Strange Ruling

[drnuncheon]

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?

Yep.

See, when you're in battle, the other person generally isn't standing there with his sword across an anvil waiting for it to be struck and broken. He's waving it around trying his best to put the sharp end inside of you, which limits your ability to break his weapon.

Outside of battle, where the sword is a non-moving target and you can position it to get the maximum effect from your blows, it is much easier to destroy.

The magic weapon would still be harder to break than the nonmagic one, even out of battle, because of its extra hardness and hitpoints, but it wouldn't be impossible.

To me, a mere +1 enchantment making magic weapons indestructible is more ridiculous then allowing them to be destroyed outside of battle.

J

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Well, i'd like to be optimistic, too, but here is the conclusion.
"Trance isn't in the rules, so i do it how i like..." was the kick-off.
Towards the point "the ground isn't magical and swords very light" he paused shortly and came up with "well, no. If things fall, they break. And after all, the Keen Short sword isn't +1, remember?"

I am so happy i am NOT one of the players in that group. But here comes the fun...

Group-cleric "so, what you are saying is, that the keen short sword isn't magical?" GM:"Yes." Cleric:"Ok, i cast Mend Object." GM:"But...Damn."

Well, serves him right. (By the way: Keen Short Swords aren't. They must be at least +1 Keen.)

So here the groups second fighter regained his keen short sword and the other simple +1 short sword was restored as a "simple" masterwork sword...

So that one broke as well? Funny little +1 Planet, that....

If this occurance wasn't so sad i would think it's pretty funny.

Oh, btw, the fighter in question is Lvl8 and the two magic swords were his only magic items... oh well...

Very low magic campaign? Well, nothing bad about it as is (although I don't like them, personally), but if so, they wouldn't have those weapons in the first place.

Let me guess: They got them from an enemy who made good use for it, right? Sounds a bit like he's a real jerk.

Hmm. I played in that group for some years...

That DM has a habit to ask for climb checks DC 20 for a ladder.

If you have protection against fire, no enemy will use fire anymore.

Illusions never work against NPCs, but players don't get saves till they shout "I disbelieve!".

Skills are crap. You can't sneak at someone with Move Silently +15 and Hide +15, but a mage with invisibility and no move silently skill managed it automatically.

Worst thing (one of the reasons why I left the group): I asked him for a non core rule feat. He told me to check it and two weeks later he approved it. Four weeks later I gained the level and he told me we never spoke about it.

And that just about confirms my guess: He is a total idiot. Some jerk who is the DM to lord it over others. He better chooses the people he has as players well: Someone is bound to punch him in the face for such antics, sooner or later.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

It could, perhaps, be argued that this only applies when the magic sword is being attacked deliberately.

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...

-Hyp.

These are rather extreme examples to defend a stupid decision. A javelin blocking a door which is assoultet by a hundred strong men manning a ram is a little more strain than the javelin falling a little.

And by the rules, it would not break. But they would get in, cause the castle gates aren't magical, and they would break (probably the handles where you shove that javelin through).

Also: why will you explain that a magic weapon is totally immune to damage when you hack at it, but brittle as glass when it is not attacked deliberately? So the frost giant striking it with his huge greatclub will do no harm, but when he walks by its wielder and clips him, tugging at the hilt of the sword, it will just break?

 

[Kae'Yoss]

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.

Sure he has. But if he makes that to lord it over the party (after what we heard, we can rule out the possibility that the party was over-powered and he had to adjudicate them.), he's a lousy DM, and should not be surprised if he can play alone in the future.

 

[drnuncheon]

These are rather extreme examples to defend a stupid decision. A javelin blocking a door which is assoultet by a hundred strong men manning a ram is a little more strain than the javelin falling a little.

Of course, that just points out a problem with the D&D falling damage system - light objects and characters ought to take less damage from falling, because they're hitting the ground with much less force. (Equal speed, but less force, since F = M x V.)

Also: why will you explain that a magic weapon is totally immune to damage when you hack at it, but brittle as glass when it is not attacked deliberately?

Hardly brittle as glass - in fact, stronger than a normal sword. See my explanation above, and dcollins' as well.

For an analogous experiment, go get some 1/2" dowels and a friend. Play Luke vs. Vader for a while, see if you can break the other guy's dowel. Then, take a third dowel and break it over your knee. It'll break much more easily. And yet, they have the same hardness and hit points. Why should the same not be true for magical weapons?

If you really want a made-up explanation (since the magic is made-up anyway), use this: the enhancement on the weapon causes the sword (or whatever) to be more swordlike - it's better at all of the things a sword is expected to do. It hits better, it hurts more, it withstands blows in combat better.

It's not enhanced to do things that a sword is not supposed to do: it doesn't give you bonuses on whittling, add to your Charisma, or resist deliberate attempts to destroy it out of combat. Those are all separate abilities that would cost much more to add to your weapon. You could get them, but they're not part of the standard "+X package" - probably for reasons of cost.

In short, you could have an indestructible sword...but you'd have to pay a heck of a lot more than 2000 gp for it.

J

 

[clark411]

Maybe the floor was +2.

if I were a member of the party, i'd go grab my +3 pick and start digging up this fine, magic floor.

 

[Hypersmurf]

These are rather extreme examples to defend a stupid decision.

Oh, I'm not defending the DM's decision That was stupid.

I'm just defending the possibility of damage to a magical weapon occurring from a non-magical source.

(Although I'm liking this idea of a non-magical Keen that makes your sword more brittle - maybe automatically snaps on a 1 on an attack roll, and has more hardness but less hit points than a normal sword...)

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

If you really want a made-up explanation (since the magic is made-up anyway), use this: the enhancement on the weapon causes the sword (or whatever) to be more swordlike - it's better at all of the things a sword is expected to do. It hits better, it hurts more, it withstands blows in combat better.

See, I use this argument to support my case that magic bows are not immune to weapons of lesser enhancement. A magic bow is better at all the things a bow is expected to do. It shoots further, it compensates for wind better, it launches its arrows straighter.

It's not intended to have to defend itself against an orc with a greataxe!

-Hyp.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Maybe the floor was +2.

if I were a member of the party, i'd go grab my +3 pick and start digging up this fine, magic floor.

Not with this DM. He'll never give you a +3 pick, at least not before 50th-level. And if I know that kind right enough, he'll drop the campaign at around 12th-level - after 3 years worth of playing.

But bet on it that the next best goblin will have a +3 self-destructing pick, that becomes nonmagical as soon as the goblin dies.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Oh, I'm not defending the DM's decision That was stupid.

Ah, we're on the same wavelength at that. Good!

I'm just defending the possibility of damage to a magical weapon occurring from a non-magical source.

Yes, it could be. But not from a simple fall.

(Although I'm liking this idea of a non-magical Keen that makes your sword more brittle - maybe automatically snaps on a 1 on an attack roll, and has more hardness but less hit points than a normal sword...)

Dunno. It would mean that you'll have the sword for 20 attacks or so. sooner or later you'll get a one, and your sword is done for. And continuously fixing your equipment reminds me to much of Diablo...