Post/Author/DateTime	Post
pmurray@bigpond.com 02-24-07, 01:06 AM	What are the rules for attempting to use "Baleful Utterance" to sunder an opponent's weapon? CA p9 states "Shatter objects as the shatter spell." Ok. PHB p278 - "Shatter". * breaks brittle nonmagical objects * sunders a single nonmagical object * damages a crystalline creature Cool. I assume that by "sunder" the description means "makes a sundering attack (according to the sundering rules)", not "instantly sunders an item sucessfully". The rules for sundering attacks ar at PHB p158 (melee), and PHB p165-167 (out of melee) The melee rules don't cover sundering with a spell, but I assume that targeted spells like shatter automatically hit, but attended objects and magical items get a will save. The shatter spell, however, states that it can be targeted against "nonmagical" objects. Does this mean that it is ineffective against magical objects? Does this mean that Baleful Utterance cannot be targeted on an opponent's magic sword? Now then - how much damage? PHB p165 states that sonic attacks deal damage to objects ad they do to creatures, but the shatter spell says that it does 16d/level to crystalline creatures. But how much damage does it do to an object? It states that "you can target it against a single solid object" but neglects to say how much damage it does. I would presume that it's the full 1d6/lev (max 10d6) because it's intended to work on objects - but the spell description does not explicitly say so. So - here's my conclusion so far: Our 2nd level witch makes a Baleful Utterance attack against an opponent's +2 mace. It's an attended object, so the opponent gets a will save. However, because it's a magic item, it uses 2+1/2 it's caster level as it's save (if that is better). According to DMG p 286, To craft a magig weapon the caster level must be at least three times that of the enhancment. So the will save fof the item will be at least 5, better than the orc that is using it. Now ... what's the DC? Do you use the DC of the shatter spell, or do you use the character's warlock level? Anyway. The item fails its will save and the warlock rolls high and does 10 points of damage. Let's assume it is a wooden-hafted +2 mace. A 1-handed hafted weapon has a hardness of 5 and 5 hp (PHB 166). However - this is a magical weapon. According to the DMG 3.5 errata, each +1 adds 2 to the hardness and 10 to the HP. So our +2 mace actually has hardness/hp of 9/25. The baleful utterance 1 point of damage, with 24 left to go. So, this is all cool - assuming that Shatter does 1d6/level, and assuming it can be sucessfully targeted at magical and noncrystalline objects. Have I got it right?
StoneStokes 02-24-07, 01:46 AM	Have I got it right? No, but it's completely understandable, as I will explain in a minute. First, shatter is completely ineffective against a magical item. However, the ruling you describe seems to be a perfectly good house rule, in my opinion. The word "sunder" appears in the SRD, but not in the Player's Handbook. I would go by what is in the PHB, which indicates that shatter destroys non-magical objects. If used as an area attack, it destroys many small brittle objects (the type you might break if you clinked two of them together too forcefully). If used as a targeted attack, it destroys one solid object (it seems to be left to the DM's discretion as to whether leather is "solid") up to a certain weight limit. I hope this helps. StoneStokes
Sildatorak 02-26-07, 10:36 AM	The shatter spell, however, states that it can be targeted against "nonmagical" objects. Does this mean that it is ineffective against magical objects?Yes. Now then - how much damage?All of it. Shatter is designed to break a single object (or many brittle objects). The saving throw is made by the item's wielder if the object is attended. If the object is unattended the save will automatically fail.
DarkRhystar 02-26-07, 01:18 PM	Have I got it right? Though you can't shatter a magical item... you can (arguably) dispel the item to suppress the magic and then shatter it. Since Warlocks have an endless supply of both dispel and shatter... ;)
Mindolin 02-26-07, 01:37 PM	Yeah, I allow the use of dispelling and then shattering, as the object is no longer magic, at least for a short time. I think it works out well, as it makes the encounter easier, but at the cost of a fair bit of treasure.
pmurray@bigpond.com 02-26-07, 11:30 PM	Though you can't shatter a magical item... you can (arguably) dispel the item to suppress the magic and then shatter it. Since Warlocks have an endless supply of both dispel and shatter... ;) :eek: I will mention this to our warlock.
Lord Nedd 02-26-07, 11:49 PM	:eek: I will mention this to our warlock. I am not sure that the dispel, shatter combo works. Suppressed != non-magical (Programming talk to say that suppressed does not equal non-magical). So even though the item is suppressed, it is still technically a magic item, though forced into an inert form for the duration. In a few rounds, it will revert back to active status. Someone more knowledgable can argue this with the books and faq. This just doesn't seem right though. -LN
DarkRhystar 02-27-07, 02:38 AM	This just doesn't seem right though. I hear you and that's why I put (arguably) above. Some say this works and some do not. I look at it this way though: The warlock is spending two rounds (Dispel and Shatter) to destroy a magic item (which is one less item the party takes as treasure). Even at best you're destroying your own treasure. At worst you're wasting 2 rounds and destroying your own treasure. Good for some fights, but use it too often and your coin-purse is going to take a hit.
Lord Nedd 02-27-07, 02:47 AM	I hear you and that's why I put (arguably) above. Some say this works and some do not. I look at it this way though: The warlock is spending two rounds (Dispel and Shatter) to destroy a magic item (which is one less item the party takes as treasure). Even at best you're destroying your own treasure. At worst you're wasting 2 rounds and destroying your own treasure. Good for some fights, but use it too often and your coin-purse is going to take a hit. And if it is not unattended, it is going to get a save as well, I know. It is setting precendent for wizards/sorcs and other folks who have access to such spells as well. I just don't like it. (I sound petulant today. Heh heh.)