Weapon Properties and SR?

[Hypersmurf]

It doesn't say "magic items that allow saves produce spells or spell-like effects". It says "magic items produce spells or spell-like effects".

You can't get much more categorical than "magic items produce spells or spell-like effects".

There's nothing to suggest that's an exclusive statement, and evidence that it isn't.

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

There's nothing to suggest that's an exclusive statement,

What, so "magic items produce spells and spell-like effects" really means "magic items produce spells and spell-like effects, except when they don't"? Yes, I can see one deriving much utility from such a rule.

 

[Hypersmurf]

What, so "magic items produce spells and spell-like effects" really means "magic items produce spells and spell-like effects, except when they don't"? Yes, I can see one deriving much utility from such a rule.

But that sentence is not the rule - it's a statement defining the context of the rule, which follows.

The rules text in that section is the formula for calculating Save DC. The first sentence just lets you know why that rule is of any importance.

"Magic items produce spells and spell-like effects, except when they don't", by itself, is indeed useless.

"Magic items produce spells and spell-like effects, except when they don't. When they do, here's the DC" is no longer useless.

Magic items produce spells and spell-like effects, and we know how to calculate the save DCs for them. For anything a magic item produces that isn't a spell or spell-like effect, we either a/ don't need to know a save DC, or b/ have it provided for us in the item description.

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

But that sentence is not the rule - it's a statement defining the context of the rule, which follows.

Poppycock.

Magic items produce spells and spell-like effects, and we know how to calculate the save DCs for them. For anything a magic item produces that isn't a spell or spell-like effect, we either a/ don't need to know a save DC, or b/ have it provided for us in the item description.

Does flaming disappear in an antimagic field?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Does flaming disappear in an antimagic field?

'Likewise, it prevents the functioning of any magic items within its confines'.

Absolutely. A Flaming sword is a magic item, and thus prevented from functioning.

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

Produce evidence that "magic items produce spells or spell-like effects" is not a rule. As far as I can see, that's an interpretation you've pulled out of your hat so as to avoid having to admit you're making up a house rule. Go on.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Produce evidence that "magic items produce spells or spell-like effects" is not a rule. Go on.

Magic items do produce spells or spell-like effects. Lots of them.

Produce evidence that everything a magic item produces must be a spell or spell-like effect.

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

Magic items do produce spells or spell-like effects. Lots of them.

Thank you.

Produce evidence that everything a magic item produces must be a spell or spell-like effect.

Which part of "magic items produce spells or spell-like effects" did you have trouble understanding?

Which part of "magic items produce effects other than spells or spell-like effects" are you having trouble finding?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Which part of "magic items produce spells or spell-like effects" did you have trouble understanding?

Nothing at all. I agree with it. Magic items do, indeed, produce spells or spell-like effects.

"Elven craftsmen produce fine weapons. The price of an elven weapon is three times the price of a masterwork weapon."

This in no way precludes the existence of elven craftsmen who produce fine teacups.

Which part of "magic items produce effects other than spells or spell-like effects" are you having trouble finding?

I don't see it as necessary for that statement to exist.

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

Nothing at all. I agree with it. Magic items do, indeed, produce spells or spell-like effects.

"Elven craftsmen produce fine weapons. The price of an elven weapon is three times the price of a masterwork weapon."

This in no way precludes the existence of elven craftsmen who produce fine teacups.

This argument reminds me of the invisible pink unicorns for some reason.

Point me to any magic item that is explicitly said not to be a spell-like effect. Go on.

No, enhancement bonuses don't count.

I don't see it as necessary for that statement to exist.

Well, I don't see it as necessary for the statement "the DM may pull things out of his ass" to exist either, but that doesn't make it a part of the rules.