Strange Ruling

[Thanee]

Remember the trash compactor in Star Wars: A New Hope? Would you say that if someone cast Magic Weapon on a quarterstaff, they could use the staff to prevent the walls from crushing them?

Use a +1 javelin to bar the castle gates! Much better than that foot-thick oak beam...

Well, we're talking something like a 20' fall, not a trash compactor or huge castle gates.

I'm sure, that extreme force could be considered strong enough to destroy a magical sword, but a simple fall!?

Bye
Thanee

 

[drnuncheon]

Also, magic weapons require magic or magic weapons of same or higher enchantment to break them, so a fall of any height would not break them.

Under Strike a Weapon:
"The attacker cannot damage a mangic weapon or shield that has an enhancement bonus unless his own weapon has at least as high an enhancement bonus as the weapon or shield struck."

Notice those rules only apply to people using the Strike a Weapon attack. Destroying a magical weapon outside of combat does not have those restrictions - so your +1 greatsword could not stop the Sliding Walls o' Doom in the Death Star (and, in fact, could be destroyed with some solid work by a blacksmith and a hammer).

J

 

[Darklone]

Hehehehe.

Dougal once used a levitate to destroy a lichs phylactery. (hardness 40, hitpoints 20).

But this thing was not magical... Funny.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Notice those rules only apply to people using the Strike a Weapon attack.

Heh. See? I told you it could be argued

-Hyp.

 

[DeBhaal]

Originally posted by drnuncheon
(and, in fact, could be destroyed with some solid work by a blacksmith and a hammer).

But the blacksmiths hammer would have to be magical because he would be striking the weapon.

 

[The Souljourner]

How on earth would a non-magical blacksmith's hammer be more effective than a non-magical warhammer? So if you're out of battle, the rules of the game suddenly change? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. If a +4 sword can't break a +5 sword when they're being swung full tilt at one another for the express purpose of breaking the +5 sword... why would joe average blacksmith be able to do any better?

If he were suddenly jumped by a pair of kobolds, would he then lose his ability to destroy the +5 sword?

Sword falls from on high, hits a rock, and breaks. Now attach that rock to a stick and use it as a weapon to bash at the weapon, and it doesn't break. What the...?

Magic takes magic (or extremes of non-magical energy damage) to destroy.

-The Souljourner

 

[dkilgo]

I agree with the magic vs. magic bit.

My only suggestion to Dougal DeKree is never to associate with that GM ever again near roleplaying games. I wouldn't even want to be in the same party as that guy. Even, if he was a player.

Get out while you still can!

 

[DeBhaal]

The Souljourner, Isn't that basically a long-winded account of what I said?

 

[dcollins]

How on earth would a non-magical blacksmith's hammer be more effective than a non-magical warhammer? So if you're out of battle, the rules of the game suddenly change? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

This discussion may be entirely extra-rules. However, I don't think the scene you just painted is ridiculous at all. A blacksmith who holds an item, bracing it on an anvil, and getting to smack it repeatedly between hammer and anvil can apply a lot more force than hitting it once, in the air, with no bracing, except for an opponent who doesn't want to get hit in the first place.

For your stone-on-a-stick example... I'm sure there's all kinds of hideous effects that can happen from throwing an item off a building, that are unreproducible by a person swinging a chunk of concrete at the same item.

There's no rule saying that a +1 sword is invulnerable to any conceivable impact except from a magical source, and in my campaign, I wouldn't want it to be. It's a reasonable DM call to make at some point. (Admittedly, the break-at-20 ft. ruling in this thread's main post isn't one I would duplicate.)

 

[dkilgo]

Here is a quote from the DMG, pg. 9:

"When everyone gathers around the table to play the game, you're in charge. That doesn't mean you can tell people what to do outside the boundaries of the game, but it does mean that you're the final arbiter of the rules within the game. Good players will always recognize that you have the ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook. Good DMs know not to change or overturn on existing rule without a good, logical justification so that the players don't grow dissatisfied."

The GM, reguardless of whether I agree with him or not, does have the option to create his own ruling on the situation when either a rule is presented, or not in the case of the falling weapon. It was his decision, and probably his rationale of the subject. We, or his players/friends, can not fault him for making a decision similar to something that we probably have made in the past.

Only one question remains, and that is:

Can we create a rule to determine whether or not a magical item is affected from falling damage?