I got your evidence right here...
Kraedin said:
Okay, I've read through the entire thread. The only evidence and argument I can find for your interpretation is that "the Sage said so". He said so without evidence, without justification. That no one trotted out evidence or justification afterwards isn't very convincing, is it?
Nowhere, anywhere in the rules does it make an exception in sunder for adamantine.
Not trying to attack you here, Kraedin, as you bring up a VERY valid point. Where is the justification? Well, here is the justification from the rules as written (from the SRD at
www.opengamingfoundation.org). There are no exceptions here for adamantine. There is evidence and there is justification. Is it absolutely airtight so that arguing with the Sage would be foolish? No - or we wouldn't be having this discussion
. Is it better than 50% airtight? I think it is. Read on to see...
From the SRD:
Magic Weapons and Shields
The attacker cannot damage a magic weapon or shield that has an enhancement bonus unless his own weapon has at least as high an enhancement bonus as the weapon or shield struck.
Conclusion... for the purposes of damaging a magic weapon or shield, a natural enhancement bonus (e.g., adamantine's or even a masterwork weapon's +1) is good enough. Note the difference in terminology... a magic weapon or shield cannot be damaged unless it is struck by a weapon with an enhancement bonus (no mention of any requirement that this bonus be magical rather than natural). There is no exception for adamantine - a MW weapon can break a +1 magical weapon because the MW weapon has a +1 natural enhancement bonus. Since adamantine has a +2 natural enhancement bonus, it can break +2 weapons. Simple. No contradictions here.
NOTE: In making the definition of what can hit a magic weapon, specific mention is made of enhancement bonuses, but NOT of magical enhancement bonuses. That is, to me, the key thing (see below).
From the SRD:
DAMAGE REDUCTION
Some magic creatures have the supernatural ability to instantly heal damage from weapons or to ignore blows altogether as though they were invulnerable.
The number in a creature’s damage reduction is the amount of hit points the creature ignores from normal attacks.
Usually, a certain type of weapon - usually a magic weapon - can overcome this reduction. This information is separated from the damage reduction number by a slash. If a dash follows the slash then the damage reduction is effective against any attack that does not ignore damage reduction.
This puts in context table 3-13 (which cannot be used on its own as justification because doing so takes it out of context).
Table 3-13: Damage Reduction Rankings
Power Rank Weapon Type
Best +5 enhancement bonus
2nd best +4 enhancement bonus
3rd best +3 enhancement bonus
4th best +2 enhancement bonus
5th best +1 enhancement bonus
Weakest Silver, mithral, or other special material
Conclusion... in the case of Damage Reduction, the enhancement bonus must be magical (it is worth noting that items that are the "exception" to the "usually a magic weapon rule" are specifically delineated to be things such as silver, mithral, wood, etc. - in other words, specific materials).
NOTE: In making the definition of what can penetrate DR, specific mention is made of *MAGICAL* weapon. That strongly implies that a *MAGICAL* enhancement bonus was needed because it
was specifically mentioned in the text (though NOT in the table).
Granted, the SRD does not specifically state that a natural enhancement bonus is not enough, but I would think that by process of elimination ("there are only two types of enhancement bonuses - magical enhancement bonus and natural enhancement bonus; therefore, by specifically stating that magical is needed, it would imply that natural is not good enough") there is no need to spell out in specific terms that a natural enhancement bonus will not work and that a magical enhancement bonus absolutely, positively is needed.
Table 3-13 DOES say "enhancement bonus" and not "magical enhancement bonus" and is thus unclear on the point - and this seems to be the thing that a lot of people are using to justify that adamantine/MW weapons DO overcome DR - but IMO the table itself does not provide proper justification for this because, taken in context, it seems clear that the "enhancement bonus" does indeed mean "magical enhancement bonus" as the table is explaining what types of weapons other than MAGICAL ones might work (silver, mithral, et al).
It seems that it is very strongly implied in the text preceding the table that MAGICAL enhancement is required to overcome DR due to the qualifying of the statement that 'certain types of weapons' means "weapons made of a certain material" or "magic weapon" rather than "weapons made of a certain material" or "those with enhancement bonuses."
IMO, saying that "if it can hit a magic weapon, it must therefore penetrate DR" is flawd logic. They are not the same thing and so no correllation may be inferred. Magic weapons do not have DR. They are instead 100% immune to weapons of insufficient enhancement bonus, whereas DR merely reduces damage from weapons without the required requisite (implied "magical") bonus. These are MUCH different mechanics.
You may not agree with the ruling, and you may be happy to Rule 0 it in your own campaign. But like it or not, you can't say that the Sage is "without evidence and without justification." He has quite a bit of backing in the rules as written. If you're going to whine and dicker over slighlty vague definitions ("well, it said 'magical' in the text, but it just said 'enhancement' in the table so obviously it is just enhancement") and claim that because they are slightly vague he obviously has NO backing, that's the wrong thing to do. Even if you disagree with his ruling, it is clear that the rules may be read so as to support his ruling, in which case at worst he has "vague" backing.
IOW, make sure you understand that the "enhancement bonuses" table 3-13 can easily be read to mean *Magical* enhancement bonuses, due to the text preceding the table, before attempting to use it as empirical justification of your POV. It is ambiguous at best. I happen to interpret it one way, and I can see how you interpret it the other. As I said, at worst, the Sage has a "vague" backing. I happen to agree with him, but I can understand the argument for not agreeing with him.
My 2 coppers.
--The Sigil
