Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="S'mon" data-source="post: 816346" data-attributes="member: 463">You're right, I don't get it.The IN GAME visible effect was that wererats were now immune to +1 weapons.&nbsp; That there might have been larger 'off screen' changes is less relevant.&nbsp; I think possibly what you're getting at is that you regard the 'magic plusses always trumps substance vulnerability' as a fundamental rule (changed in 3.5e, back to the 1e appropach)? &nbsp;I don't agree - certainly it's not a **PHB** rule, as DocM has repeatedly pointed out.What would be a fundamental rules-change the PCS would know of would be if the magic weapon &amp; GMW spells no longer bypassed DR at all in the manner of a true enchanted blade.&nbsp; If that was the case the spellcaster would _probably_ know it - depending on how common DR-possessing monsters were in the gameworld.&nbsp; Even then a 2nd level fighter (proud victor of 13.3 moderate encounters) probably wouldn't know it IMO.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="S'mon, post: 816346, member: 463"] You're right, I don't get it. The IN GAME visible effect was that wererats were now immune to +1 weapons. That there might have been larger 'off screen' changes is less relevant. I think possibly what you're getting at is that you regard the 'magic plusses always trumps substance vulnerability' as a fundamental rule (changed in 3.5e, back to the 1e appropach)? I don't agree - certainly it's not a **PHB** rule, as DocM has repeatedly pointed out. What would be a fundamental rules-change the PCS would know of would be if the magic weapon & GMW spells no longer bypassed DR at all in the manner of a true enchanted blade. If that was the case the spellcaster would _probably_ know it - depending on how common DR-possessing monsters were in the gameworld. Even then a 2nd level fighter (proud victor of 13.3 moderate encounters) probably wouldn't know it IMO. [/QUOTE]

Verification