Like "DR 20/silver and good". Does that mean both are required or just one?
"And" is both. "Or" is either.
If it says AND both are required. So for your example, you need a good-aligned weapon that is made of silver to bypass the DR.
If it says OR only one or the other is needed.
If it says AND both are required. So for your example, you need a good-aligned weapon that is made of silver to bypass the DR.
If it says OR only one or the other is needed.
Since a +3 weapon trumps silver... does that mean a +3 or better good weapon would also defeat this DR?
Thanks guys
|
Since a +3 weapon trumps silver... does that mean a +3 or better good weapon would also defeat this DR?If it says AND both are required. So for your example, you need a good-aligned weapon that is made of silver to bypass the DR.
If it says OR only one or the other is needed.
Yes. The +'s are equivalents.
Though on that subject, I don't like it at all. Silver DR means almost nothing except at lower levels and a +4 silver blade is nothing special compared to a steel +4 blade. If you need silver to harm something, it should need silver, not more magic.
Since a +3 weapon trumps silver... does that mean a +3 or better good weapon would also defeat this DR?If it says AND both are required. So for your example, you need a good-aligned weapon that is made of silver to bypass the DR.
If it says OR only one or the other is needed.
yes, as would a mithral good aligned weapon (since mithral also overcomes DR/Silver)... and a +5 weapon over comes the DR with out needing to be silver or good.
I could see mithril overcoming the silver requirement. At one point (possibly still does) it was believed that mithril was a derivative of silver, or at least thought to contain silver.
I could see mithril overcoming the silver requirement. At one point (possibly still does) it was believed that mithril was a derivative of silver, or at least thought to contain silver.
Well, not that it's relevant except in a historical sense, but "mithril" in Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit was called "Truesilver."
|
I could see mithril overcoming the silver requirement. At one point (possibly still does) it was believed that mithril was a derivative of silver, or at least thought to contain silver.
It states it in the Core Book:
Mithral weapons count as silver for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.
I, personally, favor the removal of "pluses" on magic weapons and just having added benefits/powers. That removes the whole enhancement bonus counts as material or alignment or whatever argument. I haven't yet enacted this in my game, but I'm contemplating it for my next campaign.
Given that this is the rules section of the boards, though, the above is totally irrelevant.
I, personally, favor the removal of "pluses" on magic weapons and just having added benefits/powers.
This totally mucks up medium-BAB melee classes that need every attack bonus they can get in order to hit. If the rogue can't get a +3 dagger, what other options will you provide him to make up for that +3 he no longer has?
I, personally, favor the removal of "pluses" on magic weapons and just having added benefits/powers.This totally mucks up medium-BAB melee classes that need every attack bonus they can get in order to hit. If the rogue can't get a +3 dagger, what other options will you provide him to make up for that +3 he no longer has?
There are plenty of bonuses to go around, from stat bonuses to magic buffs to situation bonuses. If you don't go crazy with enemy AC's then the fighters hit even when power attacking (as they should) and the medium BAB characters hit quite often as well. They shouldn't hit as often as the full BAB classes, naturally, but they can hit often enough that they can be solid contributors to an encounter (not to mention their other abilities).
Again, I haven't enacted this in my game, but I have been musing it over. I would discuss with my players beforehand, obviously. /salute!