Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ConcreteBuddha" data-source="post: 202119" data-attributes="member: 3139">True, this is one of the ways to reach absurdity. Another is to make up a rule that directly contradicts the rules as presented. You have just defined the word "hardness" differently than they do in the PHB. Also, you have used real-world science on a make-believe substance. Shame on you. More on this later... Yet perfectly inconsistent with game balance... 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. 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)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, then I have full rights to say that a fireball is not a ball of fire, even though the PHB describes a fireball as "a burst of flame that detonates with a low roar..." (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. Actually, the only absurdity in my position that I can see would be that studded leather would not gain an enhancement bonus. And neither would an arrow. Or a composite longbow. But that's a price I'm willing to take. Actually, I said Nerf foam. If the haft were made out of Nerf foam, it would gain a negative modifier to attack and damage. Thus it would be usable, it would just not be as effective as wood. And if Nerf foam bothers you, I can use bone, instead. "Weapons made out of inferior materials, such as bone or stone, have a -2 attack and damage penalty." pg. 162 DMG 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.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...Oh yeah, on a side note, using your: 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. Well, don't you think if the game designers meant for weapons to be partly fashioned from adamantine, they would have said so? 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. 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? See above.  Since this is as close as I'll get to a retraction, I'll take it. Since you said this: I just pointed out that since the chart is listing the ranged damage of the weapons, the "---" has no bearing on the melee damage. My position still holds. See above. And I will continue to point out where your assertion is not plausable. And please define "plausable" for me, as you define it... Okay then, I'll get to it.  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) and arrowheads are not made up of enough of the material to gain the bonus. Please explain to me why you think this, and then maybe I can counter your assertion. 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. 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. Substituting a metal for leather would worsen the maximum Dexterity allowed and increase the armor check penalty. Thus, it would be ineffective as leather armor. 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. 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...? <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=";)" /> Oh. So true.  "Hardness: A measure of an object's ability to resist damage. Hit points: A measure of object integrity." ---pg. 279 PHB 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. Try again. Interpretations of rules are house rules? Amount of adamantine in an arrowhead leads to a glaring contradiction. Shattering adamantine combined with DnD hardness definition leads to a glaring contradiction. Allowing ammunition to be made out of adamantine, even though the rules state that ammunition does "---" damage. I think that about covers it. <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=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification