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

[lukelightning]

Personally I'd rule that it is still a magic item and not subject to shatter et. al. The items abilities are supressed, not eliminated.

Though if it did effectively make the item non-magical, I could see a great use for this. Say there is a dreaded Mordenkanen's....Morankanen's...Mordencainen's...uh, Morty's disjunction trap that the party has to pass through. You cast dispel magic on your items and bring them through, and since they aren't magical they don't get disjoined.

 

[mvincent]

if it did effectively make the item non-magical, I could see a great use for this. Say there is a dreaded Mordenkanen's....Morankanen's...Mordencainen's...uh, Morty's disjunction trap that the party has to pass through. You cast dispel magic on your items and bring them through, and since they aren't magical they don't get disjoined.

That actually seems like an excellent idea. Thank you for pointing out this out-of-the-box option.

 

[Wolfwood2]

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.

I don't see how any of that is a problem. Really, how often do the players need to break magical items? Not that often. If a warlock happens to have the right combo to do it when it would be useful, good on him.

All of those examples are of the PCs breaking into or out of things, and there are plenty of ways to do that already. If a warlock is doing it in a combat situation, then that's two rounds worth of actions and he has to make the dispel check.