DR bypassing weapons

[Camarath]

Make up your mind. First you say it's not a reasonable extrapolation from the existing rules, then you say it sounds reasonable.

If it's reasonable, and doesn't seem unbalanced, why are you argueing about it?

It sounds like you are argueing just for the sake of argueing.

*shrug* Have fun nitpicking. I'm done wasting my time on this.

I think it is a reasonable house rule. I do not think it is reasonable to claim that that the rules as they are written allow it.

Have fun wasting your time somewhere else.

 

[Caliban]

You sound like you were not enjoying our exploration of the rules.

[/b]

You weren't "exploring the rules". You were espousing a rather narrow-minded and rigid view of the rules.

I was "exploring" how to apply the rules to a situation that they do not cover.

If the rules do not cover a situation, that does not mean it's not allowed, it means it's not covered. Then it's up to the DM.

The rules simply don't cover the interaction of a monks improved unarmed damage with natural weapons. I gave my opinion on how it would work, based on the existing rules.

You say it sounds reasonable, then say the rules won't allow it.

I'm not really interested in a pointless debate.

 

[Hypersmurf]

You say it sounds reasonable, then say the rules won't allow it.

Hmm? That's not at all an unusual combination.

-Hyp.

 

[Caliban]

Hmm? That's not at all an unusual combination.

-Hyp.

Except that this time it's reasonable, and not actually disallowed by the rules. He's making up a rule to disallow it just as much as I am to allow it.

And since even he agrees that it's reasonable, it's a pointless arguement.

 

[Camarath]

He's making up a rule to disallow it just as much as I am to allow it.

Interesting how insisting that the rules work only as they are stated to work now constitutes making up rules.

 

[Caliban]

Interesting how insisting that the rules work only as they are stated to work now constitutes making up rules.

You are claiming that the rules disallow this, when they don't state any such thing. They simply don't cover this situation.

Thus, by claiming that they disallow it (even though they don't state that), you are making up a rule.

 

[HeavyG]

Double weapon. One end is Adamantine +1 Holy Axiomatic. The other end is Cold Iron +1 Unholy Anarchic.

Add to this a potion belt (FRCS, nonmagical), fully stocked with vials of silversheen.

The only sorts of DR you won't penetrate with that setup are Epic, and somethign like 5/-.

And DR X/Good and Cold Iron (i.e. Mariliths and Balors, pretty much)

And DR X/Law or Chaos.

 

[Trainz]

And DR X/Good and Cold Iron (i.e. Mariliths and Balors, pretty much)

And DR X/Law or Chaos.

That's what Axiomatic or Anarchic are for.

 

[Camarath]

You are claiming that the rules disallow this, when they don't state any such thing. They simply don't cover this situation.

Thus, by claiming that they disallow it (even though they don't state that), you are making up a rule.

I am claiming that to alllow this you must go beyond the rules, and that, that means you are entering the realm of house rules.

There are millions and millions of potional actions and situations that are not covered by the rules and to say that any solution you wish apply to any one of them is allowed by the rules because the rules do not cover it or explicitly disallow it is, IMO, foolish. There are also potentially millions of mechanisms and rulings do deal with each one of those situations.

Such as in this situation one could allow Monks to use their natural weapons as monk weapons rather than unarmed strikes as you suggested. There is no way to objectively determine which solution the rules support and which solution the rules do not support because there is same amount of rule support for each option (i.e. none). Both solutions go beyond the rules as they are laid out.

Going beyond the rules involves making new rules to cover what the existing rules do not. But in my opinion saying that the options available to a character using Unarmed Strike are limited to those spelled out in the rules does not require a new rule. Just as limiting the spell selection of a caster to those spells that appear on the caster's spell list does not involve creating a new rule it only involves remaining with in the existing rules.

This situation only exists when you demand that the rules allow more than they say they allow because it is reasonable and logical that they should do so. Wile I agree that it is reasonable to allow the use of natural weapons with unarmed strikes, I believe that to do so you must add to the rules governing unarmed strikes because using natural weapons is not one of the existing options for unarmed strikes.

Using the options spelled out in the rules is remaining within the bounds of the rules. Using options not spelled out in the rules is going beyond the bounds of the rules.

I am of the opinion that if the rules do not expressly allow an option then by default they disallow that option in the abscence of a house rule. I believe you are saying that it is your opinion that unless the rules expressly disallow an option then by default they allow that option in the abscence of a house rule. This I believe is the core of our disagreement.

edit: post subdivided for Caliban's comfort and convenience

 

[HeavyG]

That's what Axiomatic or Anarchic are for.

Dude, I completely glossed over those !

Sorry.

I stand by my composite DR, though !