Adamantine Arrows?

[Geron Raveneye]

And, by the way it looks, no one's really agreeing with you. So, where's the common consensus? That we're sitting here arguing to death over a situation that people will Rule 0 over, after reading the first page, because this has been ran into the ground so long that no one's going to *care*?

Can someone contact the sage?

I wouldn´t say noone´s agreeing with him Rather that there are some points his and other´s opinions are differing still, and a common consensus will be reached when those opinions start to overlap in a way that makes all involved happy.

And some people simply enjoy to discuss and exchange arguments over a topic nobody else will think twice about...

 

[hong]

True, this is one of the ways to reach absurdity. Another is to make up a rule that directly contradicts the rules as presented.

So stop doing it.

You have just defined the word "hardness" differently than they do in the PHB.

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

Also, you have used real-world science on a make-believe substance. Shame on you.

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

More on this later...

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.

That's because your interpretation leads you to that conclusion. My interpretation, on the other hand, does not have that inconsistency because adamantine arrowheads do not give an enhancement bonus.

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

Which shows they have different base damages.

And you don't find it a tad absurd that both an arrowhead and a greatsword receive the same enhancement bonus even though a greatsword weighs at least 300 times more? (15 = .05 x 300)

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

Even when the description states, in full:

"...this ultrahard metal adds to the quality of a weapon or suit of armor based on how much of the material is used. Thus, adamantine plate offers a greater increase in protection than adamantine chainmail, and an adamantine battleaxe offers a greater increase in offensive capability than an adamantine dagger." pg. 242 DMG

And if you call this passage "flavor description" and therefore utterly meaningless

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.

(as per the spearhead thingy...)

Well, if I take a steel spearhead and interchange it between a halfspear and a shortspear, I only change the base damage.

But when I take an adamantine spearhead and interchange it, the enhancement bonus changes, too.

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

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

And I repeat my previous stance: since there are materials less efficient as a haft, it seems plausable that there might be materials more efficient as a haft.

Such as?

Let's look at a spear:

An adamantine head and nerf foam shaft would be really inaccurate because it's so flexible, and it wouldn't be able to damage very well because it would bend under the weight of the attack.

A adamantine head and a 10 foot long wood shaft is still somewhat flexible, and therefore it is difficult to aim with pinpoint accuracy, and you would damage an area less vital.

And adamantine head and a 10 foot long adamantine shaft is not flexible at all. You can easily aim attacks at vital regions because the shaft does not bend.

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.

Explain to me why anything other than the very tip of a short sword would have to be adamantine to gain the enhancement bonus with your interpretation, considering it is a piercing weapon.

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?

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.

Well, don't you think if the game designers meant for weapons to be partly fashioned from adamantine, they would have said so?

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

Seems like a pretty big exclusion from the rules, considering that using your interpretation, you can make multiple different, yet effective, versions of the same weapon using extremely varying amounts of adamantine, and get the exact same price for each version.

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.

Actually, my stance agrees with both the amount of material guidelines and the damage chart. Yours only agrees with the damage chart. So who's interpretation is more correct, since we are using circumstancial evidence?

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.

Since this is as close as I'll get to a retraction, I'll take it.

You can take it any way you want, if it makes you feel better.

Sure, you could make fully adamantine arrows or arrowheads. But adamantine arrows could not effectively fly using normal bows(since they weigh the same as steel arrows)

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.

Actually, no you didn't. Because:

A) Leather armor can be made with adamantine buckles.
B) Leather armor is light armor.

Therefore, by your rules, leather armor with adamantine buckles should gain an enhancement bonus, regardless of how many buckles it has.

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.

Actually, I made a mistake. A person could not make adamantine leather in the first place because it would break:

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

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

True, the DM has free reign to assign how much damage an iron arrowhead would take, but does not have the freedom to assign hardness and hit points. These are already a part of the system.

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

Well, the rules are the be-all and end-all in this forum. Hence why "it's magic" is worthless in this forum. Unless you'd like to move this to house rules...?

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.

Notice how the PHB's version of hardness applies to all situations, including driving cracks though it or projecting it from a bow. Also notice, that in DnD, diamonds would have a really high hardness and really low hit points. Whereas adamantine has both high hardness and high hit points.

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.

Interpretations of rules are house rules?

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.

Amount of adamantine in an arrowhead leads to a glaring contradiction.

Hardly.

Shattering adamantine combined with DnD hardness definition leads to a glaring contradiction.

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

Allowing ammunition to be made out of adamantine, even though the rules state that ammunition does "---" damage.

You ARE channeling Magus_Jerel quite well.

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

For those who do not have the Psionics Handbook:

Ferroplasm: Mined from secret locations in the Astral Plane, this malleable metal holds it's shape only in the hands of a psionic being. When an item forged with ferroplasm is unattended or held by a nonpsionic creature, it melts and temporarily loses all special powers. But when wielded by a psionic creature, such an item immediately springs back into its true shape and regains all abilities. In its proper form, a ferroplasm item glows with a violet light (illuminating a 10 ft. radius), unless the item's owner mentally quenches it. In an area where psionic powers do not function, it collapses as if in the hands of a nonpsionic creaure.

Ferroplasm adds to the quality of a weapon or suit of armor based on how much of the material used. Thus, ferroplasm full plate offers greater protection (as well as a greater cost) than ferroplasm chainmail, and a ferroplasm greatsword offers greater offensive capability than a ferroplasm quarterstaff. Weapons fashioned from ferroplasm have a natural enhancement bonus to attack and damage. Armor fashioned from ferroplasm has a natural enhancement bonus to AC. These bonuses do not stack with other enhancement bonuses. Weapons and armor fashioned from ferroplasm are treated as masterwork items with regard to creation times, but the masterwork quality does not affect the enhancement bonus of weapons or the armor check penalty of armor.

Ferroplasm has hardness 20 and 40 hit points when per inch of thickness when in its true form, and a hardness of 5 and 10 hit points per inch of thickness when soft.

(Insert similar chart to adamantine here.)" ---pg. 138 PsiHB

My take on this:

1) Ferroplasm is nearly identical to adamantine from a rules perspective as regards to the natural enhancement bonus.

2) Quarterstaves can be made out of ferroplasm, which shows that non-metal parts can be replaced with ferroplasm.

3) Ferroplasm weapons and armor are implicitly described as being made completely out of ferroplasm, as the entire weapon or armor is described as melting, not just a part of it. Also, the description does not say that ferroplasm has the unique capability of making surrounding materials melt (which could be abused by savvy players.)

4) The above description uses the exact same descriptors as the adamantine description in the DMG. Examples: "Weapons fashioned from ferroplasm..." and "Ferroplasm adds to the quality of a weapon or suit of armor based on how much of the material used."

5) This excerpt is from WoTC, which is not some random company who just copied directly out of the DMG without regards to the consequences.

Therefore, this is more evidence that adamantine weapons must be fully crafted from adamantine.
.
.
.
P.S. One could argue that this book is not one of the three Core Rulebooks, and thus invalid.

Of course, one could also argue that the Sage is not one of the Core Rulebooks. (Although he could be a changeling...)

 

[hong]

1) Ferroplasm is nearly identical to adamantine from a rules perspective as regards to the natural enhancement bonus.

I'm not sure why this is so important. Masterwork weapons also provide a natural enhancement bonus.

2) Quarterstaves can be made out of ferroplasm, which shows that non-metal parts can be replaced with ferroplasm.

They can be, true. However, nobody has denied this. The issue is whether they MUST be, and nothing in the passage you've quoted supports this.

3) Ferroplasm weapons and armor are implicitly described as being made completely out of ferroplasm, as the entire weapon or armor is described as melting, not just a part of it. Also, the description does not say that ferroplasm has the unique capability of making surrounding materials melt (which could be abused by savvy players.)

Not particularly relevant to the topic at hand, since adamantine items don't melt.

4) The above description uses the exact same descriptors as the adamantine description in the DMG. Examples: "Weapons fashioned from ferroplasm..." and "Ferroplasm adds to the quality of a weapon or suit of armor based on how much of the material used."

So?

5) This excerpt is from WoTC, which is not some random company who just copied directly out of the DMG without regards to the consequences.

So?

Therefore, this is more evidence that adamantine weapons must be fully crafted from adamantine.

False. All you've shown is that ferroplasm weapons _can_ be fully crafted out of ferroplasm (you haven't even shown that they _must_ be). This has no particular bearing on adamantine.

P.S. One could argue that this book is not one of the three Core Rulebooks, and thus invalid.

Of course, one could also argue that the Sage is not one of the Core Rulebooks. (Although he could be a changeling...)

Whether or not it's in the core rulebooks also has no particular bearing on the subject of this thread. It's an irrelevant example, and this would be the case regardless of who published it.

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

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 description of how adamantine works does not matter? Even if it is a guideline?

I would think that both the stats and the description would matter, considering that it would be kind of absurd if we made fireballs do 1d6 X caster level in fire damage, and made the ball a giant slab of cheese, because we decided that the description had nothing to do with the rules.

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.

Yes, you need ammmuntion, but the damage is explicitly stated to come from the bow. Nowhere does it say that the damage is dealt by the combination of the arrow and the bow. It states quite clearly on the chart that the bow lines up with the damage, and not with the arrow.

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.

Okay then, since I was replying to Xarlen, I did not use acceptable hong terms. Thus, I will define "lame".

"Lame" is ignoring a description of a rule when the more concrete parts of the rule directly contradict your interpretation of each other.

Notice how my stance is not "lame" because my interpretation is of a concrete rule, when no description directly counters it. If the book described the arrow doing the damage, I'd be happy saying this point is moot.

 

[hong]

The description of how adamantine works does not matter? Even if it is a guideline?

This is the second (third? fourth?) time you've used this ludicrous strawman. Please stop.

I never said the description "doesn't matter". I said that as a general description of the intent of the rules, it's liable to be contradicted in specific circumstances. That's the nature of generalisations.

Yes, you need ammmuntion, but the damage is explicitly stated to come from the bow. Nowhere does it say that the damage is dealt by the combination of the arrow and the bow. It states quite clearly on the chart that the bow lines up with the damage, and not with the arrow.

If this was true then you wouldn't even need arrows to use a bow. Note that nothing in the rules explicitly states ammunition is necessary, and yet we blithely assume this is the case. Going STRICTLY by the book, a bow is a weapon with a range increment of X feet, and dealing 1d6/1d8 points of piercing damage. Sure, the "bow" entries in the PHB table may have "arrow" entries right underneath them, but that's neither here nor there.

In summary, you cannot think of a bow and an arrow as completely separate items, as if they were a longsword and a shortsword. The _package_ deals 1d6/1d8 damage. Because of that, adamantine arrows (or adamantine arrowheads, even) are perfectly consistent with the rules, since 1) the _package_ of bow and arrow deals 1d6/1d8 damage, and 2) nothing in the rules requires that items MUST be fully fashioned out of adamantine.

Notice how my stance is not "lame" because my interpretation is of a concrete rule, when no description directly counters it. If the book described the arrow doing the damage, I'd be happy saying this point is moot.

Your stance is not "lame" in terms of contradicting the rules. It can't be, because the rules aren't specific enough on this topic to be contradicted. It's "lame" in terms of having ridiculous corollaries.

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

Hmmm..let´s see if I get this quotation system right this time...

(As per crystal

Actually, I´d do, yeah. Even civilizations that use crystal as main damaging component should be far enough to know a slightly flexible handle is better to grip and easier on the wrist while hitting something... But that´s interpretation...right?

Wait a second here, got a thought:

If a "battleaxe" is a "steel head and wooden shaft," then what is a "steel battleaxe" using your interpretation?

That´s why I took different examples in describing different weapons as to how they are made. If we can agree on the Greataxe being made primarily from steel, I´m sure we can also agree that the adamantine version is primarily made from adamantine. I hope you won´t resent me calling your assumption that "less common battleaxes could have a steel head with a steel haft" as a house rule for less common battleaxes?

Yeah, actually I would, considering that the PHB does not delve into the materials used in the making of a battleaxe. I was just making a point that it is possible that a battleaxe could be steel-head-wooden-shaft or it could be steel-head-steel-shaft and that neither of these "normal" axes would have an outcome on the adamantine version.

Because all the rulebooks do is deal in "standard" stuff, as long as no special rules are mentioned. As such...of course, if you have battleaxes like that, they´d be treated to the full adamantine replacement tour.

The problem I have with this is that the same world could have both types of adamantine battleaxes and that the price of both of them would be the same, even though the entirely adamantine axe would be superior.

Hmmm...you know, that was supposed to be the point where your view and mine meet.

Sorry about that...I'm attempting to keep an open mind here.

Would you rule now that the staff doesn´t get it´s enhancement bonus, the same one it had before it was disguised, because he put some wood around it?

Actually yes, for the same reason that if you put cloth around a steel short sword, it couldn't be wielded as effectively, and thus lose it's natural enhancement bonus. The wood around the quarterstaff would not be as effective as having the actual adamantine uncovered.

Well...as I said, then you´d have four damage entries for the arrow line, one for each kind of bow, with four kinds of critical damage ratings, one for each bow.

Huh? Since all the arrows are the same, you wouldn't need to repeat four different times for each bow.

the arrows "destroyed" or "lost" if the dice say so, and let him pay dearly for new +2 arrows...even with a bundle of 50 arrows, 9000 gp

I cannot see an adamantine arrowhead being destroyed for every unexceptional circumstance whenever the arrow hits the target. This flies in the face of admantine being the hardest material in the DnD universe. As stated before, fitting an adamantine arrowhead onto a shaft would be a simple task for a trained bowsmith.

The point in my argument was that, if a weapon has to be made wholly of bone to "gain" it´s enhancement penalty of -2, or wholly from adamantine to gain it´s enhancement bonus,

And my point was that the -2 penalty is not an enhancement penalty, it's an unnamed penalty.

 

[kreynolds]

This flies in the face of admantine being the hardest material in the DnD universe.

Actually, obdurium takes the cake for that now.

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

Considering how I didn't start posting til the 4th page, I don't think you could travel back in time to answer my posts before I put them up. [/B]

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.

Unless that pumpkin flying up your butt did something to the time space continum.

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.

And, by the way it looks, no one's really agreeing with you. So, where's the common consensus? That we're sitting here arguing to death over a situation that people will Rule 0 over, after reading the first page, because this has been ran into the ground so long that no one's going to *care*?

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..."

Can someone contact the sage?

I sure would, if I had his email. (Never bothered to write it down before...)

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

Actually, obdurium takes the cake for that now.

I stand corrected by a more knowledgable source of information.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Actually, I am now convinced that both adamantine and obdurium are outdone by hongium.