magic weapon powers, keen,and Undead..?

[Hypersmurf]

The Sage does not dispute the functioning of Smiting and disruption weapons, as they use special rules. Burst weapons and thundering weapons do not use special rules.

Of course, he's making up the whole "special rules" concept out of thin air.

Reading the text of the abilities, either critical-triggers do or do not go off regardless of the target's immunities - Smiting and Thundering are not otherwise distinguished in the text.

-Hyp.

 

[Sejs]

I stand by my Doody-Head assertation.

If I do X, and you are immune to it's effects, it doesn't change the fact that I still did it.

 

[kreynolds]

Of course, he's making up the whole "special rules" concept out of thin air.

No, he's not. Simple logic dictates that the mace of smiting uses the critical rules to determine when it's power goes off. The facts are...

1) You can't crit constructs.
2) The mace of smiting destroys constructs on a crit.

Result: Use the critical rules to determine whether or not you destroy a construct, though you do not actually score a critical hit.

If you simply enforce 1 without thinking through the problem, then the mace of smiting cannot exist in it's current incarnation, even though the intent of the weapon is quite clear.

He didn't have to "make up" any special rules. He just clarified the logic and clear intent that was already there. The same goes for disruption weapons.

 

[Anthron]

1) You can't crit constructs.
2) The mace of smiting destroys constructs on a crit.

Result: Use the critical rules to determine whether or not you destroy a construct, though you do not actually score a critical hit.

How is that different from saying:

1) You can't crit constructs.
2) The mace of icy burst does extra damage to a constructs on a crit.

Result: Use the critical rules to determine whether or not you do extra damage to a construct, though you do not actually score a critical hit.

Are they both not effects separate from the multiplied damage of a crit that a construct may not be immune to? Would not simple logic dictate that they would follow the same rule?

 

[kreynolds]

How is that different from saying:

1) You can't crit constructs.
2) The mace of icy burst does extra damage to a constructs on a crit.

Two reasons: 1) It's different because I didn't say that , and 2) it's different because the intent of the mace of smiting is quite clear in that it uses the critical rules to specifically affect constructs.

Burst weapons affect anything on a successful critical hit. Since you can't successfully critical a construct or undead, and since the intent of burst weapons is not to specifically affect constructs or undead, then they don't affect constructs or undead.

The bottom line is that you can't crit a construct, so your flaming burst will not activate, ever, as it requires a "successful critical hit". Like I said, I think the intent is very clear that the mace of smiting and disruption weapons are exceptions. If they weren't exceptions, why have them in there? I really don't think there is any merit to reversing the argument and stating that all enhancements will still function on a crit even though you can't crit.

 

[Anthron]

it's different because the intent of the mace of smiting is quite clear in that it uses the critical rules to specifically affect constructs.

Ahh I understand, though I would still run it differently since it seems more like changing the rules to fit the weapon rather then changing the weapon to fit the rules. It would be far simpler to change the weapon description from "any critical hit dealt to a construct completely destroys it " to "when a natural 20 is rolled against a construct it is completely destroyed" since as has been mentioned no crits are dealt to a construct.

 

[kreynolds]

Ahh I understand, though I would still run it differently since it seems more like changing the rules to fit the weapon rather then changing the weapon to fit the rules.

I have to disagree. When the majority of weapon enhancements follow the critical rules and only a couple do not, I don't see how that's a valid statement at all. The Mace of Smiting and disruption weapons are but two instances (there might be others) that are the exception to the rule. The rules are not being changed to fit the weapon at all. The weapon is merely changed to fit the rules, i.e., it has it's own subset of rules (you use crit rules to determine if you destroy the construct).

It would be far simpler to change the weapon description from "any critical hit dealt to a construct completely destroys it " to "when a natural 20 is rolled against a construct it is completely destroyed" since as has been mentioned no crits are dealt to a construct.

How is that simpler? The mace is still the exception to the rule. Now, if you're saying it would be _more clear_, then I would agree. As is currently written, some catch the intent and some don't.

 

[Sejs]

Like I said, I think the intent is very clear that the mace of smiting and disruption weapons are exceptions.

I disagree.

Do you think that you have to his speciffic organs to process a burst weapon's additional effects? Or just hit them hard and skillfully?

Why should the vulnerability of the target's anatomy determine if you can get extra performance out of the elemental-damage magics on your weapon?

 

[Anthron]

I have to disagree. When the majority of weapon enhancements follow the critical rules and only a couple do not, I don't see how that's a valid statement at all. The Mace of Smiting and disruption weapons are but two instances (there might be others) that are the exception to the rule. The rules are not being changed to fit the weapon at all. The weapon is merely changed to fit the rules, i.e., it has it's own subset of rules (you use crit rules to determine if you destroy the construct).

You may disagree with it since it was meant only as my opinion hence the "I would still run it differently" and the "it seems". ;-)

Though in your paragraph I believe you follow my point in that they are exceptions to the rule with out making them selves known as exception. The weapon states its effect happens when a crit occurs when as you said before a crit can not occur. As you have stated in past posts this only uses the crit mechanic and, I am led to believe, with out it being an actual "critical hit". That is what caused the confusion in the first place.

How is that simpler? The mace is still the exception to the rule. Now, if you're saying it would be _more clear_, then I would agree. As is currently written, some catch the intent and some don't.

Yes I meant simpler to understand.

 

[kreynolds]

I disagree.

Do you think that you have to his speciffic organs to process a burst weapon's additional effects? Or just hit them hard and skillfully?

I think you have to hit skillfully to deal the most damage, which is part of what a critical hit is. But in regards to creatures immune to critical hits, skill isn't a factor because there are no weak spots.

Why should the vulnerability of the target's anatomy determine if you can get extra performance out of the elemental-damage magics on your weapon?

It doesn't. It's simply a matter of whether or not you can place a skilled attack at a point on the creature that will deal more damage than normal. Either you can or can't. In the case of undead and constructs, you can't, so no bursting.