Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hong" data-source="post: 205119" data-attributes="member: 537">Recall that the context in which this particular subtopic arose was the use of the word "hardness" in a handwave to explain adamantine arrowheads breaking. Such a handwave has nothing to do with the D&D rules system. Pay attention.It would help if you kept your examples at least somewhat relevant.Permanent +2 arrows do not "undermine" the rules, any more than using harm unchanged, or allowing spellcasters to polymorph enemies into baby seals, "undermines" the rules. They may be undesirable for some DMs, but that's a matter of individual taste._IF_ one decides that permanent +2 arrows are undesirable, there are ways to deal with that -- in fact, one might simply apply the regular rules for breakage of arrows, and all would be good. _IF_ one decides that permanent +2 arrows do not constitute a problem, then that's fine too, simply by ruling that the regular rules for breakage of arrows don't apply. Either way, the rules are not undermined.That's what they ALL say.You assume that everything I say is meant to help my case.Tell me, do the shortswords in your world have wooden blades? If not, why not? After all, according to your logic, the only bit of the shortsword that matters is apparently the tip.By all means. Go right ahead.Your point being...?Your point being...?Cite evidence to support this assertion of yours. This may be rather difficult, given that adamantine is a make-believe substance and therefore the DM is entirely free to make up DCs based on their own in-game reality. In fact, all the D&D canon I know of suggests that working adamantine is an extraordinarily difficult/involved process, so a high DC seems eminently reasonable to me.Yep. Post proof, or retract.That's your problem. If you can't back up your assertion, you shouldn't have made it in the first place.By this argument, since 99% of a spear is made up of the shaft, I should be able to make everything EXCEPT the head out of adamantine and still get the benefit. Your argument is nonsensical. And in the case of a battleaxe or arrowshaft, the amount of flexing is reduced commensurately, so your argument remains nonsensical.The fact that you're having to resort to these flights of fancy only indicates the barrenness of your argument.Last I checked, shortswords are not made of wood, with a metal tip. Of course, this only applies in the real world, where the sky is blue. Things may well be different in your world, where the colour of the sky may also be different.Exactly. Nowhere in the rules is it explicitly stated that characters don't have to pee. Just as nowhere in the rules is it explicitly stated that items have to be fashioned completely out of adamantine.You seem to be terminally confused, to the point that you're now making my own argument for me. Perhaps now you're suggesting that NOWHERE in the DMG does it say that items have to be entirely made of a special material for the benefit to accrue?Because the benefit of darkwood is in terms of reduced weight and encumbrance, not combat effectiveness. For such a benefit to accrue, it's eminently reasonable that all or most of an item must be fashioned of darkwood. This is not the case for adamantine. Pay attention.The haft is used to hold the spear, while the head is the part that actually causes pain and suffering. Making the one out of adamantine has negligible impact on how much pain and suffering is caused, while making the other out of adamantine has considerable impact. Pay attention.And you'll note that nothing about what I've posted contradicts the concrete rules, while still remaining broadly consistent with the guidelines.Sanity has nothing to do with it. The point is that a true strike item that doesn't require an action to activate is perfectly consistent with the rules. And yet one interpretation makes much more sense than the other.Chapter and verse, please. I see nothing in the rules that states arrows must have a specific weight. (In fact, if this were true, upsized bows as used by giants would be rather problematic.)See other post. An arrow forms part of a combined system comprising the bow and its ammunition. To say otherwise is patently ridiculous.All, or at least a significant majority. Are you seriously suggesting that I believe that one adamantine chain link in a suit of chainmail would have any impact? Your point being...?DM judgement may be called on, but that in itself doesn't invalidate an argument, any more than having to adjudicate what constitutes an "encounter" invalidates the rules for barbarian rage. If you really want to know, I wouldn't allow adamantine studded leather, and (this should be obvious even to the stupid) full plate would have to be made essentially all out of adamantine.No, we couldn't. Note that a sword doesn't take damage from hitting a creature, even something like an iron golem or animated object. The hardness rules do _not_ cover breakage of weapons, armour or ammunition arising from normal usage; the only rules relevant to this situation are the "auto-destruct" rules. If so desired, they can be applied to adamantine arrows just fine.Point out exactly where any handwave I've posted has contradicted the rules.What do you think all that frickin' stuff about hardness and toughness was? Pay attention.I will. Would you like a handwave to go with it?I'm not aware of any threads in this forum (or elsewhere) where a major disagreement over initiative has arisen. Please point out such a thread.Yep. They're those things that keep tripping you up. Indeed, that was pure genius.</blockquote>

Verification