| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The limitations of Greater Magic Weapon and Greater Magic Fang are specific to them, and not worded as a general rule. So, unless an ability says it works as one of them, then it shouldn't have that limitation. For instance, Versatile Weapon shares this limitation, since it works as Greater Magic Weapon.
What they said. Enhancement bonus is enhancement bonus. Bane works the same way--a +2 construct bane longsword bypasses an iron golem's DR but not a norn's. The same holds for a +2 longsword wielded by an inquisitor using their bane ability against constructs.
The only time this doesn't apply is when the ability or effect granting the enhancement bonus says otherwise, as is the case with greater magic weapon.
While I agree that it overcomes the DR, in the sake of fairness I will point out at least one other case where an enhancement bonus isn't an enhancement bonus for overcoming DR.
Ranged weapons confer their enhancement bonus to ammunition, but that enhancement bonus doesn't count as anything except magic for bypassing DR.
This does lend credit to the concept that there are two categories of enhancement, permanent that bypasses DR and temporary (like greater magic weapon and ranged weapons) that does not. It isn't entirely unreasonable to decide, given that, that powers like the Warpriest's create a 'temporary' enhancement.
(Ammunition not bypassing DR wasn't directly stated in the rules, only clarified in a FAQ so not everything subjected to the GMW limitation is specified).
So, while I think your GM is wrong, I don't think he is clearly wrong, and I would accept a GM making that call.
This is the FAQ Dave Justus is referring to:
Magic Ranged Weapons and Ammunition: When a ranged weapon shares its enhancement bonus with its ammunition, does this count as “true” enhancement bonus or more like a temporary bonus like greater magic weapon? In other words, does the shared enhancement bonus allow the arrow to bypass damage reduction as if it was cold iron, silver, adamantine, and aligned?
No, other than the ways indicated in the Core Rulebook (if the ranged weapon is at least +1, they count as magic, and if the ranged weapon is aligned they count as that alignment as well) the enhancement bonus granted to ammunition from the ranged weapon doesn’t help them overcome the other types of damage reduction. Archers and other such characters can buy various sorts of ammunition or ammunition with a high enhancement bonus to overcome the various types of damage reduction.
I have a memory of an FAQ or ruling that temporary bonuses from class abilities DON'T overcome DR, but it could be a PFS specific ruling, or I could even be remembering a different game (or even miss-remembering entirely). I remember this from when I was looking up rules for the Magus, so while not directly applicable to the Warpriest it would probably be similar enough to use the same ruling (if it actually exists =P ).
If there's no clear ruling then the GM should look for similar rules and use those as a guide. In this case it looks like the GM has done that. I can absolutely see the alternative point of view (Enhancement Bonus = Enhancement Bonus), and I would agree with it if I didn't have this niggling memory (or false memory) in the back of my head. It's a niche enough ruling that I would go with the GM unless there's a specific ruling otherwise.
A lot of the more “recent” FAQ were dumb in my opinion. I really don’t even miss them anymore.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are other ways to bypass DR. A favorite of mine is Weapon Against Evil . When you have Fervor, you can buff yourself with this as a Swift Action.
Fervor only allows you to swift action spells that target yourself. Weapon Against Evil targets a weapon. Some GMs might let it work, but RAW it does not.
There are other ways to bypass DR. A favorite of mine is Weapon Against Evil . When you have Fervor, you can buff yourself with this as a Swift Action.Fervor only allows you to swift action spells that target yourself. Weapon Against Evil targets a weapon. Some GMs might let it work, but RAW it does not.Nice rule-lawyering ju-jitsu!
I was thinking in terms of putting Weapon Against Evil on my own weapon. But your own weapon not counting as yourself? Clever!
What if you're using Unamred Strikes?
Does anything change if you have 1 level of Monk?
|
|
There's no "rules lawyering" about it. The rules text for Fervor is very, very clear.
As a swift action, a warpriest can expend one use of this ability to cast any one warpriest spell he has prepared with a casting time of 1 round or shorter. When cast in this way, the spell can target only the warpriest, even if it could normally affect other or multiple targets. Spells cast in this way ignore somatic components and do not provoke attacks of opportunity. The warpriest does not need to have a free hand to cast a spell in this way.
If you're not targeting yourself, you can't cast the spell. Plain and simple.
The text is clear for this case. It’s less clear if the spell has to have a target, in the first place.
Weapon enhancement bonuses don't have the same distinction of permanent versus temporary that you find with ability enhancement bonuses. Without the existence of that distinction, there's no need to differentiate between the two, and also no reason to write a rule stating that the distinction doesn't exist.
Unfortunately, that means if your DM wants proof that the rule doesn't exist, you aren't going to be able to find it, as the book writers mostly write about the rules that do exist.
That eratta is also largely ignored by literally every one I have ever played with because its dumb.While I agree that it overcomes the DR, in the sake of fairness I will point out at least one other case where an enhancement bonus isn't an enhancement bonus for overcoming DR.
Ranged weapons confer their enhancement bonus to ammunition, but that enhancement bonus doesn't count as anything except magic for bypassing DR.
This does lend credit to the concept that there are two categories of enhancement, permanent that bypasses DR and temporary (like greater magic weapon and ranged weapons) that does not. It isn't entirely unreasonable to decide, given that, that powers like the Warpriest's create a 'temporary' enhancement.
(Ammunition not bypassing DR wasn't directly stated in the rules, only clarified in a FAQ so not everything subjected to the GMW limitation is specified).
So, while I think your GM is wrong, I don't think he is clearly wrong, and I would accept a GM making that call.
yea. i mean any other weapons (thrown\melee etc)when they get high enough enhancement can break dr - cause better aim?sharpness?'power'? - whatever, they just work better! but bows and other projectile that cost just as much to make or use just as much power to craft are less effective because what ever made them better didn't take into account that they shoot stuff and are not clubs to hit people with. (hack using them as clubs ALSO won't break dr as it would be improvised and their magic properties don't work when doing such). it's just dumb saying 'ohh this SWORD is so magical it can pass through a golem's hard body' but that bow that had been made with just as much power and care can't shoot the golem down with it's arrows because it's power only work on itself and not the arrows it shoots. why don't you also deny the arrow the +5 to hit and damage while your at it since it also was never made as such?
Yeah, poor bows only have the ability to make a full attack without moving, have a feat that lets them ignore DR, have two feats for an additional attack, and can stack magical weapon properties from the bow and the arrow. They're obviously so underpowered that they need to get every single benefit other weapons get, too!
i appreciate the optimism, but i need something official otherwise DM ruling is going with the GMW wording
"Weapons with an enhancement bonus of +3 or greater can ignore some types of damage reduction, regardless of their actual material or alignment." CRB pg. 562
"These bonuses stack with any existing bonuses the weapon might have, to a maximum of +5." ACG pg. 61There you have it, official answer. If you stack a +1 and a +2, that equals +3, because that's what "stack" means. The CRB rule doesn't care how it's a +3 (or higher), only that it is.
Quite frankly, I would presume your GM has some other issue, like thinking your character was overpowered, or something. I mean, even if we ignore that GMW says "This bonus" rather than making a generals tatement, and ignore that GMW behaves completely different because it doesn't stack, if the GMW wording was a general rule, why the hell is it explicitly stated in the spell but not in the rules?
This just screams "I don't like the character, so I pull some bull shit reason out of my ass in order to nerf it".
I disagree. I think the GM wasn't sure of the rule, so went looking for something to base his decision on. This is the right thing for a GM to do.
I also thought there was something about them not counting, but having gone this far and finding no evidence of what I was remembering AND nobody else knowing what I was talking about is enough to convince me I was wrong.
Koshimo, maybe show your GM this thread and see what he thinks. If he won't let it count then just plan accordingly, it's not the end of the world.
I disagree. I think the GM wasn't sure of the rule, so went looking for something to base his decision on. This is the right thing for a GM to do.
That's all fair an well, but that's not what "need something official otherwise DM ruling is going with the GMW wording" sounds like. That sounds more like blatantly ignoring what's written in the books. In Pathfinder, the absence of evidence is evidence of absence, because that's how the rules work. If one rule says something works, and nothing says it doesn't work, than it does work*.
Of course, it's entirely possible Koshimo was unclear (or overdramatic), in which case the issue can be disregarded.
*) I know that many people base such decisions on what they feel was most right rather than anything tangible; plenty of people make an unfounded extrapolation based on some actually unrelated rule because they feel it should be relevant. Doesn't make them right, though.
It should be clarified that effects like greater magic weapon and even bows give a standalone enhancement bonus of their own that does not stack with the weapon’s own enhancement bonus. You use whichever one is higher. But abilities like sacred weapon and bane stack with an existing enhancement bonus. And we do have developer feedback that bane can help overcome damage reduction mythic.
So, I still think that enhancement bonuses should simply help overcome DR unless specified otherwise. But even if you try to read more into things then we can see the rulings of the two styles of gaining an enhancement bonus have gone in favor of sacred weapon. With non stacking bonuses not applying and stacking bonuses applying.
Essentially, there are now two ways to overcome DR/epic with magic weapons.
The first way is presented in the Universal Monster Rules in the Bestiary: You can use a weapon that has an actual enhancement bonus of +6 or higher. Currently the Pathfinder RPG has no weapons with a permanent +6 or higher enhancement bonus (though you can temporarily achieve a +6 or higher enhancement bonus with certain magical or class abilities).