Epic monster's DR useless?

Ho do you figure? GWM grants the weapon an enhancement bonus. Sure sounds like what is being referred to by the DR rules to me. However, "enhncement bonus to damage" is not what is being referred to by the DR rules.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

James McMurray said:
Ho do you figure? GWM grants the weapon an enhancement bonus. Sure sounds like what is being referred to by the DR rules to me. However, "enhncement bonus to damage" is not what is being referred to by the DR rules.

That's the way I feel. I think it's the enhancement to hit that really matters for getting through DR.
 

I don't even think its the enhancement bonus to hit that counts. I think its the fact that a weapon has an enhancement bonus, rather than "an enhancement bonus to X".
 

Yup... otherwise you get a monk making unarmed attacks, while under Bull's Strength, beating DR.

Bull's Strength grants the monk an enhancement bonus to strength, a monk is a weapon, therefore the monk is a weapon with an enhancement bonus.

Have to be specific :)

-Hyp.
 

Hypersmurf said:
Yup... otherwise you get a monk making unarmed attacks, while under Bull's Strength, beating DR.

Bull's Strength grants the monk an enhancement bonus to strength, a monk is a weapon, therefore the monk is a weapon with an enhancement bonus.

Have to be specific :)

-Hyp.

Well, that would be an enhancement bonus to stength not attack or damage. I think that's really stretching it.
 

Well, that would be an enhancement bonus to stength not attack or damage. I think that's really stretching it.

Cast Detect Magic. He's a magic weapon. He's got an enhancement bonus. DMG doesn't specify what sort.

I agree, it goes beyond stretching it to utter silliness, and if a player tried to argue the point I'd laugh at him.

Elder-Basilisk would say I'm being foolish for drawing a line between letter and spirit of the rules, but hey... :)

-Hyp.
 

The monk example may be silly, but it shows the problem: if it only counts that there is an enhancement bonus, not one to the weapon itself, you could argue that it would work.

So better screw it all and let only enhancement bonuses to weapons themselves (whether vial magical weapons or MW/GMW) work against DR (as it should be!)
 


The probelm is a poorly worded spell that was apearently written with little reguards to how the various rules intermesh. Since it's non-standard to apply an enhancement bonus to only damage (though fully legal according to DMG 177, Table 8-1) the spell's discription needs to specify how it interacts with DR, as well as when you need a +X weapon to damage a +X weapon, and perhaps a few other places, that's all I can think of from the top of my head...
 

KaeYoss said:
The monk example may be silly, but it shows the problem: if it only counts that there is an enhancement bonus, not one to the weapon itself, you could argue that it would work.

So better screw it all and let only enhancement bonuses to weapons themselves (whether vial magical weapons or MW/GMW) work against DR (as it should be!)

Hmm, interesting problem with that "enhanced" monk. ;)
But I'm inclined to agree that Brilliant Aura (BA) would become too powerful (especially when used by high-level pcs) when able to penetrate DR (although it was my druid who cast that spell and made the DM quite unhappy), and DR X could only be overcome only by a weapon with a +X enhancement bonus to BOTH attack and damage.

If a pc has a +4 weapon (by GMW or GMF) and gets the effect of BA, he could penetrate DR X/+4 or lower and deals extra damage from the BA?

Originally posted by Crothian
This is not a problem with the DR with Epic creatures, this is a problem with the spell. THanks for proving that this is a troublesome spell and should be altered.

Yes. One solution could be that BA does not give an enhancement bonus to damage, but an insight or luck bonus, for example.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top