jgbrowning, Rystil Arden, and Hypersmurf talk amongst themselves

[ThirdWizard]

The common-sense approach doesn't mean that logic flies out the window; it just means that the gist of the rules is given a seat at the table, and that extreme parsing is given less priority.

I agree, but it will still mean people will have differing oppinions with no way to back up their claims other than "it feels right to me." Which, I think, might be fine for a group, especially in the middle of a game. Since we're outside of a game, we just have the luxury of looking stuff up and taking our time to decide.

In fact, I think you'll find that a lot of people apply the common-sense approach to their games and are very unhappy with the programmatic approach. It's just that such people tend to avoid the rules forum .

I do agree with this. In fact, I would say that many people would find absolutely no use in the Rules Forum because of its tight fisted interprietative nature. I'm sure it drives many people away.

 

[Rystil Arden]

In fact, I think you'll find that a lot of people apply the common-sense approach to their games and are very unhappy with the programmatic approach. It's just that such people tend to avoid the rules forum .

I'm going to also agree with this. Similarly, you dismissed my magic missile example (and for good reason, as it was kind of silly), but the fact remains that I have heard people make interpretations that are just as damaging to a character concept, if more grounded in sense, that went directly against the rules, on the fly without warning the player beforehand. And when this happens to me as a player, it makes me very upset, even if the DM makes common sense (especially with things like the Dominate issue where both sides definitely make common sense). My only remaining option at this point would be to ask the DM to let me retcon the character or retire it and make a new one. The common sense approach also works best when you have a group that always agrees on common sense

 

[RigaMortus2]

But it has a +1 or higher enhancement bonus. That's the definition of a magic weapon.

From the Special Abilities section of the DMG:
Damage reduction may be overcome by special materials, by magic weapons (any weapon with a +1 or higher enhancement bonus, not counting the enhancement from masterwork quality), certain types of weapons (such as slashing or bludgeoning), and weapons imbued with an alignment.

Does Greater Magic Weapon not allow me to strike an incorporeal opponent?

Incorporeal creatures can be harmed only by other incorporeal creatures, by magic weapons, or by spells, spell-like effects, or supernatural effects. They are immune to all nonmagical attack forms. They are not burned by normal fires, affected by natural cold, or harmed by mundane acids.

Since GMW is not a permanent spell, and therefore, as you contend, my GMW'd club is nonmagical, is it not a nonmagical attack form, to which incorporeal creatures are immune?

-Hyp.

I would say the magic item has to be made magical, that is, it is "inherent". Let me ask this. Could you make a Masterwork Longsword that has Greater Magic Weapon cast on it, into a +1 magical weapon via Craft Arms and Armor?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I would say the magic item has to be made magical, that is, it is "inherent". Let me ask this. Could you make a Masterwork Longsword that has Greater Magic Weapon cast on it, into a +1 magical weapon via Craft Arms and Armor?

Yes - especially since the duration of GMW would run out while you were working on the sword.

 

[Hypersmurf]

While the last SRD quote makes part of the issue clear, I think that jgbrowning was approaching this from a different perspective from Hypersmurf. The latter seems to be arguing from a highly technical reading of the rules, in which it's appropriate to build arguments by cross-referencing passages and assuming that every word is written the way it is for a precise, almost programmatic reason.

I'd hope this didn't come as a surprise!

I think this is the longest thread I've ever seen actually come to an amicable and agreeable conclusion.

[blink]

Yeah... what just happened...?

-Hyp.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Yes - especially since the duration of GMW would run out while you were working on the sword.

Not if you recast it, or of it was some how made permanent.

Can you create a magic weapon if you work in an anti-magic area?

 

[Rystil Arden]

Not if you recast it, or of it was some how made permanent.

Can you create a magic weapon if you work in an anti-magic area?

Dude, if you could make GMW permanent, why would you bother crafting any magic weapon with more than a +1 enhancement bonus (its certainly not worth the price just for the extra hardness).

 

[Seeten]

Just as a point here, this is the rules forum. In the rules forum, its the RAW we are using.

This is an important distinction, because we also have a house rules forum, and if someone was interested in a house ruling, or common sense ruling, in theory, they'd post there.

For example: I decided that I didnt like the fundamental nature of spells, and that the D&D Psionic system is much more practical. I posted in House Rules asking for advice and opinion. If I were posting in the rules forum, I dont care about your house rule, aside from anecdotally. A discussion of playstyles seems more suited to general than the rules forum, also. Thats not to cop the forum, its just that this discussion started out as an interesting rules discussion, and confusing it into a "The rules way is poor, use common sense" is totally against the spirit of this forum and what it is used for.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Just as a point here, this is the rules forum. In the rules forum, its the RAW we are using.

This is an important distinction, because we also have a house rules forum, and if someone was interested in a house ruling, or common sense ruling, in theory, they'd post there.

For example: I decided that I didnt like the fundamental nature of spells, and that the D&D Psionic system is much more practical. I posted in House Rules asking for advice and opinion. If I were posting in the rules forum, I dont care about your house rule, aside from anecdotally. A discussion of playstyles seems more suited to general than the rules forum, also. Thats not to cop the forum, its just that this discussion started out as an interesting rules discussion, and confusing it into a "The rules way is poor, use common sense" is totally against the spirit of this forum and what it is used for.

Somehow, I don't think that argument will work on one of the Rules Forum moderators?

While I disagree that the discussion doesn't belong here, I completely agree with you that everyone should accept the rules as the rules and then houserule things to make up for common sense. I've said it in about 6 threads, and I can't understand why the people with whom I'm discussing will 100% never agree with this. Do they actually think that making up what they want with regards to common sense is not a House Rule? (and I don't use House Rule as a disparagement of any kind; I do it too all the time)

 

[RigaMortus2]

Dude, if you could make GMW permanent, why would you bother crafting any magic weapon with more than a +1 enhancement bonus (its certainly not worth the price just for the extra hardness).

One reason is because permanancy can be dispelled. A level 15 caster could Extend GMW for 30 hours, and continually keep it magic that way. But that can still be dispelled.

So like I asked, could you make a GMW'd masterwork sword magical (say +1 Flaming)? Or is it an invalid target while GMW is on it?