Forcebreaker weapon vs mage armor/shield spells

[Scarytincan]

Thoughts? These and resilient sphere mention being made of magical force, but I could also see counter arguments around the terminology of 'structures'...

[Unoriginal]

Thoughts? These and resilient sphere mention being made of magical force, but I could also see counter arguments around the terminology of 'structures'...

I don't see an argument for Mage Armor or Shield not being structures.

However, the whole point of those spells is augmenting AC, so a DM would have to rule how targeting those spells would work.

[Scarytincan]

I'd also be curious about people's thoughts regarding if a caster has mage armor and casts shield against the attack, would it shatter one per attack? Or break both and hit the caster in one attack? Etc

[JackPhoenix]

I'd also be curious about people's thoughts regarding if a caster has mage armor and casts shield against the attack, would it shatter one per attack? Or break both and hit the caster in one attack? Etc

If you hit the target, you've missed both the Mage Armor and the Shield. If you miss because of the Shield, you've hit Shield. If you miss and your total attack roll was more than the target's unarmored AC, but less than its AC with Mage Armor, you've hit Mage Armor. If you miss and your total attack roll was less than the target's unarmored AC, you didn't hit anything.

[Scarytincan]

True, for terms of which of the spells you're hitting. But if using one of these weapons, would you maybe just roll to attack vs their unarmored ac and blow through both spells?

[JackPhoenix]

True, for terms of which of the spells you're hitting. But if using one of these weapons, would you maybe just roll to attack vs their unarmored ac and blow through both spells?

Hell no. You're either hitting the target, or one of the defenses. You're not hitting all 3 with a single attack.

[Scarytincan]

I'd generally be inclined to agree, but for the sake of playing devils advocate, why? Based on what rules? I'd think most medieval panes of glass for example would be weak enough that a lead sling bullet would blow right through and hit a target easily enough for example

[GeneralVryth]

I'd generally be inclined to agree, but for the sake of playing devils advocate, why? Based on what rules? I'd think most medieval panes of glass for example would be weak enough that a lead sling bullet would blow right through and hit a target easily enough for example

It depends on the fiction of the spells. In your example you have to shoot through the glass to hit your target so it can more logically be simplified. In the Mage Armor and Shield examples you may not have to go through them to hit your target (and in fact a normal weapon may have to go around them to hit the target), The question becomes what is actual game world expression of Mage Armor and Shield? Are they just what they sound like and you hit a mage by getting around them? Are they bubble shields that an attacker is overcoming to hurt the mage (this is what Shield looks like in BG3)? That expression tells you whether an attack has to hit them to hit the target or whether they can/have to be avoided to hit target.

[Dr.Samurai]

I'd generally be inclined to agree, but for the sake of playing devils advocate, why?
Because he said so, lol, there's no other reason.

To your point, that's not the only way it can work.

If someone is swinging a maul at you, as an example, they're not trying to find a gap in your armor. They're going to keep you at arm's length and try to land a hard-hitting blow against your armor-clad body to give you a concussion or dislocate something or worse. So they "hit" the armor and they "hit" you. There's no "you bypassed my plate armor and found flesh".

Now force effects are generally impervious to weapons. Forcebreaker weapons change that; they specifically destroy force effects.

So if someone swings this forcebreaker bludgeoning weapon against you and it hits your shield spell, does it stop there? Maybe, maybe not. Does it stop at your Mage Armor? Maybe, maybe not.

I can see this thing destroy the force effects in its way and continuing the swing. Like the sling bullet through glass in your post. It's breaks through the force defenses that the target has up and hits the target.

Some DMs may rule that it stops at the first effect.

[JackPhoenix]

I'd generally be inclined to agree, but for the sake of playing devils advocate, why? Based on what rules? I'd think most medieval panes of glass for example would be weak enough that a lead sling bullet would blow right through and hit a target easily enough for example

Because, as Dr.Samurai put it, I ruled it so. There are no rules for that, but your ruling is like deciding that I don't care your character is armored in plate and carrying a (normal) shield, I decided to break your armor (Perhaps using adamantine weapon, or Shatterspike, or just normal weapons, after all, rules for damaging objects are in the DMG and don't require the object to be unattended like many spells do), which means I get to ignore your full AC, hit both you and damage or destroy two different parts of your equipment at the same time.

[stoutstien]

Assuming id ever use this type of blanket trump card item (I wouldn't ) id say it could shatter the shield spell if you hit the target > spell is cast > attack hits the shield or if you deliberately targeted it with a different attack.

It would not interact with mage armor because the armor isn't a structure as much as a augmentation of the person using it hence the reason why it doesn't work with suit armor but does work with shields<equipment>. Mage armor doesn't function by imposing a solid barrier as much as a fluid that just makes it more difficult to land effective blows so the force breaker can never actual come in contact with a solid surface to function but it's still a + weapon so it can push through the resistance easier regardless.

[Mastikator]

Effects that destroy objects typically don't destroy worn or equipped objects. Fireball will destroy clothes, unless they're worn by a creature that survives the fireball. IMO same ought to apply to forcebreaker weapons.

[Witty Username]

I have been wanting a game event blowing up a shield spell for a while, so I am inclined to favorably rule for the forcebeaker.

As for mage armor, I am less emotional, but I like thinking of mage armor as a light coat of force, so I would go with it until it broke something.

[KorvinStarmast]

Hell no. You're either hitting the target, or one of the defenses. You're not hitting all 3 with a single attack. Concur.

As for mage armor, I am less emotional, but I like thinking of mage armor as a light coat of force, so I would go with it until it broke something. Hmm, that thought has a Dune vibe to it.

[Psyren]

I would not rule that Mage Armor and Shield are "structures" myself. The intent of the property seems to be to deal with Resilient Sphere, Wall of Force, Forcecage and the like.

[Inquisitor]

I have been wanting a game event blowing up a shield spell for a while, so I am inclined to favorably rule for the forcebeaker.

As for mage armor, I am less emotional, but I like thinking of mage armor as a light coat of force, so I would go with it until it broke something.

I'm in agreement with this. Given how strong Shield is, it makes sense that someone is going to construct weapons that knock them down. I'd probably say the first hit on the Shield knocks it down, but doesn't go through.

[Bobthewizard]

I would not rule that Mage Armor and Shield are "structures" myself. The intent of the property seems to be to deal with Resilient Sphere, Wall of Force, Forcecage and the like.

I agree with this. I think if they had meant for it to work on mage armor and shield, they would not have specifically used the word structures, which means building-like objects in English. I would not consider any armor or shield a structure.

[Amnestic]

I could see letting an attack blocked by Shield specifically destroy the Shield, so that the spell ends for all future attacks until the caster's next turn, but the reacted attack still misses.

That's about the furthest I'd take it though, nothing on mage armour.

[Dr.Samurai]

Conan, what is best in life?

To crush Shield spells, destroy Mage Armors, and hear the lamentations of their wizards! :smallcool:

[Kane0]

I'd let it work as a 'sunder' attempt, replqcing an attack to 'disarm' the shield or mage armor.