Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hong" data-source="post: 200418" data-attributes="member: 537">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.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?Feh.Then cease forthwith using plausibility and reasonableness arguments when they do not apply.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.No. We are discussing some people's idiotic conclusions that are reached by an inappropriate reading of the rules.I think the technical term for this is "meaningless waffle". What on earth is your point here?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.I just did.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.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.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?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.</blockquote>

Verification