Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ConcreteBuddha" data-source="post: 205086" data-attributes="member: 3139">Name one rule that I made that directly contradicts the rules as presented. Yes, but DnD is the final arbiter on the definition of words within the DnD rules system. If the rules said: "clown: a d20", then when the rules said to roll a clown, you wouldn't pick up the nearest freak and toss him around. <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=";)" />  Yup considering you are doing more than undermining the rules by making permanent +2 arrows, realizing your mistake and then covering up that mistake with a lame-brained excuse for a house rule.And I will continue to flail around as long as I am right, thank you very much. Slander does not help your case.  Yup, because any part of a short sword except for the tip has no bearing on the effectiveness of the weapon. And the rules for adamantine are completely out of whack. It doesn't change the fact that those are the rules and this is the rules forum. Or would you like to discuss the proper weight of a greatsword in 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=";)" /> I agree we should look at the whole package. This includes the description. Because, without the description, we would not know that adamantine is a metal. And without the description, adamantine leather armor would be okay. It is also possible that specific situations where contradictions occur can be avoided by a different interpretation of the rules. One in which both rules play some amount of significance in the process. Cover up an inane rules interpretation with an equally inane house rule? (Sticking an adamantine arrowhead on a piece of wood could not plausably be higher than a DC 20, which is the "complex or superior item" category.) Nope, because you do not gain an additional +1 natural enhancement bonus by making the switch from halfspear to shortspear and steel does not explicitly say that the quality is based on the quanity of material. So you are saying that I can only prove there could be such a material by showing you one? That's analogous to saying that I can only prove that there could be a moon if I show you the moon.Oh yeah, see below, where I find such a material... Okay then, you say that a wood shaft can "bend to avoid breaking" but is not flexible. Isn't this a tad contradictory?Also, I did not say that it flops around like balsa wood, I said that a wooden shaft is more flexible than adamantine. An adamantine shaft would not bend to avoid breaking. It would instead hold firm and damage whatever was attempting to bend it. Hence the enhancement bonus. Also, a 10 ft. long wood shaft does "flop around" an inch or two. These inches can prove the difference between a miss and a hit in combat. Same goes with the effectiveness of an axe haft as a lever or the aerodynamics of a straight shaft or perfect fletching. Actually, why aren't regular shortswords made of wood with a metal tip if all that matters with damage capability is the actual damage dealing area? That specific example seems to contradict your assertion that:  True that. However if it said in the rules that we didn't have to pee in the DnD system, then we darn wouldn't have to pee in the DnD system. Actually no they didn't.They said: Neither one of these say that the entire weapon or suit of armor must be made out of mithral or darkwood. So your point is moot. Oh yeah, the above quote also shows a material that is more effective as a spear haft than normal wood. (darkwood)  One part of a weapon is more important to the total weapon's effectiveness than another? How is this judged?A spear without a haft is useless. A spear without a head is useless. Therefore both contirbute equally to the effectiveness of the weapon.And you already said that:   Hence why it is a guideline. And only a guideline governs the creation of magic items. The instance of adamantine has both a guideline and concrete rules. Therefore, your example does not hold up. (One who regularly shouts "Strawman" should notice before he touts one...) <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 yeah, and use-activated True Strike items aren't overpowering at all. (Since use-activated can be a standard action or no action, as per the DM's choice. And which do you think a sane DM is going to choose?) Well, since you are using a guideline in absence of concrete rules and the situation is a guideline with concrete rules, your example doesn't hold up.Also, why shouldn't a use-activated item of true strike cost only 2,000 gp? Ask kreynolds for a full explanation... Well since adamantine weighs more than wood, an adamantine arrow cannot weigh the equivalent as a wooden shafted arrow (.15 lbs) and still have the same mass.Therefore it would technically, not be able to be used by normal bows, since their arrows have to weigh .15 lbs.But if this is not plausable in your campaign world, then fine, adamantine arrows can fly. (If you can get past the "arrows are ammunition so you can't gain an enhancement bonus from adamantine since adamantine can only give weapons an enhancement bonus." Which you haven't.) Well, are you then saying that all of the significant portion of armor, when it comes to protection, has to be made out of adamantine? Or only some of the significant portion, when it comes to protection, has to be made out of adamantine?If it's the first, then does studded leather get an enhancement bonus? (Since the leather itself it a significant portion of the armor when it comes to protection.) And if it's the second, then can I make a suit of full plate where only one plate is adamantine and receive the enhancement bonus? Sorry, that was a quote of mine from a previous post. I was trying to show that using mine interpretation, adamantine leather would be impossible to make because of that interpretation. Well actually, they say that adamantine has hardness 20. And if an arrow with a 1" adamantine arrowhead hits a 1" thick adamantine wall, we could plausably argue that both sides would take the same amount of damage, since both are the same material, in equivalent amounts. Namely, 1d8 + 2, or no damage with hardness. Everything else could be houseruled from there. (And I don't see less tough materials doing more damage to the arrowhead than 1d8 + 2) A plausable in-game rationale for why the rules are as they are is only a good thing if they don't contradict those very rules. And of course, we are not automatons,  I often alter the rules to fit my liking. That's the point of RPGing: imagination. However, interpreting rules does not preclude imagination. Just look at the US Supreme Court... <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=";)" /> Why do I need a handwave when my interpretation of the rules does not need a handwave? You need a handwave. And if you feel like sticking a PC with a DC 45 check to stick a piece of metal on a stick, be my guest... <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=":)" />  By your definition of ambiguous, rolling initiative is ambiguous, sheesh... You do know what a contradiction is, right? <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=";)" />   Really, except for the fact that I have admitted being wrong twice already in this thread, and I am not ashamed to do it again, if presented with evidence that my stance is incorrect. Thus far, I do not feel that that has happened. And once all of the points have been covered, I will say, "Let's agree to disagree."And as for channeling Magus_Jerel:Oooooooooooooooooommmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...I feeeeel a presenceeeeee.......a spectral visitor from the spirit realm wishes to speak with you, hong..............he says:"ConcreteBuddha is a moron. He could not of come up with anything as brilliant as having two partial actions in a round. That was pure genius."<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