Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hong" data-source="post: 200599" data-attributes="member: 537">This isn't particularly absurd, if one has a basic knowledge about the physical properties of materials. Recall that absurdity is not a function of the rules, but rather the _interaction_ between rules and everyday knowledge; it's possible for something to be consistent with the rules and yet inconsistent with everyday knowledge, and hence be "absurd". In this case, metals that are specially treated to increase hardness, eg by rapid quenching, also tend to have increased brittleness -- ie they're more likely to shatter if hit hard (hence the reason for pattern-welded blades, which combine steels of different hardnesses to provide both a sharp cutting edge and good durability). I see nothing wrong at all with applying the same reasoning to adamantine arrowheads, assuming one wants to limit their lifespan.This isn't particularly "absurd" either, since it's perfectly consistent with how one might treat regular arrowheads.Also, listing both this and the previous item as "failings" is highly misleading, because they're mutually exclusive. You can have one, or the other, but not both.I don't see how this is absurd at all. The damage a greatsword deals is because of its ability to be swung about to hit people; the damage an arrow deals is because of its ability to puncture people.I don't see how this is absurd at all.This is perhaps because you haven't thought it through deeply enough to recognise the absurdities in it -- or perhaps you're willing to gloss over these absurdities for the sake of your interpretation of the rules. For instance, the contention that the damage dealt by an axe depends on what its haft is made of is self-evidently absurd. No, I don't think your example of making the haft out of jello or whatever is relevant. All that example shows is that if you render the axe unusable, it fails to deal damage -- not particularly enlightening.This is not a proof. All you've demonstrated is that the interpretation that weapons must be fashioned completely from adamantine isn't inconsistent with the rules. It certainly doesn't demonstrate the falsity of the converse -- since the rules also don't say that weapons _must_ be fashioned completely out of adamantine.No. It's a matter of knowing which parts of the rulebook take priority.I fail to see the problem. An arrowhead will do d8+2 points of damage. A greatsword (which should weigh a lot less than 15lb; the weights in the PHB are nonsensical in this case) will do 2d6+2. The greatsword will still do a lot more damage than the arrowhead, all other things being equal. "Feh, I could write a lot more but Eric's grandmother wouldn't like it."This doesn't have any relevance to the topic at hand, as far as I can tell.You are grasping at straws. All you've shown is that if you render a spear ineffective for its purpose, it isn't very useful. This doesn't demonstrate how going from a wooden shaft to an adamantine shaft _enhances_ a spear for its purpose.You could indeed, and that certainly wouldn't contradict the rules. The point is that arrows made of swiss cheese are _not_ plausible. Because they're not plausible in the first place, I don't have to bother arguing about the rules at all. Try again.No. You made the original assertion:And hence you need to back it up. In particular, you need to show why your interpretation necessarily follows from the rules, if blanket statements like that are to be taken seriously -- and that means showing how opposing interpretations must be ruled out.Besides which, I fail to see why you _can't_ make ammunition out of adamantine. You can make anything you want out of it; it's just a substance, after all. You can make even doors and fittings out of it (I believe RttToEE has something like this). The issue is whether ammunition made out of adamantine gains any special _benefit_ from it, and again, I fail to see how the answer should be anything but yes.I pointed out the irrelevance of your example. Not very difficult.Which is not the same as adamantine leather. Not that there's anything wrong with that; but you're just as guilty as anyone else of making up rules if you think it's necessary.And unfortunately, there aren't any rules for determining how much damage an arrowhead takes when it hits (or misses). So we're back to the situation I described -- the DM has free rein to make up rules to fill the gap.Hardly. Only to people who think the rules are the be-all and end-all in running a game would such a conclusion be warranted.So far, you haven't shown anything of the sort, and in fact, you haven't even demonstrated the validity of the precedent. If anything, you've demonstrated that your interpretation is even more absurd than mine."Hardness" as defined by D&D has absolutely nothing to do with hardness, the physical property.To make it crystal-clear: I'm talking about hardness, the physical property -- the measure of how difficult it is to scratch a material. In the real world, diamond has hardness 10 on the Mohs scale, for instance; the hardest material known. This is entirely distinct from _toughness_, which is the measure of how difficult it is to drive cracks through a material. I'm saying that it's entirely reasonable, from an in-game perspective, to treat adamantine arrowheads as being liable to break after one use, because they may be _hard_, but also not very _tough_. Exactly _why_ they may be hard but not tough is something that can be justified by further handwaves, just like how invisibility works or how a troll survives having its head chopped off. None of this, however, is relevant to the topic.Everything in this discussion is a house rule.Where?</blockquote>

Verification