Adamantine, arrows and you.

[javcs]

Same here. By the rules the arrow is ruined if it hits and 50%/50% if it misses.

I would personally say an adamantine arrow that is 'ruined' needs a new shaft rather than a new arrowhead unless the arrow is doing over 20 damage on a hit.

And that the tip could be reforged into a new tip if it were also 'ruined', since I would think that if the tip were 'ruined' it would be bent or dulled such that it is not a good striking surface.

 

[airwalkrr]

At the dm's discretion, and given the time, it doesn't seem unreasonable that a higher percentage of the arrows (or at the very least their adamantine tips) would be retrievable after shooting them. This is one option to lessen the overall cost of special material amunition in the long run.

Given that the arrowheads are quite likely not as prone to simple destruction (although the shafts still are), I would probably rule that missed arrows are recovered 75% of the time as opposed to 50%, the difference being that roughly half that are unrecoverable are simply lost. For arrows destroyed in use against a creature, provided they are recovered, I would allow them to reduce the cost to forge new arrowheads by 50%.

 

[Drowbane]

it was bound to happen eventually

Same here. By the rules the arrow is ruined if it hits and 50%/50% if it misses.

I would personally say an adamantine arrow that is 'ruined' needs a new shaft rather than a new arrowhead unless the arrow is doing over 20 damage on a hit.

I find myself in agreement with Frank... o.0

 

[geosapient]

Given that the arrowheads are quite likely not as prone to simple destruction (although the shafts still are), I would probably rule that missed arrows are recovered 75% of the time as opposed to 50%, the difference being that roughly half that are unrecoverable are simply lost. For arrows destroyed in use against a creature, provided they are recovered, I would allow them to reduce the cost to forge new arrowheads by 50%.

If I were spending that much per arrow then there would never be any lost. I wouldn't care if I had to swim through 5 feet of sewage.

I bet the fighter with the adamantine broadsword would say the same.

 

[airwalkrr]

If I were spending that much per arrow then there would never be any lost. I wouldn't care if I had to swim through 5 feet of sewage.

I bet the fighter with the adamantine broadsword would say the same.

*Archer spends 2 hours hunting for the adamantine arrow he fired out over the open plain that missed it's mark by a long shot*

Wizard: Dammit, Archer! Just take 60 gp from me and let's get on with the $%^&ing adventure!
Cleric: Yea, sheesh. It's not like we didn't just loot six THOUSAND gp from that giant tribe we slew.

Seriously though, an arrow getting "lost" could mean more than simply an inability to find it. The arrow might have accidentally fired long and wound up on some travelling merchant's cart a long distance off. It may have fallen in a field next to (or inside!) a farmer who picked it up, thinking it good luck. It might have plunged into a stream and been carried downstream and covered with silt before you get to it. I can think of a myriad more explanations for why an arrow might get lost. And let's be perfectly honest; by the time you are firing adamantine arrows, losing a handful is not going to cripple you monetarily. Five are worth one potion of cure moderate wounds and I bet you weren't crying over that loss when you really needed the hit points and the cleric was 60 feet away. Trudge around in the sewage all you like; only misers will worry about the incidental costs in a campaign where the DM is awarding appropriate (standard) treasure awards.