Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="hong" data-source="post: 201638" data-attributes="member: 537">Nothing. By the rules, there's nothing to say exactly what the composition of an &quot;adamantine weapon&quot; should be. The only thing that matters is its stats: +1/+2 natural enhancement bonus, and the appropriate cost to create.The only thing stopping such a thing from happening is DM judgement, because the rules aren't meant to model every possible occurrence in a game. Because of that, if you do decide to allow such weirdness, it's your own responsibility.If you want a rationale for why such weirdness might _not_ be allowed, just think of the same reasons why people don't use maces or axes made of a mix of steel and copper or bronze. The metallurgical tricks involved in creating such a beast might not be known, or simply wouldn't be worth the effort. You might as well make the important bits completely out of steel. The same thing applies to adamantine.Saying things are &quot;lame&quot; is an argument grounded in experience about reality, not the rules. As I said before, whether or not something is lame or absurd has nothing to do with the rules themselves, only in how the rules succeed in emulating reality.Speaking of which....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.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 &quot;lame&quot; interpretations of the rules when it suits you, please grant others the same privilege.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="hong, post: 201638, member: 537"] 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 only thing stopping such a thing from happening is DM judgement, because the rules aren't meant to model every possible occurrence in a game. Because of that, if you do decide to allow such weirdness, it's your own responsibility. If you want a rationale for why such weirdness might _not_ be allowed, just think of the same reasons why people don't use maces or axes made of a mix of steel and copper or bronze. The metallurgical tricks involved in creating such a beast might not be known, or simply wouldn't be worth the effort. You might as well make the important bits completely out of steel. The same thing applies to adamantine. Saying things are "lame" is an argument grounded in experience about reality, not the rules. As I said before, whether or not something is lame or absurd has nothing to do with the rules themselves, only in how the rules succeed in emulating reality. Speaking of which.... 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. 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification