Diamond-tipped arrows?

[Dannyalcatraz]

Yep. Gold on cake is for real as well. So is gold in booze.

 

[Dirigible]

Isn't that just a "masterwork" arrow? (Assuming a mw arrow provides +1 to hit.)

It's a masterwork arrow that doesn't work against naked people, yep.

How do you figure that? Money wasn't invented until about the 7th century BC (Lydia or somewhere like that), but gemstones were already precious in Egypt in 1800 BC. A barter economy just means taht rich people pay a lot of goods for pretty baubles, instead of paying a lot of cash for pretty baubles.

I clarify: a post-apocalyptic barter economy where the armies of the Dark God kill and pillage at a whim and survival for another day is the only goal of the average person.

But even then, I pretty much agree with you. It seems against human nature to just discard shiny-shinies, even in the worst conditions - there's always the hope that things will get better, and the person left holding the bejewlled crown will be in a better position than the one with a big 'ole sack of millet.

Ridiculous! The absurdly large diamonds in the engagement rings of the second wives of vulgar multi-millionaires...

I can only assume that the person who write that section didn't know that.

[reread]The people who used the diamonds were halflings, if it helps. The stones were effectivly eight times as big for them!.[/reread]

 

[Agback]

I clarify: a post-apocalyptic barter economy where the armies of the Dark God kill and pillage at a whim and survival for another day is the only goal of the average person.

But even then, I pretty much agree with you. It seems against human nature to just discard shiny-shinies, even in the worst conditions - there's always the hope that things will get better, and the person left holding the bejewlled crown will be in a better position than the one with a big 'ole sack of millet.

Yeah. But the issue there is poverty, not barter. Luxuries like diamonds display a high price-elasticity of demand, so their price is comparatively low when everyone is poor.

I can only assume that the person who write that section didn't know that.

Well, there's no shame in not knowing. The shame is in not trying to find out. Takes about two minutes with Google to list the carat weights of the world's biggest diamonds and to find out how many carats are in a pound.

[reread]The people who used the diamonds were halflings, if it helps. The stones were effectivly eight times as big for them!.[/reread]

So were hit points, I hope. And distances.

 

[Tarangil]

Realistically diamonds would suck as an arrowhead, but I do like the idea of Diamond tioped arrows for a Fantasy campaign. They would be expensive but definetly a cool weapon with possibilities...

Here's a question: Once you've hit someone with a diamond tipped arrow and it's embedded in the victim what would happen if you cast shatter on that arrow?

 

[lukelightning]

Nothing. Shatter would damage the arrow, not the creature.

Also, there are no real rules for determining if an arrow is embedded in a creature; I feel that an arrow is not, in fact, embedded in a creature in the course of combat; given the fact that creatures have to make special attacks to "attach" I think it is too powerful to allow an arrow to do the same; for example, casting silence on an arrow and shooting a wizard should put the arrow in the wizard's square after it hits, not impaled into the wizard.

Here's a question: Once you've hit someone with a diamond tipped arrow and it's embedded in the victim what would happen if you cast shatter on that arrow?

 

[Dark Jezter]

People People!

You don't need diamonds, magic or otherwise, to bypass Armour. The elves created such a method thousands of years ago. All you have to do is make an arrow completely out of wood and it will get past any metal armour made by all the other, inferior races.

Oh.. you can only make these if your an elf.


So says the Complete Book of Elves, which is totally infallible.. cause it was made by elves too.



J from Three Haligonians

Why do you even need wood? I once heard that an elf made a dagger out of a leaf, and it could cut through any type of armor like a hot knife through butter.

But, back to the main topic of the thread...

I kinda like the idea of diamond (or diamond-tipped) arrowheads in a campaign. Sure, it's unrealistic in real life, but in a fantasy world something like that just might work (particularly if the diamonds are magically-enhanced).

 

[Tarangil]

Nothing. Shatter would damage the arrow, not the creature.

Also, there are no real rules for determining if an arrow is embedded in a creature; I feel that an arrow is not, in fact, embedded in a creature in the course of combat; given the fact that creatures have to make special attacks to "attach" I think it is too powerful to allow an arrow to do the same; for example, casting silence on an arrow and shooting a wizard should put the arrow in the wizard's square after it hits, not impaled into the wizard.

I understand that there's no offical ruling of the sort, but If I had a player want to see if it would work, as a DM I'm sure you could find a quick and fair solution rather than saying NO...For example, perhaps every point above 5 that an arrow does adds a 5% chance of having it embedded? The shatter may not do much, you could either have it do 1pt/caster lvl, or victim is wracked with pain from shards within imposing a -2 penalty on attacks and whatnot.

Luckily I've never had a player wanna try glass/diamond arrows so I'm hoping I don't have to deal with that anytime soon. I was just wondering if anyone else has given something similar a shot.

 

[Dirigible]

Yeah. But the issue there is poverty, not barter. Luxuries like diamonds display a high price-elasticity of demand, so their price is comparatively low when everyone is poor.

Which is what I said, yo.

 

[Agback]

Which is what I said, yo.

It may be one of the things you say. But it is not what you said when you said this:

A barter economy means that 'baubles' like gems are essentially worthless

A barter economy means no such thing. The issue is poverty, not barter.

 

[Dirigible]

It may be one of the things you say. But it is not what you said when you said this:

*sigh* No, it's not. It is, however, what I said when I clarified myself later. Or at least what I implied. Or at least what I meant to imply.

In a parallel universe.

In Esperanto.

To myself.