Weapon Enchantments and Monks

[RedTonic]

Until you meet a Dispel Magic.

Which could likewise work on a weapon. Or an anti-magic field. Or a Mordenkainen's disjunction.

It's hard out there in a spell-slinger's world.

 

[Dandu]

The rules governing a permanancied spell are different than those governing a weapon. A weapon's magical abilities are suppressed for 1d4 rounds if dispelled, while a permanancied spell is stripped off hand has to be replaced.

 

[RedTonic]

You've got me on the dispel, but the rest aren't just a temporary inconvenience--well, barring a cleric handy with resurrection...

 

[iamtheend]

Would anyone feel that in a 3.5 game of DND or for that matter a Gestalt Campaign that a DM allowing a Monk to enchant his body to be unbalanced? If so why?

 

[Vespucci]

No, I've come to the conclusion that it's hilarious. I strongly recommend loading the enchantment of the monk's entire body with innuendo. The job would best be done by camp male enchanter, styled after Hubert Gruber.

"Hey! I'm not going to be hitting anyone with that!"

 

[Faraque]

It depends on the style of the campaign. If your DM is trying for a semi-serious game, with drama and roleplaying, it's probably a bad idea. If he's going for a comical fantasy, it'd be possibly acceptable.

If your DM has issues with balancing, I'd definitely say no. Allowing a person to enchant themselves like armor or weapon is just asking for abuse. Case in point, what does the +5 enchant cover? Saves? To Hit? Damage? AC? Skill Bonuses? Cause a powergaming player is going to argue it over and over. And if one person can do it, so can everyone else, which, if you have that one guy that likes to be better than everyone else... well, you can see where that goes.

 

[Dandu]

What.

The +5 would only apply to weapons as per every rule to enchanting weapons ever in 3.5. Why would you even think that it covers anything else?

 

[Vespucci]

It depends on the style of the campaign. If your DM is trying for a semi-serious game, with drama and roleplaying, it's probably a bad idea. If he's going for a comical fantasy, it'd be possibly acceptable.

The implication that my suggested scene doesn't involve role-playing needs no rebuttal. As for drama? A lot of Shakespeare's serious dramas have comical scenes. YMMV, but I'm appealing to authority FTW!

 

[Dandu]

Shakespear? Drama? I find nothing dramatic about a bunch of penis jokes strung together in quick succession.

 

[Vespucci]

Is that a criticism of me, or Shakespeare?