Shatter Spell vs Magic Weapon Spell

[Dr_Rictus]

If a magic weapon has an enhancement bonus from +1 to +5 and the spell Magic Weapon gives a weapon a +1 enhancement, I would have to gather that this weapon is now magical, therefore, it is immune to shatter IMHO.

Um, no.

That's like saying: Socrates is mortal, and dogs are mortal, therefore Socrates is a dog.

Or for that matter: witches float, and wood floats, so therefore witches are made out of wood.

 

[spunky_mutters]

Well, it's a bit better than that. It's really like saying "so does Magic Weapon really make it a magic weapon?" which is a lot closer to making sense than the more than slightly disingenuous examples used.

 

[Hypersmurf]

2> The spell explicitly says "gives a weapon a +1 enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls".
This is NOT the same as a +1 Enhancement bonus. Enhancement bonuses also give extra HP and Hardness to the item, raise the Sunder threshold, and allow it to bypass a higher DR. The spells Magic Weapon and Greater Magic Weapon don't do this.

Buh? You're contending that a GMWed sword can't bypass DR X/+1?

3> When targetted with Dispel Magic, a +1 weapon suppresses its abilities, but is still magical. On the other hand, a weapon that's had Magic Weapon cast on it has the spell itself dispelled.

I actually run it the opposite. I have GMW grant extra hardness and hit points, and if a magic weapon is temporarily suppressed by Dispel Magic, it temporarily loses its bonus hardness and hit points, and can be broken by normal weapons.

And I certainly let GMW beat DR!

-Hyp.

 

[Spatzimaus]

Buh? You're contending that a GMWed sword can't bypass DR X/+1?

Actually, I wasn't contending that, I was just listing off all the benefits of a standard DMG Enhancement bonus. Then, I was noting that the spell only gives "a +1 enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls", which isn't the same thing because it's not as complete a list. A sword with Magic Weapon on it doesn't get extra HP or Hardness, for example.

That is, the standard +1 ability referred to as "Enhancement bonus" gives a +1 bonus of type "enhancement" to abilities A, B, C, D, E, and F.
The spell "Magic Weapon" gives bonus of type "enhancement" to A, B, and maybe C. This is not enough to equate it to the first part. Since this means the two aren't the same, then the protection against Shatter possessed by magic weapons doesn't extend to items temporarily enchanted by this spell.

But since we're being picky, I'd like to point out that the rules as written don't contradict that GMW interpretation, either. I've brought this up in GMW-nerfing discussions before.
The section on DR in the DMG (pp. 73-74) only refers to "+X enhancement bonus". Not "enhancement bonus to damage" or "enhancement bonus to attack roll". These aren't the same thing; use the bow-n-arrow stacking as an example. The Enhancement bonuses stack, but they don't stack for purposes of bypassing DR; a +3 bow firing +3 arrows doesn't get past DR /+6. Now, if you say that DR only checks enhancement bonus to attack roll, them GMW would work just fine, but it definitely can't be enhancement to damage, because of what'd happen on critical hits.
So, one way to tone down GMW in 3E is to take it like that, and say that Magic Weapon/GMW/Magic Fang/whatever only give bonuses to attack rolls and damage rolls, without any of the other benefits (like the DR penetration).

I'm not saying I play it that way, because I don't. IMC we fixed GMW in other ways. Also, I think they cleared it up a bit better in the FAQ at some point.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Not "enhancement bonus to damage" or "enhancement bonus to attack roll". These aren't the same thing; use the bow-n-arrow stacking as an example. The Enhancement bonuses stack, but they don't stack for purposes of bypassing DR; a +3 bow firing +3 arrows doesn't get past DR /+6. Now, if you say that DR only checks enhancement bonus to attack roll, them GMW would work just fine, but it definitely can't be enhancement to damage, because of what'd happen on critical hits.

I'd say that DR checks if the weapon in question has an enhancement bonus.

If you cast GMW on your bow and shoot an arrow at a gargoyle, you get a +3 enhancement bonus to your attack roll, but the arrow has no enhancement bonus. No DR penetration.

If you cast GMW on your arrow and shoot it at the gargoyle, you get a +3 enhancement bonus to your attack roll, and the arrow does have an enhancement bonus. DR penetration no problem.

-Hyp.

 

[Dr_Rictus]

Well, it's a bit better than that. It's really like saying "so does Magic Weapon really make it a magic weapon?" which is a lot closer to making sense than the more than slightly disingenuous examples used.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say it's like saying "so does Magic Weapon really make it a magic weapon?" That's not an argument, that's just a repetition of the question.

In any case, if one says (reproduced for handy reference):

If a magic weapon has an enhancement bonus from +1 to +5 and the spell Magic Weapon gives a weapon a +1 enhancement, I would have to gather that this weapon is now magical

Then as far as I can see one is either trying to construct a syllogism, or apply the scientific method. Unfortunately, both tests fail.

The syllogism is the construction I dismissed before, because it simply isn't valid reasoning. It's the argument that

A implies C
and
B implies C

allows you to derive

A is equivalent to (implies and is implied by) B.

Which it doesn't. This is in fact exactly the same as the fallacy of the witch being made of wood, whether you recognize it or not. There's nothing disingenuous about it.

But to give the benefit of the doubt for a moment, the only other interpretation of this I see is the scientific one: "A and B act the same to various tests, and therefore they probably are the same sort of thing."

But that's not what we have here, either. The basis of the scientific method is its success at prediction, that is, if A and B are consistent under all the tests I devise, they will probably remain consistent under all circumstances. Or in other words, if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

And that's not what we have. Magic items are produced by a different (and permanent) process, and can have a variety of properties other than an enhancement bonus, for example. If they have these points of divergence from items which are merely the target of a magic weapon spell, what basis do we have for believing that they should be the same in any other given particular (such as the effect of the shatter spell), just because they have one thing (an enhancement bonus) in common? Especially when the vast majority of objects which are uneqivocally magic items don't even have that property in the first place, and other items which are apparently not magical (adamantine weapons) do?

What we have is basically just, "well, at least it looks like a duck," if that. Well, so does a goose from far enough away. There may perhaps be an argument for merely being the target of a spell making something a "magical" object, but this isn't it.