Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Sigil" data-source="post: 228018" data-attributes="member: 2013">I got your evidence right here...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 <a href="http://www.opengamingfoundation.org" target="_blank">www.opengamingfoundation.org</a>).  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 <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />.  Is it better than 50% airtight?  I think it is.  Read on to see...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).This puts in context table 3-13 (which cannot be used on its own as justification because doing so takes it out of context).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</blockquote>

Verification