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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bonedagger" data-source="post: 228832" data-attributes="member: 2564">Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How dare you!I do find tha they contradicting some things. (See below)BTW. Are you trying to hurt my feelings? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Well. It doesn't support your view a 100% either <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> See below. ? 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)Ahh finally. Well this is a reason. Well thanks for the nod. I haven't had a chance to read the DMG closely.  ? 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 <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> Well yes. Really the only answer needed.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. See above.Without the sentence further down on the page I would say that this does kinda hint something magical about the metal.I will assume you mean it the other way around <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=";)" />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).And still you find my question about something to build this assumption on unreasonable? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f644.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll eyes    :rolleyes:"  data-smilie="11"data-shortname=":rolleyes:" /> 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.Based on the above I find that a question for something in the rules to support this is/was justified. 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.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?</blockquote>

Verification