Adamantine Arrows?

I'm going to start by saying I ain't read half of this third page, because it has grown more into a pissing contest between Hong and his contender.

First, I'd like to state that the haft of an axe does not need to be completely metal, nor the haft of a quarterstaff completely metal. You guys ever heard of *shod*? The haft of a battleaxe could have an antimantium pole going through the center. Thus, it would strenghten the haft and give it the same hardness as the head, while still having a wooden coating around it. Just like some quarterstaves that aren't make of simple wood.

Second, people seem to be contending about the arrow doing nothing, and the bow doing everything. What happens when you cut the arrow head off, and just use the blunt end of the arrow to hit things, when fired? I bet it'd do... 1 damage? Not even that? Maybe Subdual damage? I guess the fact that it's a SHARP POINTY EDGE does something. So, the bow isn't transmuting all of it's strenght and the arrow is just how it gets there.

Sort've like a thrown rock. Your arm isn't giving all of the damage potential; you need that rock's weight, and density, and delivering force. You can throw a rock and a pillow equally hard, but that pillow ain't going to do damage. So, the projectile counts for something.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Wow

And here I thought they had gone tired of it by now...ah well :)

Just a comment or two, maybe...

hong, you know it would make a much nicer discussion if you stopped touting your "No, I don´t have to provide chapters and verses to back up my posts." and give some quotes, for the single reason that CB is doing so, and showing you how he interpretes it, while most of your posts only decry his arguments as absurd/irrelevant and ask him for more proof.
A discussion lives from both sides showing their arguments on the same level. While CB is trying to argue from the books and his interpretations of the rules, you´re mostly just denying his arguments and throw in some real-world arguments to counter his.
As it looks to me, you both already reached the conclusion that the whole discussion is worthless, as the rules per se don´t support either of your views, and that it all has to be "rule zeroed" anyway to make sense. As you´re not even arguing on the same level of arguments, the rest is nothing but namecalling and "I´m more right than you" dirtflinging.
Just wondering why the heck you´re continuing this thing here, as all you both do is run in a circle, biting the other´s tail...not that it doesn´t look funny, mind you...
 

Re: Wow

Geron Raveneye said:
And here I thought they had gone tired of it by now...ah well :)

As it looks to me, you both already reached the conclusion that the whole discussion is worthless, as the rules per se don´t support either of your views, and that it all has to be "rule zeroed" anyway to make sense. As you´re not even arguing on the same level of arguments, the rest is nothing but namecalling and "I´m more right than you" dirtflinging.
Just wondering why the heck you´re continuing this thing here, as all you both do is run in a circle, biting the other´s tail...not that it doesn´t look funny, mind you...


I live to amuse, master... ;)
 

Piratecat said:
Just stay polite, folks.


Neither hong nor I would dream of becoming anything less than civil, as that would undermind all that we have written so far. The degredation into a flame war is the last thing on my mind, and I hope it is clear that I hold hong in the highest esteem.

I could not banter with somebody for this long about an inane subject if I didn't. ;)
 

I don't understand why you didn't take my advice from page 1, and said "whatever".

That goes for both you, CB and Hong.

*shakes head*
 

Xarlen said:
I'm going to start by saying I ain't read half of this third page, because it has grown more into a pissing contest between Hong and his contender.

Neat. Because, obviously, there weren't any well thought out ideas in the third page. ;)

First, I'd like to state that the haft of an axe does not need to be completely metal, nor the haft of a quarterstaff completely metal. You guys ever heard of *shod*? The haft of a battleaxe could have an antimantium pole going through the center. Thus, it would strenghten the haft and give it the same hardness as the head, while still having a wooden coating around it. Just like some quarterstaves that aren't make of simple wood.

And so what is to distinguish these battleaxes from fully adamantine ones? And what would their hardness be? How much would they cost in the rules? What's to stop us from covering a smaller adamantine axe head with a coating of steel?

Oh yeah, and while we are at it, does that mean that I can make a mace with an adamantine coating? Or an adamantine ball in the head, covered by steel?

Doesn't that seem a little, how shall we say, lame? Is it really that far of a stretch that adamantine weapons should be made out of adamantine?

Second, people seem to be contending about the arrow doing nothing, and the bow doing everything. What happens when you cut the arrow head off, and just use the blunt end of the arrow to hit things, when fired? I bet it'd do... 1 damage? Not even that? Maybe Subdual damage? I guess the fact that it's a SHARP POINTY EDGE does something. So, the bow isn't transmuting all of it's strenght and the arrow is just how it gets there.

Of course I agree with this in the context of reality. However, in the DnD game system, the arrow does not do damage when projected from a bow, because the game says so.

Just like: in reality, people do not stand around evenly trading attacks. Yet we still roll for initiative.
 
Last edited:

Heh...can´t help it...

...this thread has a strange appeal I can´t resist...

I simply had to check out something in referance to your line of argumentation, ConcreteBuddha, namely that the part in the DMG referring to the use of adamantine doesn´t specify which part of the weapon has to be made from it, but only refers to "the weapon" as a whole.

If you take the time to read through the weapon descriptions in the PHB in the Equipment section, you´ll surely notice that for roughly 90% of the weapons listed there no description is given for what part of a weapon is made from what material. They are given as "standard" weapons, clearly assuming that the "default material" for each weapon is used to make it. So a "weapon", according to the general outlook of the rulebooks, is a conglomerate of "default" material used by a proficient person to form a weapon. Not even the arrow gets a description as a "steel arrowhead mounted on a wooden shaft" or anything... ;)

Coming back to the adamantine weapon problem, it looks very much as if they simply assume a "default weapon" as described above, only made with adamantine replacing the specific damaging component in every weapon, as the specific weapon damage is the crucial part that determines how great the enhancement bonus is the weapon will get from the adamantine replacement.

If you want to go into more detail, of course, you could start dissecting the weapons in question...
Example:
- A longsword consists nearly in it´s entirety of steel...the wood/leather covering around the handle is only there to ease the grip. Replace all the steel in a longsword with adamantine, and you have a sword which is 90% adamantine and the rest is wood/leather/gems
- An axe (usually) consists of an axe head made from steel mounted on a wooden shaft. The specific damage of the axe is derived by it´s head, though, the shaft without the head would cause only club damage, as it is a cut wooden shaft (=club). So you replace the component that causes the axe damage (it´s head) with adamantine, as it´s the damage of that weapon that determines how great the enhancement bonus will be.
- A dagger is largely made from steel, it follows the same reasoning as the longsword

Now to get back at the more specific problem with the adamantine arrow. Note again that there´s no description as to how a bow and arrow is to be used in the Equipment section? In the Combat section, they don´t have a special text on it, either. The authors of the book assume we all know how to use bow and arrow. The damage descriptor in Table 7-4 lists only the most common damage for any weapon, i.e. the damage a weapon causes when it is used properly, because for any other situation, special rules are given. For any bow, this means it deals 1dX points of damage if used properly, which is by firing an arrow.
The problem with an arrow is that it´s damage, if it´s used properly is dependant on the propelling force behind it, which is derived from the bowstring of the bow it was fired from. As there is only one kind of arrow in that list, but two bows, with one bow having a lighter pull than the other, the damage an arrow causes is different with the bow used. That´s why the damage is listed with the separate bows, instead of cramming 4 entries into the arrow line. You cause damage with the arrow, the force to cause it comes from the respective bow.
Furthermore, the arrow comes with an asterisk, notifying the reader to read the description of the weapon for special rules. That description tells us that an arrow "used as a melee weapon is Tiny and deals 1d4 points of damage (x2 crit)". Essentially that´s the damage done by a dagger. It´s the smallest amount of lethal damage done by a weapon in D&D, if you disregard a thrown shuriken. If you take a look at an arrowhead, you´ll realize that the damage it can do if used as melee weapon very well can be akin to that of a dagger.

Taking all that together, you can very well create adamantine arrows. You use adamantine in the creation process, apply the "default method" of creating an arrow, by mounting a metal head on a wooden shaft, and then you have what you want. The point being that this "+2 natural enhancement bonus" gained through this isn´t that great in detail. It doesn´t negate any damage reduction, it doesn´t carry any other magical properties, it´s just the advantage gained by using a material that is of a better quality, i-e. you can make it sharper, it´s point pointier, causing a greater chance of deeper penetration into any target, resulting in a slightly higher chance to cause a little more normal damage.

Following your argumentation, CB, that an arrow with only it´s head made from adamantine shouldn´t gain the bonus because the amount of adamantine is not enough, it could be reasoned that a normal arrow shouldn´t cause it´s listed damage unles it´s made completely from steel. An increase in penetration power by only replacing the head of an arrow has been seen in the antique, when the bronze arrowheads were replaced with first iron heads and then steel heads. Each time only the head material was replaced with a material of higher quality.

So, going from what I´ve read in the core rules, creating an adamantine arrow would entail the following steps, costs and results:
- Create a "default arrow", with adamantine replacing the steel
- It´ll cost the standard 5 cp + additional 3000 gp to create an arrow that gets a +1 enhancement bonus (even when fired from a longbow). This results from less adamantine used than needed to confer the +2 bonus for a 1d8 weapon.
- It´ll cost 5 cp + an additional 9000 gp to create an arrow that gets a +1 enhancement bonus when used as melee weapon or when fired from any shortbow, and a +2 enhancement bonus when fired from any longbow.

This is just from the "official rules". To alleviate this a little, I´d allow the rules from magic weapon creation to be used, meaning the price raise is used for not one arrow but a bundle of 50. Furthermore, I´d allow any archer to go and search for his arrows, even when a result of 50% or lower would indicate it to be lost/destroyed. I´d even allow them to carve their arrowheads out of their dead opponents, if they take the time for it, as the arrowhead is the least likely part of any arrow to be destroyed by a hit on anything. Of course, all this would be "house rules", but those are always an option, neh? :)

Now excuse me for a moment...I´ll go nurse my fingertips back to life, okay? ;)

Edit: Damn typos..bet I still haven´t got all of them little buggers :D

Edit 2: And I sincerely hope nobody is going to demand chapter and verse from me where in the books it says "When no specific details are given, use common sense". That kind of assumption is made even by the military forces, at least those I served with. ;)
 
Last edited:



And so what is to distinguish these battleaxes from fully adamantine ones? And what would their hardness be? How much would they cost in the rules? What's to stop us from covering a smaller adamantine axe head with a coating of steel?
.
[/QUOTE]

No. What I'm saying is, that the adamantite bar inside the wooden haft reinforces the haft, Therefore giving it the 20/40 verses being sundered. As aposed to just sticking a regular wooden haft on an adamantite head, you have a haft that's been reinforced to withstand a blow, just like the head.

A swordslice that hits the haft would go through the wooden outside, and hit the bar inside.

I'm just offering a suggestion of how it's done in RL, not to mention how it would explain 'having a wooden haft' while still having the hardness given by Adamantite. You don't have to be sarcastic. I'm trying to support You.
 

ConcreteBuddha said:

And so what is to distinguish these battleaxes from fully adamantine ones? And what would their hardness be? How much would they cost in the rules? What's to stop us from covering a smaller adamantine axe head with a coating of steel?

Oh yeah, and while we are at it, does that mean that I can make a mace with an adamantine coating? Or an adamantine ball in the head, covered by steel?

Nothing. By the rules, there's nothing to say exactly what the composition of an "adamantine weapon" should be. The only thing that matters is its stats: +1/+2 natural enhancement bonus, and the appropriate cost to create.

The only thing stopping such a thing from happening is DM judgement, because the rules aren't meant to model every possible occurrence in a game. Because of that, if you do decide to allow such weirdness, it's your own responsibility.

If you want a rationale for why such weirdness might _not_ be allowed, just think of the same reasons why people don't use maces or axes made of a mix of steel and copper or bronze. The metallurgical tricks involved in creating such a beast might not be known, or simply wouldn't be worth the effort. You might as well make the important bits completely out of steel. The same thing applies to adamantine.

Doesn't that seem a little, how shall we say, lame? Is it really that far of a stretch that adamantine weapons should be made out of adamantine?
Saying things are "lame" is an argument grounded in experience about reality, not the rules. As I said before, whether or not something is lame or absurd has nothing to do with the rules themselves, only in how the rules succeed in emulating reality.

Speaking of which....


Of course I agree with this in the context of reality. However, in the DnD game system, the arrow does not do damage when projected from a bow, because the game says so.
The game does not say the arrow does no damage. All the game says is that when an arrow is fired from a bow, 1d6 or 1d8 points of damage is dealt by the _combination_ of bow and arrow. Note that a bow alone does no damage; you need ammunition for that.

Saying that the 1d6 or 1d8 is dealt by the arrow alone is an interpretation that you've foisted on the rules; since you seem quite happy to accept "lame" interpretations of the rules when it suits you, please grant others the same privilege.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top