| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| TsilfaEor |
Posted - 23 Apr 2003 : 22:29:29
This has been bothering me for a while:
it is said in the DMG that weapons have to be +1 minimum in order to be enchanted with magic abilities such as keen, or bursting flame etc... +1 minimum enhancement (doesn't say magical)
Therefore and adamantine longsword (+2 enhancement) can be enchanted normally
some friends of mine disagree on the fact the enhancement is nonmagical and therefore not possible.
What are your opinions friends?
Tsilfa'Eor Olortynnal
Gold Elf of Myth Drannor |
| 11 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Cult_Leader |
Posted - 09 May 2003 : 13:38:42
Its my understanding that Adamantine weapons already come with a natural +2 bonus. It has the +2 because adamantine is strong. However I do believe what mourn said is correct. It starts of as a magical bonus. Or at least it woudld seem so. However within the DMG of 3rd ed, I do believe that it said that it gets the +2 bonus because all adamantine weapons are master work. Meaning buying one from a shop just makes it a +2 master work weapon. Just having it master work dose not allow it to cut through DR nore dose it allow you to hit spirits, unless you are a Forsaker.
"On (page 186 of the DMG) it states that "Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire" this would mean that if your player was fighting a creature that was imune to all but magical weapons with +1 enchantment or more, then the creature would ONLY be hit by the magical 1D6 Fire damage. But then if it had the "Fire" special ability your character will have wished that he got his MAGICAL weapon further enchanted, because he cannot hit his opponent!
In fact that is a point! Is the flame from a "Flaming Sword" magical fire or is it just normal fire? i.e. would it hit or miss a creature that required magicaly enchanted weapons? I would actually say that it is magical as it does not harm the user of the sword but everyone else it touches. How many people would agree with me (or disagree?)?"
That was a good statement and a quote from the book. YES. Only the fire would hit. Your flamingness takes up your +1 slot. But it has to be a magical +1 slot or a Master work +1 slot. But for the whole sword to effect soemthing like a spirit you would need the sword to at least have a +1 magial enhancement. Which would in essence make it a "+2" weapon. I.E it would be a +1 flaming sword.
I say that any non-natural fire would be magical fire. If it has no "natural" source (fuel such as oil, wood, gas, etc.) then it is magical.
"However, that doen't mean that it is enchanted +1 or such just due to the fire -- unless, I think, the creature is vulnerable to fire, such as a troll or vampire." Bookwyrm is very correct in this as well. Save for the fact that it wouldnt be a +1 weapon against trols ... only a sword with extra fire damage... Which against trolls is not bad at all.
"Now i got another point going on: what is the purpose of the +2 nonmagical enhancement of the adamantine longsword if it cannot bypass de damage reduction of +1/ or +2/ creatures?
in monster manual, do all monster have damage reduction on MAGICAL weapons?
As for the flaming question, elrond, it is a very good question, but i believe flaming burst is a +2 enchantement (not enhancement) so only the 1d6 ot 1d10 on critical would affect a MAGICAL DR foe"
The plus two as stated before is just because the weapon is made out of strong material, can be made very sharp, and is gernerally made to be a great weapon, some would say better then masterwork. However. It was also my understanding and I might be wrong upon this statement if so please tell me the page number because I know that it states this some place about crits, that on a crit hit you dont get to double your magical damage just the normal damage. So you would only be doing a 1d6 damage to a Magical creature with protection, not damage reduction of say +3 or higher. Thats if your magical fire was even the equal to a +3 enhancement. It however wouldnt be doubled. And that is only if you have a +# of magical enhancement upon it, I.E Skippy the pally hits a creature with his sword, non-holy sword and rolls a crit, however the creature is a +3 or higher to deal damage to it. And Skippy's sword is only a +2.... There fore Skippy couldnt hit it even if he had a rolled a crit. Lets say that he gets a new sword, and this one is his holy sword, and make the spirit a CE spirit. Skippy's holy sword is LG just like he is. the sword gets a nice +10 to hit & +10 to dmg against this creature. There for, if skippy rolls a crit... the spirit is probably dead.... again due to the fact that the spirit had +3 or higher to hit it... and Sippy's sword was +10 to "hit".
As for damage reduction. You can still hurt a DR creature. You only have to deal enough damage to get past the DR. I.E Sippy hits a screature with a +1 sword rolls a crit and deals say 30 dmg to a creature with DR 20/+2. The creature would take 10 dmg. Now lets say that skippy's sword had a nice flaming ability to it. Skippy hits it for 30 dmg on a creature with a DR 20/+2. Skippy would deal 10 dmg + 1d6 of magical fire dmg.
Now. On the same token. Lets toss skippy a +2 magical sword. Skippy hits and deal 20 damage to a creature with DR 30/+2. This means that the creature takes 20 dmg. Now lets say the same creature is hit by skippy after the same sword is given a magical fire bonus. The sword still deals 20 dmg to the creature with Dr 30/+2. But now also dose it's magical fire bonus.
However! Lets say skippy crits a DR creature with DR 30/+2 with a +2 flaming long sword. Skippy rolls up his long sword dmg, add his str to the dmg, and then doubles it. And then adds in his 1d6 of fire damage.
That is how i think it is done. Anyone have anything to ask me? Or have anything to say? Point out a flaw? if so please write back upon this. I tend to read up on magical things in D&D. Its good to know about it. * looks at Bookwyrm* Im waiting. I know you have something to say. You always do lol.
P.S: I forgot to add in that ANY magical weapon has to start off as a Master Work weapon. As someone else stated he thought it should be that way. Indeed it is that way. After all, even the book states that it must at least be a master work weapon before a mage etc etc can even START enchanting the weapon. |
| eilinel |
Posted - 07 May 2003 : 16:57:27
listen to that, if u make an adamantine sword, which has an enhancement of +2, magic by adding any power like speed r whatever, that means that u have to pay only the adamantine sword and the +4 enhancement, whereas if u made it only with magic, u have to pay a +6 enhancement. Thats why i say that u shoudnt turn the rules for urself. Here is a problem in the classical rules, the DM has to make a judgment between seeing all of her players fighting with adamantine blades or cheat the rules saying something like "u cant cast a spell on an adamantine blade or if u do u choose between the power of the magic and the one of the adamantine"
shortly, don't cheat Tsilfa. I see u. |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 25 Apr 2003 : 21:44:35
That's right bran! All we have to do is find the UNKNOWN!!!
Undead Algebra. Actually I felt Undead after Calc II.
|
| branmakmuffin |
Posted - 25 Apr 2003 : 19:21:51
mournblade94:
quote:
VAMPIRE + FIRE = FUUUUUUUN!!!!!
FUUUUUUUN - FIRE = VAMPIRE
FUUUUUUUN - VAMPIRE = FIRE |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 25 Apr 2003 : 07:16:03
VAMPIRE + FIRE = FUUUUUUUN!!!!! |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 25 Apr 2003 : 01:05:04
quote:
Originally posted by Elrond Half Elven
In fact that is a point! Is the flame from a "Flaming Sword" magical fire or is it just normal fire? i.e. would it hit or miss a creature that required magicaly enchanted weapons? I would actually say that it is magical as it does not harm the user of the sword but everyone else it touches. How many people would agree with me (or disagree?)?
I say that any non-natural fire would be magical fire. If it has no "natural" source (fuel such as oil, wood, gas, etc.) then it is magical.
However, that doen't mean that it is enchanted +1 or such just due to the fire -- unless, I think, the creature is vulnerable to fire, such as a troll or vampire. |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 24 Apr 2003 : 18:01:35
I have always made the adamantine metal have a MAGICAL enhancement bonus. Too balance it out, I have ruled that you cannot got a +3 enchantment on it until you have placed a +1 and +2. The adamantine magic is RAW magic, untamed. It cannot accept a higher enchantment until you tame the magic already in it. i.e adding +1 and +2 enchantments
|
| TsilfaEor |
Posted - 24 Apr 2003 : 11:47:05
Thanks a lot for your opinions my dear friends.
I totally agree on the fact that the DM chooses, althought i just bought a keen adamantine longsword of brillant energy, i just wanted to be sure. (Zemd was nice on that)
Now i got another point going on: what is the purpose of the +2 nonmagical enhancement of the adamantine longsword if it cannot bypass de damage reduction of +1/ or +2/ creatures?
in monster manual, do all monster have damage reduction on MAGICAL weapons?
As for the flaming question, elrond, it is a very good question, but i believe flaming burst is a +2 enchantement (not enhancement) so only the 1d6 ot 1d10 on critical would affect a MAGICAL DR foe.
any more oppinions? |
| Elrond Half Elven |
Posted - 24 Apr 2003 : 09:59:06
I would say that aslong as the weapon is +1 it should be able to be enchanted with those magical abilities. IIRC Masterwork weapons can be enchanted to become magical weapons, infact all magical weapons where once master work weapons that where enchanted. (Well atleast thats how i see it- magical weapons had to be crated from the most expertly crafted and expensive weapons).
However i would say is that IMHO if a master work weapons was enchanted with say a Flaming enchantment the blade its self would not act as an MAGIC weapon until the ability was used i.e. it would not hit a creature with the "Damage Reduction" special ability. On (page 186 of the DMG) it states that "Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire" this would mean that if your player was fighting a creature that was imune to all but magical weapons with +1 enchantment or more, then the creature would ONLY be hit by the magical 1D6 Fire damage. But then if it had the "Fire" special ability your character will have wished that he got his MAGICAL weapon further enchanted, because he cannot hit his opponent!
In fact that is a point! Is the flame from a "Flaming Sword" magical fire or is it just normal fire? i.e. would it hit or miss a creature that required magicaly enchanted weapons? I would actually say that it is magical as it does not harm the user of the sword but everyone else it touches. How many people would agree with me (or disagree?)?
Hanx
Elrond |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 24 Apr 2003 : 06:05:04
I would say since there is no ruling saying Magical or non magical that any enhancement bonus whould work. Especially since Adamantine takes enchantment well. But in some game systems the DM is called the judge. Whatever the DM says is the decision you have to live with.
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 23 Apr 2003 : 23:00:06
I believe that a nonmagical enhanced weapon (+1) is a "masterwork" piece. It's made so well that it withstands more than the common varieties. |
|
|
