant and say, "I'm just putting his weapon hand to sleep." Monarda's Law, or an outright "no"?

Creatures are pretty well defined. A Frost Giant's hand is simply not a creature. Period.

Objects aren't precisely defined anywhere. They have hit points, hardness, AC, and that's about it. There's an implication that they don't have mental stats, but that's never stated precisely. It's stated that IF a creature has no mental stats, then it is an object. But A->B does not mean B->A, so it is possible that you could have such an object -- arguably intelligent magical items are some sort of pseudo-object in this regard.

In any case, I see no reason why you can't have objects composed of other objects. The rules certainly don't forbid it, and as a matter of reality this seems rather necessary too. So far no one has shown any abuse of this. Time Hop doesn't count, imho, because the spell is problematic to begin with.

[Philistine]

Where does the door end and the wall begin? The door is firmly attached to the hinges, and the hinges are firmly attached to the jamb. The entire point of this sort of construction is to make the door, when closed, be a solid barrier with the rest of the wall. If you've got a wooden door hinged and locked to a wooden wall, what's special about that portion that would allow it to be targeted as if it were a separate object? As far as I can see, there's nothing.

Specious sophistry. The door ends and the wall begins at the clearly-defined and easily-determined boundaries of the door. Obviously. These will be readily apparent, except in the case of secret doors, as the door is visibly structurally distinct from the wall proper. In the rather desperate, pathetic example of a wooden door in a wooden wall, one might say that it is precisely "nothing" that allows the targeting of the door: that is, it's the narrow gap running all the way around the door, a gap which is required to exist for the door to be able to move, which marks it as a thing apart from the wall and able to be targeted separately from the rest of the wall.

How, after all, is the
Portable Ram (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/goodsAndServices.htm#ramPortable) supposed to function, if characters aren't able to target doors specifically, in order to break them down according to the rules in Breaking & Entering (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/exploration.htm#breakingAndEntering)? (Note that in addition to including multiple different types of doors on the table labeled "Object Hardness and Hit Points," the initial paragraph under "Breaking Objects" states that attacking an unattended object works just like Sundering, reducing your previous claim that "Doors can't be Sundered because they're not wielded like a weapon or shield" to a meaningless technicality - it's true-ish, because such an attack is described as being "like" Sundering rather than "as" Sundering, but it is functionally identical to Sundering except for being opposed by the object's AC.) So,can you come up with a page cite saying doors aren't objects? If not, I'd say Table trumps no source at all.

[Drachasor]

Well, technically, the rules also state that very large objects can be broken down into smaller sections with their own hit points. So you COULD view doors like that.

On the other hand, there rules don't state that objects can't be made of smaller objects. Assuming that they are not doesn't explicitly violate any rules, but it leads to some odd things when interacting with objects that are composed of objects. A string and a shaft of wood are two separate objects...but string the bow and suddenly it is just one and those previous objects disappear (mechanically speaking). And how tightly does one object have to grip another before they are one? What sort of fastening is required? Is it allowed to turn, like an axle or gear? What if it is allowed to move freely inside another object, like ball bearings? What if it is just two magnets stuck together? One can go on with this for quite some time.

It seems much easier to allow one object to be made of others (also 100% consistent with the rules), and use whatever object or composite object is most relevant to the task at hand.

[Curmudgeon]

How, after all, is the
Portable Ram (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/goodsAndServices.htm#ramPortable) supposed to function, if characters aren't able to target doors specifically, in order to break them down according to the rules in Breaking & Entering (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/exploration.htm#breakingAndEntering)?
You're missing the point. You can attack things which are not whole objects because the rules specifically say so. You cannot use a spell which targets objects against something which is only part of an object.

[Drachasor]

You're missing the point. You can attack things which are not whole objects because the rules specifically say so. You cannot use a spell which targets objects against something which is only part of an object.

You are assuming your conclusion. The rules do not say an object cannot be made of multiple component objects. Indeed, it is intuitively obvious that objects should work like this because they work this way in real life.

[georgie_leech]

You're missing the point. You can attack things which are not whole objects because the rules specifically say so. You cannot use a spell which targets objects against something which is only part of an object.

I thought Called Shots weren't RAW, so if something is only part of a whole, you can't specifically target it?

[Deophaun]

You're missing the point. You can attack things which are not whole objects because the rules specifically say so. You cannot use a spell which targets objects against something which is only part of an object.

But, since casting a spell at something is an attack, you can therefor use a spell to target something that, by your interpretation, is only part of an object.

[DeusMortuusEst]

You're missing the point. You can attack things which are not whole objects because the rules specifically say so. You cannot use a spell which targets objects against something which is only part of an object.

Got any actual rules references to back this assumption up?

[geekintheground]

Got any actual rules references to back this assumption up?

the rules dont say they ARENT connected.

[Rubik]

Specious sophistry. The door ends and the wall begins at the clearly-defined and easily-determined boundaries of the door. Obviously. These will be readily apparent, except in the case of secret doors, as the door is visibly structurally distinct from the wall proper. In the rather desperate, pathetic example of a wooden door in a wooden wall, one might say that it is precisely "nothing" that allows the targeting of the door: that is, it's the narrow gap running all the way around the door, a gap which is required to exist for the door to be able to move, which marks it as a thing apart from the wall and able to be targeted separately from the rest of the wall.

How, after all, is the
Portable Ram (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/goodsAndServices.htm#ramPortable) supposed to function, if characters aren't able to target doors specifically, in order to break them down according to the rules in Breaking & Entering (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/exploration.htm#breakingAndEntering)? (Note that in addition to including multiple different types of doors on the table labeled "Object Hardness and Hit Points," the initial paragraph under "Breaking Objects" states that attacking an unattended object works just like Sundering, reducing your previous claim that "Doors can't be Sundered because they're not wielded like a weapon or shield" to a meaningless technicality - it's true-ish, because such an attack is described as being "like" Sundering rather than "as" Sundering, but it is functionally identical to Sundering except for being opposed by the object's AC.) So,can you come up with a page cite saying doors aren't objects? If not, I'd say Table trumps no source at all.*Applause*

I take back all of those nasty things I never thought about you.

[Fitz10019]

In any case, I see no reason why you can't have objects composed of other objects... So far no one has shown any abuse of this...

How about this example from earlier?


If Shatter could be applied partially, you could Shatter the last inch where a balcony attaches to a structure, and thereby destroy the entire balcony even though it is too big for your spell level. This is the kind of power creep and abuse that the all-or-nothing idea stops.

[Deophaun]

How about this example from earlier?
Doesn't hold. We are talking about destroying discrete parts of complex structures (a door in a dungeon) not arbitrary portions of solid objects.

[Drachasor]

How about this example from earlier?


If Shatter could be applied partially, you could Shatter the last inch where a balcony attaches to a structure, and thereby destroy the entire balcony even though it is too big for your spell level. This is the kind of power creep and abuse that the all-or-nothing idea stops.

That's applying Shatter to PART of an object that is not an object in and of itself.

Might become an issue depending on how you handle some things like walls made of stone and mortar. Shattering a keystone in an arch, for example. Or destroying a wall brick by brick. The latter is almost certainly ok though. Former might get a bit iffy.

[Greenish]

What's MM3 say about warforged and rusties again?That rust monsters get along with warforged better than the warforged get along with the rust monsters.

[Drachasor]

That rust monsters get along with warforged better than the warforged get along with the rust monsters.

The Warforged just needs access to Alter Self. Then he can become an animated wingback chair. He's fine then.

[olentu]

You're missing the point. You can attack things which are not whole objects because the rules specifically say so. You cannot use a spell which targets objects against something which is only part of an object.

Ah, still making assertions without support. Come on, try to support your claim at least a little bit. Just repeating it in slightly different wording does nothing.

[Scow2]

That's applying Shatter to PART of an object that is not an object in and of itself.

Might become an issue depending on how you handle some things like walls made of stone and mortar. Shattering a keystone in an arch, for example. Or destroying a wall brick by brick. The latter is almost certainly ok though. Former might get a bit iffy.

Shattering the keystone in an arch would work, and the other blocks would tumble but not break. You can shatter/timehop a single plank from a door as well, which might open a too-small-to-be-useful gap or allow the rest of the door to be disassembled.

If you were to somehow target the attaching point of a balcony through the right definition, the balcony would fall - but it's not the spell breaking it, it's the Falling Damage. If the balcony isn't destroyed by the falling damage, it's a 'simple' matter of picking it back up. You wouldn't be able to do that if you Shatter or Timehop the entire balcony. Being specific with your targeting can get you more bang for your buck, but isn't useful when you must destroy absolutely everything.

"Gathering" bit and pieces of constructions doesn't work because Presdigitation can only apply one pound of force, which is exceeded by the frictional force holding the structure together.

[Drachasor]

Yes, I agree that's how it would work if you let objects be composed of objects. I was just trying to think of the most advantageous situation for it that would be relatively common.

[Deophaun]

If you were to somehow target the attaching point of a balcony through the right definition, the balcony would fall - but it's not the spell breaking it, it's the Falling Damage.

A balcony with a single point of attachment is something included by the DM/designer for the express purpose of letting someone collapse it. An actual, structurally sound balcony would stand even after two or three vital pieces were removed. It would, however, lower whatever DC was needed to break it and send it plummeting to the ground. Still, not a good use of resources.

[TuggyNE]

A balcony with a single point of attachment is something included by the DM/designer for the express purpose of letting someone collapse it. An actual, structurally sound balcony would stand even after two or three vital pieces were removed. It would, however, lower whatever DC was needed to break it and send it plummeting to the ground. Still, not a good use of resources.

I think the idea was to target a band along the attachment point or some such thing, but I'm not really sure that's practical in many cases anyway (given the possibility of separate support pillars etc), and there are various problems with the rules basis for that even if you allow objects to be composed of smaller identifiable objects.

[HaikenEdge]

A balcony with a single point of attachment is something included by the DM/designer for the express purpose of letting someone collapse it. An actual, structurally sound balcony would stand even after two or three vital pieces were removed. It would, however, lower whatever DC was needed to break it and send it plummeting to the ground. Still, not a good use of resources.

Not to mention, you'd need to make a reasonably tough Knowledge (Architecture and Engineering) check to identify those vital pieces; you can't just say, "I target the vital piece of structure" if your character has no idea which piece is structurally vital, and if the player is willing to invest in that skill just to do that, I think they've kind of earned it.

[nyjastul69]

It might be worth noting the difference between Warp Wood and Shatter. Warp Wood allows for targeting a single plank of wood, and even how multiple castings work in that regard. Shatter has no such caveats.

[TuggyNE]

Not to mention, you'd need to make a reasonably tough Knowledge (Architecture and Engineering) check to identify those vital pieces; you can't just say, "I target the vital piece of structure" if your character has no idea which piece is structurally vital, and if the player is willing to invest in that skill just to do that, I think they've kind of earned it.

Nah, only Roy can have nice things. :smalltongue:

[Philistine]

You're missing the point. You can attack things which are not whole objects because the rules specifically say so. You cannot use a spell which targets objects against something which is only part of an object.

"Sunder-alike"-ing a door is described as an attack, but making a Strength check to attempt to break a door (the use of the Portable Ram) is not. It's just another way to interact with a closed, locked, door - an object which is clearly, visibly distinct from the wall in which it is hung.

Also, it may be worthwhile to take a second look at the previously-linked table, "Object Hardness and HP (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/exploration.htm#tableObjectHardnessAndHitPoints)." Out of the twelve objects listed, four - a full third of the total! - are doors. That's a rules citation which explicitly includes doors as a subset of objects which can be interacted with. Because there's no reason to break down a door which is open, let alone one which has not been hung, that interaction must be with a closed, locked door. So once again: do you have a specific rules citation which explicitly states that a door is not an object? Because that's the bare minimum you need at this point; absent such a cite, you don't have an argument.