Shatter Shatter!

[JackMage666]

I have a question about Shatter... Can you shatter magic items? The second use of the ability says you can shatter any solid item, regardless of composition, but doesn't say anything about magic or not.. However, earlier in the description (the fluff, as some say), says it affects non-magical items only. The target says only solid objects, or crystalline creatures, and bothing about magic. My DM and I have read this, and are still confused. So, what do you guys think?

[oriong]

That's not the fluff, that's the description of the ability. You cannot affect magical objects.

[Bears With Lasers]

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

Where's the confusion coming from?

[JackMage666]

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

That's the desciption of the targeted aility, and that's where we get confused. I tried to tell the player who did it that it didn't work, but he confused the DM with it. But, with outside opinions, who actually know what's going on, we can disallow it. I'll jsut have to tell him that he has to use Dispel Magic on the item first.

[Mewtarthio]

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

That's the desciption of the targeted aility, and that's where we get confused. I tried to tell the player who did it that it didn't work, but he confused the DM with it. But, with outside opinions, who actually know what's going on, we can disallow it. I'll jsut have to tell him that he has to use Dispel Magic on the item first.

Common sense should take precedence in this case. Do you think you should be able to Shatter artifacts? How about lightweight monsters that weigh less than ten pounds per caster level? Can a level twenty Wizard instantly Shatter an average human? Can he instantly Shatter a +5 Flaming Screaming Wizard-Killing Vorpal Jabberwockbane Elfbane Humanban Guisarme of the Gods of the Gods of the Gods? It's more logical to interpret the spell as only affecting nonmagical objects.

Besides, the latest version of the spell reads

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

Thus, there are exactly three things shatter can do:

1. Break multiple nonmagical objects (area effect)
2. Sunder single nonmagical objects (targeted effect)
3. Damage crystalline creatures (targeted effect)

[Douglas]

The first sentence is a short summary of all possible uses of Shatter. The rest of the spell description is further detailing, defining ambiguous words ("brittle"), and specifying more restrictions. Without an explicit exception to the restrictions in that first sentence, they remain in effect.

[Thomas]

Rules that don't explicitly contradict each other are complimentary, as in this case. A general statement is made, and specified later in the spell description.

[WhiteHarness]

I like the strict wording of this spell. Once, I had a player who wanted to shatter his opponent's mail shirt. He thought that the spell would let him do that. Nope, it says it will shatter one object. I allowed him to shatter one ring of the man's mail. To allow it to utterly destory the guy's armour, with no saving throw, is evil and unbalancing.

[Emperor Tippy]

White, what if the guy was wearing full plate? Or a breastplate. He could shatter the chest piece or breastplate but not the mail shirt/chain shirt?

[Thomas]

That's a silly definition. An object, in game terms, can be quite complex. Or do you require enchanters to enchant each link of maille individually, too? Each helmet and gauntlet? Each plate of a suit of plate armor?

Pft.

[kamikasei]

White, what if the guy was wearing full plate? Or a breastplate. He could shatter the chest piece or breastplate but not the mail shirt/chain shirt?

If he had the levels to make up the armour's weight at 10lb a level, I'd say he ought to be able to use shatter on a nonmagical piece of armour, except that:

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

You can’t sunder armor worn by another character. (here)

If a 3rd-level caster (weight limit 30lb) wants to try to shatter a chain shirt (weight 25lb) merely being carried by an opponent, why not?

[Thomas]

That's a better reason not to allow it, definitely.

[Viscount Einstrauss]

Ladies, look out for the pervert wizard- armed with a full array of daily uses of shatter.

[Thomas]

Can you sunder clothes being worn? Shatter wouldn't work, but a plain old Improved Sunder fighter cutting robes into ribbons and shirts into sashes...

[oriong]

I think that's a misuse of the term 'sunder'. You can't use the sunder action on armor worn by another character, but that's nothing like what the Shatter spell does, it is simply using the term 'sunder' literally (as in to destroy or break apart).

[kamikasei]

Can you sunder clothes being worn? Shatter wouldn't work, but a plain old Improved Sunder fighter cutting robes into ribbons and shirts into sashes...

Well, the issue about worn armour is purely a limitation of sunder. So I guess the answer depends on whether clothing is counted as "armour". Otherwise, the thing about not being able to sunder is the last line of a paragraph all about how to sunder carried or worn items, so I'd say Zorro can still get away with his signature move.

I think that's a misuse of the term 'sunder'. You can't use the sunder action on armor worn by another character, but that's nothing like what the Shatter spell does, it is simply using the term 'sunder' literally (as in to destroy or break apart).

Not at all. It looks to me like they deliberately used "sunder" there to distinguish sundering a solid object from breaking a brittle one. Surely they would have used another word if the link to the sunder action wasn't intended... am I giving Wizards too much credit?

[Wehrkind]

Sounds like a good feat chain for the swash buckler fighter fighter in a less than serious campaign. Put in a bonus to Intimidate if he pulls off a "sunder: cod peice" roll.

[oriong]

Not at all. It looks to me like they deliberately used "sunder" there to distinguish sundering a solid object from breaking a brittle one. Surely they would have used another word if the link to the sunder action wasn't intended... am I giving Wizards too much credit?

I really think it's just being literal here. The effects of the shatter spell share absolutely nothing in common with the Sunder action other than their common target (objects) and goal (destroying objects). I can very definitely tell you that casting a shatter spell is not a sunder attempt. It doesn't require an attack roll, it doesn't inflict actual damage, instead it allows a saving throw and simply destroys the object.

If they did intend for it to be read in that way they're being far, far too vague by simply using the phrase 'it sunders'.

[cupkeyk]

I have a Sonic Damage and object Question. What about Resonating Bolt. The spell description makes no limitations to the objects it can destroy. Can it basically strip another being naked (as well as damage them)?

[The_Snark]

I have a Sonic Damage and object Question. What about Resonating Bolt. The spell description makes no limitations to the objects it can destroy. Can it basically strip another being naked (as well as damage them)?

Objects worn or carried don't take damage from area-of-effect spells unless the wearer/carrier rolls a natural 1 on the save, if I recall correctly. This spell doesn't change that, it just does full damage to those objects that it does affect—as opposed to most energy spells, which deal half damage against objects.

[Bears With Lasers]

Really, if you want to destroy someone's objects, a chained targeted Dispel Magic followed by a chained Shatter is all you need. Doable from 11th level on--earlier if you can buy a lesser rod of chaining.

[Viscount Einstrauss]

Hmm. Could you hit someone with flesh to stone and then shatter them? Because that would be one bad ass finish.

[Bears With Lasers]

No, because your caster level is unlikely to be able to shatter that heavy an object.

[Viscount Einstrauss]

How so? Ordinary humans weigh 120 pounds by RAW. That's only level 12.

[Annarrkkii]

I think that you can definitely sunder worn clothing. The Epic Levels Handbook (an admittedly completely non-authoritative source) had a section, if I recall correctly, concerning the DMs potential ways to deal with epic characters. One of these was to have the NPCs use sunder or disarm to destroy/rip off robes, headbands, and the like if the PCs were relying on worn items for power.

It didn't outline the rules for this—it just referenced it as a strategy.

[Bears With Lasers]

How so? Ordinary humans weigh 120 pounds by RAW. That's only level 12.

Now turn that volume to stone. Suddenly, they weigh much more.

[kamikasei]

How so? Ordinary humans weigh 120 pounds by RAW. That's only level 12.

All their gear would get turned to stone, too. (Carried gear, too, which could be quite a bit.) For a male human you're looking at 175 pounds weight on average (the 120 lb is the base weight, with the actual minimum being 124 lb for a 5' tall guy); add in a modest weight of armour, weaponry etc. and you're over the limit. An average-build male human wearing a chain shirt is already at the limit for a level 20 caster.

And of course, all of this is assuming that flesh-to-stone doesn't alter the density of the transmuted person. It doesn't say anything about it in the spell specification, but it's not much of a reach to assume that the person is turned to actual, heavy stone.

[Thomas]

Hmm. Could you hit someone with flesh to stone and then shatter them? Because that would be one bad ass finish.

I think the fundamental issue there is that the petrified person doesn't become an object, and can't be affected as an object. I might be wrong.

[Viscount Einstrauss]

Hmm. Is there any official measurement for the weight of ordinary stone in D&D?

[Maelstrom]

Well, your standard human is just a bit less massive than water. Water is 62 pounds to the cubic foot, so let say "normal" (slightly positively buoyant in water) humans weigh in at 60 lbs per cubic foot. This puts your example of a "normal" human being of 120 lbs (shouldn't this be more like 150??) has a volume of around 2 cubic feet. Granite weighs in at 167.5 lbs per cubic foot (limestone is almost the same, about 162.5 lbs/cubic foot)

So, your "average human" turned to stone (granite in my example), disregarding all equipment, is weighing in at a hefty 335 pounds... A bit out of scope for shatter...