Adamantine Arrows?

[Gromm]

thesage@wizards.com

In hopes of killing this God-awful thread once and for all.

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

So stop doing it.

Name one rule that I made that directly contradicts the rules as presented.

The PHB is not the final arbiter on the use of the English language, even in a D&D campaign.

Yes, but DnD is the final arbiter on the definition of words within the DnD rules system.

If the rules said: "clown: a d20", then when the rules said to roll a clown, you wouldn't pick up the nearest freak and toss him around.

This would be relevant if I was using it to undermine the rules. Since I'm not, you are simply flailing around.

Yup considering you are doing more than undermining the rules by making permanent +2 arrows, realizing your mistake and then covering up that mistake with a lame-brained excuse for a house rule.

And I will continue to flail around as long as I am right, thank you very much.

I look forward to it. You seem to be channeling Magus_Jerel quite well. Perhaps you should now insert a reference to quantum mechanics and start Capitalising References to Yourself.

Slander does not help your case.

They do have the rather silly corollary that making the peripheral bits out of adamantine has an impact on a weapon's effectiveness, though.

Yup, because any part of a short sword except for the tip has no bearing on the effectiveness of the weapon.

First, as I said (and you conveniently snipped) the weight of the greatsword is completely out of whack.

And the rules for adamantine are completely out of whack. It doesn't change the fact that those are the rules and this is the rules forum. Or would you like to discuss the proper weight of a greatsword in House Rules?

And second, no; any more than a longsword and a greatsword both gain the same bonus. The exact mechanism by which an enhancement bonus works is left undefined in D&D; what really matters is the complete package, and that means looking at the base damage as well.

I agree we should look at the whole package. This includes the description. Because, without the description, we would not know that adamantine is a metal. And without the description, adamantine leather armor would be okay.

Strawman. I didn't say it was "utterly meaningless". I said that as a general description of the intent of the rules, it was possible that specific situations could contradict it. That's the nature of generalisations.

It is also possible that specific situations where contradictions occur can be avoided by a different interpretation of the rules. One in which both rules play some amount of significance in the process.

So don't allow it. Or whack on a massive Craft DC check to stop people doing it, if it bothers you so much.

Cover up an inane rules interpretation with an equally inane house rule?

(Sticking an adamantine arrowhead on a piece of wood could not plausably be higher than a DC 20, which is the "complex or superior item" category.)

People can do this with steel spearheads too. Do you have a problem with that?

Nope, because you do not gain an additional +1 natural enhancement bonus by making the switch from halfspear to shortspear and steel does not explicitly say that the quality is based on the quanity of material.

(as per less efficient/more efficient materials)

Such as?

So you are saying that I can only prove there could be such a material by showing you one?

That's analogous to saying that I can only prove that there could be a moon if I show you the moon.

Oh yeah, see below, where I find such a material...

This is a silly argument. A 10-foot-pole as used in a pike is not "flexible"; these things aren't made of balsa wood. It may have the ability to bend to avoid breaking, but it isn't going to flop around either. That goes double for a 3-foot-long battleaxe haft, or an arrowshaft.

Okay then, you say that a wood shaft can "bend to avoid breaking" but is not flexible. Isn't this a tad contradictory?

Also, I did not say that it flops around like balsa wood, I said that a wooden shaft is more flexible than adamantine. An adamantine shaft would not bend to avoid breaking. It would instead hold firm and damage whatever was attempting to bend it. Hence the enhancement bonus.

Also, a 10 ft. long wood shaft does "flop around" an inch or two. These inches can prove the difference between a miss and a hit in combat. Same goes with the effectiveness of an axe haft as a lever or the aerodynamics of a straight shaft or perfect fletching.

For the exact same reason that regular shortswords aren't made of wood with a metal tip. Can you find anything to suggest that regular shortswords aren't made that way?

Actually, why aren't regular shortswords made of wood with a metal tip if all that matters with damage capability is the actual damage dealing area? That specific example seems to contradict your assertion that:

They do have the rather silly corollary that making the peripheral bits out of adamantine has an impact on a weapon's effectiveness, though.

The rules leave some things undescribed because the designers assume _some_ level of familiarity with how the real world works. There's nothing in the books that explicitly says characters have to breathe or drink or pee either, and yet we blithely assume they have to do all these things.

True that. However if it said in the rules that we didn't have to pee in the DnD system, then we darn wouldn't have to pee in the DnD system.

If the game designers meant for weapons to be fully fashioned of adamantine, they would have said so. They did for mithral and darkwood, but not adamantine.

Actually no they didn't.

They said:

"Note that items not primarily of metal are not meaningfully affected. (A longsword is affected while a spear is not.)"

"Any wooden or mostly wooden item (such as a bow, arrow, or spear) made from darkwood is considered a masterwork item and weighs only half as much as a normal wooden item of that type. Items not normally made of wood or only partially of wood (such as a battleaxe or mace) either cannot be made from darkwood or do not gain any special benefit from being made of darkwood."

---pg 243 DMG

Neither one of these say that the entire weapon or suit of armor must be made out of mithral or darkwood. So your point is moot.

Oh yeah, the above quote also shows a material that is more effective as a spear haft than normal wood. (darkwood)

They didn't have to, because it should be self-evident that not all portions of a weapon contribute equally to its effectiveness.

One part of a weapon is more important to the total weapon's effectiveness than another? How is this judged?

A spear without a haft is useless. A spear without a head is useless. Therefore both contirbute equally to the effectiveness of the weapon.

And you already said that:

The exact mechanism by which an enhancement bonus works is left undefined in D&D;

And by the rules, you can have use-activated items of true strike too. The rules are not perfect, especially when it comes to creating magic items.

Hence why it is a guideline. And only a guideline governs the creation of magic items.

The instance of adamantine has both a guideline and concrete rules. Therefore, your example does not hold up. (One who regularly shouts "Strawman" should notice before he touts one...)

Oh yeah, and use-activated True Strike items aren't overpowering at all. (Since use-activated can be a standard action or no action, as per the DM's choice. And which do you think a sane DM is going to choose?)

You might as well ask why a use-activated item of true strike shouldn't cost only 2,000 gp, since that's what it says in the rules.

Well, since you are using a guideline in absence of concrete rules and the situation is a guideline with concrete rules, your example doesn't hold up.

Also, why shouldn't a use-activated item of true strike cost only 2,000 gp? Ask kreynolds for a full explanation...

Chapter and verse, please. You're the one who seems bent on a ridiculously narrow position when it comes to interpreting the rules. I see nothing in the book that requires that adamantine arrows couldn't fly.

Well since adamantine weighs more than wood, an adamantine arrow cannot weigh the equivalent as a wooden shafted arrow (.15 lbs) and still have the same mass.

Therefore it would technically, not be able to be used by normal bows, since their arrows have to weigh .15 lbs.

But if this is not plausable in your campaign world, then fine, adamantine arrows can fly. (If you can get past the "arrows are ammunition so you can't gain an enhancement bonus from adamantine since adamantine can only give weapons an enhancement bonus." Which you haven't.)

This is a doubly silly example. The buckles are not the significant portion of the armour _when it comes to protection_, so making them out of adamantine would have no impact on the armour's ability to protect. It's just the same as making a spear shaft, but not the head, out of adamantine. As I've said twice already, your example is irrelevant.

Well, are you then saying that all of the significant portion of armor, when it comes to protection, has to be made out of adamantine? Or only some of the significant portion, when it comes to protection, has to be made out of adamantine?

If it's the first, then does studded leather get an enhancement bonus? (Since the leather itself it a significant portion of the armor when it comes to protection.) And if it's the second, then can I make a suit of full plate where only one plate is adamantine and receive the enhancement bonus?

Where on earth did you pull that quote from? It's not in the DMG description of adamantine.

Sorry, that was a quote of mine from a previous post. I was trying to show that using mine interpretation, adamantine leather would be impossible to make because of that interpretation.

So? Your point was that the "rules" prev
ent adamantine arrowheads breaking. Since this would require rules for damage taken as well as durability, your point is wrong.

Well actually, they say that adamantine has hardness 20. And if an arrow with a 1" adamantine arrowhead hits a 1" thick adamantine wall, we could plausably argue that both sides would take the same amount of damage, since both are the same material, in equivalent amounts. Namely, 1d8 + 2, or no damage with hardness. Everything else could be houseruled from there. (And I don't see less tough materials doing more damage to the arrowhead than 1d8 + 2)

I'm not saying that "it's magic" is a substitute for the rules. I'm not even saying that "it's magic" is why the rules are wrong. I'm saying that a plausible in-game rationale for why the rules are as they are, is a good thing. Assuming that the people playing the game aren't robotic automatons who have no concept of an in-game reality beyond the rules, that is.

A plausable in-game rationale for why the rules are as they are is only a good thing if they don't contradict those very rules.

And of course, we are not automatons, I often alter the rules to fit my liking. That's the point of RPGing: imagination. However, interpreting rules does not preclude imagination. Just look at the US Supreme Court...

Sheesh. If reusing adamantine arrows really bothers you that much, just slap a massive Craft DC check to affix the head to a new shaft. All the "hardness" thing was, was a handwave to explain to recalcitrant players why these arrows might not be reused. As with such things, multiple handwaves are always possible. Pick one to fit your tastes.

Why do I need a handwave when my interpretation of the rules does not need a handwave? You need a handwave. And if you feel like sticking a PC with a DC 45 check to stick a piece of metal on a stick, be my guest...

If a rule is ambiguous enough to lend itself to multiple contradictory interpretations, then choosing which interpretation to apply is something that depends on the individual DM's tastes, and hence is by definition a house rule.

By your definition of ambiguous, rolling initiative is ambiguous, sheesh...

Hardly.

You do know what a contradiction is, right?

Not at all, and even if it did, you could use something else to solve that particular problem.

hong---

Such as?

You ARE channeling Magus_Jerel quite well.

Really, except for the fact that I have admitted being wrong twice already in this thread, and I am not ashamed to do it again, if presented with evidence that my stance is incorrect. Thus far, I do not feel that that has happened. And once all of the points have been covered, I will say, "Let's agree to disagree."


And as for channeling Magus_Jerel:


Oooooooooooooooooommmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...I feeeeel a presenceeeeee.......a spectral visitor from the spirit realm wishes to speak with you, hong..............he says:

"ConcreteBuddha is a moron. He could not of come up with anything as brilliant as having two partial actions in a round. That was pure genius."

 

[Xarlen]

What you neglect to realize here is that someone else could have brought up the exact same point that you duplicated, and I would be forced to reply with the same counterargument to both posts. It's just common courtesy to read the previous posts to make sure that your "valid points" have not already been covered by someone else.

If you do this, then I will return the favor and reply to your posts.

I did. I went back and read that whole entire page, and No, you did Not dispute Any of my points.


Actually, I said that pumpkins might fly out of my butt. That hasn't happened yet, but if it ever does, you'll be the second one to know.

Frankly, I think you should alert your proctologist second, dude. Winged Melon Hemroids is, I think, something you need to alert the nearest medical facility.

Look, dude, nobody tied you to that chair and forced you to read this thread. I'm not going to give up my position when I believe that I have enough evidence to convince a jury. Get over it.

The common consensus will come when all avenues of discussion have reached the end of their rope, which generally occurs when either side backs down or both parties agree to disagree. This hasn't happened yet, so get off your high horse of "all of this sucks, you guys suck, this thread sucks..."

I'm not 'On a high horse'. Nor am I saying everyone involved suck (That includes me, dun' it?). I'm trying to defuse the point that's being argued back and forth, and hasn't gotten anywhere from over the 80+ posts. You are intitled to your opinon, I just don't see much of an end to this, and thus trying to distill things.

 

[hong]

Yes, but DnD is the final arbiter on the definition of words within the DnD rules system.

Recall that the context in which this particular subtopic arose was the use of the word "hardness" in a handwave to explain adamantine arrowheads breaking. Such a handwave has nothing to do with the D&D rules system. Pay attention.

If the rules said: "clown: a d20", then when the rules said to roll a clown, you wouldn't pick up the nearest freak and toss him around.

It would help if you kept your examples at least somewhat relevant.

Yup considering you are doing more than undermining the rules by making permanent +2 arrows, realizing your mistake and then covering up that mistake with a lame-brained excuse for a house rule.

Permanent +2 arrows do not "undermine" the rules, any more than using harm unchanged, or allowing spellcasters to polymorph enemies into baby seals, "undermines" the rules. They may be undesirable for some DMs, but that's a matter of individual taste.

_IF_ one decides that permanent +2 arrows are undesirable, there are ways to deal with that -- in fact, one might simply apply the regular rules for breakage of arrows, and all would be good. _IF_ one decides that permanent +2 arrows do not constitute a problem, then that's fine too, simply by ruling that the regular rules for breakage of arrows don't apply. Either way, the rules are not undermined.

And I will continue to flail around as long as I am right, thank you very much.

That's what they ALL say.

Slander does not help your case.

You assume that everything I say is meant to help my case.

Yup, because any part of a short sword except for the tip has no bearing on the effectiveness of the weapon.

Tell me, do the shortswords in your world have wooden blades? If not, why not? After all, according to your logic, the only bit of the shortsword that matters is apparently the tip.

And the rules for adamantine are completely out of whack. It doesn't change the fact that those are the rules and this is the rules forum. Or would you like to discuss the proper weight of a greatsword in House Rules?

By all means. Go right ahead.

I agree we should look at the whole package. This includes the description. Because, without the description, we would not know that adamantine is a metal. And without the description, adamantine leather armor would be okay.

Your point being...?

It is also possible that specific situations where contradictions occur can be avoided by a different interpretation of the rules. One in which both rules play some amount of significance in the process.

Your point being...?

Cover up an inane rules interpretation with an equally inane house rule?

(Sticking an adamantine arrowhead on a piece of wood could not plausably be higher than a DC 20, which is the "complex or superior item" category.)

Cite evidence to support this assertion of yours. This may be rather difficult, given that adamantine is a make-believe substance and therefore the DM is entirely free to make up DCs based on their own in-game reality. In fact, all the D&D canon I know of suggests that working adamantine is an extraordinarily difficult/involved process, so a high DC seems eminently reasonable to me.

So you are saying that I can only prove there could be such a material by showing you one?

Yep. Post proof, or retract.

That's analogous to saying that I can only prove that there could be a moon if I show you the moon.

That's your problem. If you can't back up your assertion, you shouldn't have made it in the first place.

Oh yeah, see below, where I find such a material...

Okay then, you say that a wood shaft can "bend to avoid breaking" but is not flexible. Isn't this a tad contradictory?

Also, I did not say that it flops around like balsa wood, I said that a wooden shaft is more flexible than adamantine. An adamantine shaft would not bend to avoid breaking. It would instead hold firm and damage whatever was attempting to bend it. Hence the enhancement bonus.

Also, a 10 ft. long wood shaft does "flop around" an inch or two. These inches can prove the difference between a miss and a hit in combat. Same goes with the effectiveness of an axe haft as a lever or the aerodynamics of a straight shaft or perfect fletching.

By this argument, since 99% of a spear is made up of the shaft, I should be able to make everything EXCEPT the head out of adamantine and still get the benefit. Your argument is nonsensical. And in the case of a battleaxe or arrowshaft, the amount of flexing is reduced commensurately, so your argument remains nonsensical.

Actually, why aren't regular shortswords made of wood with a metal tip if all that matters with damage capability is the actual damage dealing area?

The fact that you're having to resort to these flights of fancy only indicates the barrenness of your argument.

Last I checked, shortswords are not made of wood, with a metal tip. Of course, this only applies in the real world, where the sky is blue. Things may well be different in your world, where the colour of the sky may also be different.

True that. However if it said in the rules that we didn't have to pee in the DnD system, then we darn wouldn't have to pee in the DnD system.

Exactly. Nowhere in the rules is it explicitly stated that characters don't have to pee. Just as nowhere in the rules is it explicitly stated that items have to be fashioned completely out of adamantine.

Neither one of these say that the entire weapon or suit of armor must be made out of mithral or darkwood. So your point is moot.

You seem to be terminally confused, to the point that you're now making my own argument for me. Perhaps now you're suggesting that NOWHERE in the DMG does it say that items have to be entirely made of a special material for the benefit to accrue?

Oh yeah, the above quote also shows a material that is more effective as a spear haft than normal wood. (darkwood)

Because the benefit of darkwood is in terms of reduced weight and encumbrance, not combat effectiveness. For such a benefit to accrue, it's eminently reasonable that all or most of an item must be fashioned of darkwood. This is not the case for adamantine. Pay attention.

One part of a weapon is more important to the total weapon's effectiveness than another? How is this judged?

A spear without a haft is useless. A spear without a head is useless. Therefore both contirbute equally to the effectiveness of the weapon.

The haft is used to hold the spear, while the head is the part that actually causes pain and suffering. Making the one out of adamantine has negligible impact on how much pain and suffering is caused, while making the other out of adamantine has considerable impact. Pay attention.

The instance of adamantine has both a guideline and concrete rules. Therefore, your example does not hold up. (One who regularly shouts "Strawman" should notice before he touts one...)

And you'll note that nothing about what I've posted contradicts the concrete rules, while still remaining broadly consistent with the guidelines.

Oh yeah, and use-activated True Strike items aren't overpowering at all. (Since use-activated can be a standard action or no action, as per the DM's choice. And which do you think a sane DM is going to choose?)

Sanity has nothing to do with it. The point is that a true strike item that doesn't require an action to activate is perfectly consistent with the rules. And yet one interpretation makes much more sense than the other.

Well since adamantine weighs more than wood, an adamantine arrow cannot weigh the equivalent as a wooden shafted arrow (.15 lbs) and still have the same mass.

Therefore it would technically, not be able to be used by normal bows, since their arrows have to weigh .15 lbs.

Chapter and verse, please. I see nothing in the rules that states arrows must have a specific weight. (In fact, if this were true, upsized bows as used by giants would be rather problematic.)

But if this is not plausable in your campaign world, then fine, adamantine arrows can fly. (If you can get past the "arrows are ammunition so you can't gain an enhancement bonus from adamantine since adamantine can only give weapons an enhancement bonus." Which you haven't.)

See other post. An arrow forms part of a combined system comprising the bow and its ammunition. To say otherwise is patently ridiculous.

Well, are you then saying that all of the significant portion of armor, when it comes to protection, has to be made out of adamantine? Or only some of the significant portion, when it comes to protection, has to be made out of adamantine?

All, or at least a significant majority. Are you seriously suggesting that I believe that one adamantine chain link in a suit of chainmail would have any impact?

If it's the first, then does studded leather get an enhancement bonus? (Since the leather itself it a significant portion of the armor when it comes to protection.) And if it's the second, then can I make a suit of full plate where only one plate is adamantine and receive the enhancement bonus?

Your point being...?

DM judgement may be called on, but that in itself doesn't invalidate an argument, any more than having to adjudicate what constitutes an "encounter" invalidates the rules for barbarian rage. If you really want to know, I wouldn't allow adamantine studded leather, and (this should be obvious even to the stupid) full plate would have to be made essentially all out of adamantine.

Well actually, they say that adamantine has hardness 20. And if an arrow with a 1" adamantine arrowhead hits a 1" thick adamantine wall, we could plausably argue that both sides would take the same amount of damage, since both are the same material, in equivalent amounts.

No, we couldn't. Note that a sword doesn't take damage from hitting a creature, even something like an iron golem or animated object. The hardness rules do _not_ cover breakage of weapons, armour or ammunition arising from normal usage; the only rules relevant to this situation are the "auto-destruct" rules. If so desired, they can be applied to adamantine arrows just fine.

A plausable in-game rationale for why the rules are as they are is only a good thing if they don't contradict those very rules.

Point out exactly where any handwave I've posted has contradicted the rules.

Why do I need a handwave when my interpretation of the rules does not need a handwave? You need a handwave.

What do you think all that frickin' stuff about hardness and toughness was? Pay attention.

And if you feel like sticking a PC with a DC 45 check to stick a piece of metal on a stick, be my guest...

I will. Would you like a handwave to go with it?

By your definition of ambiguous, rolling initiative is ambiguous, sheesh...

I'm not aware of any threads in this forum (or elsewhere) where a major disagreement over initiative has arisen. Please point out such a thread.

You do know what a contradiction is, right?

Yep. They're those things that keep tripping you up.

"ConcreteBuddha is a moron. He could not of come up with anything as brilliant as having two partial actions in a round. That was pure genius."

Indeed, that was pure genius.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Heh

One advantage this thread has...at least now I know how I`LL handle adamantine arrows in MY campaign

 

[AuraSeer]

Concrete Buddha wrote
A spear without a haft is useless. A spear without a head is useless. Therefore both contirbute equally to the effectiveness of the weapon.

A computer without a CPU is useless, and a computer without a power cord is useless. Therefore both contribute equally to the effectiveness of the computer. This means that if I take the power cord from my brand-new 1.6 GHz Athlon, and stick it on an old 486, the old computer will suddenly run much faster. Right?

 

[Magic Rub]

Dear combatants in this futile argument, please take a rest, & lay down your arms for a brief story-time/rant intermission...

(Start playing soothing elevator music here)

Not unlike a computer from the 1980's my brain has a fixed limited storage capacity, with a total lack of the easily adaptable & upgradeable functionality that today's computers have. Let's use the "Commodore 64" for proposes of illustration. Now before I began to play D&D my brain space was taken up in part with the mundane simple tasks & information in life, basic motor skills, watching TV, eating, hygiene, school, playing with toy trucks, with loads of room left to spare even on such a small hard drive. Then along came AD&D 2nd Edition. With the new found discovery my brains spare space was now nearly 1/2 full. Then I began to DM, & my Brain was about 3/4 full. Then the dreaded "PLAYERS OPTIONS" came out and filled up the rest of my brain & about 5 additional data tapes. I was a little mad about that because I had to give up my copy of Mouser. Then one dreaded day my Commodore's tape player broke & I had to give up on either the "Players option" information, or my Personal Hygiene data. Now luckily it was about this time that the 3rd Edition reared it's ugly head. So I happily dumped the D&D section of my brain, & reloaded it with all the new and condensed information. I was happy my brain had room to spare again, it was as though I was once again a child. Though I now have no data tape player, & no way to acquire a new one due to obsolescence, I have no fear for things are simple once more. Or are they? You (collectively) have seeded a fear in my mind that is unparalleled in its charge. If arrow heads are this difficult to adjudicate then what about something complex like caltrops sheathed in adamantine, or magical cot pieces, or celestial doughnuts? Or Celestial doughnut cot pieces with a magical +1 that are hot dipped in adamantine the cooled then hot dipped in obdurium. WHAT THEN! Buy participating in this debate for as long as you have, you've inadvertently placed my information files on hygiene, & motor skills in danger of being deleted to make room. My File folder on basic 3e rules has just been deleted in preparation for the next wave of quazi logic, I'm not even sure what your arguing about any more without that file. Soon you guys are going to turn me in to a stinky drooling carrot!

When that happens please tell my family & friends that I love them, & that I want my body donated to science. That my skin is to be stuffed, mounted, & put over the fire place in some really nice restaurant (naked of course). I'd like my collection of D&D stuff to be packaged in a really big box & dropped on anyone who has added to the madness that is this thread

OK the story/rant is over now thanks fer reading... On with the battle!

Bye Bye
Love'n stuff
Magic Rub


(Stop playing elevator music & continue with the original series Star Trek fight music)

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

A computer without a CPU is useless, and a computer without a power cord is useless. Therefore both contribute equally to the effectiveness of the computer. This means that if I take the power cord from my brand-new 1.6 GHz Athlon, and stick it on an old 486, the old computer will suddenly run much faster. Right?

If you had a superconductor for a power cord, your computer would use power more efficiently. This efficiency AND the higher clock speed AND all other factors add together to equal the natural enhancement bonus.

You already assumed that "higher clock speed = natural enhancement bonus" and thus "damage potential = natural enhancement bonus."

I am saying that a natural enhancement bonus comes from enhancing all of the parts of the computer. If you stuck your 1.6 GHz on a 5 inch. monitor with no speakers, a copper wire for a power cord and a Atari controller, it's going to suck compared to a fully upgraded, top-of-the-line model, with a G-Force 4, Audigy, 21" Monitor, awesome speakers, optical mouse, heat sinks and the best programs to date.

With this in mind, a regular old spear with a steel head and a wooden shaft is your 486 with an nVidia I. A wooden shafted spear with an adamantine head is your 1.6 GHz with the same nVidia I. Would you seriously like to contend that this is as good of a computer as a 1.6 with a GForce IV?

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

thesage@wizards.com

In hopes of killing this God-awful thread once and for all.

Email sent. Thank you.