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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Geron Raveneye" data-source="post: 202166" data-attributes="member: 2268">Hmmm..let´s see if I get this quotation system right this time...  1) The DMG says that an adamantine battleaxe is made out of adamantine. Would you assume that a crystal battleaxe made out of crystal would have a wooden haft?Actually, I´d do, yeah. Even civilizations that use crystal as main damaging component should be far enough to know a slightly flexible handle is better to grip and easier on the wrist while hitting something... But that´s interpretation...right?2) I agree that the default for a battleaxe is a steel head with a wooden haft. However, one could also contend that other less common battleaxes could have a steel head with a steel haft, and still remain a battleaxe. Especially considering the picture for a greataxe has what looks like to be a steel haft. With this in mind, one cannot assume the compostion of an exceptional weapon made out of adamantine based on prejudice of the default weapon. That´s why I took different examples in describing different weapons as to how they are made. If we can agree on the Greataxe being made primarily from steel, I´m sure we can also agree that the adamantine version is primarily made from adamantine. I hope you won´t resent me calling your assumption that "less common battleaxes could have a steel head with a steel haft" as a house rule for less common battleaxes? Because all the rulebooks do is deal in "standard" stuff, as long as no special rules are mentioned. As such...of course, if you have battleaxes like that, they´d be treated to the full adamantine replacement tour.3) A short sword would only need an adamantine tip to gain the enhancement bonus. A flail would only need an outer shell of the head to be made of adamantine. You would only need to put a few adamantine pellets in the end of a quarterstaff. An axe head would only need a thin layer of adamantine on the cutting edge.Hmmm...you know, that was supposed to be the point where your view and mine meet. Because that way you´d still have a "weapon made from adamantine" as opposed to "a weapon layered with adamantine", which would be the result of what you described. And as for the quarterstaff...let´s compare the following situations: A monk has gotten his hands on some adamantine, enough to forge a slim staff of it, and after that staff, an adamantine quarterstaff, has been forged, he inserts it into a thin tube of wood to disguise it. He now has what looks like an ordinary quarterstaff, only with a solid core of adamantine. Would you rule now that the staff doesn´t get it´s enhancement bonus, the same one it had before it was disguised, because he put some wood around it? If this were the case, they could have moved the damage entry to the arrow listing and the "---" entry to the bow listing and added one line to the arrow description that said: "All bows use the same arrows."Well...as I said, then you´d have four damage entries for the arrow line, one for each kind of bow, with four kinds of critical damage ratings, one for each bow. I would agree with this except for the fact that those arrows are effectively permanent. Every other type of increase to arrows is not permanent. Even magic arrows, whose only benefit over these is countering DR, are one use items. And +2 to hit and damage is nothing for a melee character. A stackable +2 to hit and damage with a rapid-shot-archer is overpowering. (For 50 arrows. If it's just one, it's inane.)Yes, of course they´re permanent...and you also treat them like any other arrow. If you´re generous, you allow the archer to retrieve the heads, if he can, after a hit or miss. If you simply play by the rules, you declare the arrows "destroyed" or "lost" if the dice say so, and let him pay dearly for new +2 arrows...even with a bundle of 50 arrows, 9000 gp for "fire and forget" ammo will hurt his purse.The "only" benefit of a magical +2 arrow over an adamantine arrow is that you can really hurt a Lycanthrope, Vampire or other supernatural nasty with it, while they´d simply shrug off that adamantine arrow and rip you to tiny pieces once they got a hold on you. And those magical arrows lose their bonus because the game assumes they break when they hit, and a broken magical item is just not magical anymore  <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=":)" />  Nope. Because the rules do not say under "steel" that it gains a enhancement bonus dependent on the amount used. Whereas, adamantine does. And also, you are comparing apples and oranges. Base damage and enhancement bonuses are two completely separate things. Hence why inferior weapons do not gain an enhancement penalty, they just gain a -2 to attack and damage rolls.Yeah, I know...and the "enhancement modifier" for standard weapons is +0, because they´re the reference for the better or worse-quality weapons. The point in my argument was that, if a weapon has to be made wholly of bone to "gain" it´s enhancement penalty of -2, or wholly from adamantine to gain it´s enhancement bonus, then the reference weapon should have to be made wholly from steel to gain it´s standard damage in the first place. at least that´s what your line of arguing would lead me to conclude. With some weapons, or even most, that works pretty well (e.g. mace, most swords, some hammers and axes, etc.), as they are made mostly of steel by default. Other weapons aren´t, and then you´d get problems. A "bone arrow", for example...is that one made wholly from bone? Or just the tip?Oh yeah, and no chapter and verse required...I'm sick of reading what the PHB and DMG say... <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=";)" /> Hey..I thought we were arguing from the books here...  <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=";)" />  Thanks for letting me off the hook on that one  <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=":)" />  Edit: Can you believe this post didn´t go through at first because I included too many smilies? That´s what you get when you try to be friendly on this board...you get your rights to post denied <-- Joke  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

Verification