Spells ruling: Shatter

[Jhulae]

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.

And, while Hyp is dead on - even an intelligent +5 vorpal sword is just a masterwork sword while in an AMF, it doesn't matter one bit. Shatter won't shatter anything in an AMF.

An antimagic field suppresses any spell or magical effect used within, brought into, or cast into the area, but does not dispel it. Time spent within an antimagic field counts against the suppressed spell’s duration.

 

[Switchblade]

Not entirely true. You CAN cast inside an AMF if you are using the right (or wrong, according to viewpoint) source books.

e.g In the Lords of Madness there is a spell which allows you to cast into/through an AMF, you cast it as a swift action and the next spell you cast works. Can't remember the name though.

 

[Deset Gled]

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.

Another (and, IMNSHO, move elegant and convincing) proof that a suppressed magic weapon is not magic lies in the Magic Weapon section of the SRD. It states "Magic weapons have enhancement bonuses ranging from +1 to +5. They apply these bonuses to both attack and damage rolls when used in combat." The contra positive of this statement is that if your weapon does not have at least a +1 enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls, it is not a magic weapon.

 

[Hypersmurf]

And, while Hyp is dead on - even an intelligent +5 vorpal sword is just a masterwork sword while in an AMF, it doesn't matter one bit. Shatter won't shatter anything in an AMF.

You keep repeating that, without acknowledging the original caveat moritheil included:
What happens if I cast a shatter on the weapon in an antimagic field (via Initiate of Mystra or an artifact)?

His hypothetical already includes an understanding that ordinarily, a Shatter spell cannot function in an AMF, but that under certain conditions, that restriction can be sidestepped.

For example, the text states "Certain spells, such as wall of force, prismatic sphere, and prismatic wall, remain unaffected by antimagic field (see the individual spell descriptions). Artifacts and deities are unaffected by mortal magic such as this."

So moritheil posits an artifact that can destroy one nonmagical object it touches, as the Shatter spell. The artifact is unaffected by mortal magic such as an AMF, so its Shatter effect still functions in an AMF... and in the AMF, the +5 Vorpal sword is one nonmagical object.

He suggests a caster with the Initiate of Mystra feat from Player's Guide to Faerun, which gives a caster a Spellcraft check in order to successfully cast a spell in an AMF.

Ordinarily, a Shatter cannot take effect inside an AMF. But he's suggesting out-of-the-ordinary situations.

-Hyp.

 

[moritheil]

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.

I do occasionally miss the finer implications of rulings (as we all do) but I would like to think that I would not overlook anything so basic

The use of Initiate of Mystra to get working spells within an AMV is pretty well-known, to the point where you're the first person I've corresponded with in months - if not years - who didn't immediately think of Initiate of Mystra when the topic of AMF came up.

If you wouldn't allow anything like that in your campaigns, I can certainly understand, but RAW it works. Other methods for doing this aside from the artifact or the Initiate of Mystra include using a Salient Divine Ability to mimic shatter, or using an epic spell to mimic shatter

Oh, and this works too:

Not entirely true. You CAN cast inside an AMF if you are using the right (or wrong, according to viewpoint) source books.

e.g In the Lords of Madness there is a spell which allows you to cast into/through an AMF, you cast it as a swift action and the next spell you cast works. Can't remember the name though.

It only allows a single spell of fourth level or lower, but shatter qualifies. I think it's called "Invoke Magic" or something similar to that.

So, that's five ways to get a working shatter inside an AMF. I'm sure there are other, less obvious methods.

 

[Folly]

Another (and, IMNSHO, move elegant and convincing) proof that a suppressed magic weapon is not magic lies in the Magic Weapon section of the SRD. It states "Magic weapons have enhancement bonuses ranging from +1 to +5. They apply these bonuses to both attack and damage rolls when used in combat." The contra positive of this statement is that if your weapon does not have at least a +1 enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls, it is not a magic weapon.

Close, but I believe you have a slight mistake here. Since the text is using 'have' instead of something like 'are', the meaning that I read is that it is an implication. And since it is stating A->B, it does not confirm that B->A.

 

[Deset Gled]

Close, but I believe you have a slight mistake here. Since the text is using 'have' instead of something like 'are', the meaning that I read is that it is an implication.

"Magic weapons have enhancement bonuses ranging from +1 to +5" is about as explicit as you can get. Please explain how there is anything ambiguous about this statement.

And since it is stating A->B, it does not confirm that B->A.

I didn't state that A->B confirms B->A. I stated that A->B confirms !B->!A. Further information can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraposition

 

[ardentmoth]

I didn't state that A->B confirms B->A. I stated that A->B confirms !B->!A. Further information can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraposition

I made the red/color example on that page! ^_^ yay for me! lol....wow i have no life...

(btw, i am MilquetoastCJW on wikipedia)

 

[Doug La Grow]

Does shatter work on potions?

 

[Celebrim]

Does shatter work on potions?

If you mean, "Does shatter work on the vial in which a potion is contained?", then the answer would be, "Yes."

I don't think you can reasonably shatter a liquid though, but you can certainly shatter containers. And since most are glass or porcelain, they would be rather fragile and easily broken.