Adamantine Arrows?

[The_lone_gunman]

I'm not nitpicking here, but just to let you know:

Penetration is a function of mass and velocity. It is not only the bow that does the damage, it is a combination of the two. The bow propels the arrow faster (velocity part) and the arrow provides the mass. Thus, a arrow with more mass would do more damage. This is why tank rounds are made out of uranium (it has one of the highest atomic weights of any material).

Anyways, it would seem that if the admantite sword does more damage, the arrowhead would as well. I would not have an issue with allowing the bonus, although adamantite arrows would be damn expensive.....

TLG

 

[Mahali]

In our game we have admin arrows as +1 or +2 depending on what they're fired from (according to the chart in the DMG for weapon damage).

There is no game balance reason to now allow them and no "real world" arguement to prevent it either.

A couple different points.

F=MV^2 (Force, Mass, Velocity) so that an increase in speed means a lot more force than an increase in mass.

That being said any arrow not shaped like a stiletto (armor piercing) does more damage coming out than going in.

Long bows do more damage because they provide more power.

On the off side note: A tank round is made from uranium for a few reasons. One being it's incredibly dense and strong. When it hits the dart keeps its shape longer as it deforms the tank armor transferring its kinetic energy into heat. This superheats the air inside the tank and blowing a 30 ton turret into the air. All while still not managing to penetrate the armor.

 

[Skullfyre]

On the off side note: A tank round is made from uranium for a few reasons. One being it's incredibly dense and strong. When it hits the dart keeps its shape longer as it deforms the tank armor transferring its kinetic energy into heat. This superheats the air inside the tank and blowing a 30 ton turret into the air. All while still not managing to penetrate the armor.

which gives off radiation after it destroys the tank's armor and all inside.
DU rounds(depleted uranium)

 

[Hejdun]

I don't really think adamantine arrows will find a place in my campaign, but if you are going to make them, base them on rules that already exist.

50 adamantine arrows cost as much as an adamantine dagger would, and they count as +1. They are destroyed when they hit, or have a 50% chance of breaking when they miss.

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

Please. I do the "harsh and condescending" thing MUCH better than you. Would you like me to start?

Yes, please. I am an idiot, afterall.

Also, point 1: ConcreteBuddha argues that adamantine cannot be used to replace wood components. This will become significant further on, as we shall see.

Okay, you got me here. Let me rephrase: Adamantine cannot be used to replace wood components when the functionality of the weapon is compromised by using a metal instead of wood. You could not replace a longbow's wood with adamantine, but you could with a battleaxe, because a longbow could not function, while a battleaxe could.

An adamantine longbow would be unable to bend under the strength of a PC, considering it is an "ultrahard metal."

Well, yes. It has a wooden haft, doesn't it?

Not necessarily. The book does not say whether or not an adamantine battleaxe has a wooden haft. Clearly, the picture in the PHB shows that a normal battleaxe has a wooden haft.

All that means is that the important part of the axe -- the head, in other words -- is constructed out of adamantine.

You are putting words into that that aren't there. The text says that the battleaxe is made out of adamantine. A "battleaxe" is defined as a head and a haft. It does not say that the head of the battleaxe is made out of adamantine. Therefore, the battleaxe is made out of adamantine.

Point 2: ConcreteBuddha is now arguing that adamantine _can_ be used to replace wood components. Needless to say, this contradicts point 1 rather nicely.

Neat, you have shown that I was wrong, but you have not shown that you are right.

Please to make up your mind.

Just did.

Your point being...?

That A) the amount of material used is crucial to determining the enhancement bonus of the weapon, B) That an adamantine battleaxe would be a stupid investment if the entire weapon did not receive the bonus of 20/40.

Facile. The exact same point would apply to a normal battleaxe, unless you're suggesting that those are made completely out of metal as well.

No, I am suggesting that your version of an adamantine battleaxe is lame because it can be sundered exactly like a normal battleaxe.

If you wanted to, sure.

Thank you.

Anything you want it to, if you want to make life complicated for yourself. As you appear to be doing quite handily.

I'd make my life really complicated if I gave my players a 9,310 gp adamantine battleaxe and sundered it with 10 points of damage.

Facile. You might as well ask the question, why does an arrow fired from a longbow gain more of a bonus from adamantine than a shortsword or halfspear, even though these use more adamantine?

Actually, I would contend that an arrow cannot gain an enhancement bonus from adamantine. Considering that is my stance, I think I will ask that question...

Answer: it's magic.

No it's not. Adamantine is non-magical, remember?

Please to remember Hong's Third Law.

Okay, I will.

Is that the one where you run around in circles arguing with yourself?

Nope, it's the DBS rule.

So it's quite plausible that adamantine arrows would gain a bonus but also shatter on impact. (Why don't melee weapons made of the same material shatter? Because the forging and tempering processes that are applied to such weapons don't work on items as small as arrowheads. IOW, because it's magic....)

Chapter and verse, please.
.
.
.

The_lone_gunman---

Just got one question for you, if arrows do not deal damage, then how do you have +1-5 arrows? Not to mention arrows with other effects on them? (although you could argue that the "effect" is simply being carried by the arrow, the +1-5 that you can have on an arrow would definately infer that it does indeed do damage, especially since it stacks with the bow's bonus.....)

1) I didn't write the game. The game says that arrows don't deal ranged damage, therefore they don't deal ranged damage. Of course it's stupid, but them's the rules.

2) Enchanted arrows are not weapons, they are ammuntion.

ConcreteBuddha---
2) In the DMG, pg. 183, arrows are treated as ammunition for purposes of ranged combat, not as ranged weapons, and therefore would not gain a benefit from adamantine, as it only affects weapons and armor.

This is really the best argument I have, which has not yet been countered. Please attempt to break this. I would like adamantine arrows as much as the next guy...

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Sooo...

...if it´s just about quoting the rulebooks here, let me quote something to y´all, straight from the introduction in the DMG

"Let´s start with the biggest secret of all: the key to Dungeon Mastering. (Don´t tell anybody, okay?) The secret is that you´re in charge. This is not the tell-everyone-what-to-do sort of in charge. Rather, you get to decide how your player group is going to play this game, when and where the adventures take place and what happens. You get to decide how the rules work, which rules to use, and how strictly to adhere to them. That kind of in charge."

So it´s pretty easy, ConcreteBuddha...talk to your DM, try to convince him that it´s bull that a weapon gains the enhancement bonus when it´s wielded by hand (arrow as melee weapon) but not when it´s flung by a bow or crossbow (arrow/bolt as ranged weapon). Try to make him see that an axe or a dagger, thrown, are not so different from an arrow shot, and argue that the force that propels the arrow still is dependant on your characters strength, as it differs with how hard you pull that bowstring.

For everything else..this is clearly a Rule 0 question...and shouldn´t be fought about.

PS: An adamantine weapon that causes 1d8 points of damage and gets the enhancement bonus costs +9000 gp. As every arrow has to be considered a single weapon for calculating that (as each arrow causes 1d8 points of damage), each adamantine arrow that is to get a +2 bonus costs +9000 gp. Think about that...game balanced enough for y´all?

 

[hong]

Yes, please. I am an idiot, afterall.

Correct.

Okay, you got me here. Let me rephrase: Adamantine cannot be used to replace wood components when the functionality of the weapon is compromised by using a metal instead of wood. You could not replace a longbow's wood with adamantine, but you could with a battleaxe, because a longbow could not function, while a battleaxe could.

An adamantine longbow would be unable to bend under the strength of a PC, considering it is an "ultrahard metal."

Chapter and verse, please. Remember, you're the one who started this off with a silly rules lawyering stance.

I'll also point out that if you're going to wander off from strict rules lawyering into arguments of plausibility and reasonableness, I see no reason not to allow adamantine arrows. They are both plausible and reasonable, despite your, shall we say, "original" interpretation of the rules. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Get your argument straight: are you interpreting the rules (a meta-game argument), or are you providing an in-game rationale? The two are distinctly different.

You are putting words into that that aren't there. The text says that the battleaxe is made out of adamantine. A "battleaxe" is defined as a head and a haft. It does not say that the head of the battleaxe is made out of adamantine. Therefore, the battleaxe is made out of adamantine.

This does not follow. Revise your elementary logic and get back to me.

Neat, you have shown that I was wrong, but you have not shown that you are right.

I don't have to show I'm right. You're the one who made a bizarre assertion in the first place, and I've pointed it out.

That A) the amount of material used is crucial to determining the enhancement bonus of the weapon, B) That an adamantine battleaxe would be a stupid investment if the entire weapon did not receive the bonus of 20/40.

Stupidity has nothing to do with the rules. See above re: metagame vs ingame.

No, I am suggesting that your version of an adamantine battleaxe is lame because it can be sundered exactly like a normal battleaxe.

Lameness has nothing to do with the rules. See above re: metagame vs ingame.

I'd make my life really complicated if I gave my players a 9,310 gp adamantine battleaxe and sundered it with 10 points of damage.

That's your problem.

No it's not. Adamantine is non-magical, remember?

Cease with the pointless sophistry. "Magic" in this sense is clearly a reference to any in-game phenomenon that has no counterpart in real life, and adamantine -- an "ultrahard metal" that provides a nebulous benefit to weapons and armour -- fits the bill.

(re adamantine arrows breaking)

Chapter and verse, please.

I don't have to provide chapter and verse for a reasonableness and plausibility argument. Learn the difference between metagame and in-game.

 

[AGGEMAM]

I don't have to provide chapter and verse for a reasonableness and plausibility argument.

And we do ??

When you start quoting sources of information, I will start to take you seriously! Until then, until never ! I couldn't be bothered less!

 

[hong]

And we do ??

When you start quoting sources of information, I will start to take you seriously! Until then, until never ! I couldn't be bothered less!

This is a meta-game statement:

"The effect of an invisibility spell is negated if you attack a creature. See the PHB, p.218."

This is an in-game statement:

"The effect of an invisibility spell is granted by a minor spirit from the outer planes that weaves its magic around the subject. If the subject attacks, the spirit flees, since it abhors violence."

Note how one is arguing from a rules standpoint (outside the game world), while the other is arguing from a standpoint within the game world itself. The one requires quoting sources of information, while the other -- since it isn't founded on interpreting rules or other things that only exist out-of-game -- doesn't. All that's really required of an in-game argument is that it doesn't contradict explicit rules.

 

[AGGEMAM]

It is an inescapable fact that an arrow only is a weapon if it is used as a melee weapon.

Check PHB, page 97 and Table 7-4 on page 99 of the same book.

And you will see that an arrow doesn't do any damage at all, rather the bow does, this is logical from a modern day physics point of view as well as in-game, it is the bow that provides the main ingredient of the damage, namely the speed.

Whether or not you could make an adamantine bow is a whole other thing, but an arrow wouldn't have any effect of being made of adamantine except being much much more expensive, and having a natural enhancement bonus of +1 when used as a melee weapon.