Adamantine vs. Incorporeality

[LokiDR]

I do hope 3.5 comes up with a different word to describe the bonus from materials such as adamantine, as this tends to come up often. Maybe a "quality" bonus that does not stack with magical enhancement like masterwork.

 

[FANGO]

First of all, if someone is finding adamantine weapons for cheaper than normal +2 weapons, I want to know where they're buying their adamantine, because everywhere I've gone adamantine +2 weapons cost 1,000gp more than magical +2 weapons.

Also, adamantine weapons do cut through DR, they have an enchancement bonus and an enhancement bonus is required to cut through DR, therefore they cut through DR. End of discussion. (I'm not going to get into that argument again, because I'm right, and there's nothing in the core rules that suggests differently)

The incorporeality thing is a little unclear since it says +1 magical weapon, but I would allow adamantine weapons to hit incorporeal beings, though I suppose it's a little bit more up to interpretation there than in the DR-bypassing issue (which has nothing to do with interpretation, because they bypass DR, and that's all there is to that).

It's interesting that someone brought up the stacking enhancement bonuses thing...if it were true that "natural enhancement bonuses" and "magical enhancemnt bonuses" were indeed different by the rules, then they would stack, as they are different bonuses (which proves again that DR is bypassed by adamantine). Personally, I'd say that you can't add a special ability to a weapon that's made of adamantine, since the special ability is derived from magic, and the adamantine has no magical enchantments on it already, and I always read that part of the rules as meaning that the sword had to already have a magical enchantment on it, not just an enhancement bonus...then again, I've always thought that was a stupid rule anyway, so I would probably allow a +2 adamantine keen sword, but I would charge for a +3 sword +1,000gp, or maybe a little more than that...not really too sure about that one.

 

[3d6]

That incorporeal creatures are immune to all non-magical attack forms is unclear?

And on damage reduction, that's hardly unclear either:

Monster Manual, page 9:
For example, the werewolf (damage reduction 15/silver) takes normal damage from weapons with +1 or better magical bonuses, but not from non-magical weapons made from material other than silver.

I believe that an adamantine weapon is a "non-magical weapon made from material other than silver," as well as a weapon lacking a "+1 or better magical bonus," so it doesn't get through a werewolf's damage reduction, and by extension, anyone else's.

 

[FANGO]

Does adamantine have an enhancement bonus? Yes.

Is DR bypassed by weapons with enhancement bonuses equal to or better than the number after the slash? Yes.

Therefore, adamantine bypasses DR. Period.

A poorly written example that doesn't use actual rule-based terms ("magical bonus" isn't in the PHB glossary, while "enhancement bonus" is) is hardly something that can trump the actual rules (which state that DR is bypassed by adamantine).

 

[LokiDR]

Also, adamantine weapons do cut through DR, they have an enchancement bonus and an enhancement bonus is required to cut through DR, therefore they cut through DR. End of discussion. (I'm not going to get into that argument again, because I'm right, and there's nothing in the core rules that suggests differently)

If the matter were as simple as that, it wouldn't be brought up as often as it is, would it? Perhaps you should drop your attitude a bit.

DR of +X has always been described as magical, comming from the tradition of "can only be harmed by magical weapons". MMII makes this clear in no uncertain terms. But if you want to ignore books, don't declare "you are right". That is plain arrogance.

 

[FANGO]

If I were just plain declaring that I was right, then I wouldn't back it up with the pertinent information from the books, but if you'll notice I have done that very thing. In the books, it says that DR is bypassed by an enhancement bonus, and it also says that adamantine has an enhancement bonus. It could not get any simpler. Just because people don't pay enough attention to realize this (that is, just because this issue is brought up often) doesn't mean it's invalid.

 

[3d6]

Does adamantine have an enhancement bonus?

Indeed it does.

Is DR bypassed by weapons with enhancement bonuses equal to or better than the number after the slash?

Not exactly. Per the Monster Manual, the Monster Manual II, and the sage, it needs to be a magical enhancement bonus.

Therefore, adamantine bypasses DR.

I think not.

A poorly written example that doesn't use actual rule-based terms ("magical bonus" isn't in the PHB glossary, while "enhancement bonus" is)

It doesn't have to be in the PHB glossary. A magical bonus is a bonus that is magical. There is a thing called common sense.

...is hardly something that can trump the actual rules (which state that DR is bypassed by adamantine).

The actual rules state that DR is ignored by weapons with an enhancement bonus, with the caveat that it must be a magical weapon.

Just out of curiosity, are you one of the people who argue that "death" doesn't prevent you for adventuing without penalty, because no penalty is listed for the "death" condition other than the soul leaving the body?

 

[FANGO]

Search the "Special Abilities" page of the SRD for the phrase "magical enhancement bonus." You will find that it does not exist on that page. Also, adamantine gives a "natural +2 enhancement bonus," not a "+2 natural enhancement bonus." There is no such thing as either a "natural enhancement bonus" or a "magical enhancement bonus" in the rules, because all enhancement bonuses are the same, and they all bypass DR.

 

[3d6]

Ah, yes, the SRD argument.

You do not play Dungeons and Dragons with the SRD. You play Dungeons and Dragons with the three core rulebooks. The three core rulebooks say that you need a "magical bonus" to bypass damage reduction. What the SRD says is irrelevant on a "D&D Rules" board.

 

[FANGO]

"The SRD argument"? That is the only argument there is. The SRD is, by definition, the D&D core rulebooks without flavor text...that is, the D&D rules and only the D&D rules. I don't have a copy of the MM or DMG handy, so I use the SRD in a pinch, because it contains all portions of those books that are actually relevant to the rules, and that is it's entire purpose for being.

Anyway, I told myself I wouldn't get into this argument (even though I'm not really using any "arguments," per se, merely statements of fact), and so I'm going to stop here, since it's obvious that no matter how many times I prove that I'm right, you're just going to go on using whatever house rules you would like. Meanwhile, I'll be over here actually using the real rules (not that house rules are bad, but you ought to acknowledge that you're using them).