Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Felix" data-source="post: 374266" data-attributes="member: 3929">Semantics: gotta love it.&nbsp;2 Intrepretations:The favorable one: The forsaker must destroy magic to gain access, ie, to be able to use, the special ability Damage Reduction. Just like a fighter who is reduced to 8 STR; he still has Power Attack, but he can't use it or Cleave. It follows that while the forsaker might not be able to use his DR, he still has it, thereby allowing any weapon he uses to be considered a +something to bypass DR.The unfavorable one: &quot;...he loses that ability...&quot; Not only can he not access his ability but that ability ceases to exist, thereby removing his access Natural Weapons (it is like the Fighter who completely forgot how to attack powerfully!).Looking at these two arguments alone, I would say that the unfavorable one is stronger, unfortunately.The rebuttal to the unfavorable interpretation:This wording is contrary to what is said in Magic Destruction: the ability is not in effect, but the forsaker still has it. &quot;That is, if the forsaker has Damage Reduction 3/+1, any weapon...&quot; (under Natural Weapons) Forsaker still has DR, though it's not effecting anything. Because he has DR, he has Natural Weapons.Take your pick; that's as good a rules lawyering as I can do without the use of facial gestures and table-pounding.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> Would someone post the wording for Damage Reduction in the intro to the Monster Manual, it's kind of pertinent.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Felix, post: 374266, member: 3929"] Semantics: gotta love it. 2 Intrepretations: [B]The favorable one[/B]: The forsaker must destroy magic to gain access, ie, to be able to use, the special ability Damage Reduction. Just like a fighter who is reduced to 8 STR; he still has Power Attack, but he can't use it or Cleave. It follows that while the forsaker might not be able to use his DR, he still has it, thereby allowing any weapon he uses to be considered a +something to bypass DR. [B]The unfavorable one[/B]: "...he loses that ability..." Not only can he not access his ability but that ability ceases to exist, thereby removing his access Natural Weapons (it is like the Fighter who completely forgot how to attack powerfully!). Looking at these two arguments alone, I would say that the unfavorable one is stronger, unfortunately. [B]The rebuttal to the unfavorable interpretation[/B]: This wording is contrary to what is said in Magic Destruction: the ability is not in effect, but the forsaker still has it. "That is, if the forsaker has Damage Reduction 3/+1, any weapon..." (under Natural Weapons) Forsaker still has DR, though it's not effecting anything. Because he has DR, he has Natural Weapons. Take your pick; that's as good a rules lawyering as I can do without the use of facial gestures and table-pounding.:D Would someone post the wording for Damage Reduction in the intro to the [I]Monster Manual[/I], it's kind of pertinent. [/QUOTE]

Verification