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: 229959" data-attributes="member: 284">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.  Yes, I was right on that one as well. 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? 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.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. 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.)   Exactly how I feel.</blockquote>

Verification