Spells ruling: Shatter

Arkhandus

First Post
No, a creature is not an object in D&D. Nor is a part of a person. Unless it's severed. An inanimate corpse or a severed head would be objects. You can't target a creature's head specifically with a Scorching Ray, for example, so you can't target his or her fingernail with a Shatter.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

moritheil

First Post
Corsair said:
Nothing.

SRD: "Likewise, it prevents the functioning of any magic items or spells within its confines."

It is still a magic item, merely a non-functioning one. It's actually status as a magic item does not change.

But when you say "prevents the functioning" would you say that it doesn't gain any of the benefits of being a magic item?

Arkhandus said:
You can't target a creature's head specifically with a Scorching Ray, for example, so you can't target his or her fingernail with a Shatter.

Or, alternatively, you CAN target a creature's head with scorching ray, but the effect is exactly the same as targeting their body. ;) So the effect of targeting a fingernail with Shatter is the same as targeting the whole creature.

eamon said:
Sure - a permanent magic item is permanantly magical, while a spell usually is not. If a magic item's powers are suppressed by dispel magic, would you allow shatter to function?

I don't see a problem with lumping temporary and permanently magical items together for the purposes of shatter. They both have an aura.

I'm with you up to the point where you cite the aura as your reason - Nystul's Magic Aura grants an aura but doesn't make an object magical . . .
 

Jhulae

First Post
moritheil said:
But when you say "prevents the functioning" would you say that it doesn't gain any of the benefits of being a magic item?

And, you missed the part of Antimagic Field where *spells* won't work inside. So Shatter can't shatter anything in an AMF.
 

Corsair

First Post
moritheil said:
But when you say "prevents the functioning" would you say that it doesn't gain any of the benefits of being a magic item?

Whether the item is a functioning magic item does not change its nature as a magic item. If your computer has a HD failure and fails to boot, is does not cease to be a computer.

I will retract one previous comment though: While I wouldn't allow the cheater of Mystra to shatter in the AMF, Dispel Magic does specifically say that when it suppresses and item, the item becomes non-magical. So that one would work.
 

Infiniti2000

First Post
Jhulae said:
And, you missed the part of Antimagic Field where *spells* won't work inside. So Shatter can't shatter anything in an AMF.
And, you missed the part in parentheses where moritheil provided a means for the shatter to work inside the anti-magic field (two such examples in fact). While I have never created/used an artifact with shatter, it is not impossible. I have, however, used an artifact to target the supposedly AMF-protected PC's with a flame strike. moritheil's hypothetical case is not too much of a stretch.
 

eamon

Explorer
moritheil said:
I'm with you up to the point where you cite the aura as your reason - Nystul's Magic Aura grants an aura but doesn't make an object magical . . .
The aura is merely an indication. In any case, the fact that it is possible to form an illusionary aura (note that spell itself says "the aura is false") doesn't mean much. In general, magic items have a magic aura, and non-magic item do not. Further, the name of spells such as "Magic Weapon" do give a hint as to their effect: they make a weapon magical. I'm not trying to suggest that an aura is the cause of an items immunity, but it's a good indication. In any case, there's a good case to be made that permanent magic weapons don't have the same aura as weapons affected by Magic Weapon, so it certainly can't be said that a particular aura is somehow a prerequisite for immunity from Shatter - it's just an indication.

Even if the aura were identical, it's perfectly possible to nevertheless distinguish between "true" magic items and items with a spell cast on them, but it's not really necessary: if a weapon is under the spell "magic weapon", and can bypass damage reduction/magic, and has the telltale increased hardness and hitpoints of a weapon with a magical enhancement bonus; and if the game mechanics make no difference between the effect of a spell or the effect of a permanent enhancement, then it stands to reason that it's not in any way implied that there is a difference in effect at all - there isn't a single instance of such a difference I can think of.

Of course, while there's no difference in effect there is a difference in cause. That's important, since it's possible to affect the cause directly, and spells which do this - such as dispel magic, and potentially detect magic - do distinguish between two otherwise identical effects. Then, with respect to Shatter: where's the cause/effect hierarchy here? Is an item immune from Shatter because of the effect (some cause has turned the item magical, and we care only about the effect that it's magical)? Or, is an item immune from Shatter because of the cause (some magical cause has effected a change, and we're only interested in the cause, which must be that it's inherently a magic item)? Since the game only distinguishes between causes in the most straightforward and explicit cases, and otherwise treats identical effects identically, it's my preference to do the same for Shatter: No matter the reason that the item is magical, if it is, then it's not affected by Shatter.
 

eamon

Explorer
Corsair said:
Whether the item is a functioning magic item does not change its nature as a magic item. If your computer has a HD failure and fails to boot, is does not cease to be a computer.
That's an interesting comparison. However, a computer is a bit of a fuzzy term - it used to be applied to actual people performing computations, for instance. Magical describes the means by which the item functions. Is a broken HD still a mass storage device? Is a Car-salesman who no longer sells cars still a car-salesman? Is a red apple which has become moldy and gray still red? Is a burnt out CPU still an electronic device? Is a dead body still human?

If a term is descriptive, then it only applies so long as the description applies. If a term is definitive... well, it's a more complex issue. "Magic", in the context of items in D&D, clearly strikes me as descriptive. Given the description of AMF - and it's naming - it's clear that items cease to function because their magic ceases; as such, they no longer qualify as "magic" items.
 

Elethiomel

First Post
eamon said:
That's an interesting comparison. However, a computer is a bit of a fuzzy term - it used to be applied to actual people performing computations, for instance. Magical describes the means by which the item functions. Is a broken HD still a mass storage device? Is a Car-salesman who no longer sells cars still a car-salesman? Is a red apple which has become moldy and gray still red? Is a burnt out CPU still an electronic device? Is a dead body still human?

If a term is descriptive, then it only applies so long as the description applies. If a term is definitive... well, it's a more complex issue. "Magic", in the context of items in D&D, clearly strikes me as descriptive. Given the description of AMF - and it's naming - it's clear that items cease to function because their magic ceases; as such, they no longer qualify as "magic" items.

I disagree. AMF suppresses magic, it does not remove it. If we were to judge spell effects by spell names we would have much bigger problems.
 

Hypersmurf

Moderatarrrrh...
Elethiomel said:
I disagree. AMF suppresses magic, it does not remove it.

Consider the text of Dispel Magic:

If the object that you target is a magic item, you make a dispel check against the item’s caster level. If you succeed, all the item’s magical properties are suppressed for 1d4 rounds, after which the item recovers on its own. A suppressed item becomes nonmagical for the duration of the effect. A magic item’s physical properties are unchanged: A suppressed magic sword is still a sword (a masterwork sword, in fact).

The last line is very similar to the wording in AMF:
Furthermore, while a magic sword does not function magically within the area, it is still a sword (and a masterwork sword at that).

I don't think there's any argument that a magic sword suppressed by a targeted Dispel Magic is subject to Shatter; the spell text states unambiguously that the item becomes nonmagical for the duration of the effect, and 'nonmagical' is Shatter's requirement.

The fact that AMF notes that a magic sword in an AMF is "still a sword, and a masterwork sword at that" argues to me that it is in the same state as the suppressed magic sword - "still a sword - a masterwork sword, in fact"... that is to say, masterwork, but at present nonmagical.

-Hyp.
 

Felix

Explorer
Corsair said:
If your computer has a HD failure and fails to boot, is does not cease to be a computer.
"So is it still her room when it's empty? Does the room, the thing have purpose?"

'Ol Jubal Early would ask if magic imbues the thing with a purpose beyond the mere benefits of the magic.

And then he would go for a swim in the black.

;)
 

Remove ads

Top