Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hong" data-source="post: 202742" data-attributes="member: 537">So stop doing it.The PHB is not the final arbiter on the use of the English language, even in a D&D campaign.This would be relevant if I was using it to undermine the rules. Since I'm not, you are simply flailing around.I look forward to it. You seem to be channeling Magus_Jerel quite well. Perhaps you should now insert a reference to quantum mechanics and start Capitalising References to Yourself.They do have the rather silly corollary that making the peripheral bits out of adamantine has an impact on a weapon's effectiveness, though.First, as I said (and you conveniently snipped) the weight of the greatsword is completely out of whack. And second, no; any more than a longsword and a greatsword both gain the same bonus. The exact mechanism by which an enhancement bonus works is left undefined in D&D; what really matters is the complete package, and that means looking at the base damage as well.Strawman. I didn't say it was "utterly meaningless". I said that as a general description of the intent of the rules, it was possible that specific situations could contradict it. That's the nature of generalisations.So don't allow it. Or whack on a massive Craft DC check to stop people doing it, if it bothers you so much.People can do this with steel spearheads too. Do you have a problem with that?Such as?This is a silly argument. A 10-foot-pole as used in a pike is not "flexible"; these things aren't made of balsa wood. It may have the ability to bend to avoid breaking, but it isn't going to flop around either. That goes double for a 3-foot-long battleaxe haft, or an arrowshaft.For the exact same reason that regular shortswords aren't made of wood with a metal tip. Can you find anything to suggest that regular shortswords aren't made that way?The rules leave some things undescribed because the designers assume _some_ level of familiarity with how the real world works. There's nothing in the books that explicitly says characters have to breathe or drink or pee either, and yet we blithely assume they have to do all these things.If the game designers meant for weapons to be fully fashioned of adamantine, they would have said so. They did for mithral and darkwood, but not adamantine. They didn't have to, because it should be self-evident that not all portions of a weapon contribute equally to its effectiveness.And by the rules, you can have use-activated items of true strike too. The rules are not perfect, especially when it comes to creating magic items.You might as well ask why a use-activated item of true strike shouldn't cost only 2,000 gp, since that's what it says in the rules.You can take it any way you want, if it makes you feel better.Chapter and verse, please. You're the one who seems bent on a ridiculously narrow position when it comes to interpreting the rules. I see nothing in the book that requires that adamantine arrows couldn't fly.This is a doubly silly example. The buckles are not the significant portion of the armour _when it comes to protection_, so making them out of adamantine would have no impact on the armour's ability to protect. It's just the same as making a spear shaft, but not the head, out of adamantine. As I've said twice already, your example is irrelevant.Where on earth did you pull that quote from? It's not in the DMG description of adamantine.So? Your point was that the "rules" prevent adamantine arrowheads breaking. Since this would require rules for damage taken as well as durability, your point is wrong.I'm not saying that "it's magic" is a substitute for the rules. I'm not even saying that "it's magic" is why the rules are wrong. I'm saying that a plausible in-game rationale for why the rules are as they are, is a good thing. Assuming that the people playing the game aren't robotic automatons who have no concept of an in-game reality beyond the rules, that is.Sheesh. If reusing adamantine arrows really bothers you that much, just slap a massive Craft DC check to affix the head to a new shaft. All the "hardness" thing was, was a handwave to explain to recalcitrant players why these arrows might not be reused. As with such things, multiple handwaves are always possible. Pick one to fit your tastes. If a rule is ambiguous enough to lend itself to multiple contradictory interpretations, then choosing which interpretation to apply is something that depends on the individual DM's tastes, and hence is by definition a house rule.Hardly.Not at all, and even if it did, you could use something else to solve that particular problem.You ARE channeling Magus_Jerel quite well.</blockquote>

Verification