Indestructible Weapon

[Sejs]

"An unstoppable cannon ball hits an immuable and indestructible post. What happens?"

As stated, the post would be knocked over, because whatever it's anchored in isn't stated as immutable and indestructable.

It's just the old Unstoppable Force vs Immovable Object issue. There is no resolution; that's the point. They're mutually irreconsilible absolutes - neither can process without negating its counterpart.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I do remember a module where anyone entering a room was crushed by the ceiling (if they failed their save). Now, enter with an indestructible weapon held up vertically, and you have some interesting things happen...

Hey! That's been a scene in the novel I'll never write for years now!

-Hyp.

 

[Paragon]

hijackers!!!

 

[Deset Gled]

Beyond Monks has this:

Indestructible: An indestructible weapon can only be damaged or destroyed with a wish, a miracle, or damage from a deity or artifact.
Caster Level: 17th, Prerequisites: Craft Magic Arms and Armor, wish or miracle, Market Price:+30,000gp +5000XP. (This price is added on to thecost of the item.)

Of course, this was also written for 3.0, when a +1 weapon could only be damaged by a weapon with +1 or higher. I think it's a pretty good solution, though.

 

[Darklone]

I believe it's in his contract.

Yeah. §5.3.15a, second sentence: You have to act like a German wiseacre.

Personally I'd rather go with a fast healing ability like some weapons in Quint Paladin may have... besides, these prestige class levels for weapons add a lot of hitpoints/hardness as well.

 

[ARandomGod]

It's pretty obvious what happens... the cannon ball keeps moving and the immobile object does not. Sure, the cannonball has to exert more force than you would imagine, because it's not pushing the entire universe around the immobile object, but that's how the world works.

 

[The Souljourner]

Absolutes in D&D are a bad idea. They're generally way more open to abuse than "almost absolute".

I like Scion's idea of having an enchantment that just adds hitpoints, hardness, etc. That way, for the most part, the item will be immune to damage, but if it gets hit by something really big, the DM can still rule it is destroyed.

I would say that indestructible should be left to artifacts.

-The Souljourner

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Indestructable weapons invalidate Sunder/Improved Sunder, so it is definitely something that shouldn´t come easy. I think the idea for an enhancement that adds Hardness and HP and improves saving throws is good.

 

[Wolv0rine]

It's just the old Unstoppable Force vs Immovable Object issue. There is no resolution; that's the point. They're mutually irreconsilible absolutes - neither can process without negating its counterpart.

Of course there is a resolution. My father posed that one to me when I was a child, and I still stand behind the answer I gave then: The Unstoppable Object changes course, and keeps moving. It's Unstoppable.
Sort of like an Unbreakable object trying to prop up an unstoppable & unbreakable dropping ceiling... the object can't be broken, but the ceiling can't be broken OR stopped. Obviously the object must yield through motion.

 

[Paragon]

ok here's a rub with giving something more hardness/hp (which i think might be a pretty good idea)
rust monster. metal attacked by it gets a save, metal used against it doesn't. unlike the rusting grasp spell it's all metal. not that i've ever run into any rust monsters mind you. but you could.