| 8 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I'm pretty sure I've posed this question before, but I'm not sure I ever got an official answer. If I did, it has never made its way into the Errata.
Weapons with an enhancement bonus of +3 or greater can ignore some types of damage reduction, regardless of their actual material or alignment.
(Emphasis mine)
The table on the same page, however, reads "Weapon Enhancement Bonus equivalent"
Clearly these aren't the same thing. A flaming longsword +3 has an weapon enhancement bonus of +3, but an weapon enhancement bonus equivalent of +4. Does such a weapon overcome DR X/Adamantine? While I'm strongly inclined to believe that the answer is no, the text and the table heading disagree.
May I get an official answer (and the wording made consistent via errata)?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's poor language usage. When they used equivalent they were just trying to say that have a +3 weapon enhancement bonus was equal to having a weapon that was made from cold iron/silver.
The only damage reduction type that allows for an effective enhancement to count is oddly enough DR epic, which was changed when Mythic Adventures book came out to only require an effecitve +6 weapon. Which consequently makes it weaker than most of the other DR types.
Well, all it took was a simple level 2 spell to get around any of the 4 alignment DRs. Weapon blanches took away silver, cold iron, or adamantine DR's bite. And as far as damage type, most front-line combatants have one or two extra masterwork weapons on hand to deal with a skeleton or a mad treant or whatever. DR/epic is still fairly hard to get around, since Greater Magic Weapon won't work. Aside from an Inquisitor, on-demand bane just isn't a thing. Even if you do have a bane weapon against this DR/epic protected creature, that's still 32,300 gp you've invested in the fight just to get around those extra few points of DR each time you hit. I'd say their errata to DR/epic wasn't really that bad.
Bump
Can we get an official answer/addition to Errata please?
They've done errata to it already here.
They've done errata to it already here.
I guess I'm not understanding. I'm asking about an inconsistency in the Core Rulebook, which needs to be addressed in the Core Rulebook errata. I don't see what this has to do with Mythic Adventures.
To put it bluntly, it's ludicrous that this inconsistency has persisted through six -- six! -- printings of the CRB. I'd really like to make sure it doesn't make it through a seventh.
A +1 keen flaming longsword is not a +3 equivalent weapon. It just cost the same as a +3 weapon. Pricing them the same does not make them equivalent for the purpose of enhancement bonuses in any way, shape or form. If it called out pricing equivalent that would be different, but the pricing chart and being equivalent to a +X weapon are not the same thing. The closest that I can gather would be something like an amulet of mighty fist granting a +3 bonus to a natural attack. That would make it equivalent.
Bonus
Bonuses are numerical values that are added to checks and statistical scores. Most bonuses have a type, and as a general rule, bonuses of the same type are not cumulative (do not “stack”)—only the greater bonus granted applies.
Bonuses are actual numbers and only the weapon's enhancement counts as a bonus. Flaming as an example is NOT a bonus nor equivalent to any bonus. If it was it would grant a +1 to attack and damage also.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
An "Equivalent bonus" would be something like Furious or Bane which situationally increase the Enhancement bonus of the weapon, I believe.
I'm not seeing a problem here.
The "equivalent" part of that chart is that the +3 enhancement is equivalent to silver or cold iron for purposes of overcoming damage reduction, and the +4 is equivalent to adamantine* (*except regarding hardness), and the +5 is equivalent to alignment-based weapons.
It's not talking about a +1 keen flaming longsword and saying it is equivalent to a +3 longsword.
The weapon enhancement bonus equivalent of cold iron/silver for purposes of overcoming DR/cold iron or DR/silver is +3.
The usage of the word "equivalent" in that table is value in column B that is the equal of value in column A.
Rynjin's got it. A +1 flaming weapon is equivalent to a +1 bonus. A +1 orc bane weapon is equivalent to a +1 bonus unless you're fighting an orc with it, in which case it's equivalent to a +3 bonus without actually being a +3 weapon.
Bump! Another request for an official answer (and corresponding core rule book errata).
Bump! Another request for an official answer (and corresponding core rule book errata).
Bumping does not get request any faster and text trumps tables.
They have their own system which determines what rule is answered first. To my knowledge how they do this has never been made public.
Bumping does not get request any faster...
Fine. But NOT bumping isn't working, either. It's been four months (this time -- I've raised this question before).
...and text trumps tables.
Which fails to explain why this has gone uncorrected through six printings.
Look, I don't mean to be snarky, but I keep hearing about how responsive Paizo is. I'm just not seeing it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The text and table are both pretty explicit in what they say.
Correct. The problem is that they don't match.
Thats one rule i disregard completely in my home table.
If a werewolf has 10/silver, he doesnt care if your weapon is +1 or +5, he will absorb 10 points of damage if it isnt made of (or coated in) silver.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thats one rule i disregard completely in my home table.
If a werewolf has 10/silver, he doesnt care if your weapon is +1 or +5, he will absorb 10 points of damage if it isnt made of (or coated in) silver.
I'm curious. Do you do the same for Demons, Fey, Golems, and Angels? Or just werewolves?
I believe the reason Paizo went with this table was because Fighters were tired of carrying around 6 different weapons for dealing with circumstantial encounters.
In other words, they were trying to give martials a bump.
Thats one rule i disregard completely in my home table.
If a werewolf has 10/silver, he doesnt care if your weapon is +1 or +5, he will absorb 10 points of damage if it isnt made of (or coated in) silver.
Yeah, no offense but that's a bad rule that penalizes martial characters (who are already weaker than casters). Paizo changed the rules to get rid of the golf bag effect, where everyone had to carry around variations of bludgeoning, piercing, slashing, cold iron, silver, adamantine, and aligned weapons. It got very expensive to do, and meant that you either focused on one, and sucked it up on the others or spread out the enhancements on each and made each weapon individually crappy. This was a bad thing. There is no way around bludgeoning/piercing/slashing restrictions, and thats fine because that virtually disappears at mid levels. But, forcing the fighter to carry around 7 different weapons that his has to split the enhancements between isn't helping anyone or making the game more fun.
"Oh James! Bring me the Cold Iron, the woods just aren't cutting it."
I'm curious. Do you do the same for Demons, Fey, Golems, and Angels? Or just werewolves?
I believe the reason Paizo went with this table was because Fighters were tired of carrying around 6 different weapons for dealing with circumstantial encounters.
In other words, they were trying to give martials a bump.
Their damage is already pretty much off the roof.
That makes encounters a bit more challenging (as in, they last more than 5 rounds).And nobody is forcing nobody to carry around 7 weapons, they can just power attack through it or cast one extra spell. It really is no different than increasing the monster's health above his average.
Monsters with energy resistance is no different, there are lots of them with resist fire/cold/acid 10, which pretty much nulify any +1d6 elemental enchancement.
Yeah, no offense but that's a bad rule that penalizes martial characters (who are already weaker than casters). Paizo changed the rules to get rid of the golf bag effect,
If they wanted to get rid of it, they would get rid of it.
They didnt, they just made something wonky a bit less wonky, but still wonky regardless.
Yeah, no offense but that's a bad rule that penalizes martial characters (who are already weaker than casters). Paizo changed the rules to get rid of the golf bag effect,If they wanted to get rid of it, they would get rid of it.
They didnt, they just made something wonky a bit less wonky, but still wonky regardless.
Care to elbaorate, because that makes 0 sense to me.
If a werewolf has 10/silver, he doesnt care if your weapon is +1 or +5, he will absorb 10 points of damage if it isnt made of (or coated in) silver.
So, what you've done is to ensure that no one ever buys an enhancement bonus above +1. Ever. Because a greater magic weapon spell lasts all day, and now does exactly what the higher enhancement bonuses do.
The reason you pay 100K gp for a +5 sword is not for the +5 enhancement; it's for the ability to penetrate DR. That's what makes it worth 100K gp; it does stuff a GMW spell can't. No one will pay that much just to save a 3rd level spell slot, however. So if you're going to make the costs work, you need to revise the pricing model for magic weapons completely, which I suspect is beyond the scope of what most people are willing to do for the sake of a quick houserule.
@Claxon, i prefer to apply to my monsters a 5/- or 10/- DR than 5/silver, 10/cold iron.
It makes little sense that a +3 or +5 weapon can bypass certain metal vulnerabilities. The enhancement bonus should only apply a bonus to attack and damage.
Otherwise its not much different than 5/+1, or 10/+3, or 20/+5 from 3.x.
Thats what i mean.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Claxon, i prefer to apply to my monsters a 5/- or 10/- DR than 5/silver, 10/cold iron.
It makes little sense that a +3 or +5 weapon can bypass certain metal vulnerabilities. The enhancement bonus should only apply a bonus to attack and damage.
Otherwise its not much different than 5/+1, or 10/+3, or 20/+5 from 3.x.Thats what i mean.
My question was more why you didn't think Paizo intended to get rid of the golf bag effect? It definitely seems they intentionally made the rules in a manner so that you could bypass the resistance in more than one way, to cut down on needing many different weapons.
I understand the concept of simply letting it not work, I just don't understand why you would want to do that.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
They've done errata to it already here.I guess I'm not understanding. I don't see what this has to do with Mythic Adventures.
The FAQ on DR/Epic directly answers your question.
Prior to Mythic Adventures, to cut through DR/Epic you needed a raw +6 enhancement sword and a +5 flaming frost weapon wouldn't do it.
With the release of Mythic Adventures, DR/Epic specifically has a new way. A +5 flaming sword will do it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |