DR bypassing weapons

[Caliban]

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 for this situation allowing Monks to use their natural weapons as monk weapons rather than unarmed strikes. There is no way to objectively determine which solution the rules support and which solution the rules do not support because there is just as much rule support for either 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 caster to those spells that appear on the character'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.

Eh, use paragraphs please. I can't read that without getting a headache.

 

[Pax]

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

So be a cleric, with a couple Align Weapon spells prepared. ^_^

 

[Saeviomagy]

Anyone else think it's stupid (not to mention bizarre) that touch of adamantine (on the DRUID spell list) specifically bars it's use in conjunction with natural weapons, yet specifically allows it's use with unarmed strikes??

Especially when there's a lower level spell which changes natural attacks to silvered...

 

[Saeviomagy]

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.

Euch. Silversheen is a fantastic waste of cash - 250 for essentially one use of a weapon.

By far the best combo is a barbarian +4 raging bow (extra +2 enhancement when raging from UE, so we can hit +6 and therefore epic DR) loaded up with arrows for all occasions. If you need a particular anti-DR enchantment all the time, then put it on the bow (ie - you may find yourself constantly needing a good weapon, so enchant the bow to be holy as well).

 

[the Jester]

Re Monks and Natural Weapons

I realize this is hardly core rules, but in Dragon 283 the Sage addressed this question and stated that monks with natural weapons can mix them in at all.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I realize this is hardly core rules, but in Dragon 283 the Sage addressed this question and stated that monks with natural weapons can mix them in at all.

Can or can't?

-Hyp.