Adamantine and DR

[Black Knight Irios]

The same goes for Adamant but after having read your excerpt from SRD or somewhere else, I assume that I am wrong, your right. OK I could still say if I cast continual light on an adamant weapon it would be a magical weapon. But please don't answer this one it is a joke.

 

[Hypersmurf]

OK I could still say if I cast continual light on an adamant weapon...

Continual Light? Now that's a name I've not heard in a long time... a long time.

-Hyp.

 

[Black Knight Irios]

Would you appreciate, me saying continual flame, its based on its effect the same. Continual Light one spell from 2nd E. I think.

 

[Tar-Edhel]

Explain to me how the mechanics are different. I showed why I think your argument of natural armor doesn't work out in your favor, and the same goes for this one. I don't see how you are effectively separating the two examples you gave in the above statement. They're the same, just like your natural armor example.

Let's say it this way. In '+2 natural enhancement bonus', natural qualifies either enhancement bonus or just enhancement.

If you read it 'natural enhancement' bonus, it becomes a new type of bonus, that doesn't stack with (magical) enhancement bonuses (since it is specified in the rules).

If you read it natural 'enhancement bonus', it is an enhancement bonus (thus doesn't stack with magical enhancement bonus since they're the same type, just from different sources). In this case, you might be tempted to conclude that a +2 enhancement bonus should bypass DR, natural or not.

But anyway, MM p. 9, last paragraph,

For example, the werewolf (damage reduction 15/silver) takes normal damage from weapon with +1 or better magical bonuses, but not from nonmagical weapons made from material other than silver

So you do need magical enhancement bonuses to bypass DR.

 

[Black Knight Irios]

And once again my argumentation succumbs to yours, it is becoming obvious that you need magical enhanced weapons to penetrate DR.
With the readings you 2 gave, it is OK for me but at first you tried, too explain and it didn't seem especially right, so we had our little argument.

 

[kreynolds]

If you read it 'natural enhancement' bonus, it becomes a new type of bonus, that doesn't stack with (magical) enhancement bonuses (since it is specified in the rules).

If you read it natural 'enhancement bonus', it is an enhancement bonus (thus doesn't stack with magical enhancement bonus since they're the same type, just from different sources). In this case, you might be tempted to conclude that a +2 enhancement bonus should bypass DR, natural or not.

I wouldn't be tempted at all, because no matter what, its not magical. Thus it doesn't bypass DR (unless stated otherwise in the creature's DR writeup), natural or not. Period.

Whether or not it is a "+2 natural enhancement" bonus or a "natural +2 enhancement" bonus makes no difference at all in regards to DR. In regards to semantics and the rules, they still mean the same thing. Why? Because there is no such thing as a 'natural enhancement' bonus within the rules that works differently than a natural 'enhancement bonus'. It's pure semantics. You think it means something different. I don't.

But anyway, MM p. 9, last paragraph,

So you do need magical enhancement bonuses to bypass DR.

Exactly.

 

[Black Omega]

Lord, are we going over this again?

I asked Monte Cook what he intended in the DMG, over on the Forum at montecook.com. He said by the book Adamantine does NOT bypass DR. But that he didn't see anything wrong with houseruling that it does, you wouldn't be breaking anything.

So, by the rules, according to the man who wrote the rules, No.

Can you safely change that without messing anything up? Yes.

 

[magnas_veritas]

Lord, are we going over this again?

I asked Monte Cook what he intended in the DMG, over on the Forum at montecook.com. He said by the book Adamantine does NOT bypass DR. But that he didn't see anything wrong with houseruling that it does, you wouldn't be breaking anything.

So, by the rules, according to the man who wrote the rules, No.

Can you safely change that without messing anything up? Yes.

That works for me.

Personally, I like the idea of a metal that's so potent that it breaches DR, and requires magic to work (and, yes, that's a house...idea...in our game).

Brad

 

[kreynolds]

Lord, are we going over this again?

Of course. It's a day that ends in "y", isn't it?

I asked Monte Cook what he intended in the DMG, over on the Forum at montecook.com. He said by the book Adamantine does NOT bypass DR. But that he didn't see anything wrong with houseruling that it does, you wouldn't be breaking anything.

House ruling it may or may not be a problem, but that's not the point, and it's also an entirely different discussion.

 

[kreynolds]

Personally, I like the idea of a metal that's so potent that it breaches DR, and requires magic to work (and, yes, that's a house...idea...in our game).

I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but I just want to make sure I'm understanding you clearly. Do you mean in your games that because adamantine requires magic to work, it loses its bonus in an antimagic field?