# Can Shatter sunder weapons?



## 0-hr (Jun 23, 2006)

It seems to me that a Shatter spell can be used to sunder a held, non-magical weapon, no matter what it is made out of. This make the spell really useful (IMO) - more so than those encounters with brittle or crystaline objects/creatures. Am I correct in thinking that the spell can be used as such. This 'secondary' ability is really obscured with all of the talk about crystal things, but below are the relavant bits of the spell descritption:



> *Shatter*
> 
> Area or Target: one solid object
> Saving Throw: Will negates (object)
> ...


----------



## shilsen (Jun 23, 2006)

Yes, it can (if the wielder blows a Will save). Shatter has always been one of my favorite spells, not due to the crystalline creature aspect (which very rarely occurs) but because of all the creative use you can put that spell to.


----------



## kigmatzomat (Jun 23, 2006)

Yes, you can _shatter_ weapons being weilded.  The weilder makes a Will save to protect the item.  Remember that magic weapons get a bonus to their save equal to their enhancement bonus.  Sentient weapons use their innate save or their weilder's, whichever is higher.  

Which is a brutal little thing I'm going to have start doing to my players now that a religious war is brewing.  Thanks for reminding me of this.


----------



## Henry (Jun 23, 2006)

About four sessions ago, the halfling cleric in our Eberron game used it to shatter the bow string of a Jungle giant with a masterwork shortbow. He was 11th level, and the bow definitely weighed under 110 pounds, and the giant had a terrible will save. Pretty ingenious, actually, as it stymied the giant's action that round, sure to really hurt the monk of the party.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jun 23, 2006)

kigmatzomat said:
			
		

> Yes, you can _shatter_ weapons being weilded.  The weilder makes a Will save to protect the item.  Remember that magic weapons get a bonus to their save equal to their enhancement bonus.  Sentient weapons use their innate save or their weilder's, whichever is higher.



 You missed the part about not being able to use _shatter _ against magical objects.  During the religious war, make sure you remember that. 



			
				Henry said:
			
		

> About four sessions ago, the halfling cleric in our Eberron game used it to shatter the bow string of a Jungle giant with a masterwork shortbow. He was 11th level, and the bow definitely weighed under 110 pounds, and the giant had a terrible will save.



 Very generous to allow targeting of the string and not the whole bow.  I would not allow it.  I don't consider the string to be a separate object while it's on the bow.  And, given that the string was targeted, I don't see how the weight of the bow had relevance.  Similarly, I would not allow targeting shatter on a sword hilt, or armor straps, or a section of floor, etc.  Of course, what really is an "object" is a gray area, so I can't fault the DM in this case.  But, as a player I would work towards exploiting the precedence it sets up.


----------



## Dr_Rictus (Jun 23, 2006)

Heck, that's what _shatter_ is for.  (If you ask me)


----------



## shilsen (Jun 23, 2006)

Dr_Rictus said:
			
		

> Heck, that's what _shatter_ is for.  (If you ask me)



 Absolutely. The fact that you can target nonmagial solid objects of any consistency makes Shatter an incredibly useful spell.


----------



## lukelightning (Jun 23, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> You missed the part about not being able to use _shatter _ against magical objects....




You: I wonder if this diamond pendant is magical?
Wizard: Oooh, I can tell you...(casts _shatter_, turning the diamond to dust).  My answer: not magic.
You: *$)@*$ wizard!
Wizard: Uh, well at least we can use that for _stoneskin_, hold on while I get my dustpan.


----------



## kigmatzomat (Jun 23, 2006)

Yup, I sure did.  That actually makes it _more_ useful in my opinion since the caster is unlikely to accidentally destroy something he might have wanted.   Yes, this will be used quite a lot, I think.  It will require some intelligent targeting ("He _shattered_ my _saddle?!?_") but it has much potential.


----------



## MarkB (Jun 24, 2006)

kigmatzomat said:
			
		

> Yup, I sure did.  That actually makes it _more_ useful in my opinion since the caster is unlikely to accidentally destroy something he might have wanted.   Yes, this will be used quite a lot, I think.  It will require some intelligent targeting ("He _shattered_ my _saddle?!?_") but it has much potential.



Indeed. Whilst targeting it against wizards is sub-optimal (due to their Will saves), if you can pull it off, _shatter_ing a spell component pouch is a very nasty thing to do. And if you're up against an archer with a magical bow, slow him down by _shatter_ing his quiver.


----------



## Liquidsabre (Jun 24, 2006)

Hmm, suppressing a magical weapon with a targeted dispel isn't the same thing as making the weapon non-magical. It's just suppressed. I take it that shatter would still not work on a "suppressed" magical item then.


----------



## Sithobi1 (Jun 24, 2006)

It's nonmagical for the duration, though, as specifically stated in Dispel Magic.


----------



## shilsen (Jun 24, 2006)

I disagree with Liquidsabre. As long as the weapon has been successfully "suppressed", it no longer counts as magical and is fair game for a Shatter.


----------



## Chimera (Jun 24, 2006)

MarkB said:
			
		

> Indeed. Whilst targeting it against wizards is sub-optimal (due to their Will saves),




A common misperception.  Sure, it's their 'good' save, but they rarely have Wisdom bonuses.  Hence, I have no problems with throwing a Will Save spell at a low-level Wizard with his +2, +3 or even +4 Will Save.

It's CLERICS that you really do not want to target with Will Saves.

I'd also like to point out that Potions prominently displayed in Potion Belts are a great target for _Shatter_ spells and Sundering.

(Oh, and I warned one of my players that, should his Rogue/Wizard start carrying around a backpack full of Acid flasks and Alchemist fire - as he was considering, the bad guys are going to take note of how he keeps pulling this stuff out of his pack, and they're going to start the "smashy, smashy" routine on it.  Even if it requires a House Rule.  It only makes sense.)


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jun 24, 2006)

Shatter glass of a potion?  No, that would be the same "object."  Otherwise, you could just shatter the hilt on the magical longsword or the straps on the magical armor, the hinges on the door, etc.  Be careful of what you allow as an "object."  In some cases, it might be okay, in others it might not.


----------



## Liquidsabre (Jun 24, 2006)

Oops, there was supposed to be a question mark at the end of my last sentence. I've always run _dispel _ + _shatter _ = busted magical item, but it just occured to me to ask the question: Is a suppressed magical item really the same as a non-magical item? Moot point though upon referencing the text since the spell calls the item non-magical during the duration of suppression, my bad. What I get for thinking out loud heh. Always been a fav spell combo with our cleric or paladin in the party upon an evil/unholy weapon wielded by the big bad!


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 24, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Shatter glass of a potion?  No, that would be the same "object."




If I pour a potion of Cure Light Wounds out of the vial and into a mug, and then drink the liquid from the mug, are my wounds cured?

-Hyp.


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 24, 2006)

I'm using the Warlock's version of Shatter for great effect thanks.   Shatter at will, lovely.

Now one question is the bottle containing a potion magical? 

If not shatter is evil against a party, that carrys a stock of potions.

Am I correct in thinking items in packs and belts don't count as attended, they need to be in hand. Thus all those cure potions go boom!


----------



## shilsen (Jun 24, 2006)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> Now one question is the bottle containing a potion magical?




I'd say "No," but I think there's basis for argument.



> Am I correct in thinking items in packs and belts don't count as attended, they need to be in hand. Thus all those cure potions go boom!




No. As long as the items are being carried by someone they count as attended.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jun 24, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Shatter glass of a potion?  No, that would be the same "object."  Otherwise, you could just shatter the hilt on the magical longsword or the straps on the magical armor, the hinges on the door, etc.  Be careful of what you allow as an "object."  In some cases, it might be okay, in others it might not.




What is wrong with targetting the hinges on a door with Shatter?  Or a lock for that matter?  Or even the door knob?


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jun 24, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If I pour a potion of Cure Light Wounds out of the vial and into a mug, and then drink the liquid from the mug, are my wounds cured?
> 
> -Hyp.



 Beats me!  Maybe it cures the mug and then the liquid (if it doesn't evaporate) becomes inert. 



			
				RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> What is wrong with targetting the hinges on a door with Shatter? Or a lock for that matter? Or even the door knob?



 Nothing, if it works for you.  I just warned caution.


----------



## Zamtap (Jun 25, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If I pour a potion of Cure Light Wounds out of the vial and into a mug, and then drink the liquid from the mug, are my wounds cured?
> 
> -Hyp.




I think it is unclear from the potions and oils passage in the DMG what would happen. Now if we look at the potion miscability rules it follows that if mixing potions outside the body then drinking them gives an effect, then logically just decanting one and then drinking it gives the original effect so yes I believe the wounds are cured

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20060401b


----------



## kigmatzomat (Jun 25, 2006)

I think the comment was rhetorical, to show that the glass of a potion bottle is not magic.  The logic that says a potion bottle is magic b/c it contains a magic potion also says that a backpack becomes magic b/c it contains a handfull of wands, or that a scrollcase becomes magic b/c it has spell scrolls in them. 

The "one object" term is generally interpreted IMC to mean "things that are physically bonded, so that grabbing any one and lifting would lift the whole."    That works for the object-destroying spells and the object-augmenting spells 99% of the time.  

A potion no more makes the bottle magic than a flame-blade sword makes a crate magic, or a table it is sitting on as magic.  

Detect magic will fail on a potion if the container is made of lead, after all.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jun 26, 2006)

kigmatzomat said:
			
		

> I think the comment was rhetorical, to show that the glass of a potion bottle is not magic.  The logic that says a potion bottle is magic b/c it contains a magic potion also says that a backpack becomes magic b/c it contains a handfull of wands, or that a scrollcase becomes magic b/c it has spell scrolls in them.



 No, it doesn't.  The 'logic' doesn't mean anything of the sort.  When a character creatures a potion, that character creates a potion, including the bottle, flask, or whatever the liquid, oil, or whatever is contained within.

There's no reason, logical or otherwise, why the bottle is not magical.

In fact, unless you have specific item creation rules that identifies which parts of magical items are not magical, then you have to rule that the bottle is either magical or part of the magical item for the purposes of it being an "object."


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 26, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> No, it doesn't.  The 'logic' doesn't mean anything of the sort.  When a character creatures a potion, that character creates a potion, including the bottle, flask, or whatever the liquid, oil, or whatever is contained within.




* _A potion is a magic liquid that produces its effect when imbibed._

* _A typical potion or oil consists of 1 ounce of liquid held in a ceramic or glass vial fitted with a tight stopper._

* _Drinking a potion or applying an oil requires no special skill. The user merely removes the stopper and swallows the potion or smears on the oil._

So, the first point tells us that the potion is a magic liquid.  The third point tells us that you must swallow the potion to cause the effect.

The second point could be read in two ways:

- A typical potion or oil consists of [1 ounce of liquid held in a ceramic or glass vial fitted with a tight stopper].

or 

- A typical potion or oil consists of [1 ounce of liquid] held in a ceramic or glass vial fitted with a tight stopper.

If we read it the first way, it a/ contradicts the first point (a potion is a magic liquid), and b/ means that you must swallow the ceramic or glass vial along with the liquid to activate the effect.

If we read it the second way, it means that the liquid is magical, and the vial is just a container for the magic liquid.

If the liquid is the magical part, there's nothing to suggest the vial is magical.

If the vial is part of the potion, it is a magical object, but it also must be swallowed.

-Hyp.


----------



## rvalle (Jun 26, 2006)

As a flip side to the 'dispel+shatter' question, does Magic Weapon or other such spell then make the weapon/item immune to Shatter (for the duration of the spell)?

I'm gussing it would.

rv


----------



## Henry (Jun 26, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Very generous to allow targeting of the string and not the whole bow.  I would not allow it.  I don't consider the string to be a separate object while it's on the bow.  And, given that the string was targeted, I don't see how the weight of the bow had relevance.  Similarly, I would not allow targeting shatter on a sword hilt, or armor straps, or a section of floor, etc.  Of course, what really is an "object" is a gray area, so I can't fault the DM in this case.  But, as a player I would work towards exploiting the precedence it sets up.




Because he targeted the bow, the string was creative license.  The whole bow definitely weighed less than 110 lbs, so no problem from a rules perspective.


Here's a similar question, though: Drow is descending on a webline from the ceiling, created by it's own body. Could a shatter target it separately (because it's nowhere near the drow!) or does it still get a will save?


----------



## shilsen (Jun 26, 2006)

Henry said:
			
		

> Here's a similar question, though: Drow is descending on a webline from the ceiling, created by it's own body. Could a shatter target it separately (because it's nowhere near the drow!) or does it still get a will save?




As long as there's a drow at the end of the line, I'd treat it as attended, i.e. give it a Will save.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 26, 2006)

Henry said:
			
		

> Here's a similar question, though: Drow is descending on a webline from the ceiling, created by it's own body. Could a shatter target it separately (because it's nowhere near the drow!) or does it still get a will save?




If you wanted a precedent for a ruling on "How long can an object be and still be attended?", you could extrapolate from the Invisibility spell:
_Any part of an item that the subject carries but that extends more than 10 feet from it becomes visible._

-Hyp.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jun 27, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If the liquid is the magical part, there's nothing to suggest the vial is magical.



 There's nothing to suggest that the vial isn't magical, is there?  More to the actual point, is there any clear definition of what an object is?  Can I target the hilt on a magical longsword?  Is the hilt magical?  How about the straps on some armor, or the chain of an amulet, or the rolling pin on a scroll, etc.?

Can you animate the lock out of a door, or maybe the doorknob, or hinges?

Can you animate the potion bottle, but not the magical liquid inside of a potion sitting on the counter?

You can't sunder armor, but can you sunder the straps holding the armor together?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 27, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> There's nothing to suggest that the vial isn't magical, is there?  More to the actual point, is there any clear definition of what an object is?  Can I target the hilt on a magical longsword?  Is the hilt magical?  How about the straps on some armor, or the chain of an amulet, or the rolling pin on a scroll, etc.?
> 
> Can you animate the lock out of a door, or maybe the doorknob, or hinges?
> 
> ...




The hilt is part of the sword; if the sword is magical, the hilt is magical.

The straps are part of the armor; if the rule states that armor cannot be sundered, the straps are covered by that ruling.

If the lock/knob/hinge is defined as a separate object, it can be animated independently of the door.

If the potion is the magical liquid, then the vial it is contained in is not magical liquid, and thus not the potion.

Should a potion of CLW work if it's poured over a medicine spoon of sugar and fed to an injured child?  IMO, absolutely - the child is swallowing the magical liquid.  The fact that it's not being administered directly from a glass vial doesn't change that.

-Hyp.


----------



## Legildur (Jun 27, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If you wanted a precedent for a ruling on "How long can an object be and still be attended?", you could extrapolate from the Invisibility spell:
> _Any part of an item that the subject carries but that extends more than 10 feet from it becomes visible._
> 
> -Hyp.



What about a barbarian minotaur wielding a longspear (as happened to us on Friday night)?  Is that 10ft from the square it occupies?  Or 10ft from the hands holding the spear? (said hands could be 10ft from squares occupied).  Is the spear still attended? (it's a serious question, I'm not trying to poke fun).


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 27, 2006)

Legildur said:
			
		

> What about a barbarian minotaur wielding a longspear (as happened to us on Friday night)?  Is that 10ft from the square it occupies?  Or 10ft from the hands holding the spear? (said hands could be 10ft from squares occupied).  Is the spear still attended? (it's a serious question, I'm not trying to poke fun).




With an invisibility spell, he'd have to be careful how he held it, or the tip of the spearhead or butt might become visible.

I'd personally call it attended - as I said, calling a portion of it unattended would be an extrapolation from the invisibility rule, if one felt such was needed.

-Hyp.


----------



## airwalkrr (Jun 27, 2006)

One of my favorite uses for shatter is an alternative to the knock spell. It does the same thing really and has other uses besides. As long as you don't see a need to close the door later and don't mind making a bit of noise, it is a flashy way to enter a room.


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 27, 2006)

Woot! Fantasy SWAT dynamic entry!

Have a cleric follow it with a readied Sound Burst.


----------

