Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Shieldhart91 06-03-07, 12:10 AM	I recently received access to a nice little Monk weapon known as the Scoprion Kama (p. 201 of the Magic Item Compendium.) It's an item apart of set: Gharyn's Monastic Array. I don't have access to any of the other two items, but I did get this. Effectively, it's a +1 Kama that deals damage equal to my unarmed strike damage. With Improved Natural Attack, I plan on abusing this thing. My question is, can I enchant it with other magic such as Flaming, Speed, Holy, etc? This is if I have access to those enhancements, after all.
_metz_ 06-03-07, 12:37 AM	Pretty sure you cannot as its a named item. (like a Dagger of venom.)
King Kashue 06-03-07, 01:37 AM	Pretty sure you cannot as its a named item. (like a Dagger of venom.) Indeed...Named items are non-standard, and thus cannot be upgraded...
_metz_ 06-03-07, 01:48 AM	Its thus really not worth it, as you can't make it adamantine, cannot upgrade it, or anything. Its just like a plus one enhancement on your fists. Gauntlets or other monk weapons are probably much better.
awroe 06-03-07, 05:50 AM	Its thus really not worth it, as you can't make it adamantine, cannot upgrade it, or anything. Its just like a plus one enhancement on your fists. Gauntlets or other monk weapons are probably much better. Well, it is a slashing rather than bludgeoning weapon, and there isn't going to be the table variation you can get about Gauntlets.
chesspiece 06-03-07, 09:04 AM	You can make a weapon silver after manufacture / purchase as long as the base weapon is metal.
_metz_ 06-03-07, 10:27 AM	You can make a weapon silver after manufacture / purchase as long as the base weapon is metal. I guess it will be useful for that, anytime a Vampire pops out.
Zanzibax 06-03-07, 11:48 AM	I recently received access to a nice little Monk weapon known as the Scoprion Kama (p. 201 of the Magic Item Compendium.) It's an item apart of set: Gharyn's Monastic Array. I don't have access to any of the other two items, but I did get this. Effectively, it's a +1 Kama that deals damage equal to my unarmed strike damage. With Improved Natural Attack, I plan on abusing this thing. My question is, can I enchant it with other magic such as Flaming, Speed, Holy, etc? This is if I have access to those enhancements, after all. Improved Natural Attack feat for free is handy. Otherwise...I don't get it. What's the big deal?
ShinAkuma2 06-03-07, 01:36 PM	Improved Natural Attack feat for free is handy. Otherwise...I don't get it. What's the big deal? He never said it gives INA...He's implying that he has it. Anyway, doing your natural unarmed damage with a magic weapon, instead of scrounging for Magic Weapon/Fang spells/oils/etc, means hitting incorporeal monsters for more than a d6.
Zanzibax 06-03-07, 01:49 PM	He never said it gives INA...He's implying that he has it. Anyway, doing your natural unarmed damage with a magic weapon, instead of scrounging for Magic Weapon/Fang spells/oils/etc, means hitting incorporeal monsters for more than a d6. Yeah, it's a +1 bonus...but monks get that for free too at 4th level (Ki-strike). The kama can't be upgraded with ghost-strike, except by spell, just like fists.
King Kashue 06-03-07, 02:33 PM	Yeah, it's a +1 bonus...but monks get that for free too at 4th level (Ki-strike). Well, monks get the DR-bypassing quality, but they don't actually get the +1. And +1 to hit = 6-10% increase in damage.
Howie23 06-03-07, 03:06 PM	Yeah, it's a +1 bonus...but monks get that for free too at 4th level (Ki-strike). The kama can't be upgraded with ghost-strike, except by spell, just like fists. Yeah, unfortunately Ki-strike doesn't overcome incorporeal miss chance. (see FAQ) David
magebeast 06-03-07, 03:07 PM	For now you can't, but if they ever open up the MIC crafting rules - and I kind of hoping they do - it wouldn't be a problem.
Timlagor 06-03-07, 03:16 PM	Yeah, unfortunately Ki-strike doesn't overcome incorporeal miss chance. (see FAQ) David There is no such thing as Incorporeal Miss Chance!
Dr.Cornelius 06-03-07, 03:35 PM	There is no such thing as Incorporeal Miss Chance!Can you clarify? The phrase "incorporeal miss chance" appears in D&D FAQ 3.5 version 5/18/2007 on page 75, upper right.
pedr 06-03-07, 03:56 PM	Can you clarify? The phrase "incorporeal miss chance" appears in D&D FAQ 3.5 version 5/18/2007 on page 75, upper right.It's an error of terminology. Incorporeal creatures are immune to non-magical damage. They only take damage from magical weapons 50% of the time. While this is often referred to as a 'miss chance', it isn't. It's a chance that the hit will fail to cause damage. Usually this is an unimportant distinction but from time to time it becomes relevant (I can't recall the details now, but I've seen some discussions where this confusion has caused misunderstandings). Miss chances come from striking at where a creature isn't due to concealment or displacement or some other reason why you might aim for a point in space where you have no chance of connecting with the target. With an incorporeal, non-magical weapons pass through the point in space where the creature is, but do no damage due to its incorporeal-ness. Magical weapons manage to do damage 50% of the time, due to their magical-ness. In no way is this actually a question of 'missing', no matter what the FAQ might say (and as it is a terminological error not a rules error I'm happy to say that the FAQ can be 'wrong'.) What the FAQ says or implies - sorry, I've not checked - is that a monk's ability to ignore DR x/magic does not make a monk's attacks magical for the purpose of providing a 50% chance of damaging an incorporeal creature.
Timlagor 06-03-07, 04:30 PM	Calling it a "miss chance" gives rise to GMs making wrong rulings on things such as whether to roll the 50% for positive energy effects and even to claims that non-damage spells can suffer from it. Although there are now many erroneous references to the "incorporeal miss chance" in various places (including the MIC! grr!) there is nothing that actually grants them such a miss chance as you can easily see by actually reading the rules on incorporeality.
Eric Anondson 06-03-07, 04:33 PM	It's an error of terminology.That it may be, but it is repeated over and over again. Look at the updated incorporeal rules in the MM4. They seemingly interchange "50% chance to ignore any damage" with "50% miss chance" with "50% chance of not affecting". Even the latest stat blocks for incorporeal creatures have an entry that adds to the confusion. Here's a stat block excerpt from the MM4. The Whisper Demon. AC 20, touch, flat-footed 15; Dodge, Mobility (+5 Dex, +5 deflection) Miss Chance 50% (incorporeal) hp 90 (12 HD); DR 5/cold iron or good If there aren't a handfull of pages in the Rules Compendium devoted to incorporeal rules, then WotC just isn't paying much attention to their rules and how people use them. ;)
Zanzibax 06-03-07, 04:45 PM	Yeah, unfortunately Ki-strike doesn't overcome incorporeal miss chance. (see FAQ) David Neither does any +1 enhancement bonus as far as I know.
Zanzibax 06-03-07, 04:47 PM	Well, monks get the DR-bypassing quality, but they don't actually get the +1. And +1 to hit = 6-10% increase in damage. Greater Magic Weapon as well as Greater Magic Fang do the job equally well without the Kama
pedr 06-03-07, 05:34 PM	Neither does any +1 enhancement bonus as far as I know.Any weapon without at least a +1 enhancement bonus cannot cause damage to an incorporeal creature. A weapon with at least a +1 enhancement bonus has a 50% chance that each hit deals damage to an incorporeal creature.
jstorrie 06-03-07, 06:27 PM	Do you have Stunning Fist and a decent Wisdom? If so, I'd consider getting the kama in hopes of somehow collecting the rest of the set (other modules in this series, maybe?) Otherwise it's mainly just a ghost basher. Not a bad item to have in case you need to whack incorporeals, but not something to break the bank over either.
Zanzibax 06-03-07, 07:53 PM	Do you have Stunning Fist and a decent Wisdom? If so, I'd consider getting the kama in hopes of somehow collecting the rest of the set (other modules in this series, maybe?) Otherwise it's mainly just a ghost basher. Not a bad item to have in case you need to whack incorporeals, but not something to break the bank over either. After reading LG rules FAQ, ((Looking for the reason why that kama mattered a hill of beans.)) I now have to disagree: Can a monk get her unarmed strike enhanced as a magic weapon? No. Even a magic gauntlet or spiked gauntlet isn’t the ideal answer, since these aren’t listed as special monk weapons (and therefore aren’t as versatile as unarmed strikes). Which still directly contradicts the core rules themselves. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/monk.htm#unarmedStrike A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons. Therefore, until the D&D FAQ agrees with the Core Rules, the scorpion's kama is the single most-important monk weapon in the game.
Shieldhart91 06-03-07, 08:23 PM	Eh...it's kind of BS that you can't upgrade it, but it would still be somewhat useful...but I have Regional access to it, so I'm not in any particular rush to buy it, I suppose. When I get upwards towards APL 8, then I guess I'll put some alchemical silver onto it. Maybe.
JohnduBois 06-03-07, 09:33 PM	Eh...it's kind of BS that you can't upgrade it, but it would still be somewhat useful...but I have Regional access to it, so I'm not in any particular rush to buy it, I suppose. When I get upwards towards APL 8, then I guess I'll put some alchemical silver onto it. Maybe. Putting alchemical silver on a nonstandard weapon cannot be done, much in the same way that you cannot put a standard upgrade on a nonstandard weapon.
ShinAkuma2 06-03-07, 09:38 PM	Which still directly contradicts the core rules themselves. So...where's the contradiction? You've posted two unrelated rules lines. Just because a monk's unarmed strike can be the target of a Magic Fang or a Magic Weapon spell, or other similar things that enhance a weapon/natural weapon, doesn't mean they can be enhanced. If nothing else, a weapon must be of masterwork quality before it can be enhanced, and not even a Monk has masterwork fists.
Timlagor 06-03-07, 09:51 PM	That it may be, but it is repeated over and over again. Look at the updated incorporeal rules in the MM4. They seemingly interchange "50% chance to ignore any damage" with "50% miss chance" with "50% chance of not affecting". Even the latest stat blocks for incorporeal creatures have an entry that adds to the confusion. Here's a stat block excerpt from the MM4. The Whisper Demon. AC 20, touch, flat-footed 15; Dodge, Mobility (+5 Dex, +5 deflection) Miss Chance 50% (incorporeal) hp 90 (12 HD); DR 5/cold iron or good If there aren't a handfull of pages in the Rules Compendium devoted to incorporeal rules, then WotC just isn't paying much attention to their rules and how people use them. ;) It's actually relatively recent that it's made it into WotC publications..and very disappointing. I'll post something to their CS people.
Zanzibax 06-03-07, 10:31 PM	So...where's the contradiction? You've posted two unrelated rules lines. Just because a monk's unarmed strike can be the target of a Magic Fang or a Magic Weapon spell, or other similar things that enhance a weapon/natural weapon, doesn't mean they can be enhanced. If nothing else, a weapon must be of masterwork quality before it can be enhanced, and not even a Monk has masterwork fists. Your last sentence makes me think either I'm really confused...they're really confused...or you're joking. Thanks. I appreciate things like that. :P
King Kashue 06-03-07, 10:57 PM	Putting alchemical silver on a nonstandard weapon cannot be done, much in the same way that you cannot put a standard upgrade on a nonstandard weapon. What's your basis there? That's not in the LGCS, nor in the DMG. If it's explicitly a steel weapon, per the DMG it can be silvered, and the LGCS only deals with upgrading the magical abilities of items.
Timlagor 06-03-07, 10:57 PM	An Enhancement is a permanent effect crafted into a weapon. A Weapon must be Masterwork to have one added. A Natural Weapon can never fulfil this requirement. An *Enchantment* can be all sorts of things. GMW etc add an "enhancement bonus" but are not actual enhancements and Monk fists are legal targets for them.
jstorrie 06-04-07, 12:40 AM	You could put silversheen on the kama, of course. It just doesn't last forever.
Madfox11 06-04-07, 04:28 AM	The reason you cannot make these special kama's adamentine or silver is because you find them as they are. Could they in theory be crafted from other metals? Sure, but that must be specifically mentioned on the AR. As for the upgrading rules, the reason LGCS is somewhat more strict about it than the core rules is simply because prizing and balance can do strange things when people start to upgrade named items.
chesspiece 06-04-07, 08:28 AM	Let me try this again, with references... http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialMaterials.htm#silverAlchemical Silver, Alchemical A complex process involving metallurgy and alchemy can bond silver to a weapon made of steel so that it bypasses the damage reduction of creatures such as lycanthropes. On a successful attack with a silvered weapon, the wielder takes a -1 penalty on the damage roll (with the usual minimum of 1 point of damage). The alchemical silvering process can’t be applied to nonmetal items, and it doesn’t work on rare metals such as adamantine, cold iron, and mithral. So, if the item does not have a material type explicity stated, and it is a metal weapon, then you can have an alchemical silver coating applied. I've done this to several items (months after the initial purchases) in LG so if this is not permitted, I need to correct it. As far as Core Rules go, Silver is the only non-magical 'upgrade' that is clearly permitted by the rules.
_metz_ 06-04-07, 08:46 AM	metallurgy usually involves the weapon when its being forged, or the creation of an alloy. It makes no sense to me that you could apply it to an already forged weapon without reforging it. I think you need to fix up some mistakes. The silver needs to be bonded at creation.
chesspiece 06-04-07, 11:27 AM	metallurgy usually involves the weapon when its being forged, or the creation of an alloy. It makes no sense to me that you could apply it to an already forged weapon without reforging it. I think you need to fix up some mistakes. The silver needs to be bonded at creation. Metallurgy involves working with metals. This includes adding coatings / layers of metal onto metal (such as stainless steel or gold). The rules say "can bond silver to a weapon made of steel". I don't believe it should be restrictively interpreted as 'can manufacture a new silver weapon instead of a steel one'. And the piece de resistance: You may add alchemical silver to an existing steel weapon per the rules on page 284 in the DMG. So if a Circle ruling comes down against my interpretation, I'll undo any silvering that was done under LGCS597.
Howie23 06-04-07, 11:40 AM	And the piece de resistance: You may add alchemical silver to an existing steel weapon per the rules on page 284 in the DMG. So if a Circle ruling comes down against my interpretation, I'll undo any silvering that was done under LGCS597. This looks to me like one of the types of passages that was removed from the LGCS because it was redundant. "Yes, you can do what the rules say you can do," type things. If not, then this creates a variance to the core rules, something that has generally been avoided. Personally, I find it very difficult to identify how I would know that this is no longer an option, if this is the case. How do I identify that I cannot do what the core rules allow without a houserule that says so? David
Nutation 06-04-07, 04:27 PM	Effectively, it's a +1 Kama that deals damage equal to my unarmed strike damage. With Improved Natural Attack, I plan on abusing this thing. If you have 2WF, you can use this in addition to your fist for +1 blow and -attack. Nothing else is going to do as much damage for cheap, except a shillelaghed quarterstaff.
KShaver 06-04-07, 05:49 PM	What's your basis there? That's not in the LGCS, nor in the DMG. If it's explicitly a steel weapon, per the DMG it can be silvered, and the LGCS only deals with upgrading the magical abilities of items. While the fluff text describes it being added to a steel weapon the silvered quality is still part of the base weapon construction as all materials are. It even changes the hardness of the weapon. Though I suppose you'll find table variation on this.
King Kashue 06-04-07, 10:44 PM	metallurgy usually involves the weapon when its being forged, or the creation of an alloy. It makes no sense to me that you could apply it to an already forged weapon without reforging it. I think you need to fix up some mistakes. The silver needs to be bonded at creation. While the fluff text describes it being added to a steel weapon the silvered quality is still part of the base weapon construction as all materials are. It even changes the hardness of the weapon. Though I suppose you'll find table variation on this. But this isn't metallurgy. It's explicitly titled "Alchemical Silver". Alchemy is about transforming one metal into another through various processes...Turning lead into gold, etc... In this instance, it's about bonding silver to steel...
_metz_ 06-05-07, 12:54 AM	arguement was based on fluff and perhaps irrelevant.
clannagh 06-05-07, 01:08 AM	there is no mention of alchemical silver being an "alloy" anywhere I recall The suggestion is the process is much more akin to common every day silver plating (done by dipping) chrome plating (usually a very simple electrolysis process) hot dip galvanising (basically zinc on steel .. like galvanised iron) or maybe modern powder coating having at one stage in the distance past done several years of an engineering degree I can tell you there are a zillion ways to coat a metal with another metal without melting the original metal two points 1) if you realise its only a game then high school level real world metallurgy isnt really that relevant 2) if you insist that the game does mirror medieval technology then you need to realise that there were at that time in Europe numerous well developed and relatively simple ways of plating metal objects with other metals
King Kashue 06-05-07, 01:14 AM	If it wasn't a process applied to an existing item, why would the rules say this: The alchemical silvering process can't be applied to nonmetal items, and it doesn't work on rare metals such as adamantine, cold iron, and mithral (DMG p. 285) Not only does the explict text say it's a process applied to steel weapons, the passage in blue makes absolutely no sense if it isn't something done to existing weapons. And seriously Metz, "bonding elements"? You're bringing real world science into this? Alchemy isn't real world, alchemy is mystical, it doesn't need to adhere to 9th grade chemistry... The RAW describes a process applied to a steel weapon, not a process by which weapons are forged as alchemical silver...
clannagh 06-05-07, 01:56 AM	maybe i should clarify the last post Whether you can upgrade a item to alchemical silver is a rules issue. Its quite possible there is no rules basis for actual paying for the process in LG. maybe you can uograde maybe not, I have no opinion. What is clearly NOT relevant is attempts to sway people with pseudo scientific but impressive sounding nonsense about melting metals in alloys when we are discussing a bonding process..
_metz_ 06-05-07, 04:03 AM	Very well then, I will retract my further arguemnt: I will say this though: The ruling of it being able to be a[applied at any time: 1. Detracts from all other special materials in allowing it to be post upgradeable 2. Very interesting in that now any item access that is not silver can be made silver (items given out that were under cost deliberately as they couldn't be upgraded) 3. Implies that plating silver onto a masterwork/magical item wouldn't damage its abilities even though it can be done by your local blacksmith. I think this is a Britt decision or a core rules one, but I wouldn't allow it at my table given the opportunity. (I won't disallow the use of the item, but I won't allow the individual player to do the upgrade at my table till I get a FAQ saying they can.)
Madfox11 06-05-07, 04:53 AM	I consider myself quiet a rules expert, but things like this proved that like any set of rules there are countless of interpretations even in a set of game rules ;) I never even considered the fact that the core rules might allow silvering to be applied to existing weapons. Mind you, I don't see a hard rule either way (yet) and it seems to be a gray area in the Core rules and hence not readily solvable by the Circle. After all, the text about it not being able to apply to anything but steel might just be a piece of text to off-set the first line about alchemical silver that might be nothing more than fluff. Hence, expect table variation... Pieter Sleijpen RPGA Living Greyhawk Circle Member The Splintered Suns
King Kashue 06-05-07, 01:17 PM	After all, the text about it not being able to apply to anything but steel might just be a piece of text to off-set the first line about alchemical silver that might be nothing more than fluff. I'm really rather more inclined to go with the interpretation that both lines actually mean something, than with the interpretation that two entire sentences mean nothing... Considering the entire rules entry is only four sentences, declaring half of them to be "fluff", requires some darn good reasoning in my mind.
King Kashue 06-05-07, 01:25 PM	Very well then, I will retract my further arguemnt: I will say this though: The ruling of it being able to be a[applied at any time: 1. Detracts from all other special materials in allowing it to be post upgradeable Why? Because it would work differently? I'm not seeing how it 'detracts' anything. Once it's done it's done, and whether you do it at creation or ten ARs down the line, I don't see a rules advantage in making it a process rather than inherent to forging. 2. Very interesting in that now any item access that is not silver can be made silver (items given out that were under cost deliberately as they couldn't be upgraded) I have no idea what you're saying here. The parenthetical note in particular makes no sense to me. Silver is open access in the LGCS, and the only item access that could be made silver are steel weapons. 3. Implies that plating silver onto a masterwork/magical item wouldn't damage its abilities even though it can be done by your local blacksmith. How does it imply that at all? (And why would the local blacksmith matter?) It does -1 damage, just as the rules say. After the change, it has hardness 8 and 10 hitpoints/inch, just as the rules say. Again, I'm not sure where you're going with this statement...
solbergb 06-05-07, 01:41 PM	Well, it is a slashing rather than bludgeoning weapon, and there isn't going to be the table variation you can get about Gauntlets. Yeah. I'd totally buy this for my monk. It's a slashing weapon that does my unarmed strike damage, it's a +1 for when I can't get GMW or GMF on my fist and it's a tripping weapon and it is a platform for weapon capsule retainers, including Ghostblight. what's not to like? Unless it is hideously expensive. Might buy two to silver one, although I mostly use quicksilver for that when it comes up. And yeah, silver is the one retroactive metallurgical property that can be added to any steel weapon. The LGCS doesn't override that - the rules on enhancements are talking about magical enhancements.
_metz_ 06-05-07, 02:13 PM	Why? Because it would work differently? I'm not seeing how it 'detracts' anything. Once it's done it's done, and whether you do it at creation or ten ARs down the line, I don't see a rules advantage in making it a process rather than inherent to forging. I have no idea what you're saying here. The parenthetical note in particular makes no sense to me. Silver is open access in the LGCS, and the only item access that could be made silver are steel weapons. How does it imply that at all? (And why would the local blacksmith matter?) It does -1 damage, just as the rules say. After the change, it has hardness 8 and 10 hitpoints/inch, just as the rules say. Again, I'm not sure where you're going with this statement... Many modules offer cheap magical items (e.g: +1 flaming sword) That are cheap because they cannot be further upgraded. By this logic though, one can at least silver them, making them better than they actually were originally intended. Magical and Silver is better than just magical. I learnt that in Perrenland... (-1 damage is nothing) The idea that you can upgrade a named item that isn't supposed to be able to be further upgraded seems to go against the spirit of the item in this case.
solbergb 06-05-07, 02:16 PM	depend on your region and to some extent luck In 14 levels my monk needed silver three times total - twice vs lycanthropes, once vs chain devil (and he likely would have been ok without it, dr/5 isn't much) My warchanter, by contrast, ran into two full vampires by level 4 and has fought spawn, devils and lycanthropes since then and he's not quite L7. His primary weapon (his only magic weapon) is silvered. Alchemical silver is a nonmagical process that can be applied to any steel weapon. While uniquely enchanted items may be resistant to further upgrades, I see no reason to restrict alch silver unless the item is already made of a special material.
Howie23 06-05-07, 02:48 PM	Many modules offer cheap magical items (e.g: +1 flaming sword) That are cheap because they cannot be further upgraded. By this logic though, one can at least silver them, making them better than they actually were originally intended. Magical and Silver is better than just magical. I learnt that in Perrenland... (-1 damage is nothing) The idea that you can upgrade a named item that isn't supposed to be able to be further upgraded seems to go against the spirit of the item in this case. What's the issue with upgrading a +1 flaming sword? If I have a favor that will add merciful to any weapon, and I have a +1 flaming sword, I can add merciful to that weapon. a +1 flaming sword isn't a named item, such as a Sword of the Rogue is. If a regions is chosing to grant favors to discount the cost of weapons, that's an ingame thing that has it's uses within the campaign. If they're doing it for the metagame reason that a weapon can't be upgraded, something is screwy; that is essentially saying that the pricing system (a core rule) is to be ignored. David
Britt 06-05-07, 06:44 PM	100% yes, from the PTB, you can add silver to an existing steel weapon. That is the intent of the core rules.
_metz_ 06-05-07, 11:33 PM	Problem solved. I would like to note the use of the term 'steel'. NO more Table Variation from me :)
lunarfish 06-06-07, 12:40 AM	Britt and/or Madfox: Can a unique weapon (such as aforementioned Scorpion Kama) be silvered if it doesn't come that way? How about a +1 Flaming Longsword that is found on an AR as a non-silvered weapon?
Madfox11 06-06-07, 04:22 AM	Well, assuming the core rules allow existing weapons to be silvered than the +1 flaming longsword can be silvered as well. It is after all not an unique named item. I am not too sure about unique named items though, which can definitely not be upgraded except through specific worded favors... I would say "no" by the spirits of the rules.
solbergb 06-06-07, 10:31 AM	as I mentioned before, they can't be MAGICALLY upgraded. Alchemical silvering is a mundane process, limited only by the material of the weapon. It's no different than using silversheen or a weapon capsule retainer. From Britt's response, I'd say at least one circle member agrees with me, and in fact, since LGCS is silent on the subject of mundane upgrades, we default to the PHB/DMG, which say it CAN be added after the fact to ANY steel weapon.
Britt 06-06-07, 02:06 PM	This isn't my opinion, or rather it is, but I passed the question up to get confirmation before saying anything. This is what WotC intends by the rule.
Madfox11 06-07-07, 03:56 AM	as I mentioned before, they can't be MAGICALLY upgraded. Alchemical silvering is a mundane process, limited only by the material of the weapon. It's no different than using silversheen or a weapon capsule retainer. From Britt's response, I'd say at least one circle member agrees with me, and in fact, since LGCS is silent on the subject of mundane upgrades, we default to the PHB/DMG, which say it CAN be added after the fact to ANY steel weapon. Yeah, but the core rules also say that ANY weapon can be magically upgraded. It is one of those points where LG has a different rule. Personally I really don't care either way. So we will see what the Circle decides upon...
solbergb 06-07-07, 11:24 AM	I'm not sure how many times or how many ways I have to keep saying this Madfox, but the LGCS only overrides the core rules on MAGICAL upgrades. Alch silver upgrades are not magical and are explicitly open.