adamantine and magic

biorph

First Post
what's the deal with encanting an adamantine weapon? I know it has a natural bonus (+1, +2, etc), but do you still need to give it a magic bonus if you want to put something like flaming on it?
 

log in or register to remove this ad



Nope. The book says enhancement bonus, not magical enhancement bonus.

But since the weapon comes out more expensive, not less expensive, there's not really a problem with it. (unless you're one of those people who also think that spending an extra 1000gp on a weapon/armour which cannot sunder or penetrate DR is such a fantastic deal they just have to rule against it).

With all the things adamantine CAN'T do, it's a wonder it's even in the rule book (unless when they wrote it, they were already planning for forsakers...)
 

biorph said:
what's the deal with encanting an adamantine weapon? I know it has a natural bonus (+1, +2, etc), but do you still need to give it a magic bonus if you want to put something like flaming on it?

Heya Bioph,

As you'll be able to tell from the links, this is hot debate each time it comes up. since the DMG is not very precise on it's use of the word 'enhancement', just pick whichever one you feel works best for the game and there'll be -some- arguement that will favor it.

Personally in my game, the +1 enhancement has to be magical. Monte Cook has confirmed Adamantine's +2 doesn't work against DR, going by the DMG. So it's clear the enhancement bonus given by adamantine is not the same as that given by magical weapons. To me it also makes more sense that if there must be an enhancement before you can add other abilities, that enhancement should be magical.

Obviously, there are others who will disagree. As long as you are consistent in how you use it, I don't think you can go far wrong by simply picking which ever way fits your game best and sticking with that.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top