Adamantite Bypassing DR?

[Caliban]

Do you often get that feeling?

Around here? Yes. Usually about the 3rd or 4th repition of the same arguements. It's simply not worth my time.

 

[Bonedagger]

Usually about the 3rd or 4th repition of the same arguements.

Then why do you keep repeating them?

 

[Caliban]

Then why do you keep repeating them?

I try not to, unless I have to repeat it to answer a specific point. If I think the other person is being reasonable, I'll discuss the issue as along as necessary.

When I think they are being rude or just incredibly dense, I stop wasting my time.

 

[Bonedagger]

So what am I? Oh well. I tried.

 

[Gromm]

Around here? Yes. Usually about the 3rd or 4th repition of the same arguements. It's simply not worth my time.

Personally for me once a thread surpasses 3 pages its pretty much going to get stupid. I wish this thread would die so I don't have to see it everytime I jump on the forums.

Heres an idea: Everyone play the way you want and leave the horse carcass alone.

 

[Xarlen]

Heres an idea: Everyone play the way you want and leave the horse carcass alone.

I think by now it's a stain on the ground.

 

[Bonedagger]

Caliban:

Actually after having reread the last of this thread I will try one last time with 5 points and one conclusion:

1)"You claimed that you can sunder magical weapons with a none-magical weapons and that that is clearly spelled out in the core rules."

Wrong


2)"Was there somewhere in the book that it said adamantium works in an antimagic area?"

Yes. (But somehow you confused my "?" with a "!")


3)"Where there any other places the rules suggested that Adamantium is none-magical?"

No. (To this question you kept refering to question "2)"?)


4)"You then said that it's pretty obvious what the intent of adamantine was. And that it was vague and not clearly spelled out what the intent was."

At some point you did get my point.


5)"Do you find me dense, ignorant, blind and pointless with stupid arguments for objecting to you (The Sage) contradicting the corerules? (See point "1)")."

Apparently. And you seemed to miss that this was really about point "1)". In your reexplanation of the Sages reason you used point "1)" as a justification.



Conclusion: The intent may have been one thing but don't come and say that it is clear in the corerules.

Bahh... Why even try? (You do seem to be very familiar with the word "dense" though).

 

[Xarlen]

Okay, let's look at this.

Adamantite's bonus functions in an anti-magic field. What does this say?

It's Not Magic.

Now, this means that things that require Magic do not work with Adamantite. Thus, you cannot put MAGICAL enchantments on it, unless you enchant it magically.

DR is a Supernatural effect. What bypasses it? MAGIC. Yes, I'm aware that in Some cases, there are exceptions (Silver, Mithral, Cold Iron) but it says so, spesificly, in the description of the critter and damage reduction.

As to Adamantite sundering... I don't know. It doesn't make sense to me, that an Adamantite weapon can sunder a magical one, but I can sorta see where Caliban/Sage is coming from. The +1s represent how durable, and tough, and strong something is; the magic toughens it up (Why magical weapons don't break when normal ones would). Therefore, it can be compared to an Adamantite weapon's durability. But that's just IMHO.

 

[kreynolds]

I don't see the Corerules as perfect but I considder the sages rulings to be even less than that.

I can tell you this much...the Sage is definately more knowledgeable about the rules than you are, which is probably why he's the Sage and you aren't, which is also probably why I can't give your argument much weight, besides the fact that it's also a pain in the rear to make heads or tails of some of your posts. The Sage may make a blunder from time to time, but he's supposed too, since he's only human, and it's understandable since he has a hellofa lotta responsibility on his shoulders. You, on the other hand, have just been blundering your way through this entire thread.

DISCLAIMER: Don't get me wrong. I'm not zealously defending Skip. I'll jump to anyone's defense when they are slandered by someone that doesn't appear to have a clue. Just take a look at myself and Caliban (we've clashed a few times). I dig that he's around here because he's pretty damn knowledgeable about the rules, but to be honest, he can occasionally grate on my nerves, just like I grate on his (and most other people as well). But no matter how much the guy can occasionally frustrate the hell outta me, I would still quickly jump to his defence in the event that he were unjustly slandered. I'd do this for just about anyone on these boards, and have done so in the past.

Handle adamantine however you want, but in my opinion, you have yet to actually present a reasonable argument as to why the Sage is "wrong". At this point, I think you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Just my 2cp.

 

[Caliban]

Caliban:

Actually after having reread the last of this thread I will try one last time with 5 points and one conclusion:

1)"You claimed that you can sunder magical weapons with a none-magical weapons and that that is clearly spelled out in the core rules."

Wrong

No, you are wrong. The PHB only states that you need an equal or greater enhancement bonus to sunder a magical weapon. You really need to check up on these things before you try and contradict me.

It does not state that the enhancement bonus has to be from another magical weapon. Adamantite has an enhancement bonus, and can be used to Sunder a magic weapon that has an equal or lesser bonus.

Since Adamantite is not itself magical, you don't need a weapon with an enhancement bonus to try and sunder it.

2)"Was there somewhere in the book that it said adamantium works in an antimagic area?"

Yes. (But somehow you confused my "?" with a "!")

Yes, I was right on that one as well.

3)"Where there any other places the rules suggested that Adamantium is none-magical?"

No. (To this question you kept refering to question "2)"?)

There doesn't need to be. The description of admantium indicates that it is non-magical. Where else would you expect to find that information?

4)"You then said that it's pretty obvious what the intent of adamantine was. But then further down you changed that to that it was vague and not clearly spelled out what the intent was."

Somehow you did get my point.

Somehow you keep failing to comprehend what I'm saying. I'm sorry the english language gives you this much trouble. I'll try one more time with very small words.

The Sage and Monte Cooke (two of the game designers) stated that the original intent was that adamantite not be able to penetrate Damage Reduction. To me, that means the intent is now "pretty obvious", since the guy who did the write up on adamantite just explained it to us.

I said that the core rules only made a vague reference to this intent. The vague reference is in the description of the Damage Reduction ability on page 73 of the DMG, where is says that "a certain type of weapon - usually a magical weapon - can overcome this reduction." The magical weapon part refers to the enhancement bonus listed on table 3-13, on page 74 of the DMG.

Since Monte didn't bother to spell it out that it was supposed to require a magical enhancement bonus, adamantite weapons can be reasonably ruled to bypass damage reduction based on their natural enhancement bonus.

5)"Do you find me dense, ignorant, blind and pointless with stupid arguments for objecting to you (The Sage) contradicting the corerules? (See point "1)")."

Apparently. And you seemed to miss that this was really about point "1)". In your reexplanation of the Sages reason you used point "1)" as a justification.

Yes, because it was correct. You just didn't bother to actually read the PHB closely enough to check on it. I usually make a point of double checking the books before I post, it helps prevent blatant mistakes like that.

Conclusion: The intent may have been one thing but don't come and say that it is clear in the corerules.

You dimwit, I NEVER said the original intent was clear in the core rules. Go back and read my very first post in this thread. If you can't follow a debate without getting confused, don't waste my time.

Based on this, you have appeared both ignorant (because you don't really know the rules you are referring to), blind (because you manage to miss statements I have made that try to explain them), and pointless (because you keep taking statements of mine out of context and then try to assign a different meaning to them.)

Bahh... Why even try?

Exactly how I feel.