# Adamantite Bypassing DR?



## Xarlen (Jun 4, 2002)

This thread is to support something that I don't know how to prove immediately.

Can Adamantite bypass DR because of it's natural enhancement bonus? If not, why?

I don't believe it can, but, I want support here for other people.


----------



## IanB (Jun 4, 2002)

I have to say yes, they can. DR requires an enhancement bonus to deal full damage; adamantine weapons have an enhancement bonus. The rules are a little vague on the difference between an 'enhancement bonus' and a 'natural enhancement bonus', other than to say that they don't stack. 

Anyway, it certainly won't unbalance the game at all to allow it, and it makes sense.


----------



## Xarlen (Jun 4, 2002)

If that's true, then you can take the natural enhancement bonus from Adamantite and enchant the weapon, since it's allready a +1 or +2 weapon.


----------



## Wolf72 (Jun 4, 2002)

*el nope!*

sorry, but SKR/Sage or some other person ruled other wise.

Adamantine is a _natural_ enhancement and does not count v DR or enhancment ... it can never be dispelled though.

so even if a creature has a DR of 30/silver ... adamantine will not bypass it

*unless you house rule it*

for enhancement, an adamantine longsword (for example) still has to be given a +1 enhancement to be able to accpet other things (like flaming burst).  If only +1 it will still have it's +2 (for 1d8+ on dmg), and will be able to bypass DR/+1 or less (since it has a normal +1 enhancement).


----------



## Xarlen (Jun 4, 2002)

Thank you, Wolf.


----------



## IanB (Jun 4, 2002)

Well, I can see your point. Logically, it would seem to me that the adamantite would go through the DR, but not serve as a prerequisite for enchantment, but it is true that the rules just say 'enhancement bonus' in both places. Complicating this is the description of the adamantite weapons in the 'specific weapons' section:

Adamantine Battleaxe:

This nonmagical axe is made out of adamantine, giving it a natural +2 enhancement bonus. 

(This is from the SRD - I don't have a DMG handy right now, so if the wording is different there, it could make a difference.)

Note that all of the sudden, it isn't a 'natural enhancement bonus', it is just an 'enhancement bonus'. So the question becomes: when they say 'natural enhancement bonus', is the word 'natural' part of the rules text, or a clarifying adjective. I tend to come down on the side of 'clarifying', since it does not stack with other enhancement bonuses and the rules are generally pretty consistent about allowing differently named bonuses to stack.


----------



## IanB (Jun 4, 2002)

Hmm, couple posts while I was composing. 

I guess the Sage's opinion would settle it, although I would definitely house-rule it, as it makes the combination of high DR + antimagic field way too unbeatable for normal characters.


----------



## Xarlen (Jun 4, 2002)

Well, anything with a +3 DR and an antimagic field isn't going to be touchable for that matter anyway. Since Adamantite doesn't go past +2, unless you're using something BIG.

I'll also note that Masterwork Weapons get a +1 because of their quality, which seems like an bonus to me; does that mean they get to bypass DR? Since both adamantites and masterworks get plusses for their craftmanship and material.


----------



## IanB (Jun 4, 2002)

Well, I checked, and it seems that DR is at least sometimes supernatural instead of extraordinary (I only looked at vampires and lycanthropes) so I guess this loophole was already thought of. I'm 0 for 2 today... 

On masterwork weapons, the difference would be that the bonus isn't an enhancement bonus (of either sort).


----------



## hong (Jun 4, 2002)

Xarlen said:
			
		

> *Well, anything with a +3 DR and an antimagic field isn't going to be touchable for that matter anyway. Since Adamantite doesn't go past +2, unless you're using something BIG.
> *




DR is a supernatural ability, and so also goes away in an antimagic field. The barbarian's DR is an exception to the rule.


----------



## Xarlen (Jun 4, 2002)

Ah. Thanks Hong.


----------



## Cloudgatherer (Jun 4, 2002)

Wolf, reference?  I didn't see it in the FAQ.

By my understanding of the rules it does bypass DR as if it were a magic weapon.  Just because it says "natural" in front of it, doesn't mean it is not an enhancement bonus.

Seriously though, don't attacks which ignore "armor" also ignore "natural armor"?  Take touch attacks for instance.  They bypass armor, right? Just as natural armor is still a type of armor.


----------



## Dr. Zoom (Jun 4, 2002)

I thought mithral and adamantine were included in the "other special material" category, which is on the same rung as silver.  I would only count magical enhancement for purposes of bypassing DR.


----------



## Wolf72 (Jun 4, 2002)

reference ... I want to say sage advice, but I'm not about to go scrounging thru them to find it.

or ... it might have been an SKR rant, but I'm fairly certain that it is correct ...

I think it was a month or two ago that this came back out and then got as close to an official answer as we were going to get.

[edit: looked but I couldn't find it (online) ... bed time now, perhaps tomorrow I'll look, after work, if no one has found it ... or caliban hasn't answered it]


----------



## hong (Jun 4, 2002)

Cloudgatherer said:
			
		

> *Seriously though, don't attacks which ignore "armor" also ignore "natural armor"?  Take touch attacks for instance.  They bypass armor, right? Just as natural armor is still a type of armor. *




You will get into trouble if you take this line of thinking too far. 

Natural armour and armour bonuses are two different things, that just happen to have the same word in them. Eg the brilliant energy weapon enchantment ignores armour, but not natural armour.


----------



## Wolf72 (Jun 4, 2002)

Dr. Zoom said:
			
		

> *I thought mithral and adamantine were included in the "other special material" category, which is on the same rung as silver.  I would only count magical enhancement for purposes of bypassing DR. *




okay now I'm pretty sure it was an SKR clarifacation ... but each is it's own special category ... DR/silver, DR/adamantine, and DR/mithral are all seperate categories.  A mithral dagger will not bypass a lycanthrope's DR ... nor will an adamantine one.


----------



## Xarlen (Jun 4, 2002)

DMG pg 74.




> Any weapon more powerful than the type given after the slash also negates the ability, so a +1 longsword damages a werewolf,normally, *but a longsword made of some other special material won't work.*





Assuming that silver negates because the werewolf's entry does, this gives the impression that other special materials (Mythril, Adamantite, Cold Iron) does not work. It has /silver, because they are weak vs. Silver. Only silver, and magical items.


----------



## Jeremy (Jun 4, 2002)

After re-reading it twice, I'd be inclined to say that adamantine does serve as a magical weapon for the purposes of bypassing Damage Reduction.

Damage reduction says it is defeated by enhancement bonuses, and adamantine grants an enhancement bonus.

Wolf/Xarlen, if you can quote the source of the professional that says otherwise I'd definately appreciate it.


----------



## Xarlen (Jun 4, 2002)

See above. 

Adamantite (Like Silver, Mithril) is a Special Material.

DR is a Supernaturel effect that is bypassed by *Magic*. That's why spells eat through it. 

Adamantite is a *natural* substance that gives it's bonus for the density and power of the material, not for any supernatural or magical nature. It just gives it because it's better quality. Think of a regular weapon as a +0 natural enchantment weapon, because of the quality.

Silver bypasses because it's part of the werewolf Legend. Like faeries and cold iron, like Vampires crossing water.


----------



## FANGO (Jun 4, 2002)

Xarlen, I wish you wouldn't keep using the same reasoning that has already been refuted...

Here's a sum up of my responses to Xarlen's opinions, while we were having this debate in another thread:

"Special material" has nothing to do with adamantine.  "Special material" is meant to refer to silver, wood, mithral, and other nonmagical materials which do not grant enhancement bonuses but which can bypass certain types of DR.

Adamantine gives a natural enhancement bonus to the weapon it is made out of.  I could not see how this could be more clear, until IanB came along and pointed out the description of the adamantine battleaxe in the DMG.  This proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that adamantine bypasses DR...since DR requires an "enhancement bonus" to be bypassed, and adamantine gives something an "enhancement bonus".  It doesn't get any simpler than that.

Also, the argument about "magical attacks bypassing DR" is irrelevant, because magical attacks are simply one of the exceptions to DR.  There is nothing that says that DR much be bypassed by magical attacks, and indeed it even says in the description of DR that there are many cases in which it gets bypassed by completely mundane attacks (it uses the phrase "mundane fire" as an example of something that bypasses DR).  So no, things do not have to be "magical" to bypass DR.

And, once again, the argument that "masterwork weapons not bypassing DR is a contradiction" is also false, because masterwork weapons do not give an enhancement bonus, they give an unnamed bonus that is explicitly stated not to stack with enhancement bonuses.  Since masterwork weapons do not give enhancement bonuses, then they do not bypass DR.  It's very simple.


And for some replies to comments made in this thread:
DR is always a supernatural ability unless denoted otherwise, and the only cases in which it isn't that I've been able to find are in the cases of werewolves and forsakers (and the aforementioned case of the barbarian...this also applies to other classes that get x/- DR, but the - is irrelevant when we're talking about overcoming DR, so I'm not really going to discuss barbarians or anyone else who gets that type of DR).  In the case of a werewolf it's easy to overcome even in an antimagic field, because it's silver and silver doesn't get negated by antimagic fields.  With forsakers it can be above +2, but other forsakers can get around that DR and it's really not a massive amount compared to the level at which you get it anyway.

Also, if the "adamantine doesn't bypass DR" side is basing it's argument on a sean k reynolds rant, then I don't really think that adds any credibility at all to that argument...I mean, c'mon, the guy argues that invisibility would cause people to explode.


And now, for the balance aspect of it all:
Adamantine costs more than equivalent magical enchantments, is not as flexible, and is set to a specific amount depending on what type of item that is being used.  It also cannot be further enchanted, and the enchantments on it can't be anything other than a simple enhancement bonus.  All of this is in exchange for it not going away inside antimagic fields (which almost never is encountered, and even if it did go away it's a very minimal effect since DR goes away inside antimagic fields anyway), not being able to be dispelled (which people don't try to do very often anyway, there's far more effective things to do than try to dispel someone's wimpy +1 or +2 sword), and having slightly higher hardness than steel (which isn't even that huge a difference, since magical swords get bonuses to their hardness and such anyway).  Also, adamantine weapons and armor do not get the advantages of being masterwork, so the armor doesn't lose any of it's armor check penalty and the weapon wouldn't retain a +1 to hit if it were dispelled.  So the net bonus of having an adamantine weapon is slightly higher hardness, +1 damage (or +1 hit, +2 damage) in an antimagic field, and that it doesn't get dispelled.  And these minimal bonuses are in exchange for a higher cost, a LOT less flexibility, and supposedly the lack of an ability to overcome DR?  Without being able to overcome DR, adamantine is too weak, and with the ability to overcome DR it is just about right.


----------



## ConcreteBuddha (Jun 4, 2002)

*



			FANGO---

adamantine gives something an "enhancement bonus".
		
Click to expand...


*
You are smoking crack.


What type of weapon bypasses DR?

_ "A magic weapon...can sometimes damage the creature normally, as noted below.

For example, the werewolf (damage reduction 15/silver) takes normal damage from weapons with +1 or better * magical * bonuses, * but not from nonmagical weapons made from material other than silver, * and not from keen weapons or weapons with other special magical properties."  _ -- pg. 10, MM

Do adamantine weapons bypass DR?

No.  As they are not magical.
.
.
.
I would prefer if adamantine weapons bypassed DR. In fact I have houseruled this already. But by the rules, adamantine weapons do not bypass DR.


----------



## Xarlen (Jun 4, 2002)

> "Special material" has nothing to do with adamantine.  "Special material" is meant to refer to silver, wood, mithral, and other nonmagical materials which do not grant enhancement bonuses but which can bypass certain types of DR.




Page 242, DMG. Adamantite is the *First* under 'Special Materials' listings. Next comes Mithral, then Darkwood. So, why Wouldn't Adamantite be considered a special material? It's Right Beside the others.

On page 74, table 3-1, the weakest is listed as Silver, Mithral, or other special materia. Now, the way I interpretate that is, a special material is listed for the weakness, and it goes up from there. Like, 15/silver. However, I could see it being interpreted as the weakest DR being weak from Silver is Also weak against mithral and other special materials. But, my refute of this would be: if they were going to mean it like that, it would be 15/special material.




> Also, the argument about "magical attacks bypassing DR" is irrelevant, because magical attacks are simply one of the exceptions to DR.  There is nothing that says that DR much be bypassed by magical attacks, and indeed it even says in the description of DR that there are many cases in which it gets bypassed by completely mundane attacks (it uses the phrase "mundane fire" as an example of something that bypasses DR).  So no, things do not have to be "magical" to bypass DR.




Page 74 states that * magic and energy attacks bypass DR (Like Fire).* Fire's an energy attack, even if it isn't magical. This gives the impression that creatures with DR still die by drowning/smothering/etc, Silver or +1's or magical items aren't the only way they die. But, notice that drowning or suffication doesn't do damage.


----------



## Jeremy (Jun 4, 2002)

I agree with you FANGO.  I believe the often quoted sequence is being focused on too much and the other passages on DR are being ignored.

I believe the point of that particular statement was to state that cold iron weapons do not bypass werewolves DR.

The general rule is still DR is trumped by enhancement bonus and adamantine does grant an enhancement bonus.  Flavor text "special materials" and "magic weapons" is being read into too much.

Again, any reference for the quote your remember Wolf?


----------



## FANGO (Jun 4, 2002)

I don't see "wood" or "silver" listed under special materials, so does that mean they're not special materials?  I didn't think so.  The reason it is not "15/special material" is that not all special materials are equal, and werewolf DR is bypassed specifically by silver and not wood, and also by anything more powerful than silver (such as adamantine, seeing as it gives an enhancement bonus).

And concretebuddha, does nonmagical fire get by damage reduction?  does poison?  According to your analysis, that nonmagical things do not bypass DR (and I am not putting words in your mouth here, you said that adamantine doesn't bypass DR because it's "not magical", suggesting that you think that only magical things can bypass DR), they do not.  However, they do bypass DR, as specifically stated in the section about DR.

Let me reiterate....DR is bypassed by an enhancement bonus, and adamantine gives an enhancement bonus, so therefore it bypasses DR.  The advantage of looking at it this way is that it requires no interpretation whatsoever, whereas all other viewpoints that have been given so far in this thread require some interpretation at one point or another.


----------



## Xarlen (Jun 4, 2002)

FANGO said:
			
		

> I don't see "wood" or "silver" listed under special materials, so does that mean they're not special materials?  I didn't think so.  The reason it is not "15/special material" is that not all special materials are equal, and werewolf DR is bypassed specifically by silver and not wood, and also by anything more powerful than silver (such as adamantine, seeing as it gives an enhancement bonus).




Look on page 74, table 3-1. Silver, Mithral, Or Other Special Material.


> And concretebuddha, does nonmagical fire get by damage reduction?  does poison?  According to your analysis, that nonmagical things do not bypass DR (and I am not putting words in your mouth here, you said that adamantine doesn't bypass DR because it's "not magical", suggesting that you think that only magical things can bypass DR), they do not.  However, they do bypass DR, as specifically stated in the section about DR.




Actually, unless the weapon deals damage, poison does not effect them, because the hit isn't recieved. And, look at ConcreteBuddha's quote: *weapons with +1 or better magical bonuses, but not from nonmagical weapons made from material other than silver.* Weapons. Nonmagical weapons. Adamantite is not silver, it is another material. It's as simple as that.

As to the continual use of Fire doing damage, Fire is Energy damage. Just like Fatigue from the weather. It's not a *weapon*. You can set them on fire, but it's an element, not a weapon.


----------



## FANGO (Jun 4, 2002)

I find it interesting that nobody has yet made a comment about the fact that DR is bypassed by enhancement bonus, and adamantine has an enhancement bonus, and instead they've decided to argue with irrelevant side points rather than actually disputing the blatantly obvious fact that adamantine bypasses DR because it gives an enhancement bonus, and DR is bypassed by an enhancement bonus.

Should I say it again?  Cause people don't seem to be catching on.


(also, your point about the poison and the weapon dealing damage or not is completely irrelevant to the original comment, which was that poison, being nonmagical and not an energy attack, can still do damage to something that has DR, just as adamantine does because it has an enhancement bonus, and DR is bypassed by something with an enhancement bonus...and if fatigue is energy damage, can I use "Energy Immunity (fatigue)"?  cause that would be really cool)


edit:
I should also mention that the "special materials" in the item creation section is different than the "special materials" in the DR description section, as the item creation special materials deals with "substances [which] have innate special properties", which silver is not one of, and the DR section mentions special materials simply meaning any material other than steel, and indeed does not reference the item creation special materials section at all, so they are two completely different things.


----------



## Xarlen (Jun 4, 2002)

Okay. How is the fact that Werewolves are not harmed by Nonmagical weapons that made from silver Irrelavent? It spells it out: They Are Not Harmed By NonMagical, Non Silver weapons.

If I take a steel bar, a mithral bar, a wooden bar, and a silver bar, and I sit and hit a werewolf with them, what's going to go through? The silver. Because it says 15/silver. If I did the same to a vampire, it wouldn't work because it requires a Magical Weapon. Ergo the /+1.


----------



## FANGO (Jun 4, 2002)

How is it irrelevant?  Because it has nothing to do with adamantine weapons (which have enhancement bonuses) overcoming DR (which is overcome by enhancement bonuses).  The reason I used the example of the werewolf in the first place on the other thread was to show an example of a creature who has a nonmagical weapon that can overcome some DR, since an argument of yours early on in the discussion was that DR was only overcome by magical weapons.  Now, however, the werewolf has no relevance to the discussion at hand, which is that adamantine overcomes DR, because it has an enhancement bonus, and DR is overcome by an enhancement bonus.


----------



## AGGEMAM (Jun 4, 2002)

FANGO, an adamantine weapon/armor does not have an *enhancement bonus,* it has a *natural enhancement bonus* which is not the same.


----------



## Xarlen (Jun 4, 2002)

I'm just going to retract my statement (to see the responses), and simply say that I've contacted the Sage. Answer on the way, either way.

See Hong below; I toss my support behind him.

To further it, look at Armor, and Natural armor. Two different things, because of the _natural_ heading.


----------



## hong (Jun 4, 2002)

FANGO said:
			
		

> *I find it interesting that nobody has yet made a comment about the fact that DR is bypassed by enhancement bonus, and adamantine has an enhancement bonus, and instead they've decided to argue with irrelevant side points rather than actually disputing the blatantly obvious fact that adamantine bypasses DR because it gives an enhancement bonus, and DR is bypassed by an enhancement bonus.*




Not quite. From the DMG, p.242: "Weapons fashioned from adamantine have a natural enhancement bonus to attack and damage".

Adamantine provides a _natural_ enhancement bonus. The controversy is about whether this constitutes a separate bonus category to "enhancement", or is simply a clarification on the origin of the bonus ("natural" as opposed to "magical").

I lean toward the former. If nothing else, it's always been traditional in D&D that creatures requiring "+X" weapons to hit require _magical_ weapons. Adamantine has never been able to let you get past this defense.


----------



## FANGO (Jun 4, 2002)

If it's a separate bonus, it should stack with the regular enhancement bonus from magic (such as armor and natural armor).  However, in this case, both because it doesn't stack and because of the description of the adamantine battleaxe in the special magic weapons section of the DMG, "natural" is pretty clearly just there to clarify that the enhancement bonus, while still an enhancement bonus, does not actually come from magic.

If you're going to argue that they are different bonuses (such as "natural armor" and "armor"), then they should stack...if you're going to argue that they're the same (i.e. that they don't stack), then they're the same and it bypasses DR.


----------



## Xarlen (Jun 4, 2002)

FANGO said:
			
		

> *
> If you're going to argue that they are different bonuses (such as "natural armor" and "armor"), then they should stack...if you're going to argue that they're the same (i.e. that they don't stack), then they're the same and it bypasses DR. *




It's time to wake up an old point. 

I once more reference Masterwork Weapons. Yep. The +1 comes from an unnamed bonus, *BUT* that bonus does not stack with magical weapons. Just like Adamantite. See? Different bonuses that Don't Stack with Magic. They have to do with the Quality of the weapon.

Let's call this masterwork +1 a 'Quality Bonus'.  It does not stack with magic (Magic basicly overrides it). The *natural* enchantment bonus of Adamantite does not stack with magic. Hmm.  

What happens when a Masterwork Weapon enters an antimagic field? Why, you get the +1 quality bonus. Since you need a masterwork weapon to make a magical item, when a Magical weapon enters an anti-field, I'm pretty sure it gets that +1 quality bonus. When Adamantite enters an anti-magic field, you get the bonus.

Simular, aren't they?


----------



## hong (Jun 4, 2002)

FANGO said:
			
		

> *If it's a separate bonus, it should stack with the regular enhancement bonus from magic (such as armor and natural armor).  However, in this case, both because it doesn't stack and because of the description of the adamantine battleaxe in the special magic weapons section of the DMG, "natural" is pretty clearly just there to clarify that the enhancement bonus, while still an enhancement bonus, does not actually come from magic.
> 
> If you're going to argue that they are different bonuses (such as "natural armor" and "armor"), then they should stack...if you're going to argue that they're the same (i.e. that they don't stack), then they're the same and it bypasses DR. *




The "separate bonuses stack, same bonuses don't stack" rule is broken often enough to make these arguments iffy. A masterwork weapon gives a +1 bonus to attacks, but doesn't stack with enhancement (or natural enhancement) bonuses. A shield's bonus to AC stacks with the armour bonus from worn armour, but not that from a mage armour spell, or bracers of armour. And so on.

The bonus from adamantine is explicitly stated not to stack with that from magic. Similarly, a shield provides an armour bonus to AC, but its bonus is explicitly stated to stack with the armour bonus from regular armour. The point is that the shield/armour situation is one where the default rules on stacking don't apply. Similarly, even if adamantine provided a different bonus type to magic, it's explicitly stated that the default stacking rules don't apply, so nothing's changed.


----------



## FANGO (Jun 4, 2002)

And in any place that this happens, it is specifically stated whether it stacks or not, as you say.  So here's where my point comes in: the bonuses from adamantine "do not stack with any other enhancement bonuses."  Does this not mean that they are enhancement bonuses, too?  If there are different classifications of enhancement bonuses, then if DR is only meant to be overcome by one of them, why does it not say that it only is overcome by "magical enhancement bonuses"?  Because it's not.  It's overcome by all enhancement bonuses, because all it says is that it's overcome by "enhancement bonuses."  The type of enhancement bonus, or where it is derived from, does not matter...simply the fact that it is an enhancement bonus.

And Xarlen, do you honestly believe that the game designers made adamantine +1 weapons worth 10 times as much as masterwork weapons for a simple doubling of hp/hardness, and a +1 to damage?  I think not.

And it's spelled "similar".  I hate when people do that.


----------



## Xarlen (Jun 4, 2002)

Well, *I* most certainly would if it ment less chance of someone sundering my magic weapon I spent all that gold on. 

Besides, there's a big difference between a masterwork weapon and an adamantite one. You get a +2 adamantite weapon? Then you enchant it. First with a +1, then start stacking on the abilities, and you still have a +2 weapon (Although it's still a +1 in purposes of DR).

And, you want to argue about enchantment bonuses? Then why is it a +1 adamantite weapon can't be enchanted, since magic weapons need a +1 before you can put special abilities on them? A weapon needs an Enchantment bonus, but look, natural enchantment bonuses Don't Work.


----------



## Bonedagger (Jun 4, 2002)

*Re: el nope!*



			
				Wolf72 said:
			
		

> *sorry, but SKR/Sage or some other person ruled other wise.
> 
> Adamantine is a natural enhancement and does not count v DR or enhancment ... it can never be dispelled though.
> 
> ...




From what I know about "The Sages" rulings I have made up my mind that a reference to him is not a valid argument.


----------



## laiyna (Jun 4, 2002)

*Fango*

I can only agre with Fango on this. The rules are clear about that.

Lai


----------



## FANGO (Jun 4, 2002)

What's an enchantment bonus?

I, too, would pay extra for some more hardness...but not 3000 gold.  Perhaps about 1000 gold would be enough to pay for that +1 damage and some extra hardness...and what do you know, it just so happens that adamantine weapons cost about 1000 gold more than equivalent magic weapons (well, equivalent in pluses, but not in flexibility).

And it is interesting that you bring up that point, about the getting magical special abilities when all you've got is an adamantine.  According to the rules as written, it seems that this might be possible...however, it would be reasonable to think that they meant magical enhancement bonuses in that section, since that section does all deal with magical abilities.  Personally, I've never been a fan of the "something must be +1" rule to begin with, but oh well.

And bonedagger is right about the sage responses...unless it's published, errataed, or FAQed, the sage has contradicted himself so often that he really isn't reliable enough to base a ruling off of (especially considering that you probably sent a weighted email to him to begin with ;-)).


----------



## Xarlen (Jun 4, 2002)

> And bonedagger is right about the sage responses...unless it's published, errataed, or FAQed, the sage has contradicted himself so often that he really isn't reliable enough to base a ruling off of (especially considering that you probably sent a weighted email to him to begin with ;-)). [/B]




I asked, and I quote: Does an adamantite shortsword bypass a vampire's 15/+1 DR?

Yes, so loaded with my opinon.


----------



## FANGO (Jun 4, 2002)

Thus the wink, and the word "probably' 

And regardless, the part about the publishing still stands, and I think that most people on this board will agree that the sage contradicts himself often, and so at best is just another fairly well-informed opinion, though not completely well informed and not able to spend as much time on it as he probably should, due to the fact that he couldn't possibly hear all of both sides of the argument because he really doesn't have a lot of time and so he has to make snap judgements on a lot of things at the expense of accuracy.

As it is, the rules are completely clear on this issue, and so regardless of what the sage says I'm most likely sticking to what I've got, since I'm right ;-)   (if he comes up with a very good explanation that none of us saw, then of course I will recant, but the rules are so incredibly clear on this that I have a hard time seeing that happening).


----------



## Xarlen (Jun 4, 2002)

FANGO said:
			
		

> *
> As it is, the rules are completely clear on this issue, and so regardless of what the sage says I'm most likely sticking to what I've got, since I'm right ;-)   (if he comes up with a very good explanation that none of us saw, then of course I will recant, but the rules are so incredibly clear on this that I have a hard time seeing that happening). *




The rules are clear to you Your way. They're clear to me My way. 

I think it's come to a point of agree to disagree, since neither of us is going to move from our camp.


----------



## AGGEMAM (Jun 4, 2002)

One day you too shall see the light.



> From the D&D FAQ
> 
> *Does a +1 short sword with the shock enhancement (total enhancement  of  +2  for  pricing  purposes)  overcome  a creature's damage reduction of 15/+2?*
> 
> No,  only  the  weapon's  actual  _magical_  enhancement  bonus for  attack  and  damage  counts.  The  weapon  in  this  example  is considered a +1 weapon for overcoming damage reduction.


----------



## FANGO (Jun 4, 2002)

Yes, it is true that that weapon's magical enhancement bonus is all that counts.  I would find it hard to believe that it's natural enhancement bonus would count in overcoming damage reduction, considering it doesn't have one.  That question also has nothing at all to do with adamantine, so it does not apply here (and even if it did, it still wouldn't prove anything, as I pointed out above).


----------



## AGGEMAM (Jun 4, 2002)

The FAQ is very specific in saying *magical enhancement bonus* in each and every case it is mentioned in relation to a weapons, if *natural enhancement bonuses* counted the FAQ would only say *enhancement bonuses*.



> From the D&D FAQ
> 
> *A  creature  with  damage  reduction  (such  as  a  gargoyle, damage reduction 15/+1) can use its own natural weapons as if they were enhanced enough to defeat its own damage reduction. If I purchased armor  with  the  invulnerability enhancement (5/+1) and then encountered a gargoyle, could the monster bypass my damage reduction? Could I bypass its damage reduction without a magical weapon? *
> 
> The  gargoyle's  natural  weapons  are  treated  as  +1  weapons for  purposes  of  defeating  damage  reduction,  regardless  of  the damage reduction's source. Damage reduction from an item or a  spell,  however,  never  gives  the  recipient  the  ability  to overcome another creature's damage reduction. In the example encounter, the gargoyle's natural weapon attacks would bypass the  character's  damage  reduction  of  5/+1,* but  the  character would need a weapon with a magical enhancement bonus of at least +1 to bypass the gargoyle's damage reduction of 15/+1.*


----------



## The Iron Mark (Jun 4, 2002)

Let's look wt what Adamantine really is.

*Adamantine: Found only in meteorites and the rarest of veins in magical areas, this ultrahard metal adds to the quality of a weapon or suit of armor based on how much of the material is used. Weapons fashioned from adamantine have a natural enhancement bonus to attack and damage. Armor fashioned from adamantine has a natural enhancement bonus to AC. These bonuses do not stack with any other enhancement bonuses. Weapons and armor fashioned from adamantine are treated as masterwork items with regard to creation times, but the masterwork quality does not affect the enhancement bonus of weapons or the armor check penalty of armor.* 

So it is only found in the rarest veins on magical areas and meteorites. The enhancment bonus from Adamantine must be because it is completed saturated in magic. Since it is part of the material, it is natural. And the bit about being found in meteorites, they're probably exceptionally rare meteorites. Just my opinion.


----------



## Dr. Zoom (Jun 4, 2002)

*SKR weighs in!*

FWIW, I asked a similar question over at Sean K. Reynolds' board and here is his answer.


> DR is bypassed by weapons with an enhancement bonus; it doesn't matter if that enhancement bonus comes from a spell, the CMAAA feat, or adamantine. So yes, the adamantine longsword cuts right through DR X/+2.


----------



## JLXC (Jun 4, 2002)

I don't understand why the English language confuses people so.

Adamantine provides a Natural Enhancement Bonus.  

The WORD Natural in the sentance provides the reader with the knowledge that the Enhancement bonus is part of the metal itself.  It's not some quasi-descriptor in the sentance.  It just tells you about the Enhancement bonus.

Adamantine provides an Enhancement bonus that works all the time, even in magic dead areas, anti-magic, etc.  It's an ENHANCEMENT bonus, natural has Nothing to do with that.

It penetrates DR because it is an Enhancement bonus.  This is simple.  You may try to confuse the issue by adding words in front of Enhancement, but it's just silly to do so.

There is no Natural Enhancement bonus.  For those arguing this is something in the game... find it in the DMG or PHB, or their indexes?  No you wont.  Trying to add stuff that is not there is an easy way to confuse yourself.


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 4, 2002)

Actually, here's another big ol' fat clue that inforces the idea that adamantine indeed possess a true enhancement bonus that would allow it to bypass DR. Ever examined the prices? Here. I'll show you.

+2 longsword = 8,000gp
adamantine longsword (+2 natural enhancement bonus) = 9,000gp

+1 shortsword = 2,000gp
adamantine shortsword (+1 enhancement bonus) = 3,000gp

Pretty similar, no?


----------



## ConcreteBuddha (Jun 4, 2002)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Actually, here's another big ol' fat clue that inforces the idea that adamantine indeed possess a true enhancement bonus that would allow it to bypass DR. Ever examined the prices? Here. I'll show you.
> 
> +2 longsword = 8,000gp
> adamantine longsword (+2 natural enhancement bonus) = 9,000gp
> ...




Sorry, kreynolds, by this rationale, a Ring of Natural Armor (2,000gp) should give a competence bonus to AC because a Ring of Climbing (2,000gp) is also a competence bonus.

*



			FANGO---
And concretebuddha, does nonmagical fire get by damage reduction? does poison?
		
Click to expand...


*
Look at Xarlen's posts...

*



			FANGO---
DR is bypassed by an enhancement bonus, and adamantine gives an enhancement bonus, so therefore it bypasses DR.
		
Click to expand...


*
Really? And yet under DR in the MM, the text clearly says that nonmagical weapons do not bypass DR. Adamantine weapons are nonmagical. Therefore, adamantine does not bypass DR.

Get past this one, buddy, without resorting to, "It's just flavor text, therefore has no meaning." 

Maybe it's not flavor text, but an example of how DR works.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 4, 2002)

2kreynolds: 
Yes, but wouldn`t it be to easy to use such obvious reasons for allowing Admantite Weapons to bypass DR.

And the reast, please, ignore JLXC`s comment, this is once again a much to easy way. 

Mustrum "who sometimeswonder what discussions come up" Ridcully


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 4, 2002)

ConcreteBuddha said:
			
		

> *Sorry, kreynolds, by this rationale, a Ring of Natural Armor (2,000gp) should give a competence bonus to AC because a Ring of Climbing (2,000gp) is also a competence bonus. *




Not exactly. The only benefit to adamantine is that the enhancement bonus is retained in an antimagic field. Not a big deal. I contend that is what the extra 1,000gp is for. The rest of the cost is the exact same as a standard magical weapon.


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 4, 2002)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> *2kreynolds:
> Yes, but wouldn`t it be to easy to use such obvious reasons for allowing Admantite Weapons to bypass DR. *




Is this a question or a statement? If it's a question, what exactly are you trying to ask?

EDIT: AHA! LOL I get it now!


----------



## AGGEMAM (Jun 4, 2002)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Not exactly. The only benefit to adamantine is that the enhancement bonus is retained in an antimagic field.  *




Not exactly. Adamantine has better hardness and HPs, as well. Price rationalization will get you nowhere.


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 4, 2002)

AGGEMAM said:
			
		

> *Not exactly. Adamantine has better hardness and HPs, as well. *




That's true, but an increase in hardness isn't that big of a deal. Though I suppose when you couple that with the exotic nature of adamantine retaining the bonus in an antimagic field or a dead magic zone, 1,000gp probably wouldn't cover both of those factors. Hmmm. Kinda wishy washy.



			
				AGGEMAM said:
			
		

> *Price rationalization will get you nowhere. *




Really? It brought us here didn't it? Nobody had pointed it out yet, so I figured what the hell, why not mention it.


----------



## Jeremy (Jun 4, 2002)

"DR is bypassed by weapons with an enhancement bonus; it doesn't matter if that enhancement bonus comes from a spell, the CMAAA feat, or adamantine. So yes, the adamantine longsword cuts right through DR X/+2."

That's pretty cut and dry...


----------



## Caliban (Jun 4, 2002)

Jeremy said:
			
		

> *"DR is bypassed by weapons with an enhancement bonus; it doesn't matter if that enhancement bonus comes from a spell, the CMAAA feat, or adamantine. So yes, the adamantine longsword cuts right through DR X/+2."
> 
> That's pretty cut and dry... *




Except that SKR didn't write the DMG.   

For what it's worth,  I have to  agree that a strict rules-lawyer reading of the table in the DMG doesn't seem to differentiate between a magical enhancement bonus and a natural enhancement bonus.  

I also agree with the Sage, I think that it was intended that only magical enhancement bonuses could be used to penetrate DR, and that Adamantite doesn't have a magical bonus (because it retains it even in an antimagic field.)

You might want to ask Monte Cook, he was the one in charge of the DMG.


----------



## FANGO (Jun 4, 2002)

Seeing as the price is exactly 1000gp greater, for all types of adamantine, regardless of bonus, than similar magical weapons, then we can assume that the 1000 gp is meant to account for the indispelability/inflexibility/extra hardness of the adamantine.  If adamantine does not overcome DR, then it is indeed very weak, and yet somehow it costs more than an "equivalent" magical item.

If you want to argue on strict basis of rules, then adamantine does bypass DR because it is an enhancement bonus, and enhancement bonuses bypass DR.  If you want to argue on the basis of intent, then adamantine bypasses DR because otherwise it would be dreadfully underpowered for it's incredible price and rarity.

Concretebuddha, if you check the SRD under special abilities, you will see nothing that says anything like "nonmagical weapons do not bypass DR."  In fact, if you read carefully, you will even see that it does not limit the bypassing of DR strictly to nonmagical weapons, and explicitly says that "a certain type of weapon—*usually* a magic weapon" can overcome DR.  And indeed, the word "nonmagical" isn't even mentioned anywhere near the DR section, and only mentioned twice on the page (under the "extraordinary abilities" and "incorporeality" sections).

The FAQ is indeed very specific in referring to a weapon's magical enhancement bonus bypassing DR.  But I refer you to "a square is always a rectangle, but a rectangle is not always a square"..in other words, a magical weapon (a square) is able to bypass DR (is a rectangle), but that does not mean that a nonmagical weapon with an enhancement bonus (a non-square rectangle) is not also able to bypass DR (is not also a rectangle).


----------



## Wolf72 (Jun 5, 2002)

Caliban said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Except that SKR didn't write the DMG.
> 
> ...




nooooooo! a non-comittal answer from Caliban? okay ... sage or skr ... anyone got a monte answer?

alrighty then ... I'm going with the sage on this one too ...


----------



## Jeremy (Jun 5, 2002)

Caliban said:
			
		

> *I also agree with the Sage,*






			
				Wolf72 said:
			
		

> *alrighty then ... I'm going with the sage on this one too ...*




Which Sage ruling are you guys referring to, I haven't seen any comments from him on this....??


----------



## Caliban (Jun 5, 2002)

Jeremy said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> 
> Which Sage ruling are you guys referring to, I haven't seen any comments from him on this....?? *





I e-mailed him specifically about the adamantite thing several months ago, and he said that you needed a magical enhancement bonus to bypass DR.  You also need a magica enhancement bonus before you can a special weapon abilities to an adamanite weapon.

Adamantite really only makes it harder to break your weapon, and still has bonus in antimagic areas.  *shrug*


----------



## Hejdun (Jun 5, 2002)

First,



> From what I know about "The Sages" rulings I have made up my mind that a reference to him is not a valid argument.




I 100% agree with this.  The Sage isn't reliable, and our group completely and utterly ignores whatever he says.

Our group discussed this, and we agreed that adamantine weapons break through DR.  It isn't worth the extra cost otherwise.


----------



## ConcreteBuddha (Jun 5, 2002)

FANGO said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Concretebuddha, if you check the SRD under special abilities, you will see nothing that says anything like "nonmagical weapons do not bypass DR."  In fact, if you read carefully, you will even see that it does not limit the bypassing of DR strictly to nonmagical weapons, and explicitly says that "a certain type of weapon—usually a magic weapon" can overcome DR.  And indeed, the word "nonmagical" isn't even mentioned anywhere near the DR section, and only mentioned twice on the page (under the "extraordinary abilities" and "incorporeality" sections).
> *




Read the MM, on page 10, under the heading: "Damage Reduction."

Then get back to me.


----------



## FANGO (Jun 5, 2002)

No, because I don't own an MM 

However, the SRD, under the special abilities section, which has been released under the OGL, doesn't say anything about nonmagical weapons.


----------



## Caliban (Jun 5, 2002)

FANGO said:
			
		

> *No, because I don't own an MM
> 
> However, the SRD, under the special abilities section, which has been released under the OGL, doesn't say anything about nonmagical weapons. *




However, the SRD does state:



> Usually, a certain type of weapon—*usually a magic weapon*—can overcome this reduction.




And the Damage Reductioin Ranking table in the SRD is here:



```
Table: Damage Reduction Rankings

Power 		Rank	Weapon Type
-----		----	-----------
Best		+5	enhancement bonus
2nd best	           +4	enhancement bonus
3rd best	           +3	enhancement bonus
4th best	          +2 	enhancement bonus
5th best	           +1	enhancement bonus
Weakest		Silver, mithral, or other special material
```



*shrug* I think that adamantite would fall under "other special material."


----------



## Cloudgatherer (Jun 5, 2002)

Ah, but you must include the relevant table from adamantine!


```
[color=blue]
Enhancement					Market Price
Item					Bonus	Modifier
-----------				-----	------------
Light armor				+1	+2,000 gp
Medium armor				+2	+5,000 gp
Heavy armor				+3	+10,000 gp
Shield					+1	+2,000 gp
Weapon damage 1d4 or 1d6		+1	+3,000 gp
Weapon damage 1d8, 1d10, or 1d12	+2	+9,000 gp

[/color]
```

Seems to me an adamantine weapon does in fact have a +2 bonus, which falls into the "3rd best" category.

I'd still contend a natural enhancement bonus is still an enhancement bonus, just as natural armor is a form of armor.


----------



## AGGEMAM (Jun 5, 2002)

And that list is from the *special materials* section is it not?


----------



## FANGO (Jun 5, 2002)

Is "silver" in the special materials section of the creating magic items section of the DMG?  No, it's not.  Does that mean it's not a special material?  Of course not.

The "special materials" in the creating magic items section and the "special materials" in the DR section are two completely different things.  This has already been discussed.  What has not been discussed is that adamantine gives an enhancement bonus, and enhancement bonuses are needed to overcome DR, so therefore adamantine overcomes DR.  This cannot be disputed, as it is precisely what the rules state, and any argument against adamantine overcoming DR that does not refute this point will be insufficient for showing that adamantine doesn't overcome DR.  In other words, adamantine can bypass DR.

Adamantine may be a "special material", but it also has a +2 enhancement bonus.  That is all there is to it.  And the reason I quoted the "usually a magic weapon" quote in the first place was to show that no, a magical weapon is not needed to overcome DR, as some people in this thread have said.


----------



## AGGEMAM (Jun 5, 2002)

FANGO said:
			
		

> *Is "silver" in the special materials section of the creating magic items section of the DMG? *




No, it's in the *special materials* section in the PHB !!!!!

Special material are special materials anyway you look at it.

One day you too shall see the light !!


----------



## HeavyG (Jun 5, 2002)

AGGEMAM said:
			
		

> *
> 
> No, it's in the special materials section in the PHB !!!!!
> 
> ...




That's completely irrelevant.

Even if adamantite is a special material, it also has an enhancement bonus which could (or could not) bypass the DR.

Or are you saying that a +2 silver longsword wouldn't be able to hit something with 20/+1 DR ?  Because it's also made of special materials ?  Nope.

The only thing that's relevant here is the definition of DR.  Is the part about needing _magical_ weapons flavor text or rules ?  Is a natural enhancement bonus different from a normal plain old enhancement bonus ?  It seems to me that you can interpret it both ways.


----------



## Wolf72 (Jun 5, 2002)

just to point out some things ...

a +2 silver longsword is no different from a +2 longsword ... unless the creatures DR
entry says that it needs to be enchanted silver ...

Magic first, then special material (uh ... starting to sound like order of operations in math!
)


----------



## dcollins (Jun 5, 2002)

Cloudgatherer said:
			
		

> *I'd still contend a natural enhancement bonus is still an enhancement bonus, just as natural armor is a form of armor. *




But it's not. "Armor" and natural armor" differ in the most important ways:
(a) They are different in that they stack (DMG p. 177), and:
(b) They're different in that "brilliant energy" weapons ignore "armor", but not "natural armor" (DMG p. 186).


----------



## FANGO (Jun 5, 2002)

Enhancement bonuses and natural enhancement bonuses are the same.  We've been over this before.  The word "natural" is simply there to show that the enhancement bonus, which is all that matters to the rules, is not from a magical source, btu a natural one.  If you look on the table in the DMG with the bonus types, you will not see "natural enhancement" as a type of bonus, and neither will you see that in the glossary.  Also, if you look at the description of the adamantine battleaxe, it is clear that the natural enhancement bonus is an enhancement bonus that just happens to be natural, rather than being a "natural enhancement bonus."

And that is correct that a +2 silver longsword is no different than a regular +2 longsword in terms of overcoming damage reduction.  And a +2 adamantine longsword is also no different than a regular +2 longsword in terms of overcoming damage reduction.  If you read the table, you will see that it clearly shows *enhancement bonus* first, special materials second.


----------



## Earthstone (Jun 6, 2002)

Fango...      ...That's right, a +2 Adamantine long sword is identical to a +2 silver long sword for purposes of overcoming DR...     ...BUT you're  making an assumption here that you shouldn't be...         ...a long sword made of adamantine has a +2 enhancement bonus but it is not a "+2 adamantine long sword" it is simply an "adamantine long sword"...     ...as you said, "a +2 silver longsword is no different than a regular +2 longsword in terms of overcoming damage reduction. And a +2 adamantine longsword is also no different than a regular +2 longsword in terms of overcoming damage reduction"... according to YOUR logic, an "adamantine long sword" would, then, NOT be the same as a +2 long sword or a +2 silver long sword...


BTW, you shouldn't assume things, it makes an ass out of you and me...      ...and i don't know how YOU feel about being pollymorphed into a beast of burden but i don't find the idea all too exciting...


----------



## ConcreteBuddha (Jun 6, 2002)

FANGO said:
			
		

> *No, because I don't own an MM
> 
> *




Well then, I'll be happy to quote the whole thing for you so you don't think I'm misrepresenting the MM:

*



			Damage Reduction (Su): The creature ignores damage from most weapons and natural attacks. Wounds heal immediately, or the weapon bounces off harmlessly (in either case, the opponent knows the attack was ineffective). The creature takes normal damage from energy attacks (even nonmagical ones), spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities. A magic weapon or a creature with its own damage reduction can sometimes damage the creature normally, as noted below.

The entry indicates the amount of damage ignored (usually 5 to 25 points) and the type of weapon that negates the ability. For example, the werewolf's entry reads "damage reduction 15/silver": Each time a foe hits a werewolf with a weapon, the damage dealt by the attack is reduced by 15 points (to a minimum of 0). However, a silver weapon deals full damage.

Any weapon more powerful than the type listed in the note also negates the ability. (For details, see Table 3-13: Damage Reduction Rankings, page 74 in the  Dungeon Master's Guide. )

For example, the werewolf (damage reduction 15/silver) takes normal damage from weapons with +1 or better magical bonuses, but not from nonmagical weapons made from material other than silver, and not from keen weapons or weapons with other magical properties.

For purposes of harming other creatures with damage reduction, a creature's natural weapons count as the type that ignore its own innate damage reduction. However, damage reduction from spells, such as stoneskin, does not confer this ability. The amount of damage reduction is irrelevant. For example, a Large air elemental (damage reduction 10/+1) deals full damage to a werewolf, as if the elemental's attack were with a +1 weapon.

---pg. 9-10, MM
		
Click to expand...


*


----------



## FANGO (Jun 6, 2002)

So you're basing your argument off of a half-relevant example that's only mentioned in passing?  If you check the table which the MM DR entry refers to, you'll notice that it says "enhancement bonus" above "special material".  Since adamantine has an "enhancement bonus", then it's able to bypass DR.  This has still not been refuted.

And Earthstone, I was about to explain all sorts of things about how your post was stupid, but I think that I'll just leave it at that:  if you're going to come into this argument, bring something useful instead of being an idiot, because you, I, and everyone else here knows exactly what I meant by "+2 adamantine longsword" (an adamantine longsword with a +2 enhancement bonus...the same way any other item with an enhancement bonus is referred to...because adamantine, if you haven't noticed, has an enhancement bonus, and therefore bypasses DR, because DR is bypassed by something with an enhancement bonus).


----------



## JLXC (Jun 6, 2002)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> *2kreynolds:
> Yes, but wouldn`t it be to easy to use such obvious reasons for allowing Admantite Weapons to bypass DR.
> 
> And the reast, please, ignore JLXC`s comment, this is once again a much to easy way.
> ...




Ignore my comments?  Why because I'm freaking right you moron?  Bite me loser.  Ignore your own stupidity you meant to say?  

Natural does not MEAN anything in the contect of Enhancement?  Don't like it?  Tough.

(I should have been more clear myself heh...  my sarcasm doesn't flow well in the morning... I should have said "Cream Puff" instead of Moron, then it would have been more funny... my bad)


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 6, 2002)

JLXC said:
			
		

> *Ignore my comments?  Why because I'm freaking right you moron?  Bite me loser.  Ignore your own stupidity you meant to say? *




Hey dude? Ever feel like you have your head up your arse? Take a whiff. Mustrum was making a joke, all in good fun and humor, and in fact, I'm pretty sure he was actually in agreement with our opinions (even though I decided otherwise).

Breathe. Take a step back. Chill out. It's all good.


----------



## ConcreteBuddha (Jun 6, 2002)

FANGO said:
			
		

> *Since adamantine has an "enhancement bonus", then it's able to bypass DR.  This has still not been refuted.
> *




Sure I'll refute it. Considering that adamantine is * nonmagical. * And DR is only affected by * magical * enhancement bonuses.

I don't care whether or not adamantine has an enhancement bonus or a natural enhancement bonus or what semantics you would like to argue. That point is irrelevant. (And I also agree with you. The adamantine battleaxe example is a damning point in this issue.)

However, adamantine is nonmagical. Therefore, it doesn't affect DR. Period.

And as for the MM example being half-relevant: If it were an * exception, * you would have a point. Since it is an * example * of how DR works, you are standing on sand.


----------



## FANGO (Jun 6, 2002)

Um, I stand on sand all the time, it's called the beach 

DR is bypassed by enhancement bonuses, regardless of whether they are magical or not.  Your "example" is mentioned in passing, whereas my table is meant to be referred to in all cases dealing with the bypassing of DR (if you'll notice, it does mention in the MM to refer to that table, whereas your "nonmagical" is not only just mentioned briefly and in passing, but also it is not mentioned in the DMG, which the MM refers to for adjudicating DR, or the SRD, which is meant to be the flavor-stripped, official version of the rules, with only rulesworthy sections in it and nothing else to muddle the opinions of the misinformed).

What you have posted is in no way a refutation, it is simply a piece of flavor text that is not at all supported anywhere else in any book, and is the only thing that would suggest that DR can't be bypassed by nonmagical weapons, and that's only if you read it in a certain way. (and an interesting side note...it never actually refers to adamantine as being nonmagical in the special materials section...although I suppose it does in the descriptions of the axe and dagger in the magic weapons section...but then, it is the "magic weapons" section...so, actually, there would even be a rationale, even if you were right about the whole nonmagical things not bypassing DR (which you aren't), for letting adamantine be considered magical at least for the purpose of bypassing DR).


----------



## Kaljamaha (Jun 6, 2002)

I'm with the crowd that says no. I say that you need a magical weapon to bypass DR.

Here's a question for the people that say yes, on the grounds that any enhancement bonus = enhancement bonus.


The SRD on Adamantine:



> Adamantine: Found only in meteorites and the rarest of veins in magical areas, this ultrahard metal adds to the quality of a weapon or suit of armor based on how much of the material is used. Weapons fashioned from adamantine have a natural enhancement bonus to attack and damage. Armor fashioned from adamantine has a natural enhancement bonus to AC. These bonuses do not stack with any other enhancement bonuses. Weapons and armor fashioned from adamantine are treated as masterwork items with regard to creation times, but the masterwork quality does not affect the enhancement bonus of weapons or the armor check penalty of armor.




Also (emphasis mine):



> Only a masterwork weapon can be enchanted to become a magic weapon, and its cost is added to the total enchantment cost to determine final market value. Additional costs for the materials are subsumed in the cost for creating the magic weapon-half the base price listed on Table: Weapons, according to the *weapon’s total effective bonus*.
> 
> Creating a magic weapon has a special prerequisite: The creator’s caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus of the weapon.
> 
> A magic weapon must have at least a +1 *enhancement bonus* to have any of the abilities listed on Table: Weapon Special Abilities.





So lets say you want to create a Keen Flaming Adamantine Longsword. It would have a +2 Enhancement Bonus. Would it cost?

a) 17 000 gp (9000 for adamantine, 8000 for +2 bonus equivalent)

b) 27 000 gp (9000 for adamantine, 18 000 for minimum +1 (magical) enhancement bonus and +2 bonus equivalent)

c) 41 000 gp (9000 for adamantine, 32 000 for +4 magical weapon)

As can be seen, cases a and b both yield a superior magical weapon (hardness, works partially in AM areas) at a lesser price. Would you let your players create such items?


K.


----------



## Wolf72 (Jun 6, 2002)

ya know if they had just put adamantine under special materials [edit: In the DR section] instead of mithral we wouldn't have this conversation ... well at least not the same exact one


----------



## IanB (Jun 6, 2002)

I would choose d) - the normal cost of a +(total) item, plus an additional 1000 for making it out of adamantite, since that's how much more adamantite is than either the normal +1 or +2 weapon.


----------



## FANGO (Jun 7, 2002)

The reason that they didn't put it in the special materials section in the DR section is because it's not a special material as DR is concerned, it's a +1 or +2 enhancement weapon as far as DR is concerned.

And before asking questions, Kaljamaha, look at the rest of the thread.  It's been brought up before.


----------



## Wolf72 (Jun 7, 2002)

*summarized?*



			
				FANGO said:
			
		

> *The reason that they didn't put it in the special materials section in the DR section is because it's not a special material as DR is concerned, it's a +1 or +2 enhancement weapon as far as DR is concerned.
> 
> And before asking questions, Kaljamaha, look at the rest of the thread.  It's been brought up before. *




except for that pesky "... other special materials." phrase I'd almost agree.

and then they went and put adamantine in a "Special Materials" section ...

and we have two high ranking opinions: one says that an  enhancement is an enhancment (SKR), the other [Sage] calls it a _Natural_ enhancment making a distinction between natural and regular enhancement.

I think the only thing we have really agreed on is that in order to give an adamantine weapon a special enhancement is that you really do need to enchant it via normal means.  The cool thing is that even a  +1 adamantine battle axe with shock and frost will still get a +2 attk/dmg.

I think that's a  decent summary


----------



## Kaljamaha (Jun 7, 2002)

FANGO, I have indeed read the whole thread, and this question was not answered to my satisfaction.

You are agruing that any and all enhancement bonuses are equal. You have many times stated that the word "natural" has no bearing upon the working of the enhancement bonus. Then you go on and say:



> And it is interesting that you bring up that point, about the getting magical special abilities when all you've got is an adamantine. According to the rules as written, it seems that this might be possible...however, it would be reasonable to think that they meant magical enhancement bonuses in that section, since that section does all deal with magical abilities. Personally, I've never been a fan of the "something must be +1" rule to begin with, but oh well.




So in this case it is suddenly "reasonable" to assume that they meant only magical enhancement bonuses? How can the (non-existant) descriptor, "magical", have anything meaning, when the word "natural" doesn't? You contradict yourself.

By the SRD, you only need a generic enhancement bonus to stack on further special abilities. So, following your logic, we get reduced prices for (superior) magic weapons made of adamantine. See my previous post. If that's the way you like, fine. Not in my game, though.


K.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 7, 2002)

Hmm, still not finshed with the discussion? 

If you read the rules, you sometimes find things that are contradictory, or at least not clearly spoken out. 
What to do then? You can argue in a thousand ways, if not every way automatically leads to the same solution, than this means, that the designers were not perfect and made a mistake by not stating something clearly out.

Anyway, you can try to find out what would be the most probably solution.

So, we read the rules. First, we learn, that DR Reduction can be negated by enhancement bonuses.
We learn that Admantite grants an enhancement bonus, which is natural and not subject to Antimagic Fields or Dead Magic Zones.
We do also learn, that it requires you to have at least a +1 enhancement bonus to add any other special abilities to a weapon (like frost, flaming and so on). 
We see, that the cost for admantite is a bit higher than a "pure" enhancement bonus. 
So, this gives the clue, that the advantage of better Hardness/Hitpoints and the availability in Antimagic Zones are factored in there.
But since it is not cheaper, this will probably mean that you can negate DR with the Admantite Bonus. No gurantee for it, true, but very probably considering other information (that there is no actual difference made later between natural and magic enhancement bonus, unlike with Natural Armor and Armor)

Now we ask what might the enhancement bonus mean for further enhancements. Can we add Flaming for a very cheap price (2.000) to a Admantite Greatsword?
We look at the prices. Seems to be a bit too cheap, if you compare it to a Flaming Greatsword +2. (18.000 vs. 11.000)
Okay, let us assume the Admantite Enhancement Bonus would not apply for these enhancement types. So, we have to get a Flaming Admantite Greatsword +1 (17.000 gp). Seems to be much fairer now, doesn`t it? Okay, 1.000 gp less. But on the other hand - if you want to get a +3 enhancement bonus, you have to pay the full +3. So, the most probable and "fairest" method might be: 

Admantite`s Enhancement Bonus can be used for negating Damage Reduction. 
Admantite`s Enhancement bonus can not be used for applying new magic abilities. 

Mustrum Ridcully


----------



## Jeremy (Jun 7, 2002)

Or conversely you can choose to treat adamantine as the appropriate enhancement bonus and use the rules for adding additional enchantments to weapons.

There for if you wanted to add a +1 ability to a +2 adamantine sword, you could choose to subtract the +2 price from the +3 price to find out what the step up is and charge that, just like if you were upgrading a standard +2 sword.

Or you could decide this is too simple and not do that.


----------



## FANGO (Jun 7, 2002)

Kaljamaha, even when you quote a post of mine, you still seem not to read it.  If you actually bothered to read it, you would see that I mentioned the reason that it might be reasonable, and that is because the rules for magical enchantments are in the "magic items" section, and from this it would be reasonable to assume that the designers meant you needed a magical enhancement bonus.  However, and this I also stated in the original post, it seems to be that this is not prohibited by the rules, so it would be possible to buy a +2 adamantine battleaxe and put flaming on it.  I don't see why everyone keeps saying it would be cheaper, as the weapon does have the abilities of a +3 weapon now, I the total cost would be 19,000, still more than a regular +3 weapon, as Jeremy explains in his above post.  I don't know if I particularly like this solution (and, like I said, I was never a fan of the "must be +1" rule to begin with), but it doesn't seem to be prohibited.

Also, since people (i.e. Wolf72) didn't seem to hear it the first few times....does a silver longsword +2 bypass DR?  Yes.  Thus, an adamantine longsword (which has a +2 enhancement bonus), also bypasses DR, because you don't take the lowest amount of DR that a weapon can bypass, you take the highest.  And personally, I don't particularly care about either of those 'high-ranking' opinions, since I have very little respect for skr, and the sage flip-flops about so much that he can only be counted as another possibly-well-informed-but-has-no-time-to-check-the-books-so-he-really-isn't opinion.

The fact is that DR is bypassed by things with enhancement bonuses, and adamantine gives an enhancement bonus.  Furthermore, adamantine costs MORE than equivalent magical weapons, even though it has less flexibility, so there is absolutely no game balance reason not to allow it.


----------



## Xarlen (Jun 7, 2002)

For what it's worth...



> Posted At:      Monday, June 3, 2002 10:55 PM
> Conversation:   Adamantite Question
> Subject:        Adamantite Question
> 
> ...


----------



## Wolf72 (Jun 7, 2002)

FANGO said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Also, since people (i.e. Wolf72) didn't seem to hear it the first few times....does a silver longsword +2 bypass DR?  Yes.  Thus, an adamantine longsword (which has a +2 enhancement bonus), also bypasses DR, because you don't take the lowest amount of DR that a weapon can bypass, you take the highest.  And personally, I don't particularly care about either of those 'high-ranking' opinions, since I have very little respect for skr, and the sage flip-flops about so much that he can only be counted as another possibly-well-informed-but-has-no-time-to-check-the-books-so-he-really-isn't opinion.
> 
> The fact is that DR is bypassed by things with enhancement bonuses, and adamantine gives an enhancement bonus.  Furthermore, adamantine costs MORE than equivalent magical weapons, even though it has less flexibility, so there is absolutely no game balance reason not to allow it. *




gee I guess you don't read so well either eh? ... the crux of the problem is the _NATURAL_ part of the enhancement ... and if you read my summary you can see two different opinions: yes it does or no it doesn't.  Notice those are opinions and not fact.

again: if natural counts as actual identifier, then no an adamantine longsword (which has a _natural_ enhancement) will not penetrate DR unless it is also enhanced (thru normal means) to +2.

if natural is simply an adjective with no real meaning other than, "this sword was already enhanced thru natural means ..." then by all means you're right.

[rant/whine]so ... before ya go off blowing steam at people, you should read too.[end rant/whine]


I like Mustrum_Ridcully's analysis of the situation btw


----------



## FANGO (Jun 7, 2002)

Actually, no, I read it, but we've already been over the "natural" thing in this thread, so I felt it didn't need mentioning, because I assumed that people had read that part of the thread (guess I shouldn't assume things like that...)

Pretty much everyone here (correct me if I'm wrong about this, if anyone disagrees...) agrees that the "natural" part doesn't mean anything, because they've looked at the oft-referenced adamantine battleaxe and dagger in the DMG or SRD, which show that the "natural enhancement bonus" is really just a natural "enhancement bonus".  Also, "natural enhancement" is never listed as a bonus type, either in the glossary or in the bonus type table, so yes, it's just a descriptor, not an actual game term.


----------



## Wolf72 (Jun 7, 2002)

I agree with most of what you said except for the "everyone agreeing" part.

us: both sides
skip: on this side
skr: on the other side
monte: ???


----------



## Jeremy (Jun 7, 2002)

According to 4th hand information on Monte's boards Monte doesn't think adamantine should bypass damage reduction.

The quote was something like, I remember reading a post where Monte had responded to an e-mail saying that adamantine needs to be enchanted to affect creatures with damage reduction.

Of course when asked to quote or provide a link it was promptly stated that that was impossible and he didn't remember where he saw it.  So it might have been someone who just really wanted to be right, or it could be true.

Either way, take it with a grain of salt.

BTW, I'm still in the camp that says, an enhancement is an enhancement bonus whether it comes from magical forging, magical materials, "special" materials, greater magic weapon, or what ever you like.  If it a creature has damage reduction 5/+2 and one of the PC's is wielding a +2 adamantine battle axe, the 5 is bypassed.

"10 damage?  With what kinda weapon?"

"+2 weapon."

"Noted.  Next."


----------



## FANGO (Jun 8, 2002)

Wolf, I don't think you're listening.  Even a few people who are adamantly against adamantine bypassing DR have said that the "natural enhancement bonus" is actually an "enhancement bonus".  Try reading the adamantine battleaxe.  It's been proven left and right that a "natural enhancement bonus" is not a type of bonus, and if you disagree then you are probably the only one here who does.


----------



## Xarlen (Jun 8, 2002)

FANGO said:
			
		

> *Wolf, I don't think you're listening.  Even a few people who are adamantly against adamantine bypassing DR have said that the "natural enhancement bonus" is actually an "enhancement bonus".  Try reading the adamantine battleaxe.  It's been proven left and right that a "natural enhancement bonus" is not a type of bonus, and if you disagree then you are probably the only one here who does. *




I would have to say the Sage agrees with him, atleast.


----------



## FANGO (Jun 8, 2002)

...and if the sage read the books and/or was consistent, then that might actually matter ;-)


----------



## dcollins (Jun 8, 2002)

FANGO said:
			
		

> *Pretty much everyone here (correct me if I'm wrong about this, if anyone disagrees...) agrees that the "natural" part doesn't mean anything, because they've looked at the oft-referenced adamantine battleaxe and dagger in the DMG or SRD, which show that the "natural enhancement bonus" is really just a natural "enhancement bonus".  Also, "natural enhancement" is never listed as a bonus type, either in the glossary or in the bonus type table, so yes, it's just a descriptor, not an actual game term. *




Do not agree with that.
- "Natural enhancement" seems like it must have a similar function to "natural armor".
- In my book, the a. dagger/battleaxe do include the word "natural" (albeit before the number) -- hence this argument falls short.
- "Cover bonus" is not listed in the glossary or bonus type table either, yet it too is a legitimate type (PH 132, et. al.) -- hence this argument fails as well.


----------



## FANGO (Jun 8, 2002)

Then a) if it's a different bonus, why doesn't it stack?  It says that it doesn't in the description, but it also says "other enhancement bonuses"..does that not mean that this is an enhancement bonus as well, and therefore bypasses DR?  (the answer, by the way, is yes)

and b) if it were a "natural enhancement bonus," then it would indeed say "+2 natural enhancement bonus" not "natural +2 enhancement bonus."  You don't see natural armor being referred to as a "natural +2 armor bonus."


----------



## Roland Delacroix (Jun 8, 2002)

FANGO said:
			
		

> *Then a) if it's a different bonus, why doesn't it stack?  It says that it doesn't in the description, but it also says "other enhancement bonuses"..does that not mean that this is an enhancement bonus as well, and therefore bypasses DR?  (the answer, by the way, is yes)
> 
> and b) if it were a "natural enhancement bonus," then it would indeed say "+2 natural enhancement bonus" not "natural +2 enhancement bonus."  You don't see natural armor being referred to as a "natural +2 armor bonus." *




Exactly.  DMG 176 "Bonuses of different types always stack."  As soon as you make Adamantite a 'Natural Enhancement Bonus' instead of just an 'Enhancement Bonus' you open up a new can of worms, notably Adamantite Full Plate getting a +5 bonus with just a +2 market price, a 11,000 gp savings!  Why would anyone ever enchant heavy armor more than +2, instead they could get adamantite and get Moderate Fortification for slightly more than Joe Blow with steel Full Plate +5.  Why get more than a +3 weapon enchantment?  Adamantite me!

So, if named different they stack, and if thats the case:

As to the 'balancing factor' of rarity, money talks.  10,000 gp upgrades heavy armor to adamantite heavy armor, period.  As soon as you start to say 'its rare' or 'theres so little, the price is higher' you have delved into house rules (and should be on the appropriate board, not here).  In standard D&D adamantite has to be plentifull enough to warrant the mere +10,000 gp price, and if adamantite's 'natural enhancement' stacks with magics there WILL be a huge demand.  Huge demand, but a relativelly low price, i don't need my 4 years of Econ training to know that equals a FLOODED market.


----------



## FANGO (Jun 8, 2002)

Well, I have no idea what Roland is arguing here, but let me address the part about using rarity as a balancing factor...

I believe I mentioned that it was rare once, and it was in listed along with several other things that actually are balancing factors.  Rarity was not ment to be an important part of the equation, simply a little add-on which doesn't really mean anything, because the fact is that adamantine is not unbalanced in the slightest, and furthermore would be incredibly weak if it couldn't bypass DR.


----------



## Psyduck (Jun 8, 2002)

My two cents = yes

A monk gets natural DR, and that can bypass other creature's DR.  Adamantite, if you wish to view it this way, does get DR (enhancement bonus to hardness), so it also should bypass DR.


----------



## Wolf72 (Jun 8, 2002)

dunno fango, there seem to be quite a few people in this thread who agree with me ... 

but either way it's still a toss up.  As in most discussions we have in the rules section that goes this long it usually boils down to one thing: Your interpretation of the rules as presented in the DMG and SRD.

I feel like daffy duck and bugs bunny ..."magical" ... natural .. .magical ... natural ... (you should get the idea).

I will adamantly   (couldn't pass it up) agree with you on one thing ... it is clearly stated, ... as mud!


----------



## Psyduck (Jun 8, 2002)

One more thing that I'd like to add...

Natural Armor and Armor stack.

Does this mean Adamantine and "magical" enhancement bonuses should stack, too?

I say no, since it would be much better to have a adamantine sword with a greater magic weapon casted on it this way.


----------



## Gromm (Jun 8, 2002)

Psyduck said:
			
		

> *One more thing that I'd like to add...
> 
> Natural Armor and Armor stack.
> 
> ...




DMG p242
"Weapons fashioned from adamantine have a natural enhancement bonus to attack and damage.....These bonuses do not stack with any other enhancement bonuses."

It goes on to give examples. So no they don't stack, because the description specifically says they dont stack. Much like the armor bonus from a shield stacks with an armor bonus from armor. Normally it wouldn't stack, but it does because it specifically says it does. Same thing, opposite direction.

Can this thread go away now?


----------



## keitaro (Jun 13, 2002)

ok guys lets make this nice and easy

open your DMG to page 188 and look at the adamantite weapons

Adamantite Battleaxe: This nonmagical axe is made out of Adamantite, giving it a natural +2 enhancement bonus.
casterlevel:-;prerequisities:-;Market Price:9,310 

ok first off for all of you concerned about what a natural enhancement bonus here's a hint it.... IT DOESN'T grant a natural enhancement bonus. Why? Simple notice that natural is before the +2 enhancement bonus and it does not say a +2 natural enhancement bonus. If the later was the case it would be a differn't type of bonus however it is not the case.

also goto page 242 of the DMG for those of you still not convinced. There is this handy little chart there listing the Item, the ENHANCEMENT Bonus and the Market price modifier. Thus reinforcing the simple fact that this material provides a normal every day enhancement bonus.

Slso note how the price for a adamantite object is exact 1,000 GP greater then if you got a item with the same + the item has as a magical bonus. 

Why get Adamantite? 
There are a few basic reasons.
Reason #1: it counts in a no magic zone thus never depribibing you of the basic bonus.
Reason #2: Its almost freaken impossible to break so sundering and botching with your weapon most likely will not break it.
Reason #3: Because putting on a special ability requires a enhancement bonus on the weapon and the adamantite gives you this bonus without it counting against enhancements you may have a total of +10 to your weapon ALL in abilities.

Thats the end of my little rant


----------



## Wolf72 (Jun 13, 2002)

*must ... resist ... oh well!*

I really shouldn't respond to this ... but ...

house rule and opinion away.

those arguements (good ones btw) have already been discussed ...

I'm just one of those other people who follow the sage on this one.  (imo) Natural does count, and adamantine falls under "other special materials".


----------



## Black Omega (Jun 13, 2002)

Yes, this thread can finally die.  the battlelines are drawn and moving about as fast as in WW I  I did post on Monte's boardf just to see if he cares to comment.  Though in his 'Contact Monte' section he does say rules questions should go to the Sage and Skippy's already weighed in on this.


----------



## Gromm (Jun 13, 2002)

Black Omega said:
			
		

> *Yes, this thread can finally die.  the battlelines are drawn and moving about as fast as in WW I  I did post on Monte's boardf just to see if he cares to comment.  Though in his 'Contact Monte' section he does say rules questions should go to the Sage and Skippy's already weighed in on this. *




Not that it would matter to half the people in this god-awful argument anyway. After all just because a group of people made the game, they don't know how the rules work.

I agree this discussion has long since lapsed into pointlessness. 

Play it however you want, it doesn't really matter.

Sadly thats the answer to almost every thread that spans more than 4 pages.


----------



## Bonedagger (Jun 13, 2002)

Hi

I haven't read all the comments but I am in a mood right now where I feel like posting. So if what I say have been said then cool. That just mean I agree with you who said it 

Adamantine has a natural enchantment bonus. Since the concept of "natural enchantment" is not pointed out as being any different than "artificial enchantment" other than they don't stack we have no reason to assume there are any other. (Except that you don't need a spellcaster to make a magical item )

Adamantite in it self is, without the magical bonus, better than your average metal. That is probably also the reason they calculated adamantium items prices the normal way for an item with that bonus...  And then added a 1000 to the price.

Cya


----------



## Zog (Jun 14, 2002)

*While I agree this thread is about expire*

I have to comment on the magical enchanting of adamantium.

Folks - Adamantiumi s *Non-Magical*  I think we all agree on this.  Thus, if you want to make an adamantium weapon flaming (or keen or vorpal or whatever), you still need to make it magical first!  This means paying to make a +1 weapon.  Note: you get no actually benefit from this!  However, it still counts as a +2 weapon for hit and damage, and can now be further enchanted.  However, if you want to make an adamantium weapon +3, you have to pay for it to be made +1, then +2, then +3.  With no benefit from making it +1 or +2.  

As for me, I like the idea of a simple item of adam. or even mithril being sufficient to hit magical critters.  House rule or interpreation, thats how I like it, so that's how I'll play.


----------



## Black Omega (Jun 17, 2002)

*Monte Speaks*

I asked the following question over at Monte Cook's website.



> Adamantine gets a +2 enhancement bonus. Does this work to defeat DR has been a hot topic over on the EN World message board. I'm guessing no, but there have been good arguements on both sides. Has Monte said anything definitive on this?




Monte responded:



> The intent of the rules originally was that it did not.
> 
> Upon careful re-consideration, I think it would be OK if it did.



This is about as official as we'll get.


----------



## Kraedin (Jun 17, 2002)

> you still need to make it magical first!




Why?  Weapons and armor do not have to be magical to have special abilites.  They just need to have an enhacement bonus of at least +1.


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 17, 2002)

Kraedin said:
			
		

> *Why? *




Because weapons and armor must have at least a +1 magical enhancement bonus in order to place magical enhancements upon them, such as Flaming (weapons) or Everbright (armor). Adamantine does not provide a magical enhancement bonus, but it does provide a natural enhancement bonus. If you want to make an adamantine weapon Flaming, it must first be enhanced into a +1 magical weapon. Being a +1 or +2 natural weapon doesn't cut it, just like a masterwork weapon doesn't cut it.



			
				Kraedin said:
			
		

> *Weapons and armor do not have to be magical to have special abilites. *




Oh yes they do. It's in the DMG.



			
				Kraedin said:
			
		

> *They just need to have an enhacement bonus of at least +1. *




Right. Though it must be a magical enhancement bonus, not a natural. Otherwise, you would be able to make a masterwork weapon into a flaming weapon, which you can't do.


----------



## Kraedin (Jun 17, 2002)

> *PHB, pg. 114* Weapon, Masterwork:  These well-made weapons add a +1 bonus to attack rolls.  Prices for these items are given on Table 7-9 Special and Superior Items.  A masterwork weapon's bonus to attack does not stack with an enhancment bonus to attack.




A masterwork weapon has an unnamed bonus to attack that does not stack with enhancment bonuses, not an enhancement bonus.



> *DMG, pg. 185*  A weapon with a special ability must have at least a +1 _enhancement bonus_.




The item must have an enhancment bonus, with no source specified.  By the same logic that _natural_ enhancement is excluded from this, one can also exclude _magical_ enhancement bonuses, can you not?



> *DMG, pg. 188*  Adamantine Battleaxe:  This nonmagical axe is made out of adamantine, giving it a natural _+2 enhancement bonus_.






> *DMG, pg. 188*  Adamantine Dagger:  This nonmagical dagger is made out of adamantine, giving it a natural _+1 enhancement bonus_.






> *DMG, pg. 182* Adamantine Breastplate:  This nonmagical breatsplate is made of adamantine, giving it a natural _+2 enhancement bonus_.






> *DMG, pg. 242*  Adamantine: Found only in meteorites and the rarest of veins in magical area, this ultrahard metal adds to the quality of a weapon or suit of armor based on how much of the material is used.  Thus, adamantine plate offers a greater increase in protection (as well as a higher cost) than adamantine chainmail, and an adamantine battleaxe offers a greater increase in offensive capability than an adamantine dagger.  Weapons fashioned from adamantine have a natural enhancement bonus to attack and damage.  Armor fashioned from adamantine has a natural enchancement bonus to AC.  These bonuses do not stack with any other enhancement bonuses.  Thus, an adamantine (+2) sword enchanted with a +5 enhancement bonus effectively has a +5 enhancement bonus.  In an area where magic does not function, it still retains its natural _+2 enhancement bonus_.  Weapons and armor fashioned from adamantine are treated as masterwork items with regard to creation times, but the masterwork quality does no affect the enhancment bonus of weapons or armor.




Now, if it was a "natural enhancement" bonus, it would be written as "+2 natural enhancement bonus", correct?  However, it is _not_ written that way.  It's written as "natural +2 enhancement bonus".  It is a +2 enhancement bonus _that is natural to the item_, not a bonus of the type _natural enhancement_.

What does this mean?  It means that if a rule requires an item with an enhancment bonus, then _an adamantine weapon fufills that requirement._


----------



## Macbrea (Jun 17, 2002)

By the way, This is what I got as a response on an admantine question.




> Hello,
> 
> We have recently gotten into a heated debate over the feat Sunder.
> 
> ...





Not that this helps the discusssion on what is actually the rule. But it may be of some use here.


----------



## Xarlen (Jun 17, 2002)

I posted the Sage's response about Adamantite and DR. I don't think it's going to help, Macbrea.


----------



## Macbrea (Jun 17, 2002)

I didn't figure it would. As technically, a rules minded lawyer could easily argue the first ruling is wrong or a house rule.  I would just view it as a house rule personally.


----------



## Black Omega (Jun 17, 2002)

Well, if Monte himself giving his input doesn't help, nothing will.


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 17, 2002)

Kraedin said:
			
		

> *What does this mean?  It means that if a rule requires an item with an enhancment bonus, then an adamantine weapon fufills that requirement. *




No. It means that you've made up your own rule. Adamantine has an enhancement bonus that is good enough to sunder another magical weapon, but it is not good enough to bypass SR, nor is it good enough to automatically qualify for enhancement unless it is made into a +1 weapon first.


----------



## Wolf72 (Jun 17, 2002)

*OH YEAH!!!???*



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> 
> No. It means that you've made up your own rule. Adamantine has an enhancement bonus that is good enough to sunder another magical weapon, but it is not good enough to bypass SR, nor is it good enough to automatically qualify for enhancement unless it is made into a +1 weapon first. *




well just so you all know I'm gonna make my own house rule too! ... and it says that adamantine is just another (albeit really powerful) Special material ... so don't go thinkin' ya can sunder, or bypass DR  

AARRRROOOOOO!!!!!!

oh, um ... yeah I guess I'm just gonna stick with what I like


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 17, 2002)

*Re: OH YEAH!!!???*



			
				Wolf72 said:
			
		

> *oh, um ... yeah I guess I'm just gonna stick with what I like  *




Good. You should stick with what works best for ya'. For me, it's really easy. Nobody has any adamantine weapons in my games because they think it's too damn expensive for such a small return, so the problem never came up.


----------



## Kraedin (Jun 17, 2002)

> No. It means that you've made up your own rule. Adamantine has an enhancement bonus that is good enough to sunder another magical weapon, but it is not good enough to bypass DR, nor is it good enough to automatically qualify for enhancement unless it is made into a +1 weapon first.




What is the difference between the enhancement bonus required to sunder, the enhancement bonus required to beat DR, and the enhancement bonus required to have a special abilty?  Lets take a look.



> *DMG, pg. 184* An attacker cannot damage a magic weapon with an enhancement bonus unless his own weapon has at least as high an enhancement bonus as the weapon or shield struck.






> *PHB, pg. 136* Magic Weapons and Shields: The attacker cannot damage a magic weapon or shield that has an enhancement bonus unless his own weapon has at least as high an enhancement bonus as the weapon or shield struck.




If an adamantine weapon can sunder a magical one, then you acknowledge that it has an enhancement bonus.



> *DMG, pg 74* Usually, a certain type of weapon -- usually a magic weapon -- can overcome this reduction...  For example, a werewolf's damage reduction is 15/silver, meaning the werewolf ignores the first 15 points of damage from every normal atack unless the weapon is made of silver.






> *Table 3-13: Damage Reduction Rankings
> Power Rank          Weapon Type*
> Best                     +5 enhancement bonus
> 2nd best              +4 enhancement bonus
> ...




The text only says that you need an enhancement bonus: the same as sunder.  If you can sunder a +2 longsword with an adamantine greatsword, you _must_ also be able to hit a gargoyle.



> *DMG, pg. 183* A weapon with a special ability must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus.






> *DMG, pg. 185* A weapon with a specal ability must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus.






> *DMG, pg. 244* A weapon must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus to have any of the abilities listed on Table 8-15:  Weapon Special Abilities.




The same holds true here:  you can sunder with an adamantine weapon because it has an enhancement bonus, so you can enchant it with special abilites because it has an enhancement bonus.

If an enhancement bonus is good enough for sunder, it is good enough for DR and enchanting.


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 17, 2002)

Kraedin said:
			
		

> *If an adamantine weapon can sunder a magical one, then you acknowledge that it has an enhancement bonus. *




No. I acknowledge that it has a natural enhancement bonus. Not the same thing. It's also the only time you'll see that kind of bonus.



			
				Kraedin said:
			
		

> *The text only says that you need an enhancement bonus: the same as sunder.  If you can sunder a +2 longsword with an adamantine greatsword, you must also be able to hit a gargoyle. *




Nope. It's a natural enhancement bonus, not a full blown enhancement bonus.



			
				Kraedin said:
			
		

> *The same holds true here:  you can sunder with an adamantine weapon because it has an enhancement bonus, so you can enchant it with special abilites because it has an enhancement bonus. *




See previous answer.



			
				Kraedin said:
			
		

> *If an enhancement bonus is good enough for sunder, it is good enough for DR and enchanting. *




See previous answer.


----------



## Kraedin (Jun 17, 2002)

You say that an adamatine weapon can sunder a magical one because it has a "natural enhancement bonus".   It doesn't work that way.  You need a "full-blown" enhancement bonus to sunder a magical weapon.

You can't have it so that you can sunder, but can't beat DR.  There is no possible interpretation of the rules where that is allowed.


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 17, 2002)

Kraedin said:
			
		

> *If it a "natural enhancement" bonus, then you cannot sunder. *




No. A natural enhancement bonus meets the requirements for sundering.



			
				Kraedin said:
			
		

> *You cannot have it both ways.  You can either sunder, beat DR, and have special abilities, or you cannot. *




In this specific case, and the only case, with adamantine, yes, you can.



			
				Kraedin said:
			
		

> *You can either sunder, beat DR, and have special abilities, or you cannot. *




Adamantine is a different matter all together. You can't apply that logic to it.

Since you edited your message, I'll try and answer it again...



			
				Kraedin said:
			
		

> *You say that an adamatine weapon can sunder a magical one because it has a "natural enhancement bonus". *




Yes.



			
				Kraedin said:
			
		

> *It doesn't work that way. *




In the case of adamantine, yes, it does.



			
				Kraedin said:
			
		

> *You need a "full-blown" enhancement bonus to sunder a magical weapon. *




Not when it comes to adamantine. There's a reason it's listed under the Special Materials section.



			
				Kraedin said:
			
		

> *You can't have it so that you can sunder, but can't beat DR.  *




Yes you can, with adamantine.



			
				Kraedin said:
			
		

> *There is no possible interpretation of the rules where that is allowed. *




Yes there is. Adamantine allows it.


----------



## Xarlen (Jun 17, 2002)

> Hello,
> 
> We have recently gotten into a heated debate over the feat Sunder.
> 
> ...




Apparently, you Can.


----------



## Kraedin (Jun 17, 2002)

> DMG, pg. 184 An attacker cannot damage a magic weapon with an enhancement bonus unless his own weapon has at least as high an enhancement bonus as the weapon or shield struck.




It doesn't say "natural enhancement bonus."   It says "enhancement bonus."   If it says that you need an enhancement bonus, then you need an enhancement bonus!


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 17, 2002)

Kraedin said:
			
		

> *It doesn't say "natural enhancement bonus."   It says "enhancement bonus."   If it says that you need an enhancement bonus, then you need an enhancement bonus! *




Not in the case of adamantine.


----------



## Kraedin (Jun 17, 2002)

Could you at least quote something, or give a reason?  I mean, it seems like if it says that it requires an enhancement bonus, and there's nothing in the adamantine text that supercedes it, then it probably requires an enhancement bonus.


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 17, 2002)

Kraedin said:
			
		

> *Could you at least quote something, or give a reason? *




You can find my opinions throughout this thread. In fact, you can find *all* of the arguments and *all* of the opinions in this thread.

Besides, I did give you a reason. Adamantine is the exception. If you want to know why, I recommend that you read the thread in it's entirety, as I'd rather not repost the whole thing.

The problem is that you came into this so late in the game that many people have already given up on it and made their own decisions. According to Skip, adamantine's natural enhancement bonus *will* let you sunder, *will not* let you bypass DR, and *will not* let the weapon qualify for magical enhancements.



			
				Kraedin said:
			
		

> *I mean, it seems like if it says that it requires an enhancement bonus, and there's nothing in the adamantine text that supercedes it, then it probably requires an enhancement bonus. *




Adamantine supercedes it. It's the exception to the rule.


----------



## Kraedin (Jun 17, 2002)

Okay, I've read through the entire thread.  The only evidence and argument I can find for your interpretation is that "the Sage said so".  He said so without evidence, without justification.  That no one trotted out evidence or justification afterwards isn't very convincing, is it?

Nowhere, anywhere in the rules does it make an exception in sunder for adamantine.


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 17, 2002)

Kraedin said:
			
		

> *Okay, I've read through the entire thread.  The only evidence and argument I can find for your interpretation is that "the Sage said so". *




My own opinion is evidence, or does my opinion not count in this argument at all? If so, that makes you quite the hypocrite.

Also, I never said "the Sage said so".



			
				Kraedin said:
			
		

> *He said so without evidence, without justification. *




He answers nearly all submitted questions like that. The hard part is figuring out what he bases his decisions on.



			
				Kraedin said:
			
		

> *That no one trotted out evidence or justification afterwards isn't very convincing, is it? *




Sure it is. It's convincing that some of them probably said "Bah! Screw the sage. I want it to work like this..." and so they left and dealt with it in their own way, while others probably said "Good enough for me." and then went about their business because his reply actually made sense to them.

Basically, people made up their minds and took off. Happens all the time. So...read the thread and do what you wanna do.



			
				Kraedin said:
			
		

> *Nowhere, anywhere in the rules does it make an exception in sunder for adamantine. *




You don't say? Do you think that just might have been the reason why this hole thread got started in the first place? Perhaps that also had something to do with the fact that the someone sent a message to Skip?

Look, bottom line, this thread is pretty much dead in the water. Some handle adamantine one way while others handle it another. Follow the Sage's reply or don't. It's up to you.


----------



## Xarlen (Jun 17, 2002)

I remember, this thread was started over an arguement about an adamantite weapon bypassing the DR of a Nishru...

Those were the good old days.

I've created a monster. *weep*


----------



## The Sigil (Jun 17, 2002)

*I got your evidence right here...*



			
				Kraedin said:
			
		

> *Okay, I've read through the entire thread.  The only evidence and argument I can find for your interpretation is that "the Sage said so".  He said so without evidence, without justification.  That no one trotted out evidence or justification afterwards isn't very convincing, is it?
> 
> Nowhere, anywhere in the rules does it make an exception in sunder for adamantine. *



Not trying to attack you here, Kraedin, as you bring up a VERY valid point.  Where is the justification?  Well, here is the justification from the rules as written (from the SRD at www.opengamingfoundation.org).  There are no exceptions here for adamantine.  There is evidence and there is justification.  Is it absolutely airtight so that arguing with the Sage would be foolish?  No - or we wouldn't be having this discussion .  Is it better than 50% airtight?  I think it is.  Read on to see...



> From the SRD:
> *Magic Weapons and Shields*
> 
> The attacker cannot damage a magic weapon or shield that has an enhancement bonus unless his own weapon has at least as high an _*enhancement bonus*_ as the weapon or shield struck.




Conclusion... for the purposes of damaging a magic weapon or shield, a natural enhancement bonus (e.g., adamantine's or even a masterwork weapon's +1) is good enough.  Note the difference in terminology... a magic weapon or shield cannot be damaged unless it is struck by a weapon with an enhancement bonus (no mention of any requirement that this bonus be magical rather than natural).  There is no exception for adamantine - a MW weapon can break a +1 magical weapon because the MW weapon has a +1 natural enhancement bonus.  Since adamantine has a +2 natural enhancement bonus, it can break +2 weapons.  Simple.  No contradictions here.

NOTE: In making the definition of what can hit a magic weapon, specific mention is made of enhancement bonuses, but NOT of magical enhancement bonuses.  That is, to me, the key thing (see below).



> From the SRD:
> *DAMAGE REDUCTION*
> 
> Some magic creatures have the supernatural ability to instantly heal damage from weapons or to ignore blows altogether as though they were invulnerable.
> ...



This puts in context table 3-13 (which cannot be used on its own as justification because doing so takes it out of context).



> *Table 3-13: Damage Reduction Rankings
> Power Rank Weapon Type*
> Best +5 enhancement bonus
> 2nd best +4 enhancement bonus
> ...




Conclusion... in the case of Damage Reduction, the enhancement bonus must be magical (it is worth noting that items that are the "exception" to the "usually a magic weapon rule" are specifically delineated to be things such as silver, mithral, wood, etc. - in other words, specific materials).

NOTE: In making the definition of what can penetrate DR, specific mention is made of *MAGICAL* weapon.  That strongly implies that a *MAGICAL* enhancement bonus was needed because it *was* specifically mentioned in the text (though NOT in the table).

Granted, the SRD does not specifically state that a natural enhancement bonus is not enough, but I would think that by process of elimination ("there are only two types of enhancement bonuses - magical enhancement bonus and natural enhancement bonus; therefore, by specifically stating that magical is needed, it would imply that natural is not good enough") there is no need to spell out in specific terms that a natural enhancement bonus will not work and that a magical enhancement bonus absolutely, positively is needed.

Table 3-13 DOES say "enhancement bonus" and not "magical enhancement bonus" and is thus unclear on the point - and this seems to be the thing that a lot of people are using to justify that adamantine/MW weapons DO overcome DR - but IMO the table itself does not provide proper justification for this because, taken in context, it seems clear that the "enhancement bonus" does indeed mean "magical enhancement bonus" as the table is explaining what types of weapons other than MAGICAL ones might work (silver, mithral, et al).  

It seems that it is very strongly implied in the text preceding the table that MAGICAL enhancement is required to overcome DR due to the qualifying of the statement that 'certain types of weapons' means "weapons made of a certain material" or "magic weapon" rather than "weapons made of a certain material" or "those with enhancement bonuses."

IMO, saying that "if it can hit a magic weapon, it must therefore penetrate DR" is flawd logic.  They are not the same thing and so no correllation may be inferred.  Magic weapons do not have DR.  They are instead 100% immune to weapons of insufficient enhancement bonus, whereas DR merely reduces damage from weapons without the required requisite (implied "magical") bonus.  These are MUCH different mechanics.  

You may not agree with the ruling, and you may be happy to Rule 0 it in your own campaign.  But like it or not, you can't say that the Sage is "without evidence and without justification."  He has quite a bit of backing in the rules as written.  If you're going to whine and dicker over slighlty vague definitions ("well, it said 'magical' in the text, but it just said 'enhancement' in the table so obviously it is just enhancement") and claim that because they are slightly vague he obviously has NO backing, that's the wrong thing to do.  Even if you disagree with his ruling, it is clear that the rules may be read so as to support his ruling, in which case at worst he has "vague" backing.

IOW, make sure you understand that the "enhancement bonuses" table 3-13 can easily be read to mean *Magical* enhancement bonuses, due to the text preceding the table, before attempting to use it as empirical justification of your POV.  It is ambiguous at best.  I happen to interpret it one way, and I can see how you interpret it the other.  As I said, at worst, the Sage has a "vague" backing.  I happen to agree with him, but I can understand the argument for not agreeing with him.

My 2 coppers.

--The Sigil


----------



## The Sigil (Jun 17, 2002)

*One more note...*

One more note... I think it is important enough to justify its own post...



> *Table 3-13: Damage Reduction Rankings
> Power Rank Weapon Type*
> Best +5 enhancement bonus
> 2nd best +4 enhancement bonus
> ...




Remember that a mithral weapon is a Masterwork weapon and therefore automatically has a +1 (natural) enhancement bonus.  That mithral is specifically listed as "less than" +1 implies to me that the +1 enhancement bonus refers specifically to a MAGICAL enhancement bonus - otherwise listing mithral in the "Weakest" section would be redundant as it would be in the "5th Best" category anyway due to being a masterwork item.

--The Sigil


----------



## Bonedagger (Jun 17, 2002)

*Re: One more note...*



			
				The Sigil said:
			
		

> *One more note... I think it is important enough to justify its own post...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Look bottom of page 114 (PHB). "A masterwork weapon's bonus to attack does not stack with with an enchantment bonus to attack."


----------



## The Sigil (Jun 17, 2002)

*Precisely...*

Precisely...

A mithral (and therefore masterwork) weapon has a +1 (natural) enhancement bonus.

A magic mithral weapon +1 ALSO has a +1 (magical) enhancement bonus.  Not +2.  Never claimed that. 

My point was...

If masterwork weapons can penetrate DR as well as a magical weapon with the same enhancement bonus, why list mithral in the 'Weakest' line?  By definition a mithral weapon has a +1 (natural) enhancement bonus and therefore if "enhancement bonus" does not really refer to "MAGICAL enhancement bonus," mithral should be listed in the '5th best' line instead of the 'weakest' line on table 3-13.

Conclusion: Because "mithral" and its +1 natural enhancement bonus are listed on the 'weakest' line, it must mean that mithral and its +1 natural enhancement bonus is NOT equivalent to the "+1 enhancement bonus" mentioned in the '5th best' line on the table.  Since mithral has a +1 natural enhancement bonus by definition, this means that the "+1 enhancement bonus" listed on the '5th best' line in table 3-13 must refer only to a MAGICAL "+1 enhancement bonus" - and NOT a natural one.  By extension, I can conlude that "enhancement bonus" on table 3-13 always refers to "Magical Enhancement Bonus but NOT natural enhancement bonus."

--The Sigil


----------



## hong (Jun 18, 2002)

*Re: Precisely...*



			
				The Sigil said:
			
		

> *A mithral (and therefore masterwork) weapon has a +1 (natural) enhancement bonus.*




Technically speaking, a masterwork weapon has a +1 unnamed bonus which doesn't stack with enhancement bonuses.


----------



## Bonedagger (Jun 18, 2002)

We are talking about Adamantine. Not Mithral.


----------



## The Sigil (Jun 18, 2002)

*Re: Re: Precisely...*



			
				hong said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Technically speaking, a masterwork weapon has a +1 unnamed bonus which doesn't stack with enhancement bonuses. *



Hong, often you are funny, but unfortunately... oh, wait, you made a valid point.  Dang! 

Hong, you are funny and this time I am rolling on the floor... you are absolutely correct and caught me making a bad assumption. 

My possibly bad assumption:

Because a masterwork weapon's (unnamed) bonus does not stack with magical enhancement bonuses, I assumed it was indeed an enhancement bonus.  It is not necessarily so.  All of my preceding posts should be qualified by that.

--The Sigil


----------



## Caliban (Jun 18, 2002)

*Re: Precisely...*



			
				The Sigil said:
			
		

> *Precisely...
> 
> A mithral (and therefore masterwork) weapon has a +1 (natural) enhancement bonus.
> *




Sorry, but no.  Mithril is "considered" masterwork for creation times and for enchantment purposes, but it doesn't have the +1 attack bonus of a normal masterwork item.  It has the mithril attributes instead. 

Also, masterwork weapons do not have an enhancement bonus.  They have an "unnamed bonus" on the attack rolls that will not stack with an enhancement bonus. 

Just to re-iterate my take on this: 
  --By a strict reading of the rules, I agree that technically they do not directly differentiate between a natural enhancement bonus and a magical enhancement bonus.
  --However, I believe that it was intended that only magical enhancement bonuses penetrate DR.  (When it refers to "usually a magic weapon" being used to penetrate DR, I believe that is a reference to magical enhancement bonuses.  But again, it is not direct or clear.)

As someone posted earlier,  Monte Cooke confirms this, and then when on to say that it would not be unbalancing to allow adamantite to bypass DR based on its natural enhancement bonus.   I have to agree, non-magical adamantite weapons have never been that common in any game I've played.  In most campaigns this would never come up.


----------



## Bonedagger (Jun 18, 2002)

*How dare you!*

Why do people resent the idea about a metal being magical from a "natural" source? If it says the enchantment is a natural enchantment why then get focused on the source. An enchantment is no longer just an enchantment apperantly. Now you are looking on the background. You bastards! You metal-racists! 

I long for the day when an enchanmennt no longer has to be discriminated because of its origine.

I request equal rights for all enchanments!

May this day not be forgotten.


----------



## Caliban (Jun 18, 2002)

*Re: How dare you!*



			
				Bonedagger said:
			
		

> *Why do people resent the idea about a metal being magical from a "natural" source? If it says the enchantment is a natural enchantment why then get focused on the source. An enchantment is no longer just an enchantment apperantly. Now you are looking on the background. You bastards! You metal-racists!
> 
> I long for the day when an enchanmennt no longer has to be discriminated because of its origine.
> 
> ...




Well, adamantite is specifically "not magical" because it retains it's enhancement bonus even within an anti-magic field. 

It gets an enhancement bonus based solely on being incredibly hard and durable, not from any magical enhancement.   That is why the Sage ruled that it doesn't bypass DR (because that requires magic) and that it can sunder weapons with an equal or lesser magical enhancement bonus (because that is just based on how hard the material is, not any magical qualities it might have.)

But none of this is clearly spelled out in the core rules.


----------



## Bonedagger (Jun 18, 2002)

*Re: Re: How dare you!*



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *That is why the Sage ruled that it doesn't bypass DR (because that requires magic) and that it can sunder weapons with an equal or lesser magical enhancement bonus (because that is just based on how hard the material is, not any magical qualities it might have.)
> 
> But none of this is clearly spelled out in the core rules. *




I belong to that group who find that the Sages rulings don't have any value. Did he come up with an argument (As in other than I think so ) for this? That would at least be something of use.


----------



## Xarlen (Jun 18, 2002)

*Re: Re: How dare you!*

Magical weapons are the True enchantment bonuses! They're Magical! They are what weapons were Ment to be!

Forget this whole business about being null in an anti-magic field! Or having hardness! You can put special abilities on a magic weapon. It can bypass DR. Therefore it is the Superior enchantment bonus. Your adamantite weapons cannot compare. Except in an anti-magic field or when sundering. 


I am not a metalist. It's just Obvious the core rules are Magical Biased. So, Nyah.

Now, take your extra hard, Unmagical, durable weapons, and go prevent sundering.


----------



## Black Omega (Jun 18, 2002)

*Re: Re: Precisely...*



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *As someone posted earlier,  Monte Cooke confirms this, and then when on to say that it would not be unbalancing to allow adamantite to bypass DR based on its natural enhancement bonus.  *



This is correct.  I'm only slightly surprised getting Monte's statement actually made the debate more heated.


----------



## Caliban (Jun 18, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: How dare you!*



			
				Bonedagger said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I belong to that group who find that the Sages rulings don't have any value. Did he come up with an argument (As in other than I think so ) for this? That would at least be something of use. *




I just explained how it makes sense.  

I really don't think it matters except in an academic sense.  I certainly don't think it really affects game balance one way or the other.


----------



## Kraedin (Jun 18, 2002)

I've decided just to reiterate my points, and abandon this thread.  My rules quotes for the following statements can be seen in my previous posts.

1)From the description of the Adamantine Battleaxe, Dagger, and Breastplate in the DMG, you can infer from the wording of _natural +X enhancement bonus_ (which appears 4 times in the DMG) that adamantine indeed gives an enhancement bonus, and the "natural" simply refers to the source.  I.e., it is a enhancement bonus natural to the material, not a bonus of the type "natural enhancement".

2)The requirements for sundering, beating DR, and adding weapon special abilites requires an enhancement bonus.  It should be noted that the most common refutation of this is the "usually a magic weapon" clause in the DR special ability descritipion in the DMG, please take note that it does say "usually".

Conclusions:  If an adamantine indeed has an enhancement bonus, as I belive it does, then it does work for sundering, DR, and special weapon abilities.

If it has a "natural enhancement" bonus, as others contend, then it does not work for sundering, DR, or special weapon abilities.  On the other hand, this interpretation allows for +11 weapons and +12 armor (effectivly), so adamantine still has it's uses, and is not "worthless", as I have heard some people claim.

The Sage's ruling, that adamantine can sunder weapons, but cannot beat DR, I consider a rule-0, with no grounds in the offical rules.


----------



## Caliban (Jun 18, 2002)

Kraedin said:
			
		

> *I've decided just to reiterate my points, and abandon this thread.  My rules quotes for the following statements can be seen in my previous posts.
> 
> 1)From the description of the Adamantine Battleaxe, Dagger, and Breastplate in the DMG, you can infer from the wording of natural +X enhancement bonus (which appears 4 times in the DMG) that adamantine indeed gives an enhancement bonus, and the "natural" simply refers to the source.  I.e., it is a enhancement bonus natural to the material, not a bonus of the type "natural enhancement".
> 
> ...




You are a bit dense, aren't you?


----------



## Xarlen (Jun 18, 2002)

Maybe he could get a natural enchantment bonus for being extremely dense and hardened?


----------



## Bonedagger (Jun 18, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: How dare you!*



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I just explained how it makes sense.
> 
> *




I don't see that.




> Well, adamantite is specifically "not magical" because it retains it's enhancement bonus even within an anti-magic field.
> 
> It gets an enhancement bonus based solely on being incredibly hard and durable, not from any magical enhancement. That is why the Sage ruled that it doesn't bypass DR (because that requires magic) and that it can sunder weapons with an equal or lesser magical enhancement bonus (because that is just based on how hard the material is, not any magical qualities it might have.)
> 
> But none of this is clearly spelled out in the core rules.




It's not even vaguely spelled out.

It is however spelled out that an Enchament Bonus is not what you get from Masterwork (PHB. p. 114).

I can't find the part that Adamantite Enchantments keep working in a Anti-Magic Field. Which also is suggested to be supposed to be like that when the DMG referes to Enchantments as a category under "Bonuses from Magic".

I never saw the destinction between Natural and Magical enchanments in the rules.... (Who started that?) 

...Which could also be explained by the fact that they don't stack (DMG. p. 242).... They are of the same type (DMG. p.177).

(Hey. They even say that it is only regarded a Masterwork in regard to it's creationtime.)

Last: "Adamatine: Found only in meteorites and the rarest of veins in magical areas, ..." (DMG. p. 242)


All there is to counter this is somebody saying that they feel it should be different 

(Oh. And the rules specific say that you need a magical weapon of equal enchantment to sunder a weapon. The thing about it being based on how hard the material is and not any magical qualities it might have, is the Sages own version.... Unless it was something you made up  )


----------



## Caliban (Jun 18, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How dare you!*



			
				Bonedagger said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I don't see that.
> *




Then your blind.   I gave a *reason* for why it would work as the Sage said.   You may not agree with it, but it is a logical framework that fits his rulings.   

I really don't care if you choose to use it or not, that wasn't the point.  The point was that the sages rulings are not contradictory in this case, even if you don't happen to agree with them. 

*



			It's not even vaguely spelled out.
		
Click to expand...


*
It is vague, it's just not spelled out.   I said it wasn't clear, but you keep pushing.  What exactly do you want?   The rules certainly doesn't support your view 100%.  
*



			It is however spelled out that an Enchament Bonus is not what you get from Masterwork (PHB. p. 114).
		
Click to expand...


*
Yes, I believe I'm the one who told you that. 

*



			I can't find the part that Adamantite Enchantments keep working in a Anti-Magic Field.
		
Click to expand...


*
DMG, page 242,  2nd column, first paragraph, 3rd sentence. 

"In an area where magic does not function, it still retains it's natural +2 enhancement bonus." 



*



			Which also is suggested to be supposed to be like that when the DMG referes to Enchantments as a category under "Bonuses from Magic".
		
Click to expand...


*
I'm sorry, but you mangled the grammer so badly that I can't even guess what you mean by this. 

*



			I never saw the destinction between Natural and Magical enchanments in the rules.... (Who started that?)
		
Click to expand...


*
DMG, page 242.

*



			...Which could also be explained by the fact that they don't stack (DMG. p. 242).... They are of the same type (DMG. p.177).
		
Click to expand...


*
Could be.  But Page 242 does differentiate between a natural enhancement bonus and a weapon enchanted with an enhancement bonus.   The core rules do recognize a difference between the two, even though they will not stack with each other. 


*



			(Hey. They even say that it is only regarded a Masterwork in regard to it's creationtime.)
		
Click to expand...


*
Which I also pointed out to you just a few posts ago. 

*



			Last: "Adamatine: Found only in meteorites and the rarest of veins in magical areas, ..." (DMG. p. 242)
		
Click to expand...


*
It may be a side effect of magic or natural processes, but it is not itself magical. 

*



			All there is to counter this is somebody saying that they feel it should be different 

Click to expand...


*
False.  There are several points the rules that make vague references to a magical rather than a natural enhancement. 

*



			(Oh. And the rules specific say that you need a magical weapon of equal enchantment to sunder a weapon. The thing about it being based on how hard the material is and not any magical qualities it might have, is the Sages own version.... Unless it was something you made up  )
		
Click to expand...


*
It was something I made up.   Magical enhancement bonuses do make a material harder and more durable, which is all that matters when you are sundering something.   A natural enhancement would serve the same purpose. 

Sometimes you need to look a little beyond the literal text and fit it into a logical framework.   

In some instances a magic or natural enhancement bonus is equally effective (sundering, according to the Sage), in others instances only a magic bonus does the job (bypassing DR), and in others only the natural bonus will be effective (Antimagic areas).  

That is a logical framework that fits the Sages rulings.  You may choose to use a different framework for your campaign.  It won't be any better or worse than the one the Sage uses.  

Monte Cooke was the guy who wrote the DMG.  He was the author.  He already said that the Sages rulings are the way it was originally intended.  (He would know, since he wrote it.)    

He also said that doing it your way doesn't hurt anything or alter the game balance, so I'm failing to see what all the debate is about.   Either way works, and the core rules are ambiguous.


----------



## Black Omega (Jun 18, 2002)

Well, Caliban beat me to it.  We've ended the rules discussion portion of this thread.  Monte has clarified the rules so there is no need to infer or logically work out anything.  

We now move on to the House Rules/How the rules -should- be portion of this thread.


----------



## dcollins (Jun 18, 2002)

*Re: How dare you!*



			
				Bonedagger said:
			
		

> Why do people resent the idea about a metal being magical from a "natural" source? If it says the *enchantment* is a natural *enchantment* why then get focused on the source. An *enchantment* is no longer just an *enchantment* apperantly. Now you are looking on the background. You bastards! You metal-racists!




You may consider reading this essay by Sean Reynolds, here: http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/terminology.html


----------



## Bonedagger (Jun 18, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How dare you!*



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Then your blind.   I gave a reason for why it would work as the Sage said.   You may not agree with it, but it is a logical framework that fits his rulings.
> 
> I really don't care if you choose to use it or not, that wasn't the point.  The point was that the sages rulings are not contradictory in this case, even if you don't happen to agree with them. *




I do find tha they contradicting some things. (See below)
BTW. Are you trying to hurt my feelings? 

*



			It is vague, it's just not spelled out.   I said it wasn't clear, but you keep pushing.  What exactly do you want?   The rules certainly doesn't support your view 100%.
		
Click to expand...


*
Well. It doesn't support your view a 100% either  See below.

*



			Yes, I believe I'm the one who told you that.
		
Click to expand...


*
? But if quality equals enhancement why does it not stack when a spellcaster enhances a magical item? (Plus the thing about them only being masterwork in regard to creationtime. So even though it has bonuses it is not from quality)


*



			DMG, page 242,  2nd column, first paragraph, 3rd sentence. 

"In an area where magic does not function, it still retains it's natural +2 enhancement bonus."
		
Click to expand...


*
Ahh finally. Well this is a reason. Well thanks for the nod. I haven't had a chance to read the DMG closely. 



> *I'm sorry, but you mangled the grammer so badly that I can't even guess what you mean by this.*




? One typo...

"..... Which also is suggested to be supposed to be like that when the DMG referes to Enhancements as a category under "Bonuses from Magic"."

Without the sentence on page 242 I have only seen the word "enhancement" used in regard to magic. Masterwork are quality and they are not enhanced. Any other nonmagical way to get a bonus if not from quality?

Ok. It was late last night and that one might have been worded better  



> *DMG, page 242.*




Well yes. Really the only answer needed.



> *Could be.  But Page 242 does differentiate between a natural enhancement bonus and a weapon enchanted with an enhancement bonus.   The core rules do recognize a difference between the two, even though they will not stack with each other.*




Yes. I know (Eks: Masterwork vs. Enchancements). But without the distinction between "Magical" and "Natural" enhancements on in the DMG p 242 there was no reason to make up a new category/type. 



> *Which I also pointed out to you just a few posts ago.*




See above.



> *It may be a side effect of magic or natural processes, but it is not itself magical.*




Without the sentence further down on the page I would say that this does kinda hint something magical about the metal.



> *False.  There are several points the rules that make vague references to a magical rather than a natural enhancement. *




I will assume you mean it the other way around 

Other than DMG p 242? The PHB kinda gives a suggestion that there is a difference between an artificial quality and a magical enhancement. Other than p. 242 DMG. the word enhancement was only used in regard to magic (So far as I have read).



> *It was something I made up. *




And still you find my question about something to build this assumption on unreasonable?  



> _From above_
> "Then your *blind*. I gave a reason for why it would work as the Sage said. You may not agree with it, but it is a logical framework that fits his rulings."




Well. The idea of you not needing a magical weapon of equal enhancement to sunder another magical weapon does contradict the PHB. I was looking for a bit more than a nice story based on your other assumption.



> _From above_
> "I really don't care if you choose to use it or not, that wasn't the point. The point was that the sages rulings are not contradictory in this case, even if you don't happen to agree with them."




Based on the above I find that a question for something in the rules to support this is/was justified. 


*



			Magical enhancement bonuses do make a material harder and more durable, which is all that matters when you are sundering something.   A natural enhancement would serve the same purpose.
		
Click to expand...


*
It suggest that a magical enhancement does not mean quality so I would still say that this background of yours contradict the PHB that specific say that you need an enhancement.

*



			Sometimes you need to look a little beyond the literal text and fit it into a logical framework.   

In some instances a magic or natural enhancement bonus is equally effective (sundering, according to the Sage), in others instances only a magic bonus does the job (bypassing DR), and in others only the natural bonus will be effective (Antimagic areas).  

That is a logical framework that fits the Sages rulings.  You may choose to use a different framework for your campaign.  It won't be any better or worse than the one the Sage uses.  

Monte Cooke was the guy who wrote the DMG.  He was the author.  He already said that the Sages rulings are the way it was originally intended.  (He would know, since he wrote it.)    

He also said that doing it your way doesn't hurt anything or alter the game balance, so I'm failing to see what all the debate is about.   Either way works, and the core rules are ambiguous.
		
Click to expand...


*
Among the sages rulings I can remember things like spells with a fullround casting time take effect in the same round. 

Now. I can also make up nice stories to justify the rules but to make up rules to justify nice stories... Sure. But then don't get pissed if other people ask questions.

Added: I don't see how I "keep pushing" anybody here. Do you think this is a personal attack?


----------



## Bonedagger (Jun 18, 2002)

*Re: Re: How dare you!*



			
				dcollins said:
			
		

> *
> 
> You may consider reading this essay by Sean Reynolds, here: http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/terminology.html *




Ups. Thanks


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 18, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How dare you!*



			
				Bonedagger said:
			
		

> *It suggest that a magical enchancement does not mean quality so I would still say that this background of yours contradict the PHB that specific say that you need an enchancement. *




Now, I've heard of an enhancement, and I've heard of an enchantment, but WTF is an enchancement? Is that, like, love at first sight or something?


----------



## Jeremy (Jun 18, 2002)

I think it's the name of a Casino in Vegas actually.


----------



## Bonedagger (Jun 18, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How dare you!*



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Now, I've heard of an enhancement, and I've heard of an enchantment, but WTF is an enchancement? Is that, like, love at first sight or something? *




Ups... I just copied the correction in. It went a bit fast ... My apologies.


----------



## Wolf72 (Jun 18, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How dare you!*



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Now, I've heard of an enhancement, and I've heard of an enchantment, but WTF is an enchancement? Is that, like, love at first sight or something? *




it's the new politically correct term to help appease technical experts (SKR) and others who indiscriminantly use the words and get them mixed up 

... house rules ... hmmm ya know what I'm still not sure what I like ... ej v2: DR yes, Sunder yes, Accept enhancement no.

I'm sure I'll flip flop on that for a while to come

[edit: OOPS, didn't mean to start page 9 ... sorry guys! ]


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 18, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How dare you!*



			
				Wolf72 said:
			
		

> *it's the new politically correct term to help appease technical experts (SKR) and others who indiscriminantly use the words and get them mixed up  *








			
				Wolf72 said:
			
		

> *ej v2: DR yes, Sunder yes, accpet <--- enhancement no. *




What does *that* mean?



			
				Wolf72 said:
			
		

> *[edit: OOPS, didn't mean to start page 9 ... sorry guys! ] *




No biggie. It's only page 5 for me.


----------



## Caliban (Jun 18, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How dare you!*



			
				Bonedagger said:
			
		

> <pointless arguements snipped>  *
> 
> Among the sages rulings I can remember things like spells with a fullround casting time take effect in the same round.
> *




He was talking about casting a full round spell while _hasted_.   

Please, try to know what your are talking about.  Trying to bash the sage when you can't even remember the ruling correctly just makes you look foolish. 

*



			Now. I can also make up nice stories to justify the rules but to make up rules to justify nice stories... Sure. But then don't get pissed if other people ask questions.
		
Click to expand...


*
I'm annoyed when you keep trying to extend this stupid arguement with questions that only show you don't really understand it. 

This entire debate is pointless.  It really doesn't affect the game one way or the other, and the core rules are ambiguous enough that you can rule either way.  It's pretty obvious what the intent was, but you can ignore the intent and rule it your way and still be within the core rules.   Why try to make it another Sage bashing  attempt?   Monte already said he was right, but it doesn't really matter if you want to do it a different way.


----------



## Wolf72 (Jun 18, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How dare you!*

 ... by ~S+KR ... What does that mean?

[Wolf says] *poop-on-stick!*

accpet? why my friend it is quite obvious, no? ... it's all the letters ... you just have to find the right anagram (is that the right word?)

okay okay A C C E P T ... 

 ... snipped from Caliban (oi, that kinda sounds bad) This entire debate is pointless. It really doesn't affect the game one way or the other, and the core rules are ambiguous enough that you can rule either way. It's pretty obvious what the intent was, but you can ignore the intent and rule it your way and still be within the core rules. Why try to make it another Sage bashing attempt? Monte already said he was right, but it doesn't really matter if you want to do it a different way. 

didn't you say this already? (just bringing it up for emphasis)


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 18, 2002)

[chuckle]Wolf. Fix your post. It looks like hell.  [/chuckle]


----------



## Wolf72 (Jun 18, 2002)

*If this goes on to page 10 it's your fault! *



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *[chuckle]Wolf. Fix your post. It looks like hell.  [/chuckle] *




*wolf looks at both posts* ... Um, which one?


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 18, 2002)

*Re: If this goes on to page 10 it's your fault! *



			
				Wolf72 said:
			
		

> **wolf looks at both posts* ... Um, which one? *




Well, you already partially fixed it, but I'm specifically referring to this mess...



			
				Wolf72 said:
			
		

> * ... by ~S+KR ... What does that mean?
> 
> [Wolf says] *poop-on-stick!*
> 
> ...


----------



## Bonedagger (Jun 19, 2002)

So Basically you say:

It is only vaguely refeneced to that enhancements in general are magical? (Not including the part where it say that adamantium doesn't work in an Anti-magic field)

And the fact that I disagree with you automatically means that I'm ignoring what you have said?

--------


> *What are you talking about? Quality does not equal enhancement. The rules never state or imply this.*





That was kind of the point.

*



			Is this something you are making up?
		
Click to expand...


*
Adamantine may be masterwork and strong but it need to be considered magical in order to sunder a magical weapon.

--------
Sure. Adamantium is strong. But without the note that it works in an anti-magic field that could just as well have been because of a normal magical enhancement. You could even still argue that it is still magical. Just very powerfull. The none-mortal kind 

--------




> *It was something I made up. Magical enhancement bonuses do make a material harder and more durable, which is all that matters when you are sundering something. A natural enhancement would serve the same purpose.
> *





And this does contradict the PHB. 

Noting this part: 



> *
> 
> 
> 
> ...




And BTW. What questions? I only asked one.


- I asked where it said adamantium keep working in a anti-magic field. I also said that since I hadn't found that part I saw no reason to call adamantium none-magical. The only answer needed for that was a direction to DMG p. 242. The rest is just BS.

-------



> *The rules certainly doesn't support your view 100%.*





And as you can see neither do they support your view a 100%.  

Ahh yes... My blind friend:



> *Ok, you are blind. What part of me saying the core rules have a "vague reference" gave you the idea that I said the written rules support this 100%? *





This part:



> *It is vague, it's just not spelled out. I said it wasn't clear, but you keep pushing. What exactly do you want? The rules certainly doesn't support your view 100%. *




-------


I understand that you have very high thoughts about the sage. I don't see the Corerules as perfect but I considder the sages rulings to be even less than that. But generally: As long as the rules make sense defined in a specific way I don't see any reason to come up with a definition of the gameworld that contradicts them. 

But I don't want to continue this discussion with an addon about the sage so...

-------

Conclusion:

A all things can make sense if one can start ignoring the rules as you do in the sunder example. You are free to rule 0 all you want. But the rules does contradict your sharpness/hardness idea (Magic does make something stronger. The rules does say that. But magic is apperently more than that, since the hardness/sharpness of your weapon is not all that counts when you want to sunder something magical). And the rules does not leave out that a "natural enhancement" is magic. But yes. There is a problem in the rules being vague here.

Note: Yes. You having keept repeating yourself at all have made this tiresome.


----------



## Caliban (Jun 19, 2002)

Bonedagger said:
			
		

> * <snipped more pointless arguements> *




This is pointless.  Seriously.


----------



## Bonedagger (Jun 19, 2002)

Caliban said:
			
		

> *
> 
> This is pointless.  Seriously. *




Do you often get that feeling?


----------



## Caliban (Jun 19, 2002)

Bonedagger said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Do you often get that feeling? *




Around here?  Yes.   Usually about the 3rd or 4th repition of the same arguements.   It's simply not worth my time.


----------



## Bonedagger (Jun 19, 2002)

Caliban said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Usually about the 3rd or 4th repition of the same arguements. *




Then why do you keep repeating them?


----------



## Caliban (Jun 19, 2002)

Bonedagger said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Then why do you keep repeating them? *




I try not to, unless I have to repeat it to answer a specific point.  If I think the other person is being reasonable, I'll discuss the issue as along as necessary.   

When I think they are being rude or just incredibly dense, I stop wasting my time.


----------



## Bonedagger (Jun 19, 2002)

So what am I? Oh well. I tried.


----------



## Gromm (Jun 19, 2002)

Caliban said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Around here?  Yes.   Usually about the 3rd or 4th repition of the same arguements.   It's simply not worth my time. *




Personally for me once a thread surpasses 3 pages its pretty much going to get stupid. I wish this thread would die so I don't have to see it everytime I jump on the forums.

Heres an idea: Everyone play the way you want and leave the horse carcass alone.


----------



## Xarlen (Jun 19, 2002)

Gromm said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> Heres an idea: Everyone play the way you want and leave the horse carcass alone. *




I think by now it's a stain on the ground.


----------



## Bonedagger (Jun 19, 2002)

Caliban:

Actually after having reread the last of this thread I will try one last time with 5 points and one conclusion:

1)"You claimed that you can sunder magical weapons with a none-magical weapons and that that is clearly spelled out in the core rules."

Wrong


2)"Was there somewhere in the book that it said adamantium works in an antimagic area?"

Yes. (But somehow you confused my "?" with a "!")


3)"Where there any other places the rules suggested that Adamantium is none-magical?"

No. (To this question you kept refering to question "2)"?)


4)"You then said that it's pretty obvious what the intent of adamantine was. And that it was vague and not clearly spelled out what the intent was."

At some point you did get my point.


5)"Do you find me dense, ignorant, *blind* and pointless with stupid arguments for objecting to you (The Sage) contradicting the corerules? (See point "1)")."

Apparently. And you seemed to miss that this was really about point "1)". In your reexplanation of the Sages reason you used point "1)" as a justification.



Conclusion: The intent may have been one thing but don't come and say that it is clear in the corerules. 

Bahh... Why even try? (You do seem to be very familiar with the word "dense" though).


----------



## Xarlen (Jun 19, 2002)

Okay, let's look at this.

Adamantite's bonus functions in an anti-magic field. What does this say?

It's Not Magic.

Now, this means that things that require Magic do not work with Adamantite. Thus, you cannot put MAGICAL enchantments on it, unless you enchant it magically. 

DR is a Supernatural effect. What bypasses it? MAGIC. Yes, I'm aware that in Some cases, there are exceptions (Silver, Mithral, Cold Iron) but it says so, spesificly, in the description of the critter and damage reduction.

As to Adamantite sundering... I don't know. It doesn't make sense to me, that an Adamantite weapon can sunder a magical one, but I can sorta see where Caliban/Sage is coming from. The +1s represent how durable, and tough, and strong something is; the magic toughens it up (Why magical weapons don't break when normal ones would). Therefore, it can be compared to an Adamantite weapon's durability. But that's just IMHO.


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 19, 2002)

Bonedagger said:
			
		

> *I don't see the Corerules as perfect but I considder the sages rulings to be even less than that. *




I can tell you this much...the Sage is definately more knowledgeable about the rules than you are, which is probably why he's the Sage and you aren't, which is also probably why I can't give your argument much weight, besides the fact that it's also a pain in the rear to make heads or tails of some of your posts. The Sage may make a blunder from time to time, but he's supposed too, since he's only human, and it's understandable since he has a hellofa lotta responsibility on his shoulders. You, on the other hand, have just been blundering your way through this entire thread.

_DISCLAIMER: Don't get me wrong. I'm not zealously defending Skip. I'll jump to anyone's defense when they are slandered by someone that doesn't appear to have a clue. Just take a look at myself and Caliban (we've clashed a few times). I dig that he's around here because he's pretty damn knowledgeable about the rules, but to be honest, he can occasionally grate on my nerves, just like I grate on his (and most other people as well). But no matter how much the guy can occasionally frustrate the hell outta me, I would still quickly jump to his defence in the event that he were unjustly slandered. I'd do this for just about anyone on these boards, and have done so in the past. _

Handle adamantine however you want, but in my opinion, you have yet to actually present a reasonable argument as to why the Sage is "wrong". At this point, I think you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Just my 2cp.


----------



## Caliban (Jun 19, 2002)

Bonedagger said:
			
		

> *Caliban:
> 
> Actually after having reread the last of this thread I will try one last time with 5 points and one conclusion:
> 
> ...




No, you are wrong.  The PHB only states that you need an equal or greater enhancement bonus to sunder a *magical* weapon.    You really need to check up on these things before you try and contradict me.  

It does *not* state that the enhancement bonus has to be from another magical weapon.   Adamantite has an enhancement bonus, and can be used to Sunder a magic weapon that has an equal or lesser bonus.

Since Adamantite is not itself magical, you don't need a weapon with an enhancement bonus to try and sunder it.  

*



			2)"Was there somewhere in the book that it said adamantium works in an antimagic area?"

Yes. (But somehow you confused my "?" with a "!")
		
Click to expand...


*
Yes, I was right on that one as well. 

*



			3)"Where there any other places the rules suggested that Adamantium is none-magical?"

No. (To this question you kept refering to question "2)"?)
		
Click to expand...


*
There doesn't need to be.  The description of admantium indicates that it is non-magical.   Where else would you expect to find that information? 

*



			4)"You then said that it's pretty obvious what the intent of adamantine was. But then further down you changed that to that it was vague and not clearly spelled out what the intent was."

Somehow you did get my point.

Click to expand...


*
Somehow you keep failing to comprehend what I'm saying.  I'm sorry the english language gives you this much trouble.  I'll try one more time with very small words. 

The Sage and Monte Cooke (two of the game designers) stated that the original intent was that adamantite not be able to penetrate Damage Reduction.   To me, that means the intent is now "pretty obvious", since the guy who did the write up on adamantite just explained it to us.

I said that the core rules only made a vague reference to this intent.  The vague reference is in the description of the Damage Reduction ability on page 73 of the DMG, where is says that "a certain type of weapon - *usually a magical weapon* - can overcome this reduction."  The magical weapon part refers to the enhancement bonus listed on table 3-13, on page 74 of the DMG.   

Since Monte didn't bother to spell it out that it was supposed to *require* a magical enhancement bonus, adamantite weapons can be reasonably ruled to bypass damage reduction based on their natural enhancement bonus.

*



			5)"Do you find me dense, ignorant, blind and pointless with stupid arguments for objecting to you (The Sage) contradicting the corerules? (See point "1)")."

Apparently. And you seemed to miss that this was really about point "1)". In your reexplanation of the Sages reason you used point "1)" as a justification.
		
Click to expand...


*
Yes, because it was correct.   You just didn't bother to actually read the PHB closely enough to check on it.   I usually  make a point of double checking the books before I post, it helps prevent blatant mistakes like that. 


*



			Conclusion: The intent may have been one thing but don't come and say that it is clear in the corerules.
		
Click to expand...


*
You dimwit,  I *NEVER* said the original intent was clear in the core rules.  Go back and read my very first post in this thread.    If you can't follow a debate without getting confused, don't waste my time. 

Based on this,  you have appeared both ignorant (because you don't really know the rules you are referring to), blind (because you manage to miss statements I have made that try to explain them), and pointless (because you keep taking statements of mine out of context and then try to assign a different meaning to them.)   

*



			Bahh... Why even try?
		
Click to expand...


*
Exactly how I feel.


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 19, 2002)

_Originally posted by Caliban_
-----------------------------------------------
[/b][/quote]
Bahh... Why even try? [/B][/QUOTE]

Exactly how I feel.
-----------------------------------------------

You can always tell when Caliban gets pissed because he messes up the quote tags and has to fix them later.


----------



## Bonedagger (Jun 19, 2002)

Xarlen:

Well yes.

I never had a problem seeing the idea about sundering. Just that it should be clearly spelled out in the corerules.


There is still contradictions. Thats all I'm saying:

Like why does the bonus increase with the quantity of material. Isn't sharp just sharp?

Why not "Natural Bonus" instead of "Natural Enhanced Bonus"?
(Like in:"It has been enhanced from nature")

Adamantine is suppose to be very powerfull. From meteors. Strong magical areas. Gods? If the authors don't specify this I would say that nothing has been concluded.



Sure. The intent may be that it is none-magical and I have no problem with that. Just with the claim that it is clear in the rules.


----------



## Bonedagger (Jun 19, 2002)

kreynolds:

Oh no. I don't say that I know the rules better than the sage. But I do know that many oppinions exist. And guess that the sage is just one among many who helped one the corerules. 

Unless there is some contradiction I prefere the original rules. I  rule 0 stuff so I do have an oppinion what seems right  (Even though I probably haven't spend so much time on roleplayinggames as those guys)


I never said he was wrong. Cadian seemed to think that though  . I just said that the intent he said was meant for adamantine wasn't clear in the rules.


----------



## Caliban (Jun 19, 2002)

Bonedagger said:
			
		

> *I never said he was wrong. Cadian seemed to think that though  .
> *





Hmm.....



			
				Bonedagger said:
			
		

> *
> 1)"You claimed that you can sunder magical weapons with a none-magical weapons and that that is clearly spelled out in the core rules."
> 
> Wrong
> ...





Hypocrite. 

*



			I just said that the intent he said was meant for adamantine wasn't clear in the rules.
		
Click to expand...


*
I *never* said that it was clear in the core rules. 

And learn to spell my name right, or your new name is Bonediggler.  Or just learn to spell, period.


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 19, 2002)

Bonedagger said:
			
		

> *I  rule 0 stuff so I do have an oppinion what seems right  *




Rule 0 doesn't mean that you're right at all. It just means that's how you handle it in your games. One of the DMs in my group Rule 0'd that a Sneak Attack can only be performed once a round, and even then only on your first attack. If you missed with your first attack, you lost the chance to Sneak Attack. He was also still calling it Back Stab, so that should tell you something. Ultimately, after explaining to him the mechanics of Sneak Attack and the various aspects of the rogue that balance them out with the other classes, he realized that his ruling was stupid as hell and he decided to go by the rules.

So, "Rule 0" does not automatically equal "Sane", "Fair", or "Correct", and it most certainly does not automatically equal "I know what I'm doing".


----------



## Xarlen (Jun 19, 2002)

Kreynolds, you surprise me. You let that pass?


----------



## Bonedagger (Jun 19, 2002)

Caliban:

[deleted]

Conclusion: Well so you didn't. Don't know why I read it like that?

...I did get an answer for my question though.

 LOL. 3 pages discussion about that.

Can remember still being drunk when I came home last night. Could have had something to do with that?


.... It was pointless then. But you shouldn't have called me names... That was probably what made me continue  Dunno.. But why did you continue?

Oh well. With that sorted out there isn't really any reason to keep this up so....


Hope you didn't get to upset about this... sorry. Though you do appear on the brink of a hearth attack.


... 3 PAGES!!!

(BTW. I'm ok with my spelling since english isn't my native language  (Not so much practice))




Kreynolds:

Ups. That should have said: "I rule 0 stuff so I do have an oppinion about what seems right "

Went fast.

Merely said to follow up on the part that I don't considder the rules complete.


----------



## Macbrea (Jun 19, 2002)

In truth, Though the sage states that it requires an magical enhancement bonus to bypass DR. I think I am going to let admantine do so.  It doesn't seem that unbalancing in the long run.  And makes the rules much easier for the group to deal with.

But, that would be my rule 0.


----------



## Wolf72 (Jun 19, 2002)

"~"  looks kinda like the math symbol for "not"


----------



## Black Omega (Jun 19, 2002)

Macbrea said:
			
		

> *In truth, Though the sage states that it requires an magical enhancement bonus to bypass DR. I think I am going to let admantine do so.  It doesn't seem that unbalancing in the long run.  And makes the rules much easier for the group to deal with.
> 
> But, that would be my rule 0.   *



Well, Monte said the Sage was right so there's something more to it than just Skip's opinion.  Monte did add he didn't consider it unbalancing to allow adamantine to bypass DR, so it's all good.


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 19, 2002)

Xarlen said:
			
		

> *Kreynolds, you surprise me. You let that pass?  *




I let what pass? If you're refering to the moronic ruling, I didn't let that pass. Luckily, we weren't gaming that day.


----------



## Aurianna (Jun 19, 2002)

Wolf72 said:
			
		

> *"~"  looks kinda like the math symbol for "not" *




Isn't that actually the symbol for "eqyivalent to"?  The "NOT" symbol (vinculum) would just be a straight line above the argument.


----------



## JLXC (Jun 19, 2002)

Until WOTC issues Eratta for Adamantine I cannot even SEE an issue here.

Adamantine has an Enhancement bonus.  The word Natural before it ONLY means that "The bonus is in the metal itself and cannot be considered an actual enchantment, it's a magical part of the material and provides an Enhancement bonus like any other magical weapon or such spells as Greater Magic Weapon).  So an Admantine Long Sword is a +2 Weapon.  The End.  I see no rules problem.  WHY does it work in an Anti-Magic Field?  Because it does?  Anti-Magic, as the big argument over that went, is not powerful enough to strip the bonus off it, in the same way Anti-Magic does not effect a Dragons Flight although it is stated that it is magical as well.  There are certain magical effects that as SO much a part of something, Anti-Magic does not Effect it.  SOOOO Adamantine just keeps it's bonus within the Field, and is just +X all the time like a normal weapon.  It Surely bypasses DR and it cannot be sundered by a normal weapon.  I can see why the sage was confused on this one, as so many people try to push the "special material" aspect when it has no bearing on the situation.  There is no rules question.

Natural Enhancement.... does no exist in 3E.

Something WITH a Natural Enhancement, meaning i.e. English Language, Natural means Part of the object not a modifier.


----------



## Caliban (Jun 19, 2002)

JLXC said:
			
		

> *Until WOTC issues Eratta for Adamantine I cannot even SEE an issue here.
> 
> Adamantine has an Enhancement bonus.  The word Natural before it ONLY means that "The bonus is in the metal itself and cannot be considered an actual enchantment, it's a magical part of the material and provides an Enhancement bonus like any other magical weapon or such spells as Greater Magic Weapon).  So an Admantine Long Sword is a +2 Weapon.  The End.  I see no rules problem.  WHY does it work in an Anti-Magic Field?  Because it does?  Anti-Magic, as the big argument over that went, is not powerful enough to strip the bonus off it, in the same way Anti-Magic does not effect a Dragons Flight although it is stated that it is magical as well.  There are certain magical effects that as SO much a part of something, Anti-Magic does not Effect it.  SOOOO Adamantine just keeps it's bonus within the Field, and is just +X all the time like a normal weapon.  It Surely bypasses DR and it cannot be sundered by a normal weapon.  I can see why the sage was confused on this one, as so many people try to push the "special material" aspect when it has no bearing on the situation.  There is no rules question.
> 
> ...




The Sage was not confused.  The Sage was correct, in that it was intended to work the way he ruled.    Monte Cooke has confirmed this, so there is no denying it. 

You are correct in that the core rules do not clearly spell this out, and don't really differentiate between magical and non-magical enhancement bonuses in the text.  So feel free to use your way, it's as good as any other.


----------



## KnowTheToe (Jun 19, 2002)

I can't bring myself to read them all, How did this question take up 10 pages????


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 19, 2002)

KnowTheToe said:
			
		

> *I can't bring myself to read them all, How did this question take up 10 pages???? *




It's only 5 pages for me. So technically, it's *half* as bad as you think it is.


----------



## Xarlen (Jun 19, 2002)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I let what pass? If you're refering to the moronic ruling, I didn't let that pass. Luckily, we weren't gaming that day. *




The moronic ruling, yes.


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 19, 2002)

Xarlen said:
			
		

> *The moronic ruling, yes. *




Like I said, I didn't let it pass. It wasn't so much that the guy just had a really strange viewpoint or anything, but more that he didn't fully understand how sneak attack worked. It's all good now.


----------



## Xarlen (Jun 19, 2002)

Aaah. I see. He didn't get it. Gotcha.


----------



## Bonedagger (Jun 20, 2002)

Kreynolds:

My definition of a rule 0 just means something that stop arguments under the game.


Having an oppinion about what seems right = Making a judgementcall. 

Contradicting rules can also be the ones where there are multiple choises. A rule 0 here would be disallowing things that the rules hadn't forbidden.

(But in your example I would say that the rules where pretty clear to begin with )


----------



## Metalsmith (Jun 20, 2002)

GO AWAY THREAD, PLEASE GO AWAY!!!


[Edited by metalsmith not wanting to push up the post count of this thread] 

****  Whimper  ****


----------



## Xarlen (Jun 20, 2002)

Funny. You make the 200th post with a request for it to go away.


----------



## Wolf72 (Jun 20, 2002)

Aurianna said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Isn't that actually the symbol for "eqyivalent to"?  The "NOT" symbol (vinculum) would just be a straight line above the argument. *




nope, that's the negation sign (truth tables and such) ...

equivalent is two squiggly lines (I think) or = with a squiggly line above it


----------



## Aurianna (Jun 21, 2002)

Wolf72 said:
			
		

> *
> 
> nope, that's the negation sign (truth tables and such) ...
> 
> equivalent is two squiggly lines (I think) or = with a squiggly line above it *




OK, I was thinking in Boolean for the NOT (vinculum), and Geometry for the equivalent to (which now that I think about it more, would be an = sign with the upper line a ~.


----------

