Mundane damage VS Magic Weapons

[Kae'Yoss]

What I am saying is that changing the rules to destroy stuff can be fun.

As long as the characters get new stuff easily, and are at least in the general area of the character wealth guidelines. And then still it's not everyone's kind of game.

 

[Spatzimaus]

'twas City of the Spider Queen.

Whoops, my bad. Don't know why I misread that. As has been clarified, it was a +1 Flaming Burst greatsword in a level 10 campaign, so the point still stands. Maybe a bit above the wealth curve, but not horrendous. Maybe I'm just prejudiced, since I consider the Bursts to be weak enchantments (the burst part, not the flaming part), but I'd be surprised if that weapon was breaking the module.

Anyway, Star, it's not just a question of the DM being new. Even the most experienced DMs will screw up the rules at some point. Heck, go read some of the good Story Hours (I recommend Piratecat and Sagiro to start with); these guys make rule mistakes periodically too, and they're like GODS to us mere mortals.
Minor mistakes are unimportant. If the DM doesn't let you Take 10 on a roll where you should have been able to, it's not the end of the character (usually). If the DM thinks you can Chain Spell an Enervation, no biggie. A lot of the best House Rules start from these sorts of mistakes.

But, in my experience, a good DM is one who accepts his limitations, and is willing to let a player point out the correct rule when he screws up on something big. If it's something REALLY big, he should be willing to either retroactively change it, or find some in-game deus ex machina to compensate ("Oh look, I just found a new +1 Icy Burst Greatsword to replace that flaming one that got melted!"); it may not be "realistic", but you play games to have FUN, not get hosed just because the DM got some rules really, really wrong.
The bad ones try to come up with ridiculous logic to explain away the bad decisions they made. When you mentioned the whole "force of the fireball simulating an enhancement bonus", that's the first thing that came to mind. These same sorts of DMs fudge die rolls to give the outcomes they wanted. ("You fall off the cliff you were walking next to." "No, I rolled a 20 on my Balance check." "Yeah, but the piece of rock you were standing on broke off, so your skill success meant you stayed on the falling rock; if you had failed, you would have fallen onto the more stable stuff." - this one actually happened to me.)

You are NOT automatically a "rules lawyer" for bringing the correct rules to his attention, but that's the excuse some bad DMs I've played with use. Some players are reluctant to even support your side since they assume Rule 0 ("The DM's decisions are final") translates to "the DM knows more than you do so he's always right, even when he's wrong"

Oh, and one other note: You could have argued, under his sort of logic, that since the +1 Flaming Burst greatsword was, you know, ON FIRE, and uses Fireball as its prerequisite spell, that it'd be immune to damage from a Fireball. Not sure he'd go for it, but you never know.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Whoops, my bad. Don't know why I misread that.

Matters not.

A lot of the best House Rules start from these sorts of mistakes.

But, in my experience, a good DM is one who accepts his limitations, and is willing to let a player point out the correct rule when he screws up on something big.

Yea. A DM should be willing to admit his faults.

If it's something REALLY big, he should be willing to either retroactively change it, or find some in-game deus ex machina to compensate ("Oh look, I just found a new +1 Icy Burst Greatsword to replace that flaming one that got melted!"); it may not be "realistic", but you play games to have FUN, not get hosed just because the DM got some rules really, really wrong.

Usually the players understand if the game gets changed retroactively.

You are NOT automatically a "rules lawyer" for bringing the correct rules to his attention, but that's the excuse some bad DMs I've played with use. Some players are reluctant to even support your side since they assume Rule 0 ("The DM's decisions are final") translates to "the DM knows more than you do so he's always right, even when he's wrong"

That's the worst kind of DM: Making errors big time, messing with the rules to make them correct, and calling the players names if they dare to say something.

Oh, and one other note: You could have argued, under his sort of logic, that since the +1 Flaming Burst greatsword was, you know, ON FIRE, and uses Fireball as its prerequisite spell, that it'd be immune to damage from a Fireball. Not sure he'd go for it, but you never know.

I think, the stones, propelled by the fireball, thus gaining an enchancement bonus, destroyed the sword, not the fireball itself. The ruling was wrong nonetheless

 

[LokiDR]

For point of reference, I don't believe that some forms of damage need to be magical to get through things such as DR or enhancement on armor and weapons. If that was the case, creatures with DR would never have to worry about falling damage.

Objects that cannot be wielded, such as the Arc de Triumph (unless you are playing 4 Color to Fantasy) don't count as weapons in my opinion. If a 30 ton weight dropped just on a magic sword, that sword should take damage. Hardness applies, of course.

In this case, if the building was toppled on the characters head, it would be treated like an area effect spell or cave-in. Character gets a reflex save for half damage. Only on 1 would an object in the characters possession be damage.

One more point about fireballs and objects. As per the rules for damaging objects, fire damage is cut in half before hardness is applied. This makes it very hard to fireball a weapon into slag.

 

[Stalker0]

Alright, I got to say it, I think you guys are being way too harsh on this dm.

Okay, by the letter of the law you can't kill a +1 longsword with a collasped building. But comeon, maybe I'm having a crazy thought, but it doesn't seem too crazy a notion that tons of falling rock could break a +1 sword.

The DM rationalizes it, and then gets shot down constantly by the rules. That's okay, and he sounds rational enough to listen. But he sounds like a guy whose not just breaking a weapon for the heck of it, but trying to give his players some logic as to why. I say that's fine too. So if he wants to allow a magic weapon to be broken in such a way, no problem. Its not like he's saying a mundane hammer could break it or anything.

This is not directed at the original poster, I think he sounds rational and is just looking for the actual rules, but I do notice that a lot of players get way too attached to their magical equipment. They will argue everything and their grandmothers to keep their gear in tact, even when its fairly logical that they are gone. They forget its supposed to be the character, not the magic.

I guess that's just my rant, sorry for the little hijack.

 

[LokiDR]

Alright, I got to say it, I think you guys are being way too harsh on this dm.

Okay, by the letter of the law you can't kill a +1 longsword with a collasped building. But comeon, maybe I'm having a crazy thought, but it doesn't seem too crazy a notion that tons of falling rock could break a +1 sword.

The DM rationalizes it, and then gets shot down constantly by the rules. That's okay, and he sounds rational enough to listen. But he sounds like a guy whose not just breaking a weapon for the heck of it, but trying to give his players some logic as to why. I say that's fine too. So if he wants to allow a magic weapon to be broken in such a way, no problem. Its not like he's saying a mundane hammer could break it or anything.

This is not directed at the original poster, I think he sounds rational and is just looking for the actual rules, but I do notice that a lot of players get way too attached to their magical equipment. They will argue everything and their grandmothers to keep their gear in tact, even when its fairly logical that they are gone. They forget its supposed to be the character, not the magic.

I guess that's just my rant, sorry for the little hijack.

Magical equipment is a big part of a character in 3e. If you don't believe me, try playing a character without magical equipment some time, or random equipment vs chosen equipment.

Because of the importance of magical equipment, the rules make it hard to destroy unless you are really trying. Hardness, enhancement, and magic item saves all make magical equipment much more livable, often more than the character they are on. This is done so you can get more stuff as you level, and keep up with wealth guidelines.

Loss of magical equipment should be a relatively rare occurance because it can cripple a character (fighter without a weapon, and then without a weapon they focus on) so it shouldn't be done lightly. Certainly not every time fireballs fly. As in the case of the game I played in (I think it is dead now) it can make the game a lot less fun.

This is why players argue. Would you argue if your 2nd level character lost an arm? I would, because it is pretty sever hanicap for at least a while. If you have to wait untill your party cleric can cast 6th level spells, it could be a long time. Losing limbs is lot like loosing magic items, they are both just as much a part of the character.

Ok, maybe I shouldn't continue the hijacking.

 

[star]

My DM just emailed me with his final decision regarding the situation.

He ruled that the effect was like a cave in and did 8d6 damage (33 pts) and considering how high my saves are, he's assuming that my PC and my sword saved for half. So after hardness is taken into account my sword is a little dinged up, but not broken.

I realize that this ruling isn't totally by the rules, but I'm ok with that. The important thing here is that he wasn't out to screw my PC and take away my stuff. To tell you the truth, I was starting to have my doubts. It certainly would have seemed that way if he had actually ignored several rules and changed the way fireball works. I would not enjoy playing in his game if that were the case.

I told you that the guy is reasonable and willing to discuss the issue.

And thank you again for your comments.

Star

 

[Pax]

My DM just emailed me with his final decision regarding the situation.

He ruled that the effect was like a cave in and did 8d6 damage (33 pts) and considering how high my saves are, he's assuming that my PC and my sword saved for half. So after hardness is taken into account my sword is a little dinged up, but not broken.

Now, see, THAT is a ruling I not only can "live with", it's one I can applaud. You got caught in a collapsing building, and you and your sword came out a little worse for the wear. It's not strictly by-the-book, but it's reasonable, especially wihtin the context of verisimilitude.

Someone trying to Sunder your sword will have a slightly easier time of it, but you're not (yet) without the weapon itself. And some care and caution (and GP and XP and time and proper facilities) can make the weapon right as rain again, too.

Get thee to a smithy poste haste, and pray the party includes someone with craft magic arms and armor ... and a couple XP to spare on your behalf ... and fix that sword!

 

[LokiDR]

Glad to see it resolved, but your DM seems to have missed something:

Fireball (35 damage average) vs 1 foot thick stone wall: (35/2)-8 = 1 damage on average. Result: the crypt is fine.

This doesn't mean Star should argue the point any more. No harm, no foul, and all you need is a Make Whole. But the DM may want to remember this in the future before he decides the party sorcerer brings down half the underdark on your heads. The rules for suffication aren't as nice as object hardness

 

[kreynolds]

It certainly would have seemed that way if he had actually ignored several rules and changed the way fireball works.

Which he did, but oh well.

I told you that the guy is reasonable and willing to discuss the issue.

That's cool. Could have been worse.