Adamantite Bypassing DR?

[Xarlen]

Maybe he could get a natural enchantment bonus for being extremely dense and hardened?

 

[Bonedagger]

Re: Re: Re: Re: How dare you!

I just explained how it makes sense.

I don't see that.

Well, adamantite is specifically "not magical" because it retains it's enhancement bonus even within an anti-magic field.

It gets an enhancement bonus based solely on being incredibly hard and durable, not from any magical enhancement. That is why the Sage ruled that it doesn't bypass DR (because that requires magic) and that it can sunder weapons with an equal or lesser magical enhancement bonus (because that is just based on how hard the material is, not any magical qualities it might have.)

But none of this is clearly spelled out in the core rules.

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]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How dare you!

I don't see that.

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's not even vaguely spelled out.

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%.

It is however spelled out that an Enchament Bonus is not what you get from Masterwork (PHB. p. 114).

Yes, I believe I'm the one who told you that.

I can't find the part that Adamantite Enchantments keep working in a Anti-Magic Field.

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."

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'm sorry, but you mangled the grammer so badly that I can't even guess what you mean by this.

I never saw the destinction between Natural and Magical enchanments in the rules.... (Who started that?)

DMG, page 242.

...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).

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.

(Hey. They even say that it is only regarded a Masterwork in regard to it's creationtime.)

Which I also pointed out to you just a few posts ago.

Last: "Adamatine: Found only in meteorites and the rarest of veins in magical areas, ..." (DMG. p. 242)

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.

 

[Black Omega]

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.

 

[dcollins]

Re: How dare you!

Why do people resent the idea about a metal being magical from a "natural" source? If it says the enchantment is a natural enchantment why then get focused on the source. An enchantment is no longer just an enchantment apperantly. Now you are looking on the background. You bastards! You metal-racists!

You may consider reading this essay by Sean Reynolds, here: http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/terminology.html

 

[Bonedagger]

Re: 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.

I do find tha they contradicting some things. (See below)
BTW. Are you trying to hurt my feelings?

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%.

Well. It doesn't support your view a 100% either See below.

Yes, I believe I'm the one who told you that.

? 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)

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."

Ahh finally. Well this is a reason. Well thanks for the nod. I haven't had a chance to read the DMG closely.

I'm sorry, but you mangled the grammer so badly that I can't even guess what you mean by this.

? 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

DMG, page 242.

Well yes. Really the only answer needed.

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.

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.

Which I also pointed out to you just a few posts ago.

See above.

It may be a side effect of magic or natural processes, but it is not itself magical.

Without the sentence further down on the page I would say that this does kinda hint something magical about the metal.

False. There are several points the rules that make vague references to a magical rather than a natural enhancement.

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).

It was something I made up.

And still you find my question about something to build this assumption on unreasonable?

From above
"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."

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.

From above
"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."

Based on the above I find that a question for something in the rules to support this is/was justified.

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.

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.

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.

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?

 

[Bonedagger]

Re: Re: How dare you!

You may consider reading this essay by Sean Reynolds, here: http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/terminology.html

Ups. Thanks

 

[kreynolds]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How dare you!

It suggest that a magical enchancement does not mean quality so I would still say that this background of yours contradict the PHB that specific say that you need an enchancement.

Now, I've heard of an enhancement, and I've heard of an enchantment, but WTF is an enchancement? Is that, like, love at first sight or something?

 

[Jeremy]

I think it's the name of a Casino in Vegas actually.

 

[Bonedagger]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How dare you!

Now, I've heard of an enhancement, and I've heard of an enchantment, but WTF is an enchancement? Is that, like, love at first sight or something?

Ups... I just copied the correction in. It went a bit fast ... My apologies.