-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Adamantite Bypassing DR?
- Thread starter Xarlen
- Start date
Bonedagger
First Post
Re: Re: Re: Re: How dare you!
I don't see that.
It's not even vaguely spelled out.
It is however spelled out that an Enchament Bonus is not what you get from Masterwork (PHB. p. 114).
I can't find the part that Adamantite Enchantments keep working in a Anti-Magic Field. Which also is suggested to be supposed to be like that when the DMG referes to Enchantments as a category under "Bonuses from Magic".
I never saw the destinction between Natural and Magical enchanments in the rules.... (Who started that?)
...Which could also be explained by the fact that they don't stack (DMG. p. 242).... They are of the same type (DMG. p.177).
(Hey. They even say that it is only regarded a Masterwork in regard to it's creationtime.)
Last: "Adamatine: Found only in meteorites and the rarest of veins in magical areas, ..." (DMG. p. 242)
All there is to counter this is somebody saying that they feel it should be different
(Oh. And the rules specific say that you need a magical weapon of equal enchantment to sunder a weapon. The thing about it being based on how hard the material is and not any magical qualities it might have, is the Sages own version.... Unless it was something you made up
)
Caliban said:
I just explained how it makes sense.
I don't see that.
It's not even vaguely spelled out.
It is however spelled out that an Enchament Bonus is not what you get from Masterwork (PHB. p. 114).
I can't find the part that Adamantite Enchantments keep working in a Anti-Magic Field. Which also is suggested to be supposed to be like that when the DMG referes to Enchantments as a category under "Bonuses from Magic".
I never saw the destinction between Natural and Magical enchanments in the rules.... (Who started that?)
...Which could also be explained by the fact that they don't stack (DMG. p. 242).... They are of the same type (DMG. p.177).
(Hey. They even say that it is only regarded a Masterwork in regard to it's creationtime.)
Last: "Adamatine: Found only in meteorites and the rarest of veins in magical areas, ..." (DMG. p. 242)
All there is to counter this is somebody saying that they feel it should be different
(Oh. And the rules specific say that you need a magical weapon of equal enchantment to sunder a weapon. The thing about it being based on how hard the material is and not any magical qualities it might have, is the Sages own version.... Unless it was something you made up
)
Last edited:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How dare you!
Then your blind. I gave a reason for why it would work as the Sage said. You may not agree with it, but it is a logical framework that fits his rulings.
I really don't care if you choose to use it or not, that wasn't the point. The point was that the sages rulings are not contradictory in this case, even if you don't happen to agree with them.
It is vague, it's just not spelled out. I said it wasn't clear, but you keep pushing. What exactly do you want? The rules certainly doesn't support your view 100%.
Yes, I believe I'm the one who told you that.
DMG, page 242, 2nd column, first paragraph, 3rd sentence.
"In an area where magic does not function, it still retains it's natural +2 enhancement bonus."
I'm sorry, but you mangled the grammer so badly that I can't even guess what you mean by this.
DMG, page 242.
Could be. But Page 242 does differentiate between a natural enhancement bonus and a weapon enchanted with an enhancement bonus. The core rules do recognize a difference between the two, even though they will not stack with each other.
Which I also pointed out to you just a few posts ago.
It may be a side effect of magic or natural processes, but it is not itself magical.
False. There are several points the rules that make vague references to a magical rather than a natural enhancement.
It was something I made up. Magical enhancement bonuses do make a material harder and more durable, which is all that matters when you are sundering something. A natural enhancement would serve the same purpose.
Sometimes you need to look a little beyond the literal text and fit it into a logical framework.
In some instances a magic or natural enhancement bonus is equally effective (sundering, according to the Sage), in others instances only a magic bonus does the job (bypassing DR), and in others only the natural bonus will be effective (Antimagic areas).
That is a logical framework that fits the Sages rulings. You may choose to use a different framework for your campaign. It won't be any better or worse than the one the Sage uses.
Monte Cooke was the guy who wrote the DMG. He was the author. He already said that the Sages rulings are the way it was originally intended. (He would know, since he wrote it.)
He also said that doing it your way doesn't hurt anything or alter the game balance, so I'm failing to see what all the debate is about. Either way works, and the core rules are ambiguous.
Bonedagger said:
Then your blind. I gave a reason for why it would work as the Sage said. You may not agree with it, but it is a logical framework that fits his rulings.
I really don't care if you choose to use it or not, that wasn't the point. The point was that the sages rulings are not contradictory in this case, even if you don't happen to agree with them.
It is vague, it's just not spelled out. I said it wasn't clear, but you keep pushing. What exactly do you want? The rules certainly doesn't support your view 100%.
Yes, I believe I'm the one who told you that.
DMG, page 242, 2nd column, first paragraph, 3rd sentence.
"In an area where magic does not function, it still retains it's natural +2 enhancement bonus."
I'm sorry, but you mangled the grammer so badly that I can't even guess what you mean by this.
DMG, page 242.
Could be. But Page 242 does differentiate between a natural enhancement bonus and a weapon enchanted with an enhancement bonus. The core rules do recognize a difference between the two, even though they will not stack with each other.
Which I also pointed out to you just a few posts ago.
It may be a side effect of magic or natural processes, but it is not itself magical.
All there is to counter this is somebody saying that they feel it should be different
False. There are several points the rules that make vague references to a magical rather than a natural enhancement.
(Oh. And the rules specific say that you need a magical weapon of equal enchantment to sunder a weapon. The thing about it being based on how hard the material is and not any magical qualities it might have, is the Sages own version.... Unless it was something you made up
It was something I made up. Magical enhancement bonuses do make a material harder and more durable, which is all that matters when you are sundering something. A natural enhancement would serve the same purpose.
Sometimes you need to look a little beyond the literal text and fit it into a logical framework.
In some instances a magic or natural enhancement bonus is equally effective (sundering, according to the Sage), in others instances only a magic bonus does the job (bypassing DR), and in others only the natural bonus will be effective (Antimagic areas).
That is a logical framework that fits the Sages rulings. You may choose to use a different framework for your campaign. It won't be any better or worse than the one the Sage uses.
Monte Cooke was the guy who wrote the DMG. He was the author. He already said that the Sages rulings are the way it was originally intended. (He would know, since he wrote it.)
He also said that doing it your way doesn't hurt anything or alter the game balance, so I'm failing to see what all the debate is about. Either way works, and the core rules are ambiguous.
Last edited:
Black Omega
First Post
Well, Caliban beat me to it. We've ended the rules discussion portion of this thread. Monte has clarified the rules so there is no need to infer or logically work out anything.
We now move on to the House Rules/How the rules -should- be portion of this thread.
We now move on to the House Rules/How the rules -should- be portion of this thread.
dcollins
Explorer
Re: How dare you!
You may consider reading this essay by Sean Reynolds, here: http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/terminology.html
Bonedagger said:
You may consider reading this essay by Sean Reynolds, here: http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/terminology.html
Bonedagger
First Post
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How dare you!
I do find tha they contradicting some things. (See below)
BTW. Are you trying to hurt my feelings?
Well. It doesn't support your view a 100% either
See below.
? But if quality equals enhancement why does it not stack when a spellcaster enhances a magical item? (Plus the thing about them only being masterwork in regard to creationtime. So even though it has bonuses it is not from quality)
Ahh finally. Well this is a reason. Well thanks for the nod. I haven't had a chance to read the DMG closely.
? One typo...
"..... Which also is suggested to be supposed to be like that when the DMG referes to Enhancements as a category under "Bonuses from Magic"."
Without the sentence on page 242 I have only seen the word "enhancement" used in regard to magic. Masterwork are quality and they are not enhanced. Any other nonmagical way to get a bonus if not from quality?
Ok. It was late last night and that one might have been worded better
Well yes. Really the only answer needed.
Yes. I know (Eks: Masterwork vs. Enchancements). But without the distinction between "Magical" and "Natural" enhancements on in the DMG p 242 there was no reason to make up a new category/type.
See above.
Without the sentence further down on the page I would say that this does kinda hint something magical about the metal.
I will assume you mean it the other way around
Other than DMG p 242? The PHB kinda gives a suggestion that there is a difference between an artificial quality and a magical enhancement. Other than p. 242 DMG. the word enhancement was only used in regard to magic (So far as I have read).
And still you find my question about something to build this assumption on unreasonable?
Well. The idea of you not needing a magical weapon of equal enhancement to sunder another magical weapon does contradict the PHB. I was looking for a bit more than a nice story based on your other assumption.
Based on the above I find that a question for something in the rules to support this is/was justified.
It suggest that a magical enhancement does not mean quality so I would still say that this background of yours contradict the PHB that specific say that you need an enhancement.
Among the sages rulings I can remember things like spells with a fullround casting time take effect in the same round.
Now. I can also make up nice stories to justify the rules but to make up rules to justify nice stories... Sure. But then don't get pissed if other people ask questions.
Added: I don't see how I "keep pushing" anybody here. Do you think this is a personal attack?
Caliban said:
I do find tha they contradicting some things. (See below)
BTW. Are you trying to hurt my feelings?
Well. It doesn't support your view a 100% either
See below.? But if quality equals enhancement why does it not stack when a spellcaster enhances a magical item? (Plus the thing about them only being masterwork in regard to creationtime. So even though it has bonuses it is not from quality)
Ahh finally. Well this is a reason. Well thanks for the nod. I haven't had a chance to read the DMG closely.
? One typo...
"..... Which also is suggested to be supposed to be like that when the DMG referes to Enhancements as a category under "Bonuses from Magic"."
Without the sentence on page 242 I have only seen the word "enhancement" used in regard to magic. Masterwork are quality and they are not enhanced. Any other nonmagical way to get a bonus if not from quality?
Ok. It was late last night and that one might have been worded better
Well yes. Really the only answer needed.
Yes. I know (Eks: Masterwork vs. Enchancements). But without the distinction between "Magical" and "Natural" enhancements on in the DMG p 242 there was no reason to make up a new category/type.
See above.
Without the sentence further down on the page I would say that this does kinda hint something magical about the metal.
I will assume you mean it the other way around
Other than DMG p 242? The PHB kinda gives a suggestion that there is a difference between an artificial quality and a magical enhancement. Other than p. 242 DMG. the word enhancement was only used in regard to magic (So far as I have read).
And still you find my question about something to build this assumption on unreasonable?
Well. The idea of you not needing a magical weapon of equal enhancement to sunder another magical weapon does contradict the PHB. I was looking for a bit more than a nice story based on your other assumption.
Based on the above I find that a question for something in the rules to support this is/was justified.
It suggest that a magical enhancement does not mean quality so I would still say that this background of yours contradict the PHB that specific say that you need an enhancement.
Among the sages rulings I can remember things like spells with a fullround casting time take effect in the same round.
Now. I can also make up nice stories to justify the rules but to make up rules to justify nice stories... Sure. But then don't get pissed if other people ask questions.
Added: I don't see how I "keep pushing" anybody here. Do you think this is a personal attack?
Last edited:
Bonedagger
First Post
Re: Re: How dare you!
Ups. Thanks
dcollins said:
Ups. Thanks
Bonedagger
First Post
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How dare you!
Ups... I just copied the correction in. It went a bit fast... My apologies.
kreynolds said:
Ups... I just copied the correction in. It went a bit fast
... My apologies.
Last edited:
