Shield Master vs. Disintegrate

[Greywander]

Title.

Disintegrate automatically destroys Large or smaller (nonmagical) objects. Shield Master implies that the bonus to DEX saves comes from using your shield to deflect the effect, but doesn't explicitly state this or describe how or why you get to add your shield's bonus to DEX saves.

There is a precedent in Fire Bolt, which can set things on fire if they aren't being worn or carried. Disintegrate has no such clause, but the only time it talks about destroying items being worn or carried is when the creature themselves is destroyed by the spell, so one might think it is implied that such items can't be destroyed while still worn or carried by an undisintegrated creature.

Strictly speaking, the spell allows you to target things like weapons, shields, armor, and such, and they are destroyed automatically with no save or attack roll. But this, of course doesn't seem intended.

I'd probably allow a player to try to target an enemy's weapon or shield, but the creature would still make a DEX save to dodge. Even then, I could do something like "on an even number, the item is destroyed, on an odd number, the creature is hit instead" if the creature fails the save.

[Crgaston]

I think the intent is pretty clear. Nonmagical objects, worn or not, are automatically Disintegrated.

You can burn a L6 spell slot to disarm an enemy or take away his shield or armor, so long as it isn't magical.

The caster gets to decide whom or what they're targeting. Targeted creatures get a save. Objects don't, but if they're magic, there's a wasted slot for no effect.

In your particular example, Disintegrating a Shield Master's shield is the feat functioning as intended. If you are targeted, you get the shield's bonus to your Dex save. If your shield is targeted, there's no bonus or benefit, but the caster had to burn through a 6th level slot in order to remove your defense. Seems fair, as well as intentional to me.

[Greywander]

If you are targeted, you get the shield's bonus to your Dex save.
Is your shield disintegrated, though?

And yeah, it's a mid-high level spell, so things like zapping an enemy's weapon to disarm them isn't too powerful. I'm just a little confuses why zapping the creature gives them a save, but zapping something the creature is holding automatically works. I guess the reason is, "it's a 6th level spell, and doesn't work on magic items anyway, so it probably isn't worth it even if it works automatically."

[Crgaston]

Is your shield disintegrated, though?

And yeah, it's a mid-high level spell, so things like zapping an enemy's weapon to disarm them isn't too powerful. I'm just a little confuses why zapping the creature gives them a save, but zapping something the creature is holding automatically works. I guess the reason is, "it's a 6th level spell, and doesn't work on magic items anyway, so it probably isn't worth it even if it works automatically."

So is what you're saying your objection is, is... that using the shield to boost your save implies that the shield took the beam instead of you and therefore your shield ought to be disintegrated automatically, since its an Object?

I mean, yeah, that makes the best sense. Kinda. But rulewise? No. The caster can make one attack with Disintegrate vs a harder target, or spend the same resource to tip the odds of their next Disintegrate working.

its a Dex save, so if the caster were targeting a creature, the creature might use the shield to deceive the caster as to its precise location, and since a shield is faster to move than the target's actual body, if the target saves, the shield doesn't narratively get hit by the Disintegrate beam. The Dex save represents avoiding the beam altogether while using the shield to obfuscate rather than to physically defend against/absorb it.

Edit: You could rule that if the target's save would have failed, but passed because of the Shield Master bonus, that the shield is disintegrated.

[Greywander]

No an objection, I just tend to be big on verisimilitude. If the DEX save bonus is from using the shield to block or deflect the effect, why wouldn't the beam disintegrate it?

Strictly by the rules, though, you just get a bonus to your DEX saves, nothing more. But I could totally see a DM ruling that your shield would be destroyed.

The entire reason for this thread was that I was going over different ways to boost up saving throws, and of course I took a look at Shield Master. It only works for effects that target you, specifically, not AoE effects that happen to include you. So for something like Fireball or a dragon's breath, it does nothing (you can still use your reaction to save for no damage, though). As an example of an effect where you would get the bonus, I just happened to think of Disintegrate. Fireball is no cakewalk, but Disintegrate is straight up nasty, especially if your HP is low, so getting a bonus to your save is really nice. And that's when I remember that Disintegrate, you know, disintegrates stuff. Stuff like people, walls, and, of course, shields.

So I was just curious what other people thought about this and how they would rule it. Nothing in the rules suggests that the shield would be disintegrated, but by treating it as a real-world problem rather than a game abstraction it does seem to lead to that conclusion. But sometimes it is just a game abstraction, and has no bearing on the "narrative", or no "real life" analog. So you get a bonus. So what? Maybe it represents your skill, or maybe you're just lucky, or blessed by the gods, who really cares? Game abstractions can influence the narrative, and vice versa, but one should be cautious about interpreting one through the lens of the other.

[GreyBlack]

No an objection, I just tend to be big on verisimilitude. If the DEX save bonus is from using the shield to block or deflect the effect, why wouldn't the beam disintegrate it?

Strictly by the rules, though, you just get a bonus to your DEX saves, nothing more. But I could totally see a DM ruling that your shield would be destroyed.

The entire reason for this thread was that I was going over different ways to boost up saving throws, and of course I took a look at Shield Master. It only works for effects that target you, specifically, not AoE effects that happen to include you. So for something like Fireball or a dragon's breath, it does nothing (you can still use your reaction to save for no damage, though). As an example of an effect where you would get the bonus, I just happened to think of Disintegrate. Fireball is no cakewalk, but Disintegrate is straight up nasty, especially if your HP is low, so getting a bonus to your save is really nice. And that's when I remember that Disintegrate, you know, disintegrates stuff. Stuff like people, walls, and, of course, shields.

So I was just curious what other people thought about this and how they would rule it. Nothing in the rules suggests that the shield would be disintegrated, but by treating it as a real-world problem rather than a game abstraction it does seem to lead to that conclusion. But sometimes it is just a game abstraction, and has no bearing on the "narrative", or no "real life" analog. So you get a bonus. So what? Maybe it represents your skill, or maybe you're just lucky, or blessed by the gods, who really cares? Game abstractions can influence the narrative, and vice versa, but one should be cautious about interpreting one through the lens of the other.

This is D&D. Leave your verisimilitude at the door. For the rest of us, we're chucking fireball out of our fingertips.

[Unoriginal]

What do you feel like the best result?

That's all what matters.

Personally I wouldn't enjoy a player or PC being punished for succeeding a DEX save by equipment loss, on a spell that normally has 0 effect if you succeed your DEX save.

You could easily say that the Shield Master is using their shield to hide their body/goad the caster into trying to hit them on the large, obvious target that is a shield, and then dodge out of the way when the beam shows up like a rodeo clown against a bull.

They're called Master of the shield for a reason.

[Greywander]

This is D&D. Leave your verisimilitude at the door. For the rest of us, we're chucking fireball out of our fingertips.
I think you're confusing verisimilitude with realism. It's okay, we all do it.

[GreyBlack]

I think you're confusing verisimilitude with realism. It's okay, we all do it.

I guess. To me, the verisimilitude really doesn't matter because it breaks so frequently in delightfully absurd ways, indicating that we shouldn't even be looking for things to make sense when logic is applied.

If you really want to make the verisimilitude work... when the mage is targeting a person, the spell vibrates at a certain wavelength that is an incorrect wavelength to disintegrate a metal or wooden shield.

Alternatively, it's because magic fundamentally isn't supposed to make sense. Sure, wizards do study it but because they learn it doesn't make sense as they grow in power and levels, this makes them more and more able to bend it to their will, creating more and more powerful effects. All of this because they begin to realize that magic _breaks_ how things are supposed to work.

Edit:
Another alternative: the feat briefly imbues the shield with magic, which is then absorbed by the disintegrate spell. This works because of all of the talk of the "background magic" of D&D.

[Lunali]

Carried items are protected by their owner's aura of vitality.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Carried items are protected by their owner's aura of vitality.

That explanation actually works really well with the underlying "physics" of my setting...I think I'm going to have to appropriate that to explain why only unattended objects take damage. :smallbiggrin:

[Tanarii]

If you really want to make the verisimilitude work... when the mage is targeting a person, the spell vibrates at a certain wavelength that is an incorrect wavelength to disintegrate a metal or wooden shield.

Alternatively, it's because magic fundamentally isn't supposed to make sense.
You're definitely confusing verisimilitude with 'works in the real world'.


Edit: You could rule that if the target's save would have failed, but passed because of the Shield Master bonus, that the shield is disintegrated.
That's pretty much the traditional D&D way to handle such questions, going back to AD&D. If a bonus makes a difference in being hit, treat it as if the reason for the bonus was the root cause. 3e was the strongest on that of course, with touch AC etc.

Speaking of AD&D, I really miss object saves for everything a PC is carrying when they fail a saving throw. :smallamused:

[Dalebert]

Disintegrate is an all-or-nothing effect with a save for creatures but not for objects. If it fails to disintegrate the creature, the result is nothing. The shield wasn't the target. It can't be disintegrated unless it was the caster's chosen target upon casting. In that case the shield is gone with no save if non-magical which is fine for a 6th level spell.

[Vogie]

If the DEX save bonus is from using the shield to block or deflect the effect, why wouldn't the beam disintegrate it?

Ah, that's a good distinction to make... I'd rule:

if they blocked the spell, the shield would be disintegrated.
if they deflected the spell, it wouldn't, and whatever the ray DOES hit is then disintegrated
Usually, a deflected spell will be hitting something directly behind the original target, probably within a cone... unless they have a mirrored (silvered?) shield

[Cybren]

This is D&D. Leave your verisimilitude at the door. For the rest of us, we're chucking fireball out of our fingertips.

OR you could just like, adjudicate according to the fiction and not play a weird videogame using paper and pencil.

[GreyBlack]

OR you could just like, adjudicate according to the fiction and not play a weird videogame using paper and pencil.

I could play AD&D or 3.x, but it's hard to find tables for those.

Controversial opinion: there's more video game logic in this edition than most people recognize. Cantrips are at will powers that fill your rotation, you have to watch your bars, kill monsters to get better pants, etc. It's possible to play outside of that, but then you really get a system shock because the system breaks down, such as in this case.

My case is that it's fine. Just enjoy it and don't think too hard about the implications. Thing A doesn't need to indicate Thing A, and reality changes in order to accommodate the most awesome possible result. If that's not how you want to play it, no judgements.

As such, in this particular case, I'm willing to let things seem a bit less true or real (verisimilitude!) in order to accommodate an awesome appearing scene: the intrepid fighter facing down the evil mage. The mage casts Disintegrate, hoping to take down the fighter. The fighter, the master of his shield, has no recourse but to interpose his shield between himself and the beam. The beam blazes brilliantly against his shield, saving both the fighter and the rest of the party. The fighter says a quippy one liner, and charges into battle.

Could you say that the shield is disintegrated because it would break immersion? Sure. I would argue that it would break one of the cardinal rules of play, though: Have fun at the table.

[Cybren]

Could you say that the shield is disintegrated because it would break immersion? Sure. I would argue that it would break one of the cardinal rules of play, though: Have fun at the table.

The mistake in your premise here is assuming that players universally find negative things happening to them unfun.

[Man_Over_Game]

The mistake in your premise here is assuming that players universally find negative things happening to them unfun.

Disintegrate isn't a common spell. It doesn't work on magical equipment. As long as my success was reliant on the shield (rather than Disintegrate automatically succeeding on the shield if I fail, causing me to be punished for having a feature), I'd be completely happy with this change of events.

It's a friggin' shield. 10gp to block 75 Force damage to the face (and vaporizing me if I would have hit 0 HP) is a damn good deal, and it creates a really cool dynamic.

[JNAProductions]

I'd make sure your players are aware of this ruling-if for no other reason than to have back-up shields if they lack a magic one.

This, of course, also runs into a consistency issue-if the Full Plate Fighter gets hit with Disintegrate, shouldn't their armor be gone too? And while a spare shield or two ain't that expensive or hard to carry, a back-up full plate IS.

[Man_Over_Game]

I'd make sure your players are aware of this ruling-if for no other reason than to have back-up shields if they lack a magic one.

This, of course, also runs into a consistency issue-if the Full Plate Fighter gets hit with Disintegrate, shouldn't their armor be gone too? And while a spare shield or two ain't that expensive or hard to carry, a back-up full plate IS.

The armor doesn't add a bonus to your Dexterity Save.

Disintegrate also states: "A disintegrated creature and everything it is wearing and carrying, except magic items, are reduced to a pile of fine gray dust". There is already a clause that allows the armor to be disintegrated. The only reason the shield is ever considered having its own clause on being disintegrated is because it directly interacts with the effect (adding a bonus to the save).

[Dalebert]

Ah, that's a good distinction to make... I'd rule:

if they blocked the spell, the shield would be disintegrated.
if they deflected the spell, it wouldn't, and whatever the ray DOES hit is then disintegrated
Usually, a deflected spell will be hitting something directly behind the original target, probably within a cone... unless they have a mirrored (silvered?) shield

Once you start down that road--that it's a beam that disintegrates whatever it hits--then why doesn't the creature behind the target have to save if the target makes their save? It makes as much sense as disintegrating the shield. You can introduce all these complications but it's not in the spirit of 5e design of keeping it simple. This idea that "well, SOMETHING has to disintegrate" is not in the spell.

[Man_Over_Game]

Once you start down that road--that it's a beam that disintegrates whatever it hits--then why doesn't the creature behind the target have to save if the target makes their save? It makes as much sense as disintegrating the shield. You can introduce all these complications but it's not in the spirit of 5e design of keeping it simple. This idea that "well, SOMETHING has to disintegrate" is not in the spell.

DMG, page 272:
"When a ranged attack misses a target that has cover, you can use this optional rule to determine whether the cover was struck by the attack. First, determine whether the attack roll would have hit the protected target without cover. If the attack roll falls within a range low enough to miss the target but high enough to strike the target if there had been no cover, the object used for cover is struck. If a creature is providing cover for the missed creature and the attack roll exceeds the AC of the covering creature, the covering creature is hit."

So it can be a thing, and something the developers kind of expected enough to create rudimentary rules on the subject. Of course, those rules (and the ones you've mentioned) are strictly optional. They should only be added if they make the game better.

The developers have always had the mindset that the game doesn't have to be rigid. We assume it should because...well, we're nerds. Following (and abusing) rules and limitations is what we do for fun. But the Devs wanted people to make the game whatever is needed the most. So if people like the idea of Disintegrate being a spell that leaves holes in walls or vaporizes shields, why not? The Devs certainly don't care, so why should anyone else?

[GreyBlack]

Disintegrate isn't a common spell. It doesn't work on magical equipment. As long as my success was reliant on the shield (rather than Disintegrate automatically succeeding on the shield if I fail, causing me to be punished for having a feature), I'd be completely happy with this change of events.

It's a friggin' shield. 10gp to block 75 Force damage to the face (and vaporizing me if I would have hit 0 HP) is a damn good deal, and it creates a really cool dynamic.

I have seen players go into a bigger murderous rampage over the DM touching their stuff than over the DM killing their character's parents, dog, best friend, and children. You're right that some might not mind, but in my experience, you don't attack the character's equipment without expecting the player to become _really_ upset.

If a player is going so far as to take the Shield Master feat, that tells me that the player is really invested in using a shield and playing that Captain America fantasy. By using their own feat against them like that, it's a bit like telling the player, "I don't like your build. Change it."

Now, I might do this if I immediately then gave the player some sort of legendary Shield of Destiny (tm) after the encounter, but that's coming back to the Rule of Cool over Rule of Verisimilitude. I don't want to completely nerf the character in the middle of the dungeon and make them feel useless for using their character abilities the way they're supposed to be used.

[Dalebert]

So if people like the idea of Disintegrate being a spell that leaves holes in walls or vaporizes shields, why not? The Devs certainly don't care, so why should anyone else?

Sure. If you do that though, you should be consistent. Don't just punish ppl with the SM feat and stop there. Your way will make the spell more complicated to use depending on the context. If an enemy is behind the target, awesome! If an ally...

[Man_Over_Game]

Sure. If you do that though, you should be consistent. Don't just punish ppl with the SM feat and stop there. Your way will make the spell more complicated to use depending on the context. If an enemy is behind the target, awesome! If an ally...

I wonder what the best way to resolve that would be?

One dice roll, comparing both character's bonuses?

Two separate dice rolls, so each character gets a unique save?



To ensure that Disintegrate doesn't gain any power (and allowing you to effectively treat it as a cast against all creatures in a line), I'd treat it as a single roll, first hitting the intended creature with the cover (+2) bonus, and then whatever creature was granting him cover (with no cover bonus). The more dice rolls you have, the more chances of success Disintegrate gets, and it only ever needs to succeed once to get value.

So limiting the number of rolls makes it weaker, to compensate for having multiple creatures to succeed against.

[rmnimoc]

Right, so there are two possibilities: either something about an item being held or carried inherently bolsters the durability of an item, keeping it safe from harm (in which case the shield is fine), or it doesn't (in which case disintegrate destroys the shield and also if the attack hits you and doesn't kill you you've lost your armor). Spells like Shatter seem to imply that the first is the case and nothing RAW really supports the second, but if you're DMing and the players are cool with it then you do you.

Though if you want to play with the second possibility it'd break my SoD personally to not have items break in other situations, like having your armor and shields take damage from attacks that don't hit you. Of course this disproportionately screws over martial characters, but that makes sense if you think about it and it's not like verisimilitude cares about balance. Just make sure you tell your players well in advance if you do decide to play that kind of game.

Also worth noting that that kind of ruling makes Shatter the best spell in the game since it deals 3d8 damage and basically any item a human can carry has 3d6 hp (4d8 for armor or other medium size items).

[Man_Over_Game]

Right, so there are two possibilities: either something about an item being held or carried inherently bolsters the durability of an item, keeping it safe from harm (in which case the shield is fine), or it doesn't (in which case disintegrate destroys the shield and also if the attack hits you and doesn't kill you you've lost your armor). Spells like Shatter seem to imply that the first is the case and nothing RAW really supports the second, but if you're DMing and the players are cool with it then you do you.

Though if you want to play with the second possibility it'd break my SoD personally to not have items break in other situations, like having your armor and shields take damage from attacks that don't hit you. Of course this disproportionately screws over martial characters, but that makes sense if you think about it and it's not like verisimilitude cares about balance. Just make sure you tell your players well in advance if you do decide to play that kind of game.

Also worth noting that that kind of ruling makes Shatter the best spell in the game since it deals 3d8 damage and basically any item a human can carry has 3d6 hp (4d8 for armor or other medium size items).

Not necessarily. Shatter explicitly says it deals damage to objects not being worn or carried. It's also an AoE spell, level 2, and it halves damage on a miss.

Disintegrate is a level 6 spell that only has an effect (on a single creature) on a hit.

There's a drastic difference there. Additionally, nothing you carry adds any benefit to your Constitution saving throw against Shatter. The shield might add a bonus to your save against Disintegrate. You're using the shield (for Disintegrate), but you're NOT using your armor (for Shatter).

I think a fair ruling is that only gear that is being used against an effect can be affected by that effect (unless something says otherwise). Why should you be able to strip a group of knights naked just because you carelessly spammed a level 2 spell at them?

[rmnimoc]

Valid points from a perspective of fairness and balance.

It's not about being fair though, it's about verisimilitude. There is no way in my head to justify disintegrate destroying shields but not shatter destroying armor. Either there's some inherent effect that protects your gear or there isn't. I'm not saying it should destroy everything, it clearly shouldn't because that's incredibly broken from a balance standpoint, but if we're approaching this from a perspective of verisimilitude it's one of the only two ways I can see this playing out in my head.

[GreyBlack]

It's not about being fair though, it's about verisimilitude. There is no way in my head to justify disintegrate destroying shields but not shatter destroying armor. Either there's some inherent effect that protects your gear or there isn't. I'm not saying it should destroy everything, it clearly shouldn't because that's incredibly broken from a balance standpoint, but if we're approaching this from a perspective of verisimilitude it's one of the only two ways I can see this playing out in my head.

Yup. This is why I said that verisimilitude might not be the best lens through which to view this particular conundrum. Either spells like shatter also destroy armor that's attended, or disintegrate doesn't affect the shield. Why would Shatter affect unattended armor but not attended armor? The same reason Disintegrate doesn't disintegrate a Shield Master's shield.

[Man_Over_Game]

Shatter does explicitly say it damages unattended items, where Disintegrate has no such clause.

Additionally, it's reasonable that the damage Shatter deals would be spread out over the mass of the entire object. Otherwise, you have a situation where it shatters equipment, but could leave the person wearing it unscathed.

Plus, that's...kinda what a DM is for. They're more than just a referee or a rule book. We aren't there to just shrug and say "oh well". We're there to make the right decisions, even if that disagrees with a manual, a player, or a past ruling.

[rmnimoc]

Shatter does explicitly say it damages unattended items, where Disintegrate has no such clause.

Additionally, it's reasonable that the damage Shatter deals would be spread out over the mass of the entire object. Otherwise, you have a situation where it shatters equipment, but could leave the person wearing it unscathed.

Shatter deals thunder damage, which makes sense because the fluff implies that it's an absurdly intense high pitch sound. Since it's sound, logically it would act as sound does and emanate from an area doing damage by rapidly vibrating objects with extreme force. For something like armor I could see the argument that your body dampens the vibrations by simply being there to dampen it, but that doesn't help shields, swords, or anything else really. Maybe there could be an argument that the magic finds the resonant frequency and somehow the Con save stops that somehow and that's why your stuff doesn't shatter, but even then it should still logically take half damage just like you do unless you have some spell that prevents that.

Also, your example that I think was meant to sound absurd actually makes a good deal of sense if you ignore the fact you can't really be unscathed from a "save for half" Con save without involving other magic. Sound gets distorted travelling through any medium, it's why you can cover a glass in foam and then play its resonant frequency and it'll take some serious adjustment to break the glass. In this case, the sound is a single instant wave that's dampened by the armor because sound doesn't travel through steel the same way it does air, leaving your armor shattered and you relatively unscathed (though not completely because it's save for half, not none).

[Man_Over_Game]

You make a good point. Realistically, it doesn't make much sense.

But we still want realism in our games, but not enough that it ceases to be fun. I think that's an important part of 5e.

[Nonah_Me]

A shield master disguises the outline of their body with the shield as much as bats away strikes, especially if the shield is larger than a buckler or whatever. I'd rule that the disintegrate ray punches a ray sized hole in the shield, but misses the body of the shielded person.

So, if it happened a bunch of times, I'd want someone to cast mending on the shield (or on the armor of a full plate wearer, etc).

[Tanarii]

DMG, page 272:
"When a ranged attack misses a target that has cover, you can use this optional rule to determine whether the cover was struck by the attack. Disintegrate isn't an attack, so technically this shouldn't apply. Which explains why it doesn't keep going if you save, maybe?

[djreynolds]

How are you envisioning disintegrate?

I see it like in Star Trek (SORRY) when someone gets hit and is vaporized.

Now when one uses shield master we are assuming that the shield is not deflecting this beam off to the side, but is taking the brunt on a successful save.

And if the shield bearer failed his save he and the shield would disintegrated, but if he passes, we are assuming the shield is damaged or destroyed, IMO the shield is vaporized, because the user is interposing the shield, unless the shield is magical.

So if a beholder for instance, might be able to bypass the magic shield?

[Greywander]

What people seem to think I'm saying: "Your shield should be destroyed."

What I'm actually saying:"Should your shield be destroyed?"

RAW, it seems like the shield is not destroyed. This doesn't really make sense if we assume that anything hit by the beam is disintegrated (except for a creature, who is just weakened until the beam can disintegrate them?). If we're saying the shield isn't destroyed, then for the sake of verisimilitude I'd like to have a rationalization as to why it isn't destroyed. So far, most of the rationalizations seem to be revolving around fluffing it as the shield not actually being hit in the first place.


Carried items are protected by their owner's aura of vitality.
An interesting explanation, but it would mean that the shield couldn't be targeted on its own. While the spell doesn't seem to disintegrate items when targeting a creature (unless the creature itself is disintegrated), it doesn't disallow targeting objects the creature is holding. Which is fair considering it's a 6th level spell and doesn't affect magic items.


Edit: You could rule that if the target's save would have failed, but passed because of the Shield Master bonus, that the shield is disintegrated.
This would be one way of handling it, but RAW it seems like nothing happens to the shield unless it, specifically, is targeted. As Man_Over_Game points out, shields are cheap, and this saves you a lot of damage, so it's not really that punishing. If you can't afford to buy a new shield, and you're already facing spellcasters with Disintegrate, I think you have bigger problems to worry about.


Ah, that's a good distinction to make... I'd rule:

if they blocked the spell, the shield would be disintegrated.
if they deflected the spell, it wouldn't, and whatever the ray DOES hit is then disintegrated
Usually, a deflected spell will be hitting something directly behind the original target, probably within a cone... unless they have a mirrored (silvered?) shield
The thing is, I would assume that deflecting a beam of disintegration would be more or less impossible, as the object doing the deflecting would be disintegrated as soon as the beam touched it. Maybe this isn't the case, though. Perhaps the beam has to hit at a steep enough angle to work; if the angle is shallow enough, it instead bounces off. Kind of like light reflecting inside a fiber-optic cable instead of passing through the side of it.


This, of course, also runs into a consistency issue-if the Full Plate Fighter gets hit with Disintegrate, shouldn't their armor be gone too? And while a spare shield or two ain't that expensive or hard to carry, a back-up full plate IS.
This kind of leads into the madhouse that is trying to rationalize HP. I mean, forget the armor, why doesn't a creature disintegrate when hit by the spell, unless their HP are low enough?

The best way I can rationalize this is to think of magic as a sort of disease. When hit by the beam, you are "infected", and then your body's natural defenses kick in and "fight off the infection". But it happens in basically an instant. If you're not strong enough, the spell overpowers you, and you die. This sort of brings us back to the "aura of vitality" argument.

Perhaps a caster is able to "tune" the spell to bypass a creature's aura of vitality, but in doing so it makes the beam harmless to the creature. As in, if you aim for the creature and hit their shield, no effect (protected by the aura of vitality). If you aim for the shield and hit the creature, also no effect (because you've tuned the spell to exclude them and their aura). Perhaps the spell is such that only the intended target can be affected, so if you miss and hit something else by accident, it has no effect at all.


A shield master disguises the outline of their body with the shield as much as bats away strikes, especially if the shield is larger than a buckler or whatever. I'd rule that the disintegrate ray punches a ray sized hole in the shield, but misses the body of the shielded person.

So, if it happened a bunch of times, I'd want someone to cast mending on the shield (or on the armor of a full plate wearer, etc).
This is kind of a funny image, and surprisingly workable (explains how it affects armor, too). It is already assumed that part of downtime is spent repairing and maintaining your gear, it's already built into the lifestyle expenses. Thus, mechanically there isn't an effect, but the beam would basically melt a (small; it says it's a thin green ray) hole in your shield and/or armor. These holes would then get patched off-screen during a long rest or downtime.

My only issue with this is that it implies the beam as the ability to pierce through objects without disintegrating that object, likely because your real target is behind that object. I can easily see this being used to more or less shoot through walls, or at least through cover.

[Dalebert]

This would be one way of handling it, but RAW it seems like nothing happens to the shield unless it, specifically, is targeted. As Man_Over_Game points out, shields are cheap, and this saves you a lot of damage, so it's not really that punishing. If you can't afford to buy a new shield, and you're already facing spellcasters with Disintegrate, I think you have bigger problems to worry about.

But how many people are carrying around spare shields? I suppose if your DM warned you "Oh, btw, I might destroy your shield. Heads up." but that seems pretty metagamey. So you destroy someone's shield, they'll have one by next game, but now you've deprived them of AC and the benefits of an entire feat for the rest of that game.


Perhaps a caster is able to "tune" the spell to bypass a creature's aura of vitality, but in doing so it makes the beam harmless to the creature. As in, if you aim for the creature and hit their shield, no effect (protected by the aura of vitality). If you aim for the shield and hit the creature, also no effect (because you've tuned the spell to exclude them and their aura). Perhaps the spell is such that only the intended target can be affected, so if you miss and hit something else by accident, it has no effect at all.

That's my point. You're picking a target as the caster and this spell is an all-or-nothing against THAT target. If you actually target the shield, it's just gone, but then you don't get to affect the wielder. It's described as a beam but there's no to-hit roll. Even if there were, friendly fire is not a thing in 5e. If you miss a target, you just miss. The end. If a DM wants to implement a notion that spells keep going if they miss their target, whether they're attack or save-based, that's fine to introduce that complication for their games, but be consistent about it! Don't just do it for this one spell against this one feat. Hence, the example with Thunderwave destroying the armor someone's wearing. But I personally would warn against opening up that whole can of worms! DM: "I suggest you bring spare gear. I destroy a lot of gear. A first level Thunderwave will destroy your armor even if you make your save. Oh, and don't form into lines. Beam spells continue on if they're dodged."

Think about another thing that never happens in 5e even though it happens in the movies all the time. What about someone jumping in front of a shot to take the hit for someone else? Not even possible by RAW except maybe with special features like defender(?) fighting style.

[Yunru]

You might as well argue you're targeting the Fighter's Plate Mail, not the Fighter, thus it shouldn't get a save.

[GreyBlack]

But how many people are carrying around spare shields? I suppose if your DM warned you "Oh, btw, I might destroy your shield. Heads up." but that seems pretty metagamey. So you destroy someone's shield, they'll have one by next game, but now you've deprived them of AC and the benefits of an entire feat for the rest of that game.



That's my point. You're picking a target as the caster and this spell is an all-or-nothing against THAT target. If you actually target the shield, it's just gone, but then you don't get to affect the wielder. It's described as a beam but there's no to-hit roll. Even if there were, friendly fire is not a thing in 5e. If you miss a target, you just miss. The end. If a DM wants to implement a notion that spells keep going if they miss their target, whether they're attack or save-based, that's fine to introduce that complication for their games, but be consistent about it! Don't just do it for this one spell against this one feat. Hence, the example with Thunderwave destroying the armor someone's wearing. But I personally would warn against opening up that whole can of worms! DM: "I suggest you bring spare gear. I destroy a lot of gear. A first level Thunderwave will destroy your armor even if you make your save. Oh, and don't form into lines. Beam spells continue on if they're dodged."

Think about another thing that never happens in 5e even though it happens in the movies all the time. What about someone jumping in front of a shot to take the hit for someone else? Not even possible by RAW except maybe with special features like defender(?) fighting style.

To add to the confusion, Disintegrate actually _does_ destroy all nonmagical equipment if it destroys the creature it targets. So it's this weird Schrodinger's beam attack that can both destroy the player's equipment and not destroy it at the same time. We just don't know which it does until it collapses the wave function.

[darknite]

If the Disintegrate targets a Creature who uses Shield Master to interpose their mundane shield to gain a bonus to their save and the save is made then the shield used for this is fine. Disintegrate was targetting the CREATURE, not the object. If the save is failed the creature and worn, non-magical items turn to dust.

If the Disintigrate targets the mundane shield, it's gone.

[Yunru]

If the Disintegrate targets a Creature who uses Shield Master to interpose their mundane shield to gain a bonus to their save and the save is made then the shield used for this is fine. Disintegrate was targetting the CREATURE, not the object. If the save is failed the creature and worn, non-magical items turn to dust.

If the Disintigrate targets the mundane shield, it's gone.

So you'd allow someone to target a tank's Plate Mail too I guess, for a no-save "lose all your AC"?

[Dalebert]

So you'd allow someone to target a tank's Plate Mail too I guess, for a no-save "lose all your AC"?

That's actually the RAW and I know you're not asking me but I'm fine with it for a 6th level spell.

[Vogie]

The thing is, I would assume that deflecting a beam of disintegration would be more or less impossible, as the object doing the deflecting would be disintegrated as soon as the beam touched it. Maybe this isn't the case, though. Perhaps the beam has to hit at a steep enough angle to work; if the angle is shallow enough, it instead bounces off. Kind of like light reflecting inside a fiber-optic cable instead of passing through the side of it.

Fiber optic cable is exactly what I'm thinking. It is a dexterity save, so the PC twisting out of the way is already. Add a shield in the mix, and using a shield to turn the ray into a glancing blow wouldn't be able to change the angle much, but may alter it slightly.

[Vorpalchicken]

Perhaps narratively it destroys the shield but we shouldn't penalize the player with an effect that the spell isn't supposed to have in the game.

So as long as he is making one handed attacks let him keep the +2 AC even with his narratively destroyed shield. After the fight he will have to pick up an enemy's shield or take that one that just happens to be hanging on the wall.

[Coffee_Dragon]

I would say that:

1) The shield is not destroyed, and

2) The fact that a disintegrated person disappears with all their stuff is to me a sufficiently strong indicator that you should not be able to target worn/attended objects separately from their owners. It's silly that "person gets hit [could have dodged], disappears along with fully covering armour" and "fully covering armour gets hit [wearer cannot possibly dodge], disappears leaving person inside" should be two possible scenarios.

[Vogie]

Perhaps narratively it destroys the shield but we shouldn't penalize the player with an effect that the spell isn't supposed to have in the game.

So as long as he is making one handed attacks let him keep the +2 AC even with his narratively destroyed shield. After the fight he will have to pick up an enemy's shield or take that one that just happens to be hanging on the wall.

That's fair. As the fight comes to a close, the well-worn shield cracks and splits, falling off your arm and into a pile next to you.

[Man_Over_Game]

Disintegrate isn't an attack, so technically this shouldn't apply. Which explains why it doesn't keep going if you save, maybe?


Apologies if it didn't make sense. It was intended to be a direct response to Dalebert's position as to why it shouldn't be allowed:

Once you start down that road--that it's a beam that disintegrates whatever it hits--then why doesn't the creature behind the target have to save if the target makes their save? It makes as much sense as disintegrating the shield. You can introduce all these complications but it's not in the spirit of 5e design of keeping it simple. This idea that "well, SOMETHING has to disintegrate" is not in the spell.
DMG, page 272:
"When a ranged attack misses a target that has cover, you can use this optional rule to determine whether the cover was struck by the attack. First, determine whether the attack roll would have hit the protected target without cover. If the attack roll falls within a range low enough to miss the target but high enough to strike the target if there had been no cover, the object used for cover is struck. If a creature is providing cover for the missed creature and the attack roll exceeds the AC of the covering creature, the covering creature is hit."

So it can be a thing, and something the developers kind of expected enough to create rudimentary rules on the subject.

[Vogie]

Apologies if it didn't make sense. It was intended to be a direct response to Dalebert's position as to why it shouldn't be allowed:

He got it - he was just pointing out that it didn't get an "attack roll", thus in game terms, it wasn't a "ranged attack misses a target", because it is neither "an attack" nor contains "a miss".

While technically correct, I still think Rule of Cool should apply in these scenarios - BBEG uses disintegrate, their target dives out of the way, and the cart behind them crumbles to dust.

[Man_Over_Game]

He got it - he was just pointing out that it didn't get an "attack roll", thus in game terms, it wasn't a "ranged attack misses a target", because it is neither "an attack" nor contains "a miss".

While technically correct, I still think Rule of Cool should apply in these scenarios - BBEG uses disintegrate, their target dives out of the way, and the cart behind them crumbles to dust.

The rules in question are about a optional rule, and I wouldn't expect them to create a subset of optional rules for a single spell. Similarly, there are no rules determining what you'd do with these optional rules if a creature providing cover was under the benefit of Sanctuary. They shouldn't have to come up with every answer to every scenario for us, that's what the DM is for.

Note that you can use a table as cover, and Firebolt would set that table on fire using these rules (but not if it hit the player). Note that Disintegrate would follow the same pattern, with the only major difference being that it'd vaporize the object.

[Yunru]

That's actually the RAW and I know you're not asking me but I'm fine with it for a 6th level spell.

Then why does the fleshy thing inside get a save when you target it instead of the full armour?

[Man_Over_Game]

Then why does the fleshy thing inside get a save when you target it instead of the full armour?

Balance is a concern, and hitting it too hard would make the game unfun.

We like realism in our games, but no so much that it starts to not be fun.


I could see someone enjoying the narrative of losing their shield after it valiantly saved the Paladin from being vaporized. I wouldn't see someone enjoying being stripped naked after taking 70 Force damage and having their AC drop to 9 and be 1500gp in the hole. When you make changes to a game, it needs to be planned around making the game more enjoyable. Otherwise...what's the point?

So you change the game to allow Firebolt and Fireball to set all objects, worn or carried, to be set on fire. Who would want that? Who did you help?

[Vogie]

Then why does the fleshy thing inside get a save when you target it instead of the full armour?

... because the armor doesn't have reflexes?

Unless you're referring to animated armor, which totally does have both reflexes and thus a Dex save.

[Yunru]

... because the armor doesn't have reflexes?

Unless you're referring to animated armor, which totally does have both reflexes and thus a Dex save.

It has the same reflexes as the wearer. Why should one get a save and not the other?

[Vogie]

It has the same reflexes as the wearer. Why should one get a save and not the other?

Listen, if you really want to stat out each individual piece of clothing your character wears so you can truly experience your DM saying "Um... no" followed by an audible eyeroll, more power to you.

But that's not what the thread's about.

[Yunru]

Listen, if you really want to stat out each individual piece of clothing your character wears so you can truly experience your DM saying "Um... no" followed by an audible eyeroll, more power to you.

But that's not what the thread's about.Oh?
Because the point I was making was against people saying you should be able to target a worn shield with no save.
Which then logically leads to "why not armour?"
Which in turn leads to "why not the person in the armour?"

[Tanarii]

Since it isnt an attack, and cannot "miss", but being agile helps as does a shield, we need to envision the beam differently.

Maybe it reaches out to a specific point like a fireball), and only causes damage/disint if the object or creature is still at that point. So the creature can dodge, or interpose a shield safely.

Of course this immediately prompts the question: why armor doesnt help? Otoh thats pretty much a universal question when it comes to shields providing a bonus but armor doesn't.

[Man_Over_Game]

Since it isnt an attack, and cannot "miss", but being agile helps as does a shield, we need to envision the beam differently.

Maybe it reaches out to a specific point like a fireball), and only causes damage/disint if the object or creature is still at that point. So the creature can dodge, or interpose a shield safely.

Of course this immediately prompts the question: why armor doesnt help? Otoh thats pretty much a universal question when it comes to shields providing a bonus but armor doesn't.

The boring answer is that the devs probably didn't think about things like destroying objects when they considered how saving throws were implemented. Or if they did, they omitted it as a balance choice, and a choice for lasting fun.

The fun answer is that 5e spells often revolve around a "force field" effect that encapsulates entire objects. Catapult, Enlarge/Reduce, Invisibility, they all do this sort of effect. Disintegrate does, too, but the shield is separate enough from your body for it to be considered its own object. So when the spell hits your shield, it only impacts the shield.

[darknite]

Disintegrate isn't an attack, so technically this shouldn't apply. Which explains why it doesn't keep going if you save, maybe?

I'm just saying that RAW that's what happens. In my own game I'd probably give the player a save to keep worn items from getting dusted. Or not. The world's a dangerous place.

[Dalebert]

Then why does the fleshy thing inside get a save when you target it instead of the full armour?

You'd have to ask the people who wrote the spell. Maybe they meant to allow a save if someone targets a thing you're carrying or wearing but forgot. *Shrug* no idea. But then, why not just target the creature since his stuff will go with him?

If you're asking for a fluff answer, I'd say the spell is "in tune" with a chosen target. The beam has no effect on other targets, except possibly to be blocked but them. Ex: you take cover behind a table. You save with bonuses due to cover. Beam hits table. Table is not the intended target so it's fine. The beam was vibrating to your frequency; not the table's.

[GreyBlack]

Then why does the fleshy thing inside get a save when you target it instead of the full armour?

Because magic is weird and specifically breaks both immersion and verisimilitude when looked at too hard.

Hey, look! My original point!

[Tanarii]

I'm just saying that RAW that's what happens. In my own game I'd probably give the player a save to keep worn items from getting dusted. Or not. The world's a dangerous place.Pretty sure you meant to quote someone else.



If you're asking for a fluff answer, I'd say the spell is "in tune" with a chosen target. The beam has no effect on other targets, except possibly to be blocked but them. Ex: you take cover behind a table. You save with bonuses due to cover. Beam hits table. Table is not the intended target so it's fine. The beam was vibrating to your frequency; not the table's.
That's where I was going too, slightly different visualization, but basically it only affects the end point.

But the question is why the armor doesn't block it, and a Shield Master shield can? Or cover, for that matter? But the same question applies to a fireball for that matter, or any other Dex save. I know "hunkering down behind your shield/cover" is a great visual for a lot of folks, but by that logic armor should protect you.

[wuaffiliate]

Is your shield disintegrated, though?



Likely not as you should have a magic shield by the time a DM uses disintegrate.

[Man_Over_Game]

What's interesting about the last comment is that non-artifact magical items aren't really all that durable. They have resistance to all damage, and...that's it.

Although the Disintegrate spell still wouldn't do any damage, as it explicitly says it doesn't do anything to magical items. Not really trying to make a point, just saying some fun facts people might not know.