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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Caliban" data-source="post: 228395" data-attributes="member: 284">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. 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%.  Yes, I believe I'm the one who told you that. 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." I'm sorry, but you mangled the grammer so badly that I can't even guess what you mean by this. DMG, page 242.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. Which I also pointed out to you just a few posts ago. It may be a side effect of magic or natural processes, but it is not itself magical. False.  There are several points the rules that make vague references to a magical rather than a natural enhancement. 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.</blockquote>

Verification