regarding the smith and the magical weapon
OK, so it seems to me that the argument that asmith w/non-magical hammer doe smor edamage to a magical weapon is based on the wielding of the weapon? Something like "the weapon is braced for the impact, not being avoided", right?
Sorry, don't buy it. Think about a +2 steel shield. Can't exactly say that the bearer of the shield is trying to keep it from being hit. Rather, he/she would *rather* it be hit!
Now, heating it up *might* help. But remember that it gets a save first. So, a +1 sword saves at (2+2-or-more+d20). Of course technically if the smith is holding onto it, it saves at his saves if better.
On top of that, fire only deals half-damage --before hardness. It will take a while by melting.
of course, never mind magical, a d4 hammer will need a lot of strength bonus added in to overcome a hardness of 10, hit points of 5 for alongsword. With magical bonuses, it gets more difficult. All sundering aside. Make it an adamantite short sword, and that smith will use his hammer on you!
Now, about the quarterstaff/compactor:
sure, wedge it in to the groove, but now that groove is all you have to push through, not the walls of the compactor. Any strength bonus would essentially be coming from the compactor, which could easily push the 1d8+1 over the toughness of ten.
Okay, that was a reach, but hey, we are talking about *magic* people.
I mean geez, a wizard w/a +1 staff probably has other means to get out of that situation.
Cheers,
Bill
