Monks and magic weapons

[Camarath]

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.

Since you see no contradiction, how much does each +1 of enhancement bonus add to a weapons hardness and HP?

 

[Philip]

But I don't see the contradiction.

Oh, here's another nice conundrum: what would the hardness and hit points be of a +5 small steel shield with +2 shield spikes in your in interpretation of the rules?

 

[ThirdWizard]

Hmm... I see a contradiction on an hp/hardness issue, but no contradiction pertaining to the subject of this thread, myself.

 

[Philip]

Hmm... I see a contradiction on an hp/hardness issue, but no contradiction pertaining to the subject of this thread, myself.

Which is kinda true actually. My argument was, you can damage a magic weapon with any other weapon, because otherwise they would have specified it in the damaging objects rule in the PHB. The entry in the 3.5 DMG on page 222 must be in error/not updated. This is supported by the fact that it also mentions contradicting stats for hardness and hit points.

Pick up your 3.0 DMG and read the description of Shields' Hardness and Hit Points on page 179 and compare it to the corresponding entry on page 217 of the 3.5 DMG.

Then do the same with the Hardness and Hit Points entries for magic weapons, respectively pages 184 3.0 DMG and 222 3.5 DMG.

If reading those four entries and comparing them to each other will not convince you of my point of view, nothing will.

 

[ThirdWizard]

My 3.0 DMG happens to be in the back of a locked car trunk, 60 miles away, in a car with a dead battery, but I undertstand what you're saying, I think.

However, the rules say what they say and all we can really do is wait until the DMG errata comes out.

Edit to clarify: I really have no clue what they meant to be the rule. Arn't these the things they were supposed to fix? It could just as easily go one way as the other, with the other accidental deletions and additions that inhabit the books.

 

[Particle_Man]

Since you see no contradiction, how much does each +1 of enhancement bonus add to a weapons hardness and HP?

That's easy. If the weapon doing the striking has a equal or higher plus than the weapon being struck, then:

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.

But if the weapon doing the striking has a lesser plus than the weapon being struck, then the weapon being struck is immune, so hardness and hit points become irrelevant. Magic, don't ya know.

 

[Particle_Man]

Oh, here's another nice conundrum: what would the hardness and hit points be of a +5 small steel shield with +2 shield spikes in your in interpretation of the rules?

They would have different hardnesses and hit points. If you were trying to sunder the spikes, you would calculate the hit points and hardness of the +2 spikes, but note that you could only have a chance of success if the plus of the weapon were equal to or greater than the plus of the spikes.

If, on the other hand, you were trying to sunder the shield (which makes more sense, usually, except in this specific example) you would calculate the hit points and hardness of the +5 shield, but note that you would only have a chance of success if the plus of the weapon were equal to or greter than the plus of the shield.

Thus if you have a +3 weapon, you might sunder the spikes, but never could sunder the shield.

Ta-dah!

 

[Particle_Man]

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.

Taking these one at a time...

1) I simply don't agree with the weight you attach to "also".

2) There may be magical forces that can destroy magic weapons (the disintigrate spell comes to mind) so that hardness and hitpoints have uses, even on my interpretation, aside from measuring how to determine how much damage a magic weapon can take from magic weapons of equal or greater plusses. Thus my interpretation does not require that hit points and hardness are of such limited use as you imply my interpretation requires.

3) I don't find my interpretation to be that complicated. From a bookkeeping point of view, it is easier, since you don't have to keep track of a weapon's hit points if your opponent has nothing that can sunder it.

4) A Storm Giant with a +1 sword can't scratch the +2 quarterstaff because the quarterstaff is made of mightier stuff. It's magic. If one wants to bring in "Realism" one might want to explain why the same Storm Giant does not collapse under his own weight, or at least break his ankles with his first two steps.

5) Why do dragons have improved sunder? Perhaps they like to break non-magical things. Perhaps they like to break wands, staffs, holy symbols, and other breakable goodies. But my interpretation does explain why they have (unbroken) magic weapons and armours in their hordes: a) They can use them if they polymorph into humanoid form, and thus break PC weapons, and b) They might kill other humanoids without being able to break their toys, and so keep them, unbroken, in their horde.

6) The DR argument is interesting. But I could simply hold that the WOTC powers that be decided to make it harder for monsters to destroy the PC's favourite toys. Since the PC's like their toys, that could make sense to me. And any creature with /epic damage resistance would still be able to sunder non-epic weapons on my interpretation, since "epic" seems to mean "at least +6" when I read the MM 3.5 entry under Damage Resistance. (I suppose one might argue on similar lines that /magic damage resistance would allow a sundering of +1 weapons (though not +2 ones) since no magic weapon in the core books is less than +1). Well except the monks +0 magical bodies. (And there, I have gone back on topic briefly)

7) I'm glad that your interpretation is easier for you and your game. Can you accept that my interpretation is easier for me and my game?

 

[Gwarok]

Why would it list a different set of hardness/hps for when its attacked by a weap with bigger plusses? Thats just silly. So you have one set of stats for when its being attacked by identical plus weapons, and another for greater weaps, and don't be concerned with weaker ones? Silly.

 

[Particle_Man]

Why would it list a different set of hardness/hps for when its attacked by a weap with bigger plusses? Thats just silly. So you have one set of stats for when its being attacked by identical plus weapons, and another for greater weaps, and don't be concerned with weaker ones? Silly.

Why do red dragons have a different set of stats for when they are attacked by fire? Is that just silly, too? The mechanics are exactly the same. A certain AC and hit points for most things, and absolute immunity to fire. Similarly magic weapons have a certain hardness and hit points for magic weapons of equal or greater pluses, and other magical forces like disintegrate. But they have an absolute immunity to normal weapons and magic weapons of lesser plusses.