Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="RigaMortus2" data-source="post: 2972559" data-attributes="member: 11586">I really don't see the problem though (or, more to the point, the inconsistancy).&nbsp; If the info on 222 isn't consistent with the info on 217, why not ignore the inconsistancies on 217 instead?&nbsp; Basically, it makes sense to me that a weapon with a smaller enhancement bonus can't sunder or damage a weapon (or shield) with a higher bonus.&nbsp; How is this &quot;broken&quot; or a &quot;problem&quot;?Or is this just a matter of WotC not liking the idea that magical weapons can't be broken via non-magical means?&nbsp; So instead of comparing enhancement bonuses, we are beefing up the hardness and HPs?&nbsp; Which makes them harder to break, but eventually you might be able to do it. --&nbsp; Which as I said, I personaly don't prefer, so I guess we are playing the other way.&nbsp; I'll have to bring this new enlightenment to my DM and see what he'd rather do.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="RigaMortus2, post: 2972559, member: 11586"] I really don't see the problem though (or, more to the point, the inconsistancy). If the info on 222 isn't consistent with the info on 217, why not ignore the inconsistancies on 217 instead? Basically, it makes sense to me that a weapon with a smaller enhancement bonus can't sunder or damage a weapon (or shield) with a higher bonus. How is this "broken" or a "problem"? Or is this just a matter of WotC not liking the idea that magical weapons can't be broken via non-magical means? So instead of comparing enhancement bonuses, we are beefing up the hardness and HPs? Which makes them harder to break, but eventually you might be able to do it. -- Which as I said, I personaly don't prefer, so I guess we are playing the other way. I'll have to bring this new enlightenment to my DM and see what he'd rather do. [/QUOTE]

Verification