Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ConcreteBuddha" data-source="post: 204905" data-attributes="member: 3139">The description of how adamantine works does not matter? Even if it is a guideline? I would think that both the stats and the description would matter, considering that it would be kind of absurd if we made fireballs do 1d6 X caster level in fire damage, and made the ball a giant slab of cheese, because we decided that the description had nothing to do with the rules.&nbsp;Yes, you need ammmuntion, but the damage is explicitly stated to come from the bow. Nowhere does it say that the damage is dealt by the combination of the arrow and the bow. It states quite clearly on the chart that the bow lines up with the damage, and not with the arrow.&nbsp;Okay then, since I was replying to Xarlen, I did not use acceptable hong terms. Thus, I will define &quot;lame&quot;.&quot;Lame&quot; is ignoring a description of a rule when the more concrete parts of the rule directly contradict your interpretation of each other.Notice how my stance is not &quot;lame&quot; because my interpretation is of a concrete rule, when no description directly counters it. If the book described the arrow doing the damage, I'd be happy saying this point is moot.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ConcreteBuddha, post: 204905, member: 3139"] The description of how adamantine works does not matter? Even if it is a guideline? I would think that both the stats [B] and [/B] the description would matter, considering that it would be kind of absurd if we made fireballs do 1d6 X caster level in fire damage, and made the ball a giant slab of cheese, because we decided that the description had nothing to do with the rules. [B] [/B] Yes, you need ammmuntion, but the damage is explicitly stated to come from the bow. Nowhere does it say that the damage is dealt by the combination of the arrow and the bow. It states quite clearly on the chart that the bow lines up with the damage, and not with the arrow. [B] [/B] Okay then, since I was replying to Xarlen, I did not use acceptable hong terms. Thus, I will define "lame". "Lame" is ignoring a description of a rule when the more concrete parts of the rule directly contradict your interpretation of each other. Notice how my stance is not "lame" because my interpretation is of a concrete rule, when no description directly counters it. If the book described the arrow doing the damage, I'd be happy saying this point is moot. [/QUOTE]

Verification