Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ConcreteBuddha" data-source="post: 200553" data-attributes="member: 3139">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... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />..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...... 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 DMGNotice how it does not say, "Weapons fashioned partly from adamantine..."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. 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?" <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> 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. Actually no, considering the "---" is listed under the "Martial Weapons---Ranged" category. So my interpretation holds up quite nicely. My sentiments exactly... 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?  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. 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. "Table 8-12: Substance Hardness and Hit PointsSubstance: Iron, Hardness: 10, Hit Points, 30/inch of thickness" --pg 136, PHBIf you feel like keeping track of the damage to your arrowheads, go nuts... 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." The rules don't need to be fixed if you interpret them correctly. Damn straight, considering it's the hardest material in the stinking books. 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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> Yep, especially when the rules directly contradict your assertion. You and me both, buddy... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification