Oh, on second thought, on the 9,000 gp for one adamantine arrow:
It's kind of inconsistent with, say, a greatsword, since a greatsword weighs 15 lbs. and an arrow weighs .15 lbs. and the difference between steel weapons and adamantine weapons is the amount of material used.
.
.
hong---
Assumes facts not in evidence. Chapter and verse, please, that arrows must be made of steel or adamantine.
Chapter and verse, please, that an arrowhead can be made out of adamantine, and that this applies an enhancement bonus to the whole arrow.
Because the arrow is projected from a bow, which provides more force to the impact than an unassisted human arm alone. This has nothing to do with your original assertion.
So you are saying that an adamantine arrow derives its greater enhancement bonus from the bow, not the material used to make the arrowhead?
That seems to directly contradict:
"...this ultrahard metal adds to the quality of the weapon or suit of armor based on how much of the material is used." pg. 242 DMG
it's a bizarre assertion that adamantine can replace wood in some situations but not others.
Really? Then I guess you have adamantine paper in your campaign worlds...
The damage inflicted by a spear is a function not just of the head but the weapon as a whole, taking into account the leverage gained, any possible reach (using the informal meaning of "reach", not the precise D&D definition), and so on. Because of that, the same spearhead on a 10' shaft would do more damage than if it was on a 6' shaft.
You have just defined the difference between the different base damages of the weapons, but not the different enhancement bonuses, as the enhancement bonus derives from this:
"...this ultrahard metal adds to the quality of the weapon or suit of armor based on how much of the material is used." pg. 242 DMG
... and _this_ argument has absolutely nothing to do with plausibility or reasonableness. It's a good thing too, because I find it neither plausible nor reasonable. And I'm still waiting for chapter and verse from you on this.
True, it has nothing to do with plausibility or reasonableness. Hence the reason it is a rules-lawyerish stance.
It has to do with the fact that on page 99 of the PHB, (which is where chapter and verse comes in), on the chart, there is a "---" where the "Arrows (20)" lines up with the "Damage". That "---" is neither 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 1d10, 1d12, or some other combination of dice.
And then on page 242 of the DMG, on the chart dealing with adamantine, the symbol "---" does not appear.
This leads me to conclude that an arrow does not gain an enhancement bonus from adamantine. Unless you can find "---" on that chart, my case is valid, though stupid from a plausable stance. (Blame the game designers, not me.)
This abstract model is (usually) designed with game balance in mind, but balance is not a necessary outcome of the rules, taken in isolation. Balance is only achieved by the rules and the DM's judgement acting in harmony.
Yet, some rule systems and DM's judgements are better at handling balance than others. That is exactly what we are discussing.
Explain to me how making the shaft of a spear or battleaxe of a different material can have any conceivable effect on how hard it hits or how deeply it penetrates.
Well, if I made my haft out of Nerf foam, it would probably be pretty difficult to hit and penetrate. Then, we could probably say that wood is not that much different than steel in this instance, from a game mechanics standpoint. And then we upgrade to the hardest material in existence, adamantine. Notice how it's a sliding scale, from worst material to best.
I'm STILL waiting for chapter and verse that adamantine weapons have to be 100% fashioned from adamantine, oh wannabe rules lawyer.
I'm still waiting for the chapter and verse that adamantine weapons
don't have to be 100% fashioned from adamantine, oh hong, you glorious DnD god.
Your example is quite irrelevant. An arrowhead is metal, and I should hope that it's beyond argument that metal components can be replaced with adamantine. Try again.
Okay, I will.
1) Sure, metal components can be replaced with adamantine. You have yet to show that that this would give a natural enhancement bonus in the case of an arrow.
2) Just because something can have a magical enhancement bonus does not necessarily mean that it can have a natural enhancement bonus from adamantine. Which was the point with the leather armor. Leather armor could concievably have straps made out of metal. If I make those adamantine, would the leather armor gain a natural enhancement bonus because leather armor can normally have a magical enhancement bonus?
hong said:
Note that breakage is a function of toughness, not hardness, as I said previously (it might have got lost in the flamage, though). It's quite plausible that adamantine arrowheads, while exceedingly hard, are also prone to shatter on or after impact, so they can't be reused.
"Each object has a hardness--a number that represents how well it represents damage. Whenever an object takes damage, subtract it's hardness from damage." --pg 136, PHB
Notice how this is applied to all attack forms, unless...
"Vulnerability to certain attacks: The DM may rule that certain attacks are especially successful against some objects." --pg 135.
What attack form would adamantine have as it's vulnerability? Impact? So, thrown admantine weapons would shatter. So would bludgeoning adamantine weapons. And slashing. And piercing. And all armors.
And don't even bother to rehash the, "It's magic so that's how it works" argument. I would counter with "It's magic so that's how it doesn't work."
Oh yeah, maybe I should "Chapter and verse, please." the vulnerability of adamantine? And what about the "breakage is a function of toughness, not hardness?" Where did you find that in the PHB? Considering breakage
is a function of hardness in the PHB, your "adamantine is brittle" idea means squat in DnD.
This is exactly what I said (further down in the message). The Sabot rounds dont pop the turrets off, but the HEAT rounds sure do 
