User talk:Hawkeye: Difference between revisions
Latest comment: 7 October by Hawkeye in topic Everburn Blade magical?
(→Everburn Blade magical?: new section) |
(→Everburn Blade magical?: Reply) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
Does Everburn Blade actually ignore the non-magical Slashing resistance that Cambions possess? I thought a weapon required at least a +1 enchantment to be considered a magical source of damage. [[User:Rydiak|Rydiak]] ([[User talk:Rydiak|talk]]) 23:09, 6 October 2024 (CEST) | Does Everburn Blade actually ignore the non-magical Slashing resistance that Cambions possess? I thought a weapon required at least a +1 enchantment to be considered a magical source of damage. [[User:Rydiak|Rydiak]] ([[User talk:Rydiak|talk]]) 23:09, 6 October 2024 (CEST) | ||
:I changed this, because the users "Legios against all odds!" and "Natanielxxl5000" found that out. The Evernburn Blade seems to be magical and ignore the slashing resistance even without having a +1 enchantment [[User:Hawkeye|Hawkeye]] ([[User talk:Hawkeye|talk]]) 09:38, 7 October 2024 (CEST) | |||
Revision as of 08:38, 7 October 2024
Party plurality
Hi there! No problem about the plurality of "party" -- I'm just stopping by to note that the same article had various other instances of party in the singular (e.g. "party is"). At the time I was just (theoretically) cleaning up a couple other ones to be consistent through the article. Cheers, Cattlesquat (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2024 (CEST)
- You're welcome. Thanks for the info. I think, now the last "party is" in that particular article is gone. Hawkeye (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2024 (CEST)
Everburn Blade magical?
Does Everburn Blade actually ignore the non-magical Slashing resistance that Cambions possess? I thought a weapon required at least a +1 enchantment to be considered a magical source of damage. Rydiak (talk) 23:09, 6 October 2024 (CEST)