Creatures with DR versus Magical Weapons

[Mordane76]

Alright, when you look at the rules on DR, a creature with a DR of X is consider to have the ability to bypass DR of X or less when they attack other creatures that possess DR, using their natural weapons, of course. Hence, a vampire's DR is ineffective against another vampire's slam attack, because both have DR 15/+1, and a werewolf's DR is ineffective against a vampire's slam attack, because 15/silver is less than 15/+1.

Now, can a vampire attempt a sunder against a magical weapon with an enhancement bonus of +1, when the vampire using it's natural attacks? I know the vampire COULD attempt the sunder, but could he actually hope to break the weapon?

 

[hong]

No, since the creature's natural weapons are treated _as if_ they have an enhancement bonus for the purpose of penetrating DR. They don't have an actual enhancement bonus, and don't get the other benefits of such.

 

[Mordane76]

Okay -- that's what I thought. Lately, I've been involved in two threads, one about vampires and one about defending weapons, magical properties, and sundering, and the discussions just suddenly congealed in my brain and I found myself wondering if a creature with DR could attempt to sunder a magical weapon without first using a targeted dispel to render it temporarily non-magical.

 

[kreynolds]

I agree with hong, but the Sage thinks differently...

A Pit Fiend has a DR 30/+3. The Pit Fiend gets sunder as a feat but only has natural weapons. Can it use its claws to sunder a magic weapon?

Yes.

2nd question:
Can a fighter with Adamantine Bastard sword sunder a magical longsword +1?

Yes (you need a magical bonus to overcome DR, but not for sunder).

Skip Williams
RPG R&D

...however, though I'm not generally a paranoid guy, I have to seriously question the validity of this Sage reply that was originally posted on the boards. Take a look at the orange text. The Sage's reply to the second question is grossly incorrect, and personally, I have a hard time believing that Skip would make a mistake as big as that one.

Like I said, go with hong's answer.

 

[hong]

Where's that "what kreynolds said" flag again?

 

[kreynolds]

It got burned, remember?

 

[Mordane76]

I actually stopped reading the Sage more or less...

Some of the crap that comes spewing from his hole is shocking in its ineptitude, as orange texted example shows. I have to say I trust this forum far more than Dragon's Sage. At least I know that here, it will get kicked around until something akin to a solid adjudication results, flames notwithstanding.

 

[xanatos]

A Pit Fiend has a DR 30/+3. The Pit Fiend gets sunder as a feat but only has natural weapons. Can it use its claws to sunder a magic weapon?

Yes.

2nd question:
Can a fighter with Adamantine Bastard sword sunder a magical longsword +1?

Yes (you need a magical bonus to overcome DR, but not for sunder).

This interpretation of the rules is very strict (Skip is only reading what is written in the rules, without adding anything).

a) you need a magical bonus to overcome DR,
Pag 74, lower left: Weakest: Silver, MITHRAL, or other special material
Now... There is the possibility that this is a simple error of the writer, and that other special material was simply Darkwood and the other materials form Magic of Faerun... But reading as it's written it should include even Adamantium (and if they wanted you to consider nonmagical bonus of nonstandard materials, they should have written it)

b) but not for sunder
You don't use this (probably wrong) table for Sunder, you simply look at the Enchantment (and it's not written if natural ench and magic ench are different), so an Adamantium Longsword == Longsword +2 (and it's even much more resistant than a Steel Longsword).

Bye
Max

 

[kreynolds]

This interpretation of the rules is very strict (Skip is only reading what is written in the rules, without adding anything).

That's what you do with the rules. You try not add anything new in your initial interpretation. You word with what you've got. Nothing strange about that.

a) you need a magical bonus to overcome DR,
Pag 74, lower left: Weakest: Silver, MITHRAL, or other special material
Now... There is the possibility that this is a simple error of the writer, and that other special material was simply Darkwood and the other materials form Magic of Faerun... But reading as it's written it should include even Adamantium (and if they wanted you to consider nonmagical bonus of nonstandard materials, they should have written it)

Adamantine not being included in that table isn't an error. Though not fully defined in the core rules, according to the Sage and the MMII, adamantine has a natural enhancement bonus, not a magical enhancement bonus, thus it does not negate DR unless the DR of the creature is specifically vulnerable to it, such as a werewolf's DR being specifically vulnerable to silver even though it has no magical enhancement. A weapon doesn't necessarily need to have a magical enhancement bonus to bypass DR, as is evident by a werewolf's DR.

b) but not for sunder
You don't use this (probably wrong) table for Sunder, you simply look at the Enchantment (and it's not written if natural ench and magic ench are different), so an Adamantium Longsword == Longsword +2 (and it's even much more resistant than a Steel Longsword).

Like I said, though not fully defined by the core rules, adamantine does not have a magical enhancement bonus. It has a natural enhancement bonus. You need a magical enhancement bonus to sunder a magical weapon, and adamantine does not inherently possess such a bonus.

Because of that second reply, I seriously doubt the validity of the entire reply. Either it didn't come from the Sage, or its really old.

 

[kreynolds]

Some of the crap that comes spewing from his hole is shocking in its ineptitude, as orange texted example shows.

Such as? Aside from the post above, what other rulings do you find "shockingly inept"? I know there have been more than one strange rulings, and though I can't recall them right now, I seriously doubt there have been enough to justify such an abusive attitude on your part. Don't get me wrong. It's not that I favor Skip or anything. I'd jump to just about anyone's defense against such a harsh verbal attack.

Also, as history has shown, the rules of 3rd edition are evolving. As time passes, more and more faults are revealed in its core design, and more and more supplemental rules are shown to directly conflict with the core rules. The revised core books, soon to be released, are evidence of that. Taking the natural evolution of the rules into account, I don't find it surprising that rulings change, whether they be official or not, so that in and of itself isn't such a shocking thing to me at all.