Is a suppressed item considered non-magical for spell targeting?

[Kahuna Burger]

Dispel Magic, in the section on suppressing a magic item's abilities, it states "A suppressed item becomes nonmagical for the duration of the effect. An interdimensional interface (such as a bag of holding) is temporarily closed. A magic item’s physical properties are unchanged: A suppressed magic sword is still a sword (a masterwork sword, in fact)."

To me, "becomes nonmagical" means that for that brief window of time, the item is an appropriate target for Shatter, Rusting Grasp, or another spell which targets a nonmagical item. However, when I suggested this to a group a while back, they declared that even though it had no magical abilities while suppressed, it wasn't really non magical and thus was still not an acceptable target for such spells. I was glad the DM expressed this ruling before I wasted spells trying it, but it seems like a decision to change the rules rather than what the rules really meant.

Would you allow a suppressed magic sword to be subject to Shatter or Rusting Grasp? Do you consider saying no an interpretation of the rules or a change in the rules (possibly to avoid a tactic seen as abusive)?

 

[mvincent]

Would you allow a suppressed magic sword to be subject to Shatter or Rusting Grasp?

Yes. Most others I've seen discussing this in threads appear to feel the same way.

Do you consider saying no an interpretation of the rules or a change in the rules (possibly to avoid a tactic seen as abusive)?

I consider it a change in the rules. Also, use of dispel magic this way doesn't seem all that abusive to me... compared to other options, it takes some effort for a moderate effect... and destroying gear would seem to mostly work against the PC's (especially once NPC's start using the tactic). As a player, I don't think I'd have a problem with a DM wanting to rule against it

 

[frankthedm]

it seems like a decision to change the rules rather than what the rules really meant.

I agree.

 

[Edheldur]

The words "becomes nonmagical" mean that the item is a valid target for spells or effects that affect nonmagical items, to me. However, what the DM says, goes.

 

[MarkB]

Yes. Most others I've seen discussing this in threads appear to feel the same way.

I consider it a change in the rules. Also, use of dispel magic this way doesn't seem all that abusive to me... compared to other options, it takes some effort for a moderate effect... and destroying gear would seem to mostly work against the PC's (especially once NPC's start using the tactic). As a player, I don't think I'd have a problem with a DM wanting to rule against it

Where it can get abusive is with a Warlock with Voracious Dispelling and Baleful Utterance.

Magic trap? Cast Voracious Dispelling on it until you make the caster level check, then shatter it.

Magic lock? Cast Voracious Dispelling on it until you make the caster level check, then shatter it.

Magic manacles? Cast Voracious Dispelling on them until you make the caster level check, then shatter them.

 

[Vegepygmy]

However, when I suggested this to a group a while back, they declared that even though it had no magical abilities while suppressed, it wasn't really non magical and thus was still not an acceptable target for such spells.

That's how I rule on the matter, though I freely admit that the literal RAW say otherwise.

 

[green slime]

Where it can get abusive is with a Warlock with Voracious Dispelling and Baleful Utterance.

Magic trap? Cast Voracious Dispelling on it until you make the caster level check, then shatter it.

Magic lock? Cast Voracious Dispelling on it until you make the caster level check, then shatter it.

Magic manacles? Cast Voracious Dispelling on them until you make the caster level check, then shatter them.

Yes, that could be a problem. Thanx for the heads up!

 

[Sound of Azure]

Hmmm. I've always treated a suppressed item as a magic item with a +0 bonus, and no supernatural/spell-like abilities, and therefore is not subject to effects that only work on non-magical stuff. I didn't think it would be ruled differently by others, but there you go.

Diversity is great!

 

[Hypersmurf]

Hmmm. I've always treated a suppressed item as a magic item with a +0 bonus, and no supernatural/spell-like abilities, and therefore is not subject to effects that only work on non-magical stuff. I didn't think it would be ruled differently by others, but there you go.

I'm picturing a spell, Transmute Green to Purple. Target: one green object. "An empurpled item becomes non-green for the duration of the effect."

My assumption is that for the duration of the effect, the object isn't green. It's a valid target for spells that only affect non-green objects, because it isn't green, it's purple, as long as Transmute Green to Purple is in effect.

Once Transmute Green to Purple wears off, the object stops being purple and resumes being green. But if someone had cast Shatter Non-Green on the object in the mean time, it would have worked just fine... because the object was, albeit temporarily, non-green per the Transmute Green to Purple text.

-Hyp.

 

[Felix]

Empurpled.

Empurpled. Empurpled.

Empurpledempurpledempurpled.

It just rolls of the tongue.

And I'd allow Shatter to work against a supressed magic weapon.