Adamantite Bypassing DR?

[Wolf72]

Also, since people (i.e. Wolf72) didn't seem to hear it the first few times....does a silver longsword +2 bypass DR? Yes. Thus, an adamantine longsword (which has a +2 enhancement bonus), also bypasses DR, because you don't take the lowest amount of DR that a weapon can bypass, you take the highest. And personally, I don't particularly care about either of those 'high-ranking' opinions, since I have very little respect for skr, and the sage flip-flops about so much that he can only be counted as another possibly-well-informed-but-has-no-time-to-check-the-books-so-he-really-isn't opinion.

The fact is that DR is bypassed by things with enhancement bonuses, and adamantine gives an enhancement bonus. Furthermore, adamantine costs MORE than equivalent magical weapons, even though it has less flexibility, so there is absolutely no game balance reason not to allow it.

gee I guess you don't read so well either eh? ... the crux of the problem is the NATURAL part of the enhancement ... and if you read my summary you can see two different opinions: yes it does or no it doesn't. Notice those are opinions and not fact.

again: if natural counts as actual identifier, then no an adamantine longsword (which has a natural enhancement) will not penetrate DR unless it is also enhanced (thru normal means) to +2.

if natural is simply an adjective with no real meaning other than, "this sword was already enhanced thru natural means ..." then by all means you're right.

[rant/whine]so ... before ya go off blowing steam at people, you should read too.[end rant/whine]


I like Mustrum_Ridcully's analysis of the situation btw

 

[FANGO]

Actually, no, I read it, but we've already been over the "natural" thing in this thread, so I felt it didn't need mentioning, because I assumed that people had read that part of the thread (guess I shouldn't assume things like that...)

Pretty much everyone here (correct me if I'm wrong about this, if anyone disagrees...) agrees that the "natural" part doesn't mean anything, because they've looked at the oft-referenced adamantine battleaxe and dagger in the DMG or SRD, which show that the "natural enhancement bonus" is really just a natural "enhancement bonus". Also, "natural enhancement" is never listed as a bonus type, either in the glossary or in the bonus type table, so yes, it's just a descriptor, not an actual game term.

 

[Wolf72]

I agree with most of what you said except for the "everyone agreeing" part.

us: both sides
skip: on this side
skr: on the other side
monte: ???

 

[Jeremy]

According to 4th hand information on Monte's boards Monte doesn't think adamantine should bypass damage reduction.

The quote was something like, I remember reading a post where Monte had responded to an e-mail saying that adamantine needs to be enchanted to affect creatures with damage reduction.

Of course when asked to quote or provide a link it was promptly stated that that was impossible and he didn't remember where he saw it. So it might have been someone who just really wanted to be right, or it could be true.

Either way, take it with a grain of salt.

BTW, I'm still in the camp that says, an enhancement is an enhancement bonus whether it comes from magical forging, magical materials, "special" materials, greater magic weapon, or what ever you like. If it a creature has damage reduction 5/+2 and one of the PC's is wielding a +2 adamantine battle axe, the 5 is bypassed.

"10 damage? With what kinda weapon?"

"+2 weapon."

"Noted. Next."

 

[FANGO]

Wolf, I don't think you're listening. Even a few people who are adamantly against adamantine bypassing DR have said that the "natural enhancement bonus" is actually an "enhancement bonus". Try reading the adamantine battleaxe. It's been proven left and right that a "natural enhancement bonus" is not a type of bonus, and if you disagree then you are probably the only one here who does.

 

[Xarlen]

Wolf, I don't think you're listening. Even a few people who are adamantly against adamantine bypassing DR have said that the "natural enhancement bonus" is actually an "enhancement bonus". Try reading the adamantine battleaxe. It's been proven left and right that a "natural enhancement bonus" is not a type of bonus, and if you disagree then you are probably the only one here who does.

I would have to say the Sage agrees with him, atleast.

 

[FANGO]

...and if the sage read the books and/or was consistent, then that might actually matter ;-)

 

[dcollins]

Pretty much everyone here (correct me if I'm wrong about this, if anyone disagrees...) agrees that the "natural" part doesn't mean anything, because they've looked at the oft-referenced adamantine battleaxe and dagger in the DMG or SRD, which show that the "natural enhancement bonus" is really just a natural "enhancement bonus". Also, "natural enhancement" is never listed as a bonus type, either in the glossary or in the bonus type table, so yes, it's just a descriptor, not an actual game term.

Do not agree with that.
- "Natural enhancement" seems like it must have a similar function to "natural armor".
- In my book, the a. dagger/battleaxe do include the word "natural" (albeit before the number) -- hence this argument falls short.
- "Cover bonus" is not listed in the glossary or bonus type table either, yet it too is a legitimate type (PH 132, et. al.) -- hence this argument fails as well.

 

[FANGO]

Then a) if it's a different bonus, why doesn't it stack? It says that it doesn't in the description, but it also says "other enhancement bonuses"..does that not mean that this is an enhancement bonus as well, and therefore bypasses DR? (the answer, by the way, is yes)

and b) if it were a "natural enhancement bonus," then it would indeed say "+2 natural enhancement bonus" not "natural +2 enhancement bonus." You don't see natural armor being referred to as a "natural +2 armor bonus."

 

[Roland Delacroix]

Then a) if it's a different bonus, why doesn't it stack? It says that it doesn't in the description, but it also says "other enhancement bonuses"..does that not mean that this is an enhancement bonus as well, and therefore bypasses DR? (the answer, by the way, is yes)

and b) if it were a "natural enhancement bonus," then it would indeed say "+2 natural enhancement bonus" not "natural +2 enhancement bonus." You don't see natural armor being referred to as a "natural +2 armor bonus."

Exactly. DMG 176 "Bonuses of different types always stack." As soon as you make Adamantite a 'Natural Enhancement Bonus' instead of just an 'Enhancement Bonus' you open up a new can of worms, notably Adamantite Full Plate getting a +5 bonus with just a +2 market price, a 11,000 gp savings! Why would anyone ever enchant heavy armor more than +2, instead they could get adamantite and get Moderate Fortification for slightly more than Joe Blow with steel Full Plate +5. Why get more than a +3 weapon enchantment? Adamantite me!

So, if named different they stack, and if thats the case:

As to the 'balancing factor' of rarity, money talks. 10,000 gp upgrades heavy armor to adamantite heavy armor, period. As soon as you start to say 'its rare' or 'theres so little, the price is higher' you have delved into house rules (and should be on the appropriate board, not here). In standard D&D adamantite has to be plentifull enough to warrant the mere +10,000 gp price, and if adamantite's 'natural enhancement' stacks with magics there WILL be a huge demand. Huge demand, but a relativelly low price, i don't need my 4 years of Econ training to know that equals a FLOODED market.