Monks and magic weapons

[Joachim Pieper]

It says in the 3.5 DMG that you need a weapon of at least the same bonus to damage a magic weapon. Does this, and shoud this, preclude monks from sundering magic weapons, even at high level when their unarmed attacks are treated as magical, lawful and adamantine?


Cheers.

 

[Particle_Man]

Well, monk's hands in 3.5 become the equivalent of +0 lawful adamantine magic weapons, and so can sunder magic weapons of +0 enchantment or less. Since their are no magic weapons of +0 enchantment or less, that means that monks cannot usually sunder with their hands (magic fang can be useful here).

Conversely, usually one cannot sunder a monk's hands (barring some really sick variant critical hit rules) since there are no rules for lopping off arms, so I guess it balances out.

 

[mikebr99]

Every monk shouldn't be without an Amulet of Mighty Fists...

Mike

 

[Philip]

It says in the 3.5 DMG that you need a weapon of at least the same bonus to damage a magic weapon. Does this, and shoud this, preclude monks from sundering magic weapons, even at high level when their unarmed attacks are treated as magical, lawful and adamantine?

Cheers.

This is an error. 3.5 contradicts itself concerning damaging magic weapons. The entry you are referring to is in the Magic Item section. The editors forgot to remove it after they updated the 3.0 rule (which the entry refers to) to 3.5.

In 3.5 any weapon can damage a magic weapon, regardless of plusses. They raised the Hardness and hit points of magic weapons to compensate for this (I believe the same section also states wrong numbers for Hardness en hit points, but I don't know for sure, don't have my books with me).

So, go right ahead and let you Monk Sunder those magic weapons.

 

[Particle_Man]

In 3.5 any weapon can damage a magic weapon, regardless of plusses.

Could you please give me the reference for this?

 

[AeroDm]

So then can we go ahead and sunder monk hands?

 

[Philip]

Could you please give me the reference for this?

PHB p. 165. It describes how to objects can be destroyed. It has a special entry for magic armor, shields and weapons. It reads: 'Each +1 of enhancement bonus adds 2 to the hardness of armor, a weapon or a shield and +10 to the item's hit points. For example, a +1 longsword has hardness 12 and 15 hit points, while a +3 heavy shield has hardness 16 and 50 hp.

This is (more or less) repeated on p. 217 of the DMG, but then comes along page 222 of the DMG, where it suddenly says: 'An attacker cannot damage a magic weapon that has an enhancement bonus unless his own weapon has as least as high an enhancement bonus as the weapon or shield struck. Each +1 enhancement bonus also adds 1 to the weapon's or shield's hardness and hit points.'

Obviously, the statement on p. 222 DMG contradicts the statements on p. 217 DMG and p. 165 PHB, when concerning hardness and hit points of magic armor/weapons. Now look at p. 184 of your 3.0 DMG, it says (word for word) the same as p. 222 of the 3.5 DMG.

Because of the conflicting statements, I can only assume that p. 222 of the 3.5 DMG was erroneously not updated to reflect the new take on hardness and hit points in the new edition. If you could not damage magic armor, shields and weapons without having a magic weapon yourself, they would have put it in p. 165 of the PHB. I cannot read it any other way.

 

[Philip]

So then can we go ahead and sunder monk hands?

Sure, always. Hardness is 0, hit points is Monk level * (1d8+Con bonus) + relevant feats.

Remember, the Monk doesn't fight with his hands, he fights with his whole body.

 

[Particle_Man]

PHB p. 165. It describes how to objects can be destroyed. It has a special entry for magic armor, shields and weapons. It reads: 'Each +1 of enhancement bonus adds 2 to the hardness of armor, a weapon or a shield and +10 to the item's hit points. For example, a +1 longsword has hardness 12 and 15 hit points, while a +3 heavy shield has hardness 16 and 50 hp.

This is (more or less) repeated on p. 217 of the DMG, but then comes along page 222 of the DMG, where it suddenly says: 'An attacker cannot damage a magic weapon that has an enhancement bonus unless his own weapon has as least as high an enhancement bonus as the weapon or shield struck. Each +1 enhancement bonus also adds 1 to the weapon's or shield's hardness and hit points.'

Obviously, the statement on p. 222 DMG contradicts the statements on p. 217 DMG and p. 165 PHB, when concerning hardness and hit points of magic armor/weapons. Now look at p. 184 of your 3.0 DMG, it says (word for word) the same as p. 222 of the 3.5 DMG.

Because of the conflicting statements, I can only assume that p. 222 of the 3.5 DMG was erroneously not updated to reflect the new take on hardness and hit points in the new edition. If you could not damage magic armor, shields and weapons without having a magic weapon yourself, they would have put it in p. 165 of the PHB. I cannot read it any other way.

But I don't see the contradiction. The hardness and hit points could apply for when a magic weapon is being attacked by a magic weapon of equal or greater plusses, and the weapon could have an immunity to being damaged at all by a magic weapon of lesser plusses. Just as a red dragon has armour class and hit points, but is still immune to fire.

 

[Philip]

But I don't see the contradiction. The hardness and hit points could apply for when a magic weapon is being attacked by a magic weapon of equal or greater plusses, and the weapon could have an immunity to being damaged at all by a magic weapon of lesser plusses. Just as a red dragon has armour class and hit points, but is still immune to fire.

I don't think my reading of the rules is the right one, I only want to suggest that it is the most plausible one. Read p. 222 3.5 DMG again, second sentence: 'Each +1 of enhancement bonus ALSO adds 1 to the ....'

This 'also' clearly implies that both statements can and should be read separate from each other, and thus your reading that the (contradicting) hit points and hardness rule described there is an exception which is only used when resolving weapon vs. weapon damage is not likely.

Additionally, 3.0 and 3.5 tried to simplify and unify the rules, making it easier to apply it. Such an expection would make it harder, and thus contrary to the general philosophy.

Furthermore, it makes more sense to read it my way. Why should a Storm Giant with his +1 sword not be able to make a single scratch on that +2 quarterstaff? Why do older dragons even have Improved Sunder? It's not like they have to fear anything from normal weapons.

With its change in DR the 3.5 game also left the notion that a difference in plusses has any qualitative effect. Your interpretation also conflicts with that notion.

And lastly, it makes is easier in for me in my game, which is to me (and maybe to others) the best argument to consider the paragraph on p. 222 3.5 DMG an oversight and error contradicted by rules elsewhere.