[Magic] Making/Breaking spells on armor or weapons

[Gnome]

Can you cast Shatter on an enemy's sword while he's holding it? While it's sheathed? Can you cast Explode on an enemy's helmet?
The target of the spell is technically an inanimate object (as required for Making/Breaking spells), but these examples feel different for some reason. Should the spell be resisted by the user? Or just fail if the object is held or worn?

[Plane]

Originally Posted by Gnome

Can you cast Shatter on an enemy's sword while he's holding it?
While it's sheathed?

I don't see why not. M116 says unless it does enough damage to break it, it causes no harm at all though. How much DR does the steel have? How much HP can your sword lose before being broken?

I imagine if it was sheathed that M11's -5 penalty to cast on something you can't see would apply, making it trickier. That might also apply if the opponent was somehow able to hide his sword behind his shield/cloak, though that'd be easier with a knife.

Originally Posted by Gnome

Can you cast Explode on an enemy's helmet?

I can't see anything on M118 preventing that. Pretty costly and prereq-laden so it ought to be good!

Low-Tech I think suggests on how to estimate the HP of various armor, I think based on its weight, and suggests that they are protected by 1 less DR than they provide a wearer.

Originally Posted by Gnome

The target of the spell is technically an inanimate object (as required for Making/Breaking spells), but these examples feel different for some reason. Should the spell be resisted by the user? Or just fail if the object is held or worn?

I don't see why, unless the user/holder/wearer had some kinda special ability.

That's probably why spells like "Shatterproof" or Toughen/Fortify would be popular, to stop attacks like that.

Magic Resistance (B67) comes to mind, but I'm not sure if it protects your gear in its raw form. It doesn't seem to specify it protects stuff you're holding like Mana Damper (also B67) does.

M123 allows Magic Rresistance to be applied not just to characters, but also enchanted into gear. Easy to overlook since (like Shatterproof) it's not listed in the Enchantment section.

Mana Damper would be pretty good, I think if you lowered to low mana any spell cast on your gear would be at -5, and if lowered to No Mana then your gear would be immune to spells.

[Gnome]

Shatter and Explode ignore DR. Suppose the victim is wearing a mail coif on his head (4 lbs, HP 14). On average, a 4d Explode will destroy it and do frag damage to the victim's skull, with no chance for resistance. I'm a little concerned that this spell allows you to basically auto-kill an enemy unless they come prepared with enchanted armor...

[Plane]

Weaken is the only one I see that explicitly ignores DR. The closest thing to that in Shatter is "similar to Weaken".

If one reads "but quicker .. and can be cast repeatedly" as the only 2 respects in which it differs: that assumption is proven wrong by it also being:
1) harder to learn (VH)
2) lower cost (1 energy per die instead of 2 energy per die)
3) needs magery

Not ignoring DR could be another issue of difference.

[evileeyore]

If I were to allow these in a 'medieval' fantasy campaign I'd probably change Weaken's "Subject’s DR does not protect it" to "Subject’s DR only protects objects designed for combat".

This keeps them working great against doors, walls, potion bottles, etc, but 'protects' weapons, sheilds, and armor.

Or simply remove it. Or apply it only to Weaken as I've done in the past. Removing or limiting also allows the spells Toughen and Shatterproof to have an actual effect against Weaken, Shatter, and Explode instead of being literally useless.

Alternately if an item is "carried" it might get a HT resistance roll. This means most items have a 12, but Fine (+1) or Very Fine (+2) and Ruggedized (+2) items would be slightly harder to destroy (and Cheap -2, would be 'easier').


My feeling on Weaken (and Shatter and Explode) was that those spells are meant to take down castle walls (or bridges as in the opening vignette) and such, not kill enemy combatants by turning their armor into a IED.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

If I were to allow these in a 'medieval' fantasy campaign I'd probably change Weaken's "Subject’s DR does not protect it" to "Subject’s DR only protects objects designed for combat".

There's no need, the long casting time of Weaken doesn't make it particularly suitable for combat anyway, unless a mage has it at a high enough level to cut down on its casting time.

Originally Posted by evileeyore

This keeps them working great against doors, walls, potion bottles, etc, but 'protects' weapons, sheilds, and armor.

I think perhaps that those types of things, being more important, would be more likely to have magical protections put on them to prevent this.

Originally Posted by evileeyore

Or simply remove it. Or apply it only to Weaken as I've done in the past.

That seems like the RAW way. If someone wants to penetrate DR using Shatter they should cast Penetrating Spell (M123)

Although if Weaken lowered the HP below 1/3 that halves the DR I think.

Originally Posted by evileeyore

Removing or limiting also allows the spells Toughen and Shatterproof to have an actual effect against Weaken, Shatter, and Explode instead of being literally useless.

Shatterproof doubles the HP of an item, so that helps stop the spell Shatter regardless of how it interacts with DR.

Originally Posted by evileeyore

Alternately if an item is "carried" it might get a HT resistance roll. This means most items have a 12, but Fine (+1) or Very Fine (+2) and Ruggedized (+2) items would be slightly harder to destroy (and Cheap -2, would be 'easier').

Giving a resistance roll against a spell (even in situations where it normally would not get one) is covered by M124 "Spell Shield".

HT rolls are already involved if you reduce items to negative HP, to see if they break or not. No need to give them HT rolls to prevent damage in the first place.

Originally Posted by evileeyore

My feeling on Weaken (and Shatter and Explode) was that those spells are meant to take down castle walls (or bridges as in the opening vignette) and such, not kill enemy combatants by turning their armor into a IED.

Given that shatter has to completely deplete HP to work, I'm not sure how well it would work on a wall...

Ignoring the possibility of anti-cast enchantments on weapon/armor, the -1/yard penalty of regular spells doesn't make it particularly useful for a mage who wants to do offense from further-off, which is why they would rely on missile spells.

"Throw Spell" + "Shatter" could fix that, of course, but then since you need to hit normally, you'd need to deal with stuff like SM/Speed penalties.

[Balor Patch]

Originally Posted by Gnome

Shatter and Explode ignore DR. Suppose the victim is wearing a mail coif on his head (4 lbs, HP 14). On average, a 4d Explode will destroy it and do frag damage to the victim's skull, with no chance for resistance. I'm a little concerned that this spell allows you to basically auto-kill an enemy unless they come prepared with enchanted armor...

That's 7 FP, which is more than Tickle (4 FP) and almost as much as Flesh to Stone (9 FP) both of which have a better chance of success (15 skill vrs HT 12) and more effectively take the target out of the fight.

There's also a question of whether "break" means 0 HP or a failed death check. I suppose most objects are mooks anyway.

[Gnomasz]

Originally Posted by Plane

Weaken is the only one I see that explicitly ignores DR. The closest thing to that in Shatter is "similar to Weaken".

If one reads "but quicker .. and can be cast repeatedly" as the only 2 respects in which it differs: that assumption is proven wrong by it also being:
1) harder to learn (VH)
2) lower cost (1 energy per die instead of 2 energy per die)
3) needs magery

Not ignoring DR could be another issue of difference.

The difference is, "(VH)" etc. are specifically stated. "But doesn't ignore DR" is nowhere to be seen. I'd say by RAW, Shatter and Explode ignore DR.

IIRC, a broadsword has 12 HP, which means you need to get lucky with your damage roll for Shatter to work on it and if the spell "fails" by rolling low damage, you still lose 3 energy (and not just one) and even if it works, your opponent is still probably stronger and more dexterous than you are, and very close, and could pummel you with his bare fists. And if you want the higher damage of Shatter, you better put on some Missile Shield first so you won't kill yourself with the shrapnel, and if you invest 12 energy to get full damage… I think it's a fair price for a fight-ender.

I'd say those spells are fine as they are. Brutal, but hey, at least they bring something new to the table. Gnome, know that I love you for the suggestion, and my players will hate you.

[Gnome]

Originally Posted by Balor Patch

That's 7 FP, which is more than Tickle (4 FP) and almost as much as Flesh to Stone (9 FP) both of which have a better chance of success (15 skill vrs HT 12) and more effectively take the target out of the fight.

There's also a question of whether "break" means 0 HP or a failed death check. I suppose most objects are mooks anyway.

You're assuming skill 15 vs HT 12. I play in high level games, where both skill and resistance are much higher, and the Rule of 16 is very much in effect. This means that the chance of resistance is usually better than 50%, and much better if the defender has Luck, which is frequently the case as well.

When a spell offers no resistance, no Rule of 16 protection, and no reasonable countermeasures (armor and weapons specially enchanted for the purpose of resisting this trick are a countermeasure, but one that will very rarely be in place), it makes me suspicious. Yes it costs a lot of energy, but if you spend enough the effect is almost a sure thing, and almost certainly a brutal fight-ender if you're casting Explode on an enemy's helmet. Furthermore, since margin of success is not important, you could cast it from quite a distance and be equally effective.

[malloyd]

This is a longstanding issue - how do spells cast on objects work on somebody else's equipment? It applies to basically all of them. I first encountered it with the original version of Fantasy ("I cast Winged Knife on his sword and hurl it away to disarm him!").

Common house rule fixes include it doesn't work at all, the person holding the equipment gets a resistance roll, you have to win a contest of spell skill vs something (typically the holder's ST or DX or item use skill) and/or the spell roll takes a "hit location" penalty for the size of the object if it's being carried by somebody and hence moving around.