Incorporeality and Weapons treated as "magic for the purpose of ..."


Rules Questions

51 to 61 of 61 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

I understand what you're saying, I do.

I just gotta say I don't really see the point. Is it too much to expect a monk to have a single magic weapon like anybody else at level 4? If even for one corner case type of creature?

You say these powers should work, so why didn't they? For 2 years... 4 years... longer? Maybe it's been a behind-the-scenes knock-down, drag-out battle over it for the whole time and just now it coincidentally got changed because of the FAQ requests, I don't know.

Not to poop on anybody's parade if they're really ecstatic. I'm just saying how I feel about it right now (maybe that'll change.) I don't need to be convinced or anything, I just... don't see how this is something that's been an oversight for this long. It wasn't something ambiguous or misleading. It was pretty straight-forward in both word and meaning.

Why contradict the rules now? If it's to make the game more fun, then players could always have opted to do it that way without need for a FAQ (as opposed to just doing it that way because they didn't read the ability, which is a whole other issue that has nothing to do with how the ability works.)

I certainly hope it was thought out well, and not just based on the number of FAQs with an assumption that the amount indicated people in favor of straight out changing a rule (rather than clarifying one.) That's all said respectfully, I'm not trying to convince anyone I'm right, I am just happy to have a place to air my feelings even if they may seem... contradictory to what might be hoped for.


I think it was probably always the intent that it would work, I just think the words picked didn't say that.

The entire point of things like the monk ability is to not have to use a weapon.

And I don't think for a minute that anyone would interpret FAQ requests as wanting a rule changed rather than clarified.


seebs wrote:
I think it was probably always the intent that it would work, I just think the words picked didn't say that.

This is precisely why I asked.

In all the gaming groups I've played in, everybody just kind of assumed that it works the way that it now does. We just never thought about it. "It's magic enough for X, so it's magic enough for Y." Not until I actually really looked at the language did it really occur to me that the rules themselves said otherwise.

Also not gonna lie, I'm a little geeked I got a FAQ response.

Liberty's Edge

DR/magic and incorporeality are two completely different things. A weapon "treated as a magic weapon for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction" is not a magic weapon - it is simply treated as if it were a magic weapon for one specific purpose. This property has nothing to do with incorporeality. Incorporeality is not damage reduction.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Theconiel wrote:
DR/magic and incorporeality are two completely different things.

Be that as it may, things have changed.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Theconiel wrote:
DR/magic and incorporeality are two completely different things.
Be that as it may, things have changed.

Thanks! I couldn't find the FAQ - I figured someone would point me in the right direction if I said something egregiously wrong!

:-)

Shadow Lodge

Curses! Fooled again!


This is good because I was definitely running it RAW since they specifically called out DR.

Liberty's Edge

It's been an issue for archers as well. I think the FAQ should cover it....it's the same language just for a different item.


FAQ link appears to be broken, and I can't find the entry in the FAQ browsing manually. Did someone clobber the file in source control?

Grand Lodge

blahpers wrote:
FAQ link appears to be broken, and I can't find the entry in the FAQ browsing manually. Did someone clobber the file in source control?
FAQ Link and
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Theconiel wrote:
DR/magic and incorporeality are two completely different things.
Be that as it may, things have changed.

both work for me.

51 to 61 of 61 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Incorporeality and Weapons treated as "magic for the purpose of ..." All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.