Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Philip" data-source="post: 1263489" data-attributes="member: 10993">Well, to further illustrate my argument I present to you quotations from both the 3.0 and 3.5 DMG and PHB.3.0 DMG on Shields, p. 1793.0 DMG on Weapons, p. 184So far so good, two almost identical entries. Only changed shield into weapon or weapon and shield in the second entry. On to the 3.5 DMG:3.5 DMG on Shields, p. 179That's quite a change from the 3.0 version, and in accordance with the rules described in the 3.5 PHB. Now for the weapon entry:3.5 DMG on Weapons, p. 184Except for the Table reference, the entry is an EXACT copy of the 3.0 text. And anyone with some publishing knowledge knows that references in such works are usually created dynamically. Moving on to the 3.5 PHB:3.5 PHB on Damaging Objects, p. 165This entry is almost exactly like the shield entry, except for the fact that it also mentions weapons next to shields. Based on these entries you could:A. Assume that they forgot to update the weapons entry to 3.5B. Assume they intentionally wanted damage to weapons in 3.5 to conform to another set of rules than objects in general and did not change one word of the old 3.0 text in the DMG on purpose, while mentioning weapons using the new rules in the PHB, because they wanted weapons to have different hit points and hardness dependent on the way the weapons are attacked, and didn't think this was worth mentioning in the PHB.C. Changed the rules concerning damaging objects, update the 3.5 book, but then changed their minds and reversed the ruling, and the forgot the change the paragraphs on p. 165 3.5 PHB and p. 179 3.5 DMG to reflect it. Take your pick, but I am going with A, solidly.</blockquote>

Verification