Adamantine Arrows?

[Geron Raveneye]

Hmmm

Now you cornered me, CB...american, canadian or european cents?

 

[hong]

Chapter and verse, please, that an arrowhead can be made out of adamantine, and that this applies an enhancement bonus to the whole arrow.

You're the one who made the original assertion that a weapon has to be fashioned entirely out of adamantine for it to work. Please to post proof or retract.

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

Yes. So? That's nothing more than a descriptive overview of how the effect works. It doesn't substitute for the actual rule mechanics, which are given in the table -- a weapon doing 1d4 or 1d6 points of damage gets a smaller bonus compared to one doing 1d8+. It's quite possible for specific situations to arise where the rule mechanics contradict the descriptive overview -- that's an inescapable feature of an abstract model.

Are you now going to conclude that a 3-foot-long longsword weighing 4lb dealing 1d8 damage must have more metal than a heavy pick weighing 6lb and dealing 1d6? Or a 5-foot-long halfspear, also dealing 1d6?

Really? Then I guess you have adamantine paper in your campaign worlds...

Feh.

True, it has nothing to do with plausibility or reasonableness. Hence the reason it is a rules-lawyerish stance.

Then cease forthwith using plausibility and reasonableness arguments when they do not apply.

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.)

And as I said previously, when an arrow is _fired_ from a bow, it deals 1d6 or 1d8 damage. I should think this is completely self-evident, unless you believe that 1d6 or 1d8 is due to hitting people with the bow; thus, when fired from a bow, the arrow would gain the natural enhancement bonus appropriate to the die. By your interpretation, an arrow that's used in melee combat wouldn't do any damage either, because of that "---". This is obvious nonsense, and contradicted by the item description itself.

Yet, some rule systems and DM's judgements are better at handling balance than others. That is exactly what we are discussing.

No. We are discussing some people's idiotic conclusions that are reached by an inappropriate reading of the rules.

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 think the technical term for this is "meaningless waffle". What on earth is your point here?

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.

I don't have to provide chapter and verse, because I was arguing from the point of view of plausibility. All I have to do is show that it doesn't contradict any rules that aren't in dispute, and that's clear enough. You, on the other hand, have to provide evidence to back up your initial assertion that every part of an item must be made out of adamantine in order to gain the benefit. This is because such an assertion is neither plausible nor reasonable.

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.

I just did.

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?

No. This example is totally irrelevant either way: I could just as easily say that since your position is that all and sundry materials can be replaced by adamantine, there's nothing to stop someone fashioning the _entire_ suit of leather out of adamantine and gaining a bonus. This is manifestly absurd; just as absurd as saying you can gain the bonus by fashioning only the buckles out of adamantine. Drop it.

"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.

To restore some context, because you're spinning off on a tangent again: we're talking about breakage for adamantine arrowheads, right? Note that there are absolutely no rules for how hardness affects breakage for _normal_ arrowheads either; the only rules are that arrows are destroyed if they hit, and there's a 50% chance of breakage if they miss. Because of that, the DM is entirely free to come up with rules off the top of their head to handle such situations for adamantine.

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."

Of course you would. And our respective positions would be perfectly valid, within the context of our separate campaigns. That's because the point of "it's magic" is to provide an in-game rationale for the rules, not to substitute for the rules themselves. Would you like me to explain the difference another 1,001 times?

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.

Get this into your head once and for all. The "toughness affects breakage" argument is an in-game handwave, devised to solve the problem of infinitely reusable +2 arrows. Toughness is a real-world engineering measure, not one that exists in the abstract model that is the D&D ruleset, and so "adamantine is brittle" is a meaningless statement in the context of the D&D ruleset. That doesn't mean it's meaningless within the game world, because the game world is defined by more than just the rules. Asking for a rules justification for such an argument misses the point totally.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

You know...

..this is actually very helpful, because it has led me to look up and search the PHB and DMG for all those nice "chapters and verses"...and know what? There are no rules to 100% fully support either of your views, even if I have to admit I lost track of who has which view a few posts back already...congrats on both for totally obfuscating your respective points of view ...so...I´m still amazed at your ability to create an argument out of it all

 

[hong]

Re: You know...

..this is actually very helpful, because it has led me to look up and search the PHB and DMG for all those nice "chapters and verses"...and know what? There are no rules to 100% fully support either of your views, even if I have to admit I lost track of who has which view a few posts back already...congrats on both for totally obfuscating your respective points of view ...so...I´m still amazed at your ability to create an argument out of it all

It's a tough job, but someone's gotta do it.

 

[Magus_Jerel]

Thanks for agreeing with my argument! 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 .

TLG

Just your friendly spook clarifying yourl suspicion:

This can cause the ammunition inside the tank to explode. The ammunition exploding could cause the turret to blow off I would suppose....

 

[The_lone_gunman]

Just your friendly spook clarifying yourl suspicion:

I was making a statement against the fact that the SABOT round would cause a tank's turret to fly off. My point was, the only way that would happen would be if the ammo inside was ignited. I went on to say that the way they did make turrets fly off in desert storm was with the heat round. Here is my comments on the HEAT round from that post for clarification:

The HEAT round works by using explosive firepower, instead of kinetic energy to penetrate armor. When the round impacts the target, an impact sensor ignites an explosive shaped charge, which concentrates molten metal and gases into a narrow blast that cuts through armor. It also has a secondary explosive effect, and when hit right can cause the turret to fly off, something done to great effect in Iraq.



Man, sometimes it sure is a pain to get your point across here.....hehe

TLG

 

[hong]

I was making a statement against the fact that the SABOT round would cause a tank's turret to fly off. My point was, the only way that would happen would be if the ammo inside was ignited. I went on to say that the way they did make turrets fly off in desert storm was with the heat round. Here is my comments on the HEAT round from that post for clarification:

The HEAT round works by using explosive firepower, instead of kinetic energy to penetrate armor. When the round impacts the target, an impact sensor ignites an explosive shaped charge, which concentrates molten metal and gases into a narrow blast that cuts through armor. It also has a secondary explosive effect, and when hit right can cause the turret to fly off, something done to great effect in Iraq.

As I understand it, the sabot rounds used in ODS worked quite well for this too. As you said yourself, DU is pyrophoric, meaning the fragments of the penetrator spontaneously ignite in air after entering the target's interior. These burning fragments could easily set off the ammo in the T-72's carousel, without having to resort to HEAT rounds.

I doubt the explosive charge in a 120mm HEAT round would be sufficient to pop the top off a T-72, unless you got a really lucky hit on the turret ring or something. Certainly not something that would be widespread enough to leave all those burnt-out hulks littered across the desert.

Now a 155mm shell impacting on top of a tank, on the other hand....

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

Geron Raveneye--

I would kinda like 50 cents in european. I don't have any of those. And you don't really have to pay me, since you didn't take that bet in the first place...
.
.
Since you are unclear as to my exact position, I will attempt to elaborate:


1) Adamantine adds to the quality of the weapon based on the amount used. (The more adamantine the larger the bonus.) This is not an exact measure, but a guideline.

2) Adamantine weapons and armor have to be fully crafted from adamantine to gain a natural enhancement bonus.

3) Items that cannot be fully crafted from adamantine and still remain effective cannot gain the enhancement bonus.

4) This bonus is dependent on the damage the weapon deals or the category the armor falls into.
.
.
I will also elaborate on hong's position, as I see it. (Please correct me if I'm wrong, hong.)


1) Any weapon or armor with steel components can have these replaced with adamantine components and receive a natural enhancement bonus.

2) This bonus is dependent on the damage the weapon deals or the category the armor falls into.
.
.
I would contend, that the second stance leads to absurdities and game balance issues that are unfixable without further absurdities. (i.e. shattering adamantine, permanent +2 arrows, greatsword/arrowhead absurdity, spearhead absurdity...)

The first stance does not have any of these flaws and is by far the better of the two, IMHO.
.
.
.
.
.

hong---
You're the one who made the original assertion that a weapon has to be fashioned entirely out of adamantine for it to work. Please to post proof or retract.

A weapon has to be fashioned entirely out of adamantine for it to gain an enhancement bonus from adamantine.

My proof:

"Weapons fashioned from adamantine..." pg. 242 DMG

Notice how it does not say, "Weapons fashioned partly from adamantine..."

It's quite possible for specific situations to arise where the rule mechanics contradict the descriptive overview -- that's an inescapable feature of an abstract model.

Are you now going to conclude that a 3-foot-long longsword weighing 4lb dealing 1d8 damage must have more metal than a heavy pick weighing 6lb and dealing 1d6? Or a 5-foot-long halfspear, also dealing 1d6?

It's a matter of resolution. (Your touting of abstract systems shows that you know this.)

Since all of the weapons you listed are within 2 pounds of each other, I'm okay with letting those slide. A .05 pound arrowhead having the same enhancement bonus as a 15 pound greatsword I will not.

Feh.

Um...excuse me? Could you speak up a bit? Was that a "Feh, you are right but I'm not going to concede when I'm wrong?" Or was that a "Feh, I didn't understand your point?" Or a "Feh, I hate your guts?" Or "Feh, you aren't worth the space to write a formal response?"

Then cease forthwith using plausibility and reasonableness arguments when they do not apply.

Well, considering that that specific point did not need plausibility and reasonableness to be a valid argument, I didn't use it. I do commonly use it on other points, as is my right as a wielder of a brain.

By your interpretation, an arrow that's used in melee combat wouldn't do any damage either, because of that "---".

Actually no, considering the "---" is listed under the "Martial Weapons---Ranged" category. So my interpretation holds up quite nicely.

No. We are discussing some people's idiotic conclusions that are reached by an inappropriate reading of the rules.

My sentiments exactly...

I think the technical term for this is "meaningless waffle". What on earth is your point here?

Well that if there are materials that are less effective as a spear than wood, then it follows that there are probably materials more effective as a spear than wood. Adamantine, maybe?

I don't have to provide chapter and verse, because I was arguing from the point of view of plausibility. All I have to do is show that it doesn't contradict any rules that aren't in dispute, and that's clear enough.

Oh no, no...you have a bigger burden than that. Using your version of "plausability", I could say that arrows are made out of swiss cheese, because it doesn't contradict the rules.

You need to show me, A) where it says that you can make ammunition from adamantine, and B) where it says that a weapon gains the full natural enhancement bonus even if only part of the weapon is adamantine.

No. This example is totally irrelevant either way: I could just as easily say that since your position is that all and sundry materials can be replaced by adamantine, there's nothing to stop someone fashioning the _entire_ suit of leather out of adamantine and gaining a bonus. This is manifestly absurd; just as absurd as saying you can gain the bonus by fashioning only the buckles out of adamantine. Drop it.

Wow, since I took your argument to an absurd end, then my argument is invalid. How did you manage that?

And using my position, if somebody replaced an entire suit of leather with adamantine, they would get an adamantine breastplate.

Note that there are absolutely no rules for how hardness affects breakage for _normal_ arrowheads either;

"Table 8-12: Substance Hardness and Hit Points
Substance: Iron, Hardness: 10, Hit Points, 30/inch of thickness" --pg 136, PHB

If you feel like keeping track of the damage to your arrowheads, go nuts...

Of course you would. And our respective positions would be perfectly valid, within the context of our separate campaigns. That's because the point of "it's magic" is to provide an in-game rationale for the rules, not to substitute for the rules themselves. Would you like me to explain the difference another 1,001 times?

Then I guess you have just shown why, "it's magic", is utterly worthless.

I guess I am trying to show that my stance follows from the rules themselves, while your rules attempt to absurdly patch some "idiotic conclusions that are reached by an inappropriate reading of the rules."

Get this into your head once and for all. The "toughness affects breakage" argument is an in-game handwave, devised to solve the problem of infinitely reusable +2 arrows.

The rules don't need to be fixed if you interpret them correctly.

"adamantine is brittle" is a meaningless statement in the context of the D&D ruleset.

Damn straight, considering it's the hardest material in the stinking books.

That doesn't mean it's meaningless within the game world, because the game world is defined by more than just the rules.

Yes, it does, because the rules specifically say that adamantine is hard and goes on to specific, elaborate rules for how hard adamantine really is.

And if you make adamantine brittle, then that is a house rule, and belongs in that forum. Just as if I made a 44 Strength give a -4 modifier to damage rolls.

Asking for a rules justification for such an argument misses the point totally.

Yep, especially when the rules directly contradict your assertion.

It's a tough job, but someone's gotta do it.

You and me both, buddy...

 

[Wolf72]

this thread is way to long to read!

but here's some basic stats ... might be a repeat, but here it is anyway

adamantine: 1d6 or less ... 3,350gp for 50 (or 67gp ea.)

adamantine: 1d8 or greater ... 9,350 for 50 (or 187gp ea.)

mithral: ... 2,850 per 50 (or 57gp ea.) [don’t worry about price accuracy, you shouldn’t have to pay 257gp for one sling stone]
Sling bullets are now 20=5lbs

ferroplasm: 1d6 or less ... 2,850 for 50 (or 57gp ea)

ferroplasm: 1d8 or greater ... 7,850 for 50 (or 157gp ea)

 

[hong]

I would contend, that the second stance leads to absurdities and game balance issues that are unfixable without further absurdities. (i.e. shattering adamantine,

This isn't particularly absurd, if one has a basic knowledge about the physical properties of materials. Recall that absurdity is not a function of the rules, but rather the _interaction_ between rules and everyday knowledge; it's possible for something to be consistent with the rules and yet inconsistent with everyday knowledge, and hence be "absurd". In this case, metals that are specially treated to increase hardness, eg by rapid quenching, also tend to have increased brittleness -- ie they're more likely to shatter if hit hard (hence the reason for pattern-welded blades, which combine steels of different hardnesses to provide both a sharp cutting edge and good durability). I see nothing wrong at all with applying the same reasoning to adamantine arrowheads, assuming one wants to limit their lifespan.

permanent +2 arrows,

This isn't particularly "absurd" either, since it's perfectly consistent with how one might treat regular arrowheads.

Also, listing both this and the previous item as "failings" is highly misleading, because they're mutually exclusive. You can have one, or the other, but not both.

greatsword/arrowhead absurdity,

I don't see how this is absurd at all. The damage a greatsword deals is because of its ability to be swung about to hit people; the damage an arrow deals is because of its ability to puncture people.

spearhead absurdity...)

I don't see how this is absurd at all.

The first stance does not have any of these flaws and is by far the better of the two, IMHO.

This is perhaps because you haven't thought it through deeply enough to recognise the absurdities in it -- or perhaps you're willing to gloss over these absurdities for the sake of your interpretation of the rules. For instance, the contention that the damage dealt by an axe depends on what its haft is made of is self-evidently absurd. No, I don't think your example of making the haft out of jello or whatever is relevant. All that example shows is that if you render the axe unusable, it fails to deal damage -- not particularly enlightening.

A weapon has to be fashioned entirely out of adamantine for it to gain an enhancement bonus from adamantine.

My proof:

"Weapons fashioned from adamantine..." pg. 242 DMG

Notice how it does not say, "Weapons fashioned partly from adamantine..."

This is not a proof. All you've demonstrated is that the interpretation that weapons must be fashioned completely from adamantine isn't inconsistent with the rules. It certainly doesn't demonstrate the falsity of the converse -- since the rules also don't say that weapons _must_ be fashioned completely out of adamantine.

It's a matter of resolution. (Your touting of abstract systems shows that you know this.)

No. It's a matter of knowing which parts of the rulebook take priority.

Since all of the weapons you listed are within 2 pounds of each other, I'm okay with letting those slide. A .05 pound arrowhead having the same enhancement bonus as a 15 pound greatsword I will not.

I fail to see the problem. An arrowhead will do d8+2 points of damage. A greatsword (which should weigh a lot less than 15lb; the weights in the PHB are nonsensical in this case) will do 2d6+2. The greatsword will still do a lot more damage than the arrowhead, all other things being equal.

Um...excuse me? Could you speak up a bit? Was that a "Feh, you are right but I'm not going to concede when I'm wrong?" Or was that a "Feh, I didn't understand your point?" Or a "Feh, I hate your guts?" Or "Feh, you aren't worth the space to write a formal response?"

"Feh, I could write a lot more but Eric's grandmother wouldn't like it."

Actually no, considering the "---" is listed under the "Martial Weapons---Ranged" category. So my interpretation holds up quite nicely.

This doesn't have any relevance to the topic at hand, as far as I can tell.

Well that if there are materials that are less effective as a spear than wood, then it follows that there are probably materials more effective as a spear than wood. Adamantine, maybe?

You are grasping at straws. All you've shown is that if you render a spear ineffective for its purpose, it isn't very useful. This doesn't demonstrate how going from a wooden shaft to an adamantine shaft _enhances_ a spear for its purpose.

Oh no, no...you have a bigger burden than that. Using your version of "plausability", I could say that arrows are made out of swiss cheese, because it doesn't contradict the rules.

You could indeed, and that certainly wouldn't contradict the rules. The point is that arrows made of swiss cheese are _not_ plausible. Because they're not plausible in the first place, I don't have to bother arguing about the rules at all. Try again.

You need to show me, A) where it says that you can make adamantine weapons, and B) where it says that a weapon gains the full natural enhancement bonus even if only part of the weapon is adamantine.

No. You made the original assertion:

4) Since the entire weapon has to be made out of adamantine, (which has the same weight as steel)

And hence you need to back it up. In particular, you need to show why your interpretation necessarily follows from the rules, if blanket statements like that are to be taken seriously -- and that means showing how opposing interpretations must be ruled out.

Besides which, I fail to see why you _can't_ make ammunition out of adamantine. You can make anything you want out of it; it's just a substance, after all. You can make even doors and fittings out of it (I believe RttToEE has something like this). The issue is whether ammunition made out of adamantine gains any special _benefit_ from it, and again, I fail to see how the answer should be anything but yes.

Wow, since I took your argument to an absurd end, then my argument is invalid. How did you manage that?

I pointed out the irrelevance of your example. Not very difficult.

And using my position, if somebody replaced an entire suit of leather with adamantine, they would get an adamantine breastplate.

Which is not the same as adamantine leather. Not that there's anything wrong with that; but you're just as guilty as anyone else of making up rules if you think it's necessary.

"Table 8-12: Substance Hardness and Hit Points
Substance: Iron, Hardness: 10, Hit Points, 30/inch of thickness" --pg 136, PHB

If you feel like keeping track of the damage to your arrowheads, go nuts...

And unfortunately, there aren't any rules for determining how much damage an arrowhead takes when it hits (or misses). So we're back to the situation I described -- the DM has free rein to make up rules to fill the gap.

Then I guess you have just shown why, "it's magic", is utterly worthless.

Hardly. Only to people who think the rules are the be-all and end-all in running a game would such a conclusion be warranted.

I guess I am trying to show that my stance follows from the rules themselves, while your rules attempt to absurdly patch some "idiotic conclusions that are reached by an inappropriate reading of the rules."

So far, you haven't shown anything of the sort, and in fact, you haven't even demonstrated the validity of the precedent. If anything, you've demonstrated that your interpretation is even more absurd than mine.

Yes, it does, because the rules specifically say that adamantine is hard and goes on to specific, elaborate rules for how hard adamantine really is.

"Hardness" as defined by D&D has absolutely nothing to do with hardness, the physical property.

To make it crystal-clear: I'm talking about hardness, the physical property -- the measure of how difficult it is to scratch a material. In the real world, diamond has hardness 10 on the Mohs scale, for instance; the hardest material known. This is entirely distinct from _toughness_, which is the measure of how difficult it is to drive cracks through a material. I'm saying that it's entirely reasonable, from an in-game perspective, to treat adamantine arrowheads as being liable to break after one use, because they may be _hard_, but also not very _tough_. Exactly _why_ they may be hard but not tough is something that can be justified by further handwaves, just like how invisibility works or how a troll survives having its head chopped off. None of this, however, is relevant to the topic.

And if you make adamantine brittle, then that is a house rule, and belongs in that forum. Just as if I made a 44 Strength give a -4 modifier to damage rolls.

Everything in this discussion is a house rule.

Yep, especially when the rules directly contradict your assertion.

Where?