[3.5] RAI questions about Shatter

[theCerealKillr]

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

For what seems to be the most common usage of the spell, that sure is a vague description. It doesn't really say what's considered an object, or where an object ends and begins, and it really only implies that the object has to be continuous. Here's a couple of questions for you all, I'm wondering how you would interpret them.


Shatter is cast on the 10-pound lock of a 500-pound steel door. Does it shatter the lock, or fail?
Shatter is cast on a 2-pound set of manacles, attached to a 2,000-pound slab of concrete by a 2-pound, 10-foot length of chain. What shatters, if anything?
Shatter is cast on a section of brick wall. The wall weighs thousands of pounds in total, but the Shatter only targets a segment of the wall. Can it do that?
Same as the previous question, but now it's continuous stone instead of brick. Can it shatter a smaller segment?

[InvisibleBison]

ETA: This post is basically wrong, please ignore it.

Here's how I would rule on your examples:



Shatter is cast on the 10-pound lock of a 500-pound steel door. Does it shatter the lock, or fail?

A lock isn't a single solid object; it's a mechanical device. Individual components of the lock are solid objects, so you may be able to defeat a lock by shattering a key component, assuming you are able to identify one and establish line of effect.


Shatter is cast on a 2-pound set of manacles, attached to a 2,000-pound slab of concrete by a 2-pound, 10-foot length of chain. What shatters, if anything?

Manacles aren't a single solid object; they're a collection of metal loops. Chains are the same. I'd say shatter can destroy any one loop of the chains, or either one of the manacle's wristpieces, but not the entire thing. The slab of concrete is off limits unless you're a 200th level caster.


Shatter is cast on a section of brick wall. The wall weighs thousands of pounds in total, but the Shatter only targets a segment of the wall. Can it do that?

A brick wall isn't a single solid object, it's a collection of many thousands of objects (the individual bricks) that are stuck together. You could shatter a single brick, but not a wall or a section of a wall.


Same as the previous question, but now it's continuous stone instead of brick. Can it shatter a smaller segment?

A segment of a wall isn't a single object, so it can't be shattered. However, most stone walls are made of many large blocks of stone, and so by the same logic that lets you shatter an individual brick you could shatter an individual block of stone.

I hope this helps!

[Amphetryon]

Here's how I would rule on your examples:



A lock isn't a single solid object; it's a mechanical device. Individual components of the lock are solid objects, so you may be able to defeat a lock by shattering a key component, assuming you are able to identify one and establish line of effect.



Manacles aren't a single solid object; they're a collection of metal loops. Chains are the same. I'd say shatter can destroy any one loop of the chains, or either one of the manacle's wristpieces, but not the entire thing. The slab of concrete is off limits unless you're a 200th level caster.



A brick wall isn't a single solid object, it's a collection of many thousands of objects (the individual bricks) that are stuck together. You could shatter a single brick, but not a wall or a section of a wall.



A segment of a wall isn't a single object, so it can't be shattered. However, most stone walls are made of many large blocks of stone, and so by the same logic that lets you shatter an individual brick you could shatter an individual block of stone.

I hope this helps!

Isn't it easier to just ban Shatter, than to try to make your Shatter-caster ragequit by noping every useful application?

[Hellpyre]

Honestly, I mostly just use the sonic damage versus hardness & HP as a guide for whether a shatter could do something to an object. It certainly isn't RAW, but I feel it keeps closer to the RAI to let it blow through things as a burst of sound without it being a one-stop-shop of a spell.

[Telonius]

The intent of the spell seems to be (pretty clearly): you can break something small, 10 pounds per caster level. If it's generally a single object weighing less than the maximum, it works. Otherwise you get into silliness like, "Well, it's made up of atoms, so it's not really a single object, and it's mostly empty space between the atoms so it isn't really solid either." If you can use a relatively simple noun or two to name it, it's an object. "Solid" is a little trickier; obviously not liquid or gas. Something like cloth or food ... probably not. Rope? No idea.

I'd say that a chain is generally a single object. It doesn't really matter if one loop of the chain shatters or all of them do; the two ends don't attach to each other either way. (I suppose it would matter if you're trying to repair it, but that's really getting nitpicky).

[Mordaedil]

Generally I would just use logic for the use of shatter here.

For use against a 10-pound lock, well, congratulations, you broke the lock, now even the owner of the key can't use the door since the bolt is still holding the door shut. And you can't target the bolt from this end.

For use against a manacle, the manacle shatters and parts of the chain, rendering it useless.

For use against a wall, it is not disintegrate, so it just quakes a bit and then nothing happens as the weight outperforms the spell.

For use against continuous stone, well, read the spell again. Single solid object. The stone breaks.

[Nifft]

Isn't it easier to just ban Shatter, than to try to make your Shatter-caster ragequit by noping every useful application?

Isn't it easier to just not play the game at all, than to try to make the game work fairly for everyone?

Isn't it easier to just not post, than to try to post something useful?

Sometimes, "easier" isn't the best metric.

[Telonius]

Isn't it easier to just not play the game at all, than to try to make the game work fairly for everyone?

Isn't it easier to just not post, than to try to post something useful?

Sometimes, "easier" isn't the best metric.

Actually, I pretty much agree with Amphetryon on that. If you are going to nerf it down to near-nonexistence (as a ruling of that kind would), it's a stealth ban. Better to tell the player straight out not to take it. Letting them take it and then saying they can't use it for the purposes most adventurers would, is neither easy nor fair.

[weckar]

I think in essence, at most tables the proposed uses would not be in any way problematic, as a cost vs reward thing.

Then came in Baleful Utterance...

[Deophaun]

Actually, I pretty much agree with Amphetryon on that. If you are going to nerf it down to near-nonexistence (as a ruling of that kind would), it's a stealth ban. Better to tell the player straight out not to take it. Letting them take it and then saying they can't use it for the purposes most adventurers would, is neither easy nor fair.
This is hardly nerfing its utility to nonexistence. Being able to target key components is going to be enough to disable pretty much any complex device you come across. Break a single link and the chain fails, a single buckle and the saddle comes off. If it's the whole thing then you aren't going to be using shatter on the chains drawing the drawbridge up, because those will weigh more than 200 lbs. And if you're working at the component level, things like locks are still entirely capable of being completely destroyed just from the area attack variant.

[Amphetryon]

To be clear, I read IB's interpretation of the RAI of Shatter as somewhere between the idea that Enlarge Person is intended to be a debuffing Spell targeting armored Casters, and the notion that Armor should work as a Faraday Cage against Electricity-based Spells. It is dependent upon a specific reading of the RAW that appears to be in the minority, coupled with an adversarial approach to the DM/Player relationship (presuming the Spell's particular limits were not discussed when the PC went to add the Spell).

It smacks of Gotcha Gaming, IMO.

[InvisibleBison]

To be clear, I read IB's interpretation of the RAI of Shatter as somewhere between the idea that Enlarge Person is intended to be a debuffing Spell targeting armored Casters, and the notion that Armor should work as a Faraday Cage against Electricity-based Spells. It is dependent upon a specific reading of the RAW that appears to be in the minority, coupled with an adversarial approach to the DM/Player relationship (presuming the Spell's particular limits were not discussed when the PC went to add the Spell).

It smacks of Gotcha Gaming, IMO.

OK, I see how you got that interpretation, but that's not at all what I intended. I like the idea of players doing creative things with shatter, but I also want to adhere to the actual text of the spell. In an actual game, I certainly would have explained my interpretation of the spell to any player who was considering using it to avoid any mismatched expectations.

As an aside, I don't see how your reading of my interpretation of shatter and the two other ideas you cited form a continuum.

[EndocrineBandit]

Wouldn't shatter still remove a section of the solid stone block, up to 10 pounds per caster level? Even if not, there are so many viable targets that fit within the parameters. Sword hilt sticking out of a scabbard, armor straps, door hinges, individual gears or cogs. A 100 pound wooden door would be pretty big unless its coated with a lot of pitch.

[Fouredged Sword]

An object is a discrete thing with HP. Shatter, well, shatters, a single object within the size and weight restrictions. A lock is a single object. A chain is a single object as are the individual links within the chain. Most things have HP based on their composition and thickness, per the DMG.

[Deophaun]

Wouldn't shatter still remove a section of the solid stone block, up to 10 pounds per caster level?
It targets solid objects, not sections of solid objects.

Otherwise you'd get "Oh, I shatter a quarter-inch-thick plane through that marble pillar, collapsing the entire building"-style shenanigans.

[Nifft]

It ought to be fairly plausible to take one's trusty adamantine spoon and a hammer and make cracks in a solid wall, thereby turning the untargetable whole into a set of smaller pieces, each of which can be targeted.

But at that point you have an adamantine spoon, so who needs shatter?

[ExLibrisMortis]

An object is a discrete thing with HP. Shatter, well, shatters, a single object within the size and weight restrictions. A lock is a single object. A chain is a single object as are the individual links within the chain. Most things have HP based on their composition and thickness, per the DMG.
This. Object is a game term with stats: hardness, hit points, size, weight, possibly special rules. You can shatter a lock, a set of manacles, a chain, and anything else your DM lets you designate as "object". You may be able to affect 10' sections of larger objects, as big objects are damaged in parts. You can definitely affect big objects as a whole, but you'll usually need very high caster levels to do so (e.g. a 500 000 pound ship can be shattered, but the CL 50 000 requirement suggests you could probably come up with some other way to achieve a similar result).

What the actual in-universe result of shattering is, the spell doesn't tell you. It just says it's "sundered", which is also a game term, but presumably means the object is reduced to 0 hp (I don't think it means that the object "was affected by a Sunder attack" without a specified damage). At 0 hp, and item is "destroyed", which presumably means you erase it from your character sheet, and if you have anything at all left, it's the DM providing a little flavour.

[theCerealKillr]

I think in essence, at most tables the proposed uses would not be in any way problematic, as a cost vs reward thing.

Then came in Baleful Utterance...

That's actually the exact reason I'm asking this question. When you're casting Shatter as a wizard or cleric, you're gonna be limited by slots, so you'll probably just use it to break a baddie's weapon. When your warlock can cast it every six seconds, it really makes you question what the extent of Shatter's power is. Clearly you don't want your Warlock to be able to excavate his way through your dungeon 10 pounds at a time, but at the same time you have to keep it useful for breaking certain items, like containers and restraints.

[Mordaedil]

Well, the best use for Shatter, or Baleful utterance in this case, is for destroying weapons and (metal only?) armor.

[Pleh]

If the whole object falls clearly in the weight limit of the spell, despite being comprised of multiple parts, I would say the whole object is shattered (all links in the manacles break).

If the whole object is over weight the spell fails.

Now, if the player wants to be clever and target just a piece of an object that is within the weight limit, I give them a Caster check and make up a DC that seems appropriate. I view this like trying to use a sledge hammer for a job you normally use a smaller hammer; it's just hard to focus the power the way the spell was not designed to do, but not impossible for a skilled caster.

So targeting a single link in a chain of manacles is more difficult than targeting the whole set, but you can absolutely aim to punch a hole into a brick wall just big enough to climb through rather than tearing the whole thing down (bonus points if you've got the Knowledge Arch&Eng to figure out if it's a load bearing wall). Just be prepared to roll for it.

[weckar]

I think precision is not the issue, it's the doing enough damage. So rather the inverse: trying to use a ballpeen where you would need a sledge.

[Pleh]

Eh, twist the metaphor as you like. At my table, I'd ask for a Caster check either way.

You're asking quite reasonably to bend the rules in your favor. I'll give you a reasonable chance for success in proportion to what I expect the reasonable odds of failure to be.

Any deeper extrapolation of how the mechanics translate into the game is just needlessly endangering catgirls.

[Fouredged Sword]

Personally I allow players to shatter any single contiguous item, any object with a discrete use, or any segment of an object with a individual HP pool.

You can shatter the hinges of a door. You can shatter a whole lock. You can shatter a single bar of a prison cell.

[Dimers]

If the whole object falls clearly in the weight limit of the spell, despite being comprised of multiple parts, I would say the whole object is shattered (all links in the manacles break).

If the whole object is over weight the spell fails.

Now, if the player wants to be clever and target just a piece of an object that is within the weight limit, I give them a Caster check and make up a DC that seems appropriate. I view this like trying to use a sledge hammer for a job you normally use a smaller hammer; it's just hard to focus the power the way the spell was not designed to do, but not impossible for a skilled caster.


I think precision is not the issue, it's the doing enough damage. So rather the inverse: trying to use a ballpeen where you would need a sledge.

I like Pleh's graceful solution but agree with weckar that precision isn't the problem. One object, big or little, should be shatterable if it's within the weight limit. Let's say, if you want to shatter a multi-part object, that's what takes a caster level check. One chain link, or one part of a lock? No problem. Every link or every lock component with one casting? Not easy.

[Psyren]

I disagree with literally every ruling InvisibleBison just made.

Also, locks are definitely discrete objects in the game because you can buy/craft them as such.

[Jormengand]

"Object" takes standard, intellectually-honest English definitions. A lock or chain is absolutely an object. A flail, containing a chain, is even listed as being an object, and so is a lock. Walls have specific rules detailing what is and isn't an object so they take precedence.

[InvisibleBison]

I disagree with literally every ruling InvisibleBison just made.

Also, locks are definitely discrete objects in the game because you can buy/craft them as such.

To be honest, after reading some of the other replies in this thread, I think I disagree with the rulings I made as well.

[Seraph Evereach]

Simplest solution is to state it only works on "freestanding" objects. Done.

That way, it works RAI.

So no "Shatter on the lock attached to the door."

Or "Shatter sections of a wall."

Freestanding object only.

Which means, yeah, no "shatter one link of the chain" either. Clever, but not RAI. Otherwise you open the door to worse shenanigans.

Yeah, it ruins certain cool things like "Shatter the chandelier" cause the chandelier is, well, connected to the ceiling so it's not a freestanding object anymore. But, since a torch is not really "connected" to a torch sconce (simply placed in it) and vice versa, I would allow one to target a torch that's placed in a sconce. The torch is "freestanding" still.

Yeah, also ruins "Shatter the door" trick, but then again, I wouldn't want my players blasting down doors that easily with a 2nd-level spell either.

[Daisy]

The SRD specifically calls-out being able to target individual parts of doors:

"Breaking a lock is sometimes quicker than breaking the whole door. If a PC wants to whack at a lock with a weapon, treat the typical lock as having hardness 15 and 30 hit points. A lock can only be broken if it can be attacked separately from the door, which means that a built-in lock is immune to this sort of treatment."

and also under Standard Hinges:

"Adventurers can take the hinges apart one at a time with successful Disable Device checks (assuming the hinges are on their side of the door, of course). Such a task has a DC of 20 because most hinges are rusted or stuck. Breaking a hinge is difficult. Most have hardness 10 and 30 hit points. The break DC for a hinge is the same as for breaking down the door."

If you can target something with a melee attack, surely it's a viable candidate for Shatter?

[Chronos]

The SRD specifically calls-out being able to target individual parts of doors:

"Breaking a lock is sometimes quicker than breaking the whole door. If a PC wants to whack at a lock with a weapon, treat the typical lock as having hardness 15 and 30 hit points. A lock can only be broken if it can be attacked separately from the door, which means that a built-in lock is immune to this sort of treatment."
That specifically says that you can't target a lock that's an individual part of a door. In the modern world, we're used to locks that are built into doors, but I think the game mostly assumes a door that has a padlock on it.

[Daisy]

That specifically says that you can't target a lock that's an individual part of a door. In the modern world, we're used to locks that are built into doors, but I think the game mostly assumes a door that has a padlock on it.

Fair point. Still, the bit about hinges is valid. And by extension, maybe other things-that-are-parts-of-other-things. For example. as a DM I'd allow any of the following:

Wheel or axle on a wagon
Chain manacling a creature to a wall
A window in a wall (subject to weight of glass)


Basically anything that can be described as being a thing in its own right, whether or not it happens to be attached to another thing.

[Cygnia]

I've seen some 'locks try to use Baleful Utterance on ANY item, regardless of what it's made out of. Like spell component pouches...:smalleek:

[Daisy]

Is there any reason it wouldn't work on a spell component pouch? I mean, it would get a save if worn and presumably the person wearing it would be a caster and hence have a good Will save, making it unlikely to succeed. As the spell description says, "Alternatively, you can target shatter against a single solid object, regardless of composition, weighing up to 10 pounds per caster level."

[Chronos]

Yeah, it's weird that you can try to break a built-in hinge individually, but can't break a built-in lock individually. Although it does say that breaking just the hinge is just as difficult as breaking the whole door. I think that maybe the goal of the authors was to prevent players from trying to make it easier by breaking just a part of the door, but they used different rules to do that in different places (in one place just saying that you can't do it, in another saying that you can but it's no easier).

[truemane]

Metamagic Mod: Thread Necromancy