Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="hong" data-source="post: 204933" data-attributes="member: 537">This is the second (third? fourth?) time you've used this ludicrous strawman. Please stop.I never said the description &quot;doesn't matter&quot;. I said that as a general description of the intent of the rules, it's liable to be contradicted in specific circumstances. That's the nature of generalisations.If this was true then you wouldn't even need arrows to use a bow. Note that nothing in the rules explicitly states ammunition is necessary, and yet we blithely assume this is the case. Going STRICTLY by the book, a bow is a weapon with a range increment of X feet, and dealing 1d6/1d8 points of piercing damage. Sure, the &quot;bow&quot; entries in the PHB table may have &quot;arrow&quot; entries right underneath them, but that's neither here nor there.In summary, you cannot think of a bow and an arrow as completely separate items, as if they were a longsword and a shortsword. The _package_ deals 1d6/1d8 damage. Because of that, adamantine arrows (or adamantine arrowheads, even) are perfectly consistent with the rules, since 1) the _package_ of bow and arrow deals 1d6/1d8 damage, and 2) nothing in the rules requires that items MUST be fully fashioned out of adamantine.Your stance is not &quot;lame&quot; in terms of contradicting the rules. It can't be, because the rules aren't specific enough on this topic to be contradicted. It's &quot;lame&quot; in terms of having ridiculous corollaries.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="hong, post: 204933, member: 537"] This is the second (third? fourth?) time you've used this ludicrous strawman. Please stop. I never said the description "doesn't matter". I said that as a general description of the intent of the rules, it's liable to be contradicted in specific circumstances. That's the nature of generalisations. If this was true then you wouldn't even need arrows to use a bow. Note that nothing in the rules explicitly states ammunition is necessary, and yet we blithely assume this is the case. Going STRICTLY by the book, a bow is a weapon with a range increment of X feet, and dealing 1d6/1d8 points of piercing damage. Sure, the "bow" entries in the PHB table may have "arrow" entries right underneath them, but that's neither here nor there. In summary, you cannot think of a bow and an arrow as completely separate items, as if they were a longsword and a shortsword. The _package_ deals 1d6/1d8 damage. Because of that, adamantine arrows (or adamantine arrowheads, even) are perfectly consistent with the rules, since 1) the _package_ of bow and arrow deals 1d6/1d8 damage, and 2) nothing in the rules requires that items MUST be fully fashioned out of adamantine. Your stance is not "lame" in terms of contradicting the rules. It can't be, because the rules aren't specific enough on this topic to be contradicted. It's "lame" in terms of having ridiculous corollaries. [/QUOTE]

Verification