Attention all ruleslawyers!

[Pielorinho]

It does seem to me like a more effective strategy would be:

Round one: Glasstrike.
Round two: Hit it with a hammer, or with a rock, or try to push it over.

Not only is this not a broken spell-combo, it's a waste of charges from the wand. I mean, the image is kind of cool, but you could accomplish more with a bludgeoning weapon.

Daniel

 

[Tormalicus]

But....isn't image everything? At least according to Sprite.

I like the idea of the spell combo. I'm one to waste magic items in the name of flare. Makes the game more interesting. Though the pushing the monster over option would be quite impressive. Good one Pielorinho.

 

[Tiberius]

Technically ... not exactly; glass is a LIQUID, with some crystalline properties. A very very very viscous liquid.

I think the "glass is a liquid" story is more of an urban legend than anything else. Here are a couple of links I googled up on the matter:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/Glass/glass.html

http://www.ualberta.ca/~bderksen/florin.html

Mind you, I haven't thoroughly evaluated these two, but I am encouraged that they seem to cite scholarly journals as sources. Therefore, draw your own conclusions, don't go spouting off that this is true merely because I said so (not that I imagine many of you would do that anyway).

-Tiberius

 

[kreynolds]

I believe I've read somewhere(don't know where....sorry) that a creature that has been turned to stone effectively has no Constitution....there for no Fortitude....

From the FAQ...

Suppose a PC has been petrified, and the party cleric is
about to cast a break enchantment spell to bring him back.
Can the cleric first cast an endurance spell to boost the
petrified character’s Constitution score so that he or she
won’t fail the required Fortitude save to avoid death? Can
he be considered an ally (for the purposes of spells or effects
that help allies) even when in stone form? Is he even
considered a creature as far as the endurance spell is
concerned?
&nbsp&nbsp&nbspFirst, when you restore a petrified creature with break
enchantment, no Fortitude save is required. The stone to flesh
spell requires the subject to make a Fortitude save (DC 15) to
survive the process, but break enchantment does not.
&nbsp&nbsp&nbspA petrified creature is mindless and without senses, but it is
still a creature. For all intents and purposes, a petrified creature
is an immobile construct, and magical effects applied to it
function as they would if used on any other construct. Since a
construct has no Constitution score in the first place, it cannot
benefit from an endurance spell, or from any other effect that
increases Constitution. When a petrified creature receives a
stone to flesh spell, it uses its normal Constitution score for the
required Fortitude save. In the case of a stone to flesh spell, the
recipient first turns back to flesh (and regains its normal
creature type complete with Constitution score), then makes the
Fortitude save.

 

[Pax]

I think the "glass is a liquid" story is more of an urban legend than anything else. Here are a couple of links I googled up on the matter:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/Glass/glass.html

A very interesting read, but it concludes with the phrase There is no clear answer to the question "Is glass solid or liquid?".

http://www.ualberta.ca/~bderksen/florin.html

And this one is no more conlusive. 8)

Glass is, perhaps, something else entirely on it's own, between liquid and solid.

 

[Dr_Rictus]

A very interesting read, but it concludes with the phrase There is no clear answer to the question "Is glass solid or liquid?".

True, but irrelevant to the point at hand. The question is not whether glass is solid or liquid, but whether it is crystaline or not. Glass has an amorphous molecular structure: it is not a crystal.

Glass is brittle, yes, not crystaline.

 

[Pielorinho]

True, but irrelevant to the point at hand. The question is not whether glass is solid or liquid, but whether it is crystaline or not. Glass has an amorphous molecular structure: it is not a crystal.

Perhaps not scientifically, but I as a DM would certainly rule that shatter would work in this case. Just as a lightning bolt spell doesn't immediately ground itself as it scientifically should, glass would be treated as crystal as it scientifically shouldn't.

But since "crystalline creature" isn't a creature subtype, the spell is ambiguous and open to DM interpretation.

Daniel

 

[Dr_Rictus]

Perhaps not scientifically, but I as a DM would certainly rule that shatter would work in this case.

And you're free to, but the distinction is only "scientific" because you say it is. I'm sure any medieval gemcutter would tell you the same thing. Crystals form facets and break along planes. That's what makes them look like crystals. Glass does not. You don't have to be a scientist to know that there's a difference, you just have to know the facts about the materials in question.

However, it's also the case that crystaline structure is what makes crystals more susceptible to sonic vibrations than glass is. A regular crystal structure means that the material has a consistent set of resonant frequencies throughout its structure.

Now, that's science, but again, you don't need science to know that it's much easier to break a crystal with the correct (and sufficiently loud) musical note than a glass.

But since "crystalline creature" isn't a creature subtype, the spell is ambiguous and open to DM interpretation.

Very true, but given that the DM is called upon to interpret it, I think it's more reasonable to interpret it as "creature made of crystal" than "creature made of brittle substance" or "creature made of material that could fool you into thinking it was crystal if you didn't know better."

Also, I might note that the spell description of shatter itself lists glass and crystal as different substances. Which to me makes it kind of hard to argue that shatter means to consider glass as being of a category with crystal.

 

[Pielorinho]

Also, I might note that the spell description of shatter itself lists glass and crystal as different substances. Which to me makes it kind of hard to argue that shatter means to consider glass as being of a category with crystal.

You make very good points, and the only thing that keeps me from conceding the argument to you is sheer pigheadedness .


Thing is, I like the image of chipping bits of glass off with the wand too much to let it go. And it stretches my credulity to say that it can hurt glass objects but not glass creatures who are inanimate and who are creatures solely by virtue of a bizarre definition of "creature". I suspect that the spell's description only mentions its damaging "crystalline" creatures because there ARE no glass creatures in the standard rules.

So maybe this is it: you're right about the crystal/glass distinction, and it might be important for some purposes, including for a literal reading of this spell. For fun-purposes, though, I'd need to rule-0 that the spell can affect creatures made of a brittle substance such as glass, crystal, porcelain, or what-have-you.

Daniel

 

[Dr_Rictus]

Oh, sure. Like I said, nothing stopping you from house-ruling it. And I doubt anybody playing your game is going to get his sensibilities offended if the thing affects glass creatures!