Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="gonzimodo" data-source="post: 4618429" data-attributes="member: 67014">But what about this from the description of Damage Reduction: "A creature with an <a href="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment" target="_blank">alignment</a> subtype (<a href="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#chaoticSubtype" target="_blank">chaotic</a>, <a href="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#evilSubtype" target="_blank">evil</a>, <a href="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#goodSubtype" target="_blank">good</a>, or <a href="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#lawfulSubtype" target="_blank">lawful</a>) can overcome this type of damage reduction with its <a href="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#naturalWeapons" target="_blank">natural weapons</a> and weapons it wields as if the weapons or natural weapons had an alignment (or alignments) that match the subtype(s) of the creature." Alignment and alignment subtypes and being "aligned" via spell are obviously different things, but the rule above says that a weapon with an alignment (not just one that is "aligned" or has a subtype) overcomes DR. However: "Intelligent items can actually be considered creatures because they have Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores." So is it a weapon? Is it a creature/construct? Is it both? I would agree that an intelligent pair of boots or an intelligent wand or some other intelligent, non-weapon magic item would not overcome DR, but I think an intelligent weapon would. Think of it as having the "weapon subtype." <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> (To be honest, I'm not even sure why I'm continuing to argue this, as I don't think it's ever going to come up in my game, but it's a very interesting argument, and I just disagree with the naysayers on this.)</blockquote>

Verification