Post/Author/DateTime	Post
silvanas 04-02-06, 07:17 PM	This is a upgrade from my recent question about platnuim weapons and armor. How about... Diamond carved weapons? Enchanted to be light weight. Armor as well. And heres the big question, no doubt epic level gear, but what would the dice rolls be? Where could my PCs find this item? I created my own world for this so any answers are fine. What class could be able to use it? Or would i have to create my own class. Anyway... What are ur thoughts? :dragon:
Kyuketsukiouji 04-02-06, 07:20 PM	Absolutely no effect, except maybe that they're better able to resist sundering attempts done by a blunt weapon. Maybe.
StevenO 04-02-06, 08:05 PM	In the real world diamonds are the hardest know substance and that could translate into a better item hardness and weapons that hold an edge better (damage increase). Unfortunately diamond is also brittle and may shatter when struck so its use is somewhat questionable. In D&D terms it may be best to treat a magically enhanced diamond crafted item a little better than you would an item made from Adamantine. Perhaps an increase in hardness but a smaller increase in actual HP gained.
ShinAkuma2 04-02-06, 10:07 PM	They'd be easy to sunder with a bludgeoning weapon, but harder with slashing. The structure of a diamond makes it hard to cut, but easy to smash.
Nom 04-02-06, 11:38 PM	Steel has 4 properties that make it particularly suitable for weapons: (1) it's strong (2) it's mildly springy (3) it's relatively easily shapeable under heat (4) it's relatively light without compromising strong or springy Most people thinking up new materials remember 1, but fail to note the importance of 2, 3 and 4. Especially 4. You need a certain minimum mass. Beyond that point, mass is bad, since it severely compromises speed (which is damage) and manoeuvrability.
Arkan_Shadesfire 04-03-06, 12:14 AM	Well, in a land of magic, diamond weapons aren't that farfetched. They could have been shaped, or even created/transmuted by magic--so forging isn't a problem. Likewise spells could shore up problems like brittleness. Lets face is, you could hae an ice blade that never melted in D&D. :D (actually, that's an interesting idea...) For a diamond weapon, I'd say make it weaker than adamantine (no reason diamonds have to be harder than fictional uber-metals) and give it a natural keen effect and a penalty against blunt damage. Also, charge through the nose for the expensive magical forging. You could have greater diamond weapons that are spell reinforced to prevent shattering--and more expensive--and you might want to play off of diamond's piezeoelectric properties somehow...
overchill42 04-03-06, 01:30 AM	Have you tried the Crystal special material in the XPH? Not over-the-top awesome, but viable.
Kyuketsukiouji 04-03-06, 01:40 AM	Lets face is, you could hae an ice blade that never melted in D&D. :D (actually, that's an interesting idea...) Already exists...
Arkan_Shadesfire 04-03-06, 04:43 AM	I've no doubt, but I haven't seen it yet. I've seen spells that produce this effect, but not an actual magic weapon whose significant portion is a chunk of ice... Elemental Energy weapons, anyone? :D
Rulebook 04-03-06, 06:46 AM	thre was an Axe in Dragonlance that was made of ice enchanted to not melt. thats all i can think of. and why does everybody assume that just because diamond is balls hard that its automatically gonna be balls sharp? ive never heard of diamonds being particularly sharp, or at least not any sharper than any other gemstone. (if you want nonmetallic sharpness, go ceramic!) putting an edge on a crystaline substance is always a bad idea too, as the already slightly brittle material is now thinned to a very small width. edges would weaken diamond signifigantly.
Prominence 04-03-06, 08:07 AM	thre was an Axe in Dragonlance that was made of ice enchanted to not melt. thats all i can think of. Stygian Ice, Rimefire Ice, and Blue Ice out of Frostburn are all non-melting ices that can be made into weapons, though stygian ice does reach a point to where it melts.
StevenO 04-03-06, 12:41 PM	thre was an Axe in Dragonlance that was made of ice enchanted to not melt. ... and why does everybody assume that just because diamond is balls hard that its automatically gonna be balls sharp? ive never heard of diamonds being particularly sharp, or at least not any sharper than any other gemstone. (if you want nonmetallic sharpness, go ceramic!) putting an edge on a crystaline substance is always a bad idea too, as the already slightly brittle material is now thinned to a very small width. edges would weaken diamond signifigantly. The DL setting Ice Reavers did lose some potency in warm weather but when frozen were as strong as steel. Diamonds aren't sharp? As a single piece probably not but many expensive cutting tools such as drills and saws use diamonds on the cutting surface to keep them sharp and cutting longer. Obsidian has been effectively used for cutting edges and it is a crystaline substance.
KublaiKhan 04-03-06, 01:02 PM	Since there are no rules for "losing an edge" in D&D, there's really no use for diamonds. That being said, if you wanted to anneal diamond dust onto the edge of a blade, I might give it a mild bonus to sunder attempts.
bondious 04-03-06, 01:05 PM	This is a upgrade from my recent question about platnuim weapons and armor. How about... Diamond carved weapons? Enchanted to be light weight. Armor as well. And heres the big question, no doubt epic level gear, but what would the dice rolls be? Where could my PCs find this item? I created my own world for this so any answers are fine. What class could be able to use it? Or would i have to create my own class. Anyway... What are ur thoughts? :dragon: I have a thought. Diamonds, in pretty much ANY world, are going to be pretty damned expensive and rare, correct? So I'm thinking that maybe you could have a new substance, maybe call it "Diamondesque" or something that is a magic or alchemical alloy of diamond and steel or another metal (mithral, cold iron, etc). Have it appear as the given metal with a refractive sheen. You could then take the most notable property of diamonds, their hardness, and apply it to a weapon or armor WITHOUT having to actually make it out of the stuff. Anyhow, I'm not too good at creating specifics (price, weight, effects) about new and balanced special materials, so I'll leave that to others, but I think the idea has merit. ;) [Note: I don't know if you/anyone reads the X-Men comic, but there's a character in that book called the White Queen who has gained the ability to sheath her body in a semi-transperant, semi-refractive "diamond-like" substance which functions much like a form-fitting suit of armor. It isn't REALLY diamond, but it's pretty hard and protects her quite well. Anyway, this idea kinda reminds me of her.]
Arkan_Shadesfire 04-03-06, 01:11 PM	and why does everybody assume that just because diamond is balls hard that its automatically gonna be balls sharp? ive never heard of diamonds being particularly sharp, or at least not any sharper than any other gemstone. (if you want nonmetallic sharpness, go ceramic!) putting an edge on a crystaline substance is always a bad idea too, as the already slightly brittle material is now thinned to a very small width. edges would weaken diamond signifigantly. I can't speak for why everyone else beleives this, but in my case it's something I learned while studying swordmaking. The classic problem when making a sword is that harder minerals (such as steel) can take a keener edge, but softer minerals (like iron) are less likely to shatter. Also, industrial-grade diamonds are used for high-end cutting tools IRL. It's not the most common knowlege in the world, but it's not exactly secret either. Come to think of it, there is a company that produces incredibly sharp but brittle knives made of a lab-produced ceramic. If I'm not mistaken, the ceramic is primarily made of zircon--a substance very similar to diamond. In short, a purely diamond blade would probably cut excellently but be very brittle--not unlike the prehistoric blades made of obsidian. However, if alchemical silver weapons don't bend in two when striking an opponent, then a D&D world would likely have the means to toughen up a diamond blade as well. Wow, either everybody here types realy fast or I type really slow--glad to see someone else brought up the points about diamond saws and obsidian as well.
tarkin 04-03-06, 01:54 PM	When people talk about diamond edges, what they generally want to be talking about is actually mono-molecular edges. Basically this is a sword whose edge is exactly one molecule thick, and it gradually and slowly gets to that point. The sword itself should be extremely thin, and would need magic /advanced materials to create it. If you made an artifact using this idea, you can claim that it ignores hardness, sunders anything that tries to block the it (including armor as well as shields and swords), etc. But making a blade out of diamond is not the smartest thing in the world (Industrial Diamonds are used to make abrasive surfaces that don't dull, i.e. files used as drills. They themselves are not used to make sharp weapons, and would not help that at all.)
Kresalak 04-03-06, 02:04 PM	If you made an artifact using this idea, you can claim that it ignores hardness, sunders anything that tries to block the it (including armor as well as shields and swords), etc. Much as I may hate the book, the artifact Angelwing Razor from the BoVD has a similar mechanic-it automatically bypasses all damage reduction and hardness, and can cut through a wall of force.
KublaiKhan 04-03-06, 02:23 PM	I have a thought. Diamonds, in pretty much ANY world, are going to be pretty damned expensive and rare, correct? Well...actually...no. See, diamonds on earth aren't really that expensive--certainly not the industrial-quality kind. The only reason why the gem-quality kind are expensive at all is because of DeBeers corporation having more or less a monopoly on 'em. The whole diamond engagement ring schtick? That was started by DeBeers in...I believe it was the 1920's. You don't have to believe me, by the way--just go to any jeweler and try to re-sell a diamond to them. If you get more than half of what you paid for it back, then I'll go without ale for a week.
Arkan_Shadesfire 04-03-06, 02:34 PM	There are diamond coated saws--but I agree that the purpose of those is likely to prevent dulling rather than actually cut with the diamond. Also, about monomolecular edges--prehistoric obsidian blades have edges which are mono-atomic in places (a natural result of the chipping method used to form the edge, not a result of sharpening as we inderstand it) and they aren't as effective as the artifact you describe. No matter how sharp the blade is, it shouldn't ignore hardness. I'm not sure of the top of my head if D&D already works this way--but you should subtract a mono-blade's hardness from the hardness of the object struck, not ignore it all together. Likewise, there should be a minimum hardness requirement for a weapon to be a monoblade--since harder substances can be sharpened to a keener edge, it makes sense that mono-sharpening would require a high hardness value. That aside, I still think that a weapon made of diamond should be one step keener than it's steel counterpart, and should have a hardness equal or less than adamantine--although I tend to mentally equate "adamantine" with "adamantium" from the X-men, and lookind at the game stats, it's not that indestructible, so perhaps diamond should be harder... ...is there already an official ruling on diamond hardness? That would probably answer alot of the questions that come up on this board, if we just had a reference chart that listed the hardness and hit points of various materials. I know the DMG has one, but something more comprehensive would be nice. Anyway, the ussue of diamond's brittleness could be resolved by giving it fewer hit points--it's still fargin hard stuff, but not that difficult to break if you've got something that can damage it. Also, how brittle is diamond, really? Other crystals shatter easily, but they aren't nearly as hard as diamonds either, so I don't think we should assume a diamond is as vulnerable as glass or quartz. Some data on the actual tensile strength of diamond would be nice... [edit] Also, yes--the current value of diamonds IRL is primarily a result of excelent marketing and careful control of the supply side of the "supply and demand" formula. There are, quite literally, warehouses full of diamonds that have been mined but won't be sold becuase it would flood the marked and make diamonds worth less than fresh water. :D
Dalthbar 04-03-06, 03:03 PM	When people talk about diamond edges, what they generally want to be talking about is actually mono-molecular edges. Basically this is a sword whose edge is exactly one molecule thick, and it gradually and slowly gets to that point. Then you have the vibroblades (or something like that) from Rifts. The benefit was totally based on technology, but the sword vibrated in a very specific way on the molecular level, which allowed it to cut better since it was doing so in the space between the matter of the target.
risner 04-03-06, 03:11 PM	Quote: Originally Posted by Arkan_Shadesfire Lets face is, you could hae an ice blade that never melted in D&D. (actually, that's an interesting idea...) Already exists... And it is called Blue Ice (Frostburn)
bondious 04-03-06, 03:24 PM	Well...actually...no. See, diamonds on earth aren't really that expensive--certainly not the industrial-quality kind. The only reason why the gem-quality kind are expensive at all is because of DeBeers corporation having more or less a monopoly on 'em. The whole diamond engagement ring schtick? That was started by DeBeers in...I believe it was the 1920's. You don't have to believe me, by the way--just go to any jeweler and try to re-sell a diamond to them. If you get more than half of what you paid for it back, then I'll go without ale for a week. Umm...I think you missed the point. The OP didn't say anything about "man made" or Cubic Zirconia diamonds, and neither did I. My musings about the rarity of diamonds is an assertion that ACTUAL and AUTHENTIC diamonds of any real value are rare enough that over the centuries they've held steady as a commodity, similar to other gemstones like rubies, emeralds, etc. Why would people have coveted them so much throughout history? Why would they have used them to enhance statues, goblets, rings and other jewelry, etc? In D&D terms, a diamond is among the top tier of valuable gems, correct? Now in the industrial revolution to modern ages you have the technology and capitalist drive to strip mine the hell out of nearly EVERYTHING that could be considered a commodity. Look at the Gold Rush, for instance, where they leveled vast areas of land and changed the geography in some places. Then you have what Arkan_Shadesfire said about the diamond industry having warehouses full on diamonds in an effort to control the supply and demand. Take this into account with the fact that science has given us the ability to manufacture "man-made" diamonds for things like heavy industrial "diamond" drill bits... ...and we are not really talking about a D&D game world, huh? That's all I was saying when I said "Diamonds, in pretty much ANY world, are going to be pretty damned expensive and rare, correct?" I guess I didn't expect that little comment to be taken that literally, and was thinking that a response to my post would have been about the post. Oh well... :rolleyes:
KublaiKhan 04-03-06, 03:39 PM	Umm...I think you missed the point. The OP didn't say anything about "man made" or Cubic Zirconia diamonds, and neither did I. My musings about the rarity of diamonds is an assertion that ACTUAL and AUTHENTIC diamonds of any real value are rare enough that over the centuries they've held steady as a commodity, similar to other gemstones like rubies, emeralds, etc. 'fraid not. The whole price spike in diamonds is a 19th-20th century phenomenon. They're actually less valuable, in an open market, than a good-quality ruby or emerald. 's why I gave my girlfriend an emerald ring--much nicer looking. Also, I'm talking about naturally occurring diamonds. Seriously--there's more of 'em around than you think. Take my challenge--find out the resale value, at a reputable jeweler, of any piece of diamond jewelery. Especially if it's an 'heriloom' with some multi-hundred-thousand-dollar price tag. You'll start crying. Why would people have coveted them so much throughout history? Why would they have used them to enhance statues, goblets, rings and other jewelry, etc? In D&D terms, a diamond is among the top tier of valuable gems, correct? They've only really been coveted during the time of the DeBeers corporation. The only reason diamond's in the top tier of valuable gems in D&D is because Gygax also bought into the propoganda. Now in the industrial revolution to modern ages you have the technology and capitalist drive to strip mine the hell out of nearly EVERYTHING that could be considered a commodity. Look at the Gold Rush, for instance, where they leveled vast areas of land and changed the geography in some places. Then you have what Arkan_Shadesfire said about the diamond industry having warehouses full on diamonds in an effort to control the supply and demand. Irrelevant. Gold's still valuable--because it has many uses. Diamonds are really only useful for reinforcing industrial-strength sawblades, and for refracting light. Take this into account with the fact that science has given us the ability to manufacture "man-made" diamonds for things like heavy industrial "diamond" drill bits... ...and we are not really talking about a D&D game world, huh? Again, I'm not talking about manmade diamonds at all. Personally, I find 'em to be a waste of time--if the DeBeers corporation did not have a virtual monopoly on natural diamonds, then every home supply store would be selling diamond-edged circular saw blades. That's all I was saying when I said "Diamonds, in pretty much ANY world, are going to be pretty damned expensive and rare, correct?" I guess I didn't expect that little comment to be taken that literally, and was thinking that a response to my post would have been about the post. Oh well... :rolleyes: My response was to correct a misstatement, based on inaccurate information. To find out more, go to the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Beers_Mining_Company) on DeBeers corporation.
silvanas 04-03-06, 04:13 PM	I belive i said "diamond carved weapons " not just swords. War hammers, quarter staffs. Not just swords my freinds. Though i like what im hearin. What if i added a gem stone not found in this world. Dragon gems or somethin?
bondious 04-03-06, 05:21 PM	Okay, my friend, I think you missed my point AGAIN. I'm not talking about the modern day or even the past couple of hundred years. I'm speaking on a broader, longer historical perspecive. Why would I bother comparing a Medieval Fantasy game like D&D to our own time and era? In fact, I didn't...you did. They've only really been coveted during the time of the DeBeers corporation. This is not entirely accurate. I've searched and came up with quite a few sites that have an acutal history of the diamond's significance, from ancient times to the middle ages and right on through the renaissance and to the modern age. Wanna see a couple? Here's one. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/08/60II/main508408.shtml) Here's another (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond) Irrelevant. Gold's still valuable--because it has many uses. Diamonds are really only useful for reinforcing industrial-strength sawblades, and for refracting light. Again, I was speaking of historical context, not modern application. I know gold and diamonds have pracical purposes, but in centuries past Kings and lords and merchants and WHOEVER didn't covet gold for merely its industrial applications. They wanted it because it has been long established that gold, like other precious metals and gemstones, is a COMODITY! These substances were RARE, and more people wanted them than was the supply, thus the demand, thus the reason they were valuable. You are probably correct, along with that wikipedia article, that De Beers has indeed controlled and monopolized the market to a point where there is definately a greater supply than they would admit, where diamonds don't have to be nearly expensive as they are. BUT, as far as the general public is concerned, this statement is true, "Diamonds, in pretty much ANY world, are going to be pretty damned expensive and rare". If you go to a jewelry shop and want to buy a diamond, yer gonna have to pay quite a bit of your hard earned money, correct? Also, out of all the people you know, how many of them have a diamond? How many have more than one? In my experience, when it comes to the people I know, not many of them even possess ONE, let along many, thus (again, in my experience) I see that as being rare...and so does the general public, or "the world". As for you buying your girl an emerald, I say (with great sincerity, no sarcasm) "awesome". I bought my fiancee a ruby engagement ring. I see that notion of "a diamond is forever" or "show her you really lover by buying her a diamond" to be complete and utter BS. I've seen it as a marketing ploy for much of my adult life...this isn't news to me. My response was to correct a misstatement, based on inaccurate information. I think you mistook my statement as a misstastement. I was speaking of the past, one similar to the D&D world, and you were speaking of the present...two different things. I agree that you are correct in your information. Will you agree I'm correct with mine? [Oh yeah, to silvanas, your world must have some pretty big diamonds to be able to carve, say, a great club or tower shield or whatever out of. I suppose, since it is your world, maybe you can have some sort of process that enables a craftsman to carve these diamond ,or dragon crystals or whatever you want them to be, like one might carve something out of wood. Not very realistic, but this IS a fantasy game, after all, and since it's your world you can do what you like.]
Arkan_Shadesfire 04-03-06, 06:04 PM	Okay, look: A) In our world, diamonds weren't the be all and end all of gems prior to DeBeers shenannigans. B) In a D&D world, diamonds cost what the rulebook says they cost. Besides, alchemists and mages would likely have found diamond's durability and peizeoelectric properties quite interesting--thus high demand which = high cost. C) D&D worlds have fargin magic. Transmutation and summoning solve all problems with finding a big enough diamond to make a diamond weapon. This could upset the whole argument for mages being the source of demand for diamonds (they could make their own) but spellcasters powerfull enough to do this aren't all that common and it's likely that being summoned or created through magic would alter the diamond's properties in some subtle way that only a mage would care about. So then, now that all the bickering is out of the way... Yeah, we have been focusing on diamond blades, but blunt smashy things made out of diamond would be a lot simpler to handle: 1) Change the hardness and hit points to whatever the fug diamond's supposed to have. 2) Weight, how heavy is diamond? Comparitively speaking? Could make a weapon partially hollow to maintain wieght and balance so it's not impossible to weild. 3) Damage. There's got to be some kind of bonus here, but the type would probably depend on circumstances. For example: Is your diamond maul of a** kicking faceted? That would probably net you some bonus piercing damage, since sharp corners are, well, sharp. Personally, I think every weapon should have a damage adjustment according to it's hardness--but even if you don't do that tag one on here. Maybe +1 for each point of hardness, minus the hardness of whatever you're hitting? If you're plugging it into standard D&D though, subtract the hardness of the normal wepon material first, since the stabdard weapons aren't getting a hardness bonus.
KublaiKhan 04-03-06, 06:41 PM	This is not entirely accurate. I've searched and came up with quite a few sites that have an acutal history of the diamond's significance, from ancient times to the middle ages and right on through the renaissance and to the modern age. I'm not denying that they have some value--merely saying that the value involved is vastly overstated. If you go to a jewelry shop and want to buy a diamond, yer gonna have to pay quite a bit of your hard earned money, correct? Also, out of all the people you know, how many of them have a diamond? How many have more than one? In my experience, when it comes to the people I know, not many of them even possess ONE, let along many, thus (again, in my experience) I see that as being rare...and so does the general public, or "the world". Most of the married ones, actually. ^^; But yes, *today* you'll have to shell out a lot of money--and that's as a result of the DeBeers monopoly. As for you buying your girl an emerald, I say (with great sincerity, no sarcasm) "awesome". I bought my fiancee a ruby engagement ring. I see that notion of "a diamond is forever" or "show her you really lover by buying her a diamond" to be complete and utter BS. I've seen it as a marketing ploy for much of my adult life...this isn't news to me. She likes it too. ^^; It's just a small one, but it's the thought that counts, really. I think you mistook my statement as a misstastement. I was speaking of the past, one similar to the D&D world, and you were speaking of the present...two different things. I agree that you are correct in your information. Will you agree I'm correct with mine? We're apparently on different....facets of the position...so yes, you have valid points as well.
bondious 04-03-06, 11:18 PM	We're apparently on different....facets of the position...so yes, you have valid points as well. Right on. Glad we could work this out like gentlemen. :)
Watchman 04-04-06, 04:42 AM	Those obsidan blades someone mentioned ? Built out of small chips glued to the edges of a kind of sword-club or halberd. Nice enough, but tended to shatter at about the first blow against metal armour - as the southern Native Americans found out against the Conquistadors - and apparently had some trouble getting through the thick cotton body armour commonly worn in the region... Given that diamond can be shattered by stepping on it when it's on a hard surface (one Roman author claimed different, leading to the demise of many an innocent diamond), you'd damn better involve magic in the construction if you want anything even remotely durable. Brittle crystalline structures are brittle crystalline structures. The industrial applications of diamonds AFAIK go about it a bit different way than you'd have to go in making weapons.
Arkan_Shadesfire 04-04-06, 06:39 AM	Ah, three things: 1) Obsidian weapons were not like that. Imagine your stereotypical stone arrowhead, only made of glass and very sharp. Likewise, axes made of obsidian wedges were used--all solid-peice weapon heads attatched with sinew or plant fiber wrappings, not "small chips glued to the edges" of a standard weapon. Such weapons could easily cut cloth, but would be likely to snag due to their uneven edges. 2) "Given that diamond can be shattered by stepping on it when it's on a hard surface" Prove it. Being poor, I haven't had the opportunity to step on any diamonds personally, but I seriously doubt you can shatter diamond just by stepping on it on a floor that--however hard--is not nearly as hard as diamond. (with a shoe that isn't even as hard as the floor) A paper-thin sheet of diamond perhaps, but not a solid blade and certainly not a big honkin warhammer head. A crystal's propensity for shattering is a result of it's rigid molecular structure: A blow which causes the molecules to shift can line up a lattice of positive and negatively charged atoms so that the internal electrical charges push off of each other and split the matierial apart from the inside. This is naturally harder to do with a more durable and/or more masisve crystal, and is also dependant on the particular molecular arrangement of the material in question. Remember that metals are in fact crystaline structures, and a steel sword doesn't shatter when you use it--not usually, anyway. Of course, it's possible that a diamond possesses a molecular arrangement that makes it more prone to shattering than steel, but it's hardness seems to bely that possibility. 3) To clarify something about the diamond blade/monoblade issue: Only the edge of a blade is that thin. The body of the blade varies in thickness, maintaining a balance between thinner blades which cut well and thicker blades which are more durable. Even in the case of a monoblade, the blade itself would not have to be much thinner than a normal sword, it is the edge of the blade which would taper to a single molecule or atom's thickness. For example, I currently own two katanas: One is heavy with a thicker, wedge shaped blade, and the other is lighter with a thinner blade that tapers at a more shallow angle. The thick blade cuts well, and does not often need sharpening, but the thin blade has actually made shallow cuts in a concrete lawn sculpture and partially cleaved through a steel wall stud in my house--don't ask. :rolleyes: Doing so nearly ruined the edge however, and even when used against wood or softer materials the blade dulls easily, beacuse the extreme thinness of the edge often causes it to bend or flatten when it strikes a hard object. Likewise, while the thicker blade might be able to crack stone if it struck hard enough, it simply does not posess the edge or the mass to cut steel. If you carry the properties of the thin blade to an extreme, you can get an idea of what a monoblade would be like, while the heavy blade shows that a more wedge shaped blade can indeed be very sharp while preserving blade strength. The point--if you'll excuse the term--is that a blade is actually sharpened only on a very small portion of the outer edge, so a blade with an extremely thin (sharp) cutting edge does not nessecarily have a thin blade, per se. Although a thinner overall profile does improve cutting ability, a blade of standard thickness could still have it's sharpened portion honed to a monomolecular-edge, providing the material was hard enough to take such an edge--whether this would result in artifact-level sunders or just a natural keen bonus is debatable, in any case.
Trundle 04-04-06, 02:16 PM	While I'm all for exposing DeBeers and the overpriced diamond market, I think you're overlooking an incredibly important factor. Prior to the 19th century, the supply of diamonds was actually extremely limited, because the large mines in Africa were still undiscovered. The DeBeers monopoly rose up almost in tandem with the discovery of the mines and then artificially reduced supplies. In short, there's never been a high-supply of gem-grade diamonds, so we don't actually know what the market would be like in that case.
Subedei 04-04-06, 03:07 PM	This is all entirely irrelevant considering adamant is both vastly superior and I do not doubt much cheaper than diamond for the production of weapons. It's like you're arguing about whether lead would make good tank armor when we have carbon nanotube metals that can be mass produced for 1/5th the price. And yes I think lead tank armor is an excellent analogy for diamond cutting weapons!
KublaiKhan 04-04-06, 03:08 PM	This is all entirely irrelevant considering adamant is both vastly superior and I do not doubt much cheaper than diamond for the production of weapons. It's like you're arguing about whether lead would make good tank armor when we have carbon nanotube metals that can be mass produced for 1/5th the price. And yes I think lead tank armor is an excellent analogy for diamond cutting weapons! Adamant is the greek word for Diamond, by the way. So...I guess we've already got diamond armor and weapons.
Watchman 04-04-06, 03:22 PM	1) Obsidian weapons were not like that. Imagine your stereotypical stone arrowhead, only made of glass and very sharp. Likewise, axes made of obsidian wedges were used--all solid-peice weapon heads attatched with sinew or plant fiber wrappings, not "small chips glued to the edges" of a standard weapon. Such weapons could easily cut cloth, but would be likely to snag due to their uneven edges.Obsidian is glass. Volcanic glass, but still glass. I've no doubt that you could use large chunks like that, but that's not how the native South American folks did. They made their obsidian weapons from fairly small chips glued to appropriately shaped wooden bases. Know the Aztec macauitl ? That's the classic. Arrowheads didn't differ much from those made out of, say, quartz. But then again, if an arrowhead qualifies as something it certainly "a pretty small thing"... Being advanced Stone Age civilizations (well, I understand some had started making weapons out of copper) they certainly weren't strangers to the more universal means of stone artifact manufacture either, so I'm pretty darn sure they had good reasons for making it that way too. As for clotch, there's a marked difference between what is commonly considered to be "clotch" and what amounts to textile armour. The latter is made from enough layers to be many centimeters thick and was in one for or another used damn near everywhere in the world as defensive gear. Pain in the arse to get through with most bladed weapons too, by all accounts. And that's good metal ones. The Conquistadors actually eventually ditched their steel breastplates as overkill and adopted the native quilted cuirasses instead, as those were quite sufficient against almost all weapons they commonly faced. Well, aside from heavy stone maces and the two-handed version of the macauitl, but those weren't all that common. Or the Inca copper axes, but that's not the point here. 2) "Given that diamond can be shattered by stepping on it when it's on a hard surface" Prove it. *snip* Of course, it's possible that a diamond possesses a molecular arrangement that makes it more prone to shattering than steel, but it's hardness seems to bely that possibility.Lemme tell ya something funny. I actually happen to be a fully trained watchmaker. Our education involved some cross-training with the goldsmiths next door, including the elementaries of basic gemmology. If a professional jeweler qualified to teach in a vocational school tells me diamonds (and for that matter most any other jewels) shatter if you stomp on them, I see no reason to doubt her. For that matter, all decent books on the subject say the exact same thing. Moreover, back on our side we occasionally made use of synthetic diamond files when the usual steel ones didn't cut it (sic). Those things were essentially small rectangular bars of opaque glass in appereance; I've no doubt I could've snapped one with just my fingers had I tried, but given their price tag I naturally refrained from doing so. In any case we were expressly told not to drop the things, or even accidentally bump them into anything. Even pressing too hard was Right Out. Diamond has a very hard, rigid crystalline molecular arrangement extremely prone to shattering. Thank the inherent molecular tensions for that. The biggest lump you can find will almost certainly at the very least split and quite possibly into multiple pieces if you merely hit it with a hammer in the right place - shouldn't take too many tries. That's actually how they do the rough work when they make jewel-worthy objects out of those rocks that raw diamonds now are; split and split and split until you have a suitable piece. Put a decent-sized one on something solid and hit it lightly with a hammer; you're virtually quaranteed to end up with a number of rather smaller specimen. Drop a large one on hard floor from decent height, and it'll most likely shatter. Step on one with soles that don't give in on a surface that doesn't yield, and odds are it'll crack. Something I quarantee you cannot do, though, is scratch the thing with anything else than another diamond. And, conversely, you can scratch virtually anything with it. It's that hard. Well, okay, I understand you can drill holes in it with ruby dust, water, copper wire and a lot of patience, but that's beside the point. Remember that metals are in fact crystaline structures, and a steel sword doesn't shatter when you use it--not usually, anyway.That's because the core is flexible, relatively amorphous iron or low-carbon steel. The hard, brittle high-carbon steel (which, with high enough carbon quotient, actually becomes very much like opaque glass - trust me on this, some of the measuring instruments we used back in watchmaker school had contact surfaces made of the stuff and they too were on the Thou Shalt Not Drop Nor Hit list) is reserved for the cutting edges. Where iron bends when struck, steel chips and breaks. Which is exactly why no weaponsmith worth the term ever made weapons entirely out of steel - those'd have gone to bits the second they hit something hard. Swords in particular were constantly losing pieces in combat anyway. A blade made out of diamond would in essence be no different from one made of hard glass, or extremely high-carbon steel. Save for being prohibitevely expensive of course. That is to say, useless for combat. Even more so than the comparisions really, given the pesky "fault-lines" the molecular structure invariably has. A "mass" weapon like mace would simply be an exercise in expensive stupidity. I would also direct you to the interesting article The Physical Reality of Forceful Edge-to-Edge Impacts (http://www.thearma.org/essays/impacts.htm) for discussion on how (sword) edges work. Much of it can be applied to the hypothetical diamond sword too. Chacking out what Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond), for what it's worth (elementary basics on most topics mainly IMO), has to say about diamonds before shooting your mouth - well, keyboard - would also be recommended in the future. I'll reiterate: if you want a diamond weapons worth a damn, use magic. It can achieve much more miraculous things, and more to the point is about the exact only way to make working weaponry out of diamonds. And I'm pretty sure the modern diamond-glazing technique - which AFAIK involves the controlled use of certain substances in plasma temperatures - is somewhat beyond the creativity of even the most maniacally brilliant D&D enchanter.
Subedei 04-04-06, 03:25 PM	Incorrect, 'adamas' means diamond more or less but even that is pretty vague. Adamant was sometimes used to refer to diamond but it certainly doesn't mean that. Adamant = Impenetrable/unbreakable or just extremely hard. Adamantine things in mythology generally seem to refer to some kind of metal rather than an extremely hard crystal as objects made of it could not concievably be made of crystal, Loki's chains for example. I strongly suspect Gram/Balmung was constructed of adamant though I don't think it's specifically mentioned.
Watchman 04-04-06, 03:25 PM	Adamant is the greek word for Diamond, by the way. So...I guess we've already got diamond armor and weapons.Nah. Same root word, merely. "Adamas", "αδάμας", ancient Greek for "invincible" according to teh Wiki. They overrated those shiny little stones a bit, frankly.
Arkan_Shadesfire 04-04-06, 03:33 PM	While I'm all for exposing DeBeers and the overpriced diamond market, I think you're overlooking an incredibly important factor. Prior to the 19th century, the supply of diamonds was actually extremely limited, because the large mines in Africa were still undiscovered. The DeBeers monopoly rose up almost in tandem with the discovery of the mines and then artificially reduced supplies. In short, there's never been a high-supply of gem-grade diamonds, so we don't actually know what the market would be like in that case. Yes, and in D&D, diamonds are fallnig off of dragon's a**es there's so many of them. :rolleyes: I don't have a problem with the official cost of diamond, but there's no such thing as a "rare" gemstone in D&D. This is all entirely irrelevant considering adamant is both vastly superior and I do not doubt much cheaper than diamond for the production of weapons. It's like you're arguing about whether lead would make good tank armor when we have carbon nanotube metals that can be mass produced for 1/5th the price. And yes I think lead tank armor is an excellent analogy for diamond cutting weapons! Is it? I've yet to see what the official hardness is for diamond, so whether it's better or worse than Adamantine is debatable. Also, let me remind eveyone once again that diamond is piezeoelectric--meaning that physical force passing throough a diamond is partially converted into electrical energy, and vice versa. While I doubt the IRL effects of this are significant enough for a diamond blade to be a natural shocking burst weapon, it certainly gives you something to think about.
Subedei 04-04-06, 03:55 PM	Quartz is harder than steel and you know what? It doesn't make comparable weapons! If a remember correctly the difference between stone and steel is 4, to steel's advantage. The difference between adamant and steel is 8. Adamant has the inantely magical ability to bipass hardness and hardness based DR as well, diamond, no matter how hard will never be able to do that. Even if diamond were stronger (which I doubt) it's still got that whole brittle problem. Adamant on the other hand is less brittle than pearlite and stronger than martensite. Speaking of martensite, I believe it's hardness is 6.5 or 7 on the Mohs scale, diamond is 10 and it's a 1-10 scale. Sure, diamond is harder but it's not stronger. If you wanted to make an impenetrable door for your castle wall would you choose steel or diamond? What do you think would happen to a 10'x15'x10" slab of diamond if you struck it with a pickaxe? What about steel? I my guess would be the steel would dent slightly and the diamond would shatter. The fact remains a diamond edge, even if mono-atomic in thickness will not cut through steel and will cut through flesh. The same is true of a steel blade but the steel blade is stronger and cheaper and good for more than one impact. Adamant will cut through metal, and it doesn't even need a mono-atomic edge to do it.
Watchman 04-04-06, 04:02 PM	Also, let me remind eveyone once again that diamond is piezeoelectric--meaning that physical force passing throough a diamond is partially converted into electrical energy, and vice versa. While I doubt the IRL effects of this are significant enough for a diamond blade to be a natural shocking burst weapon, it certainly gives you something to think about.... ... ...WTF ? First time ever I see someone claim that about diamonds. Lemme check what the Wiki diamond article has to say... Electrical properties Except for most blue diamonds, which are semiconductors, diamonds are good electrical insulators. Blue diamonds owe their semiconductive property to boron impurities, which act as a doping agent and cause p-type semiconductor behavior. Blue diamonds which are not boron-doped, such as those recently recovered from the Argyle diamond mine in Australia that owe their color to an overabundance of hydrogen atoms, are not semiconductors.Yeah, sounds about right. No piezoelectricity tho'. Checkd that one too. Looky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piezoelectric). Quartz seems to feature heavily, and apparently even bone is slightly p-electric. No mention of diamonds I can see though. No wonder, piezoelectricity involves a certain degree of malleability and that concept doesn't really fit into the same sentence with diamond. No offense Arkan, but where the heck do you come up with this stuff...? :confused:
Arkan_Shadesfire 04-04-06, 04:09 PM	Um, actually--I've cut through steel with a steel sword before. :rolleyes: Also, adamantine's hardness ignoring property was magical? Huh, I thought it was a natural property of the material. Well, to clear somehting up: Diamonds aren't just hard, they are also quite strong, being ultracompressed carbon has it's advantages. I'll see if I can find a comparitive listing on the tensile strength of diamond vs steel... [edit] ... ... ...WTF ? First time ever I see someone claim that about diamonds. Lemme check what the Wiki diamond article has to say... Yeah, sounds about right. No piezoelectricity tho'. Checkd that one too. Looky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piezoelectric). Quartz seems to feature heavily, and apparently even bone is slightly p-electric. No mention of diamonds I can see though. No wonder, piezoelectricity involves a certain degree of malleability and that concept doesn't really fit into the same sentence with diamond. No offense Arkan, but where the heck do you come up with this stuff...? :confused: It helps to be old, it also helps to have spent my entire life in the ravenous pursuit of knowlege. Regarding diamonds and piezeoelectricity: Some phonograph (record player) needles were made of diamond. The way a record player works is that the piezeoelectric needle changes the vibration of bumping along the grooves in a record into electrical impulses, which are then amplified and run into a speaker. Sapphire was also a common material for record needles. For the record--pardon the pun--it is the molecular structure of a material that causes it to be piezeoelectric. As I mentioned earler, the reason a crystal is prone to shattering is because the atoms are aligned in a very tight + - + - arrangement, so when a shock or vibration causes the atoms to shift and line up with atom of the same elecrical charge, they repell each other like magnets and split the object apart. In the same way, jostling the atoms in certain substances can upset delicately balanced electrical forces, and cause a liberation of electrical energy. Likewise, electricity passing through a peizeoelectric substance will cause the atoms to jostle around.
Watchman 04-04-06, 04:23 PM	Spider silk famously has way better tensile strenght than steel, but I know which one I'll have my sword made out of. Bronze probably has too, or at least cannon were preferably cast out of bronze as it withstood the stresses of propellant charge explosions rather better than iron. And you know, properly cold-forged and all bronze gets nearly as hard as steel too... Iron/steel combo still remains the penultimate weapons material tho'. Mind you, something that doesn't resist impact shock much better than glass usually isn't considered "quite strong"...
Arkan_Shadesfire 04-04-06, 04:51 PM	That's why tensile strength and hardness are important. Also, I'm pretty darn sure diamond doesn't shatter that easily, as I said--I'll look it up.
silvanas 04-04-06, 05:05 PM	I got this bit from http://geology.csupomona.edu/alert/mineral/hardness.htm The scratch hardness of diamond is assigned the value of 10 on the Mohs scale of hardness; corundum, the mineral next to diamond in hardness, is rated as 9. Actually, diamond is very much harder than corundum; if the Mohs scale were linear, diamond's value would be about 42. Got this from http://www.jewellerycatalogue.co.uk/diamonds/hardness.php In 1822 a German minerologist Freidrich Mohs chose 10 well known and easily procurable minerals and arranged them in order of their scratch hardness. In decending order: Diamond Sapphire Topaz Quartz Orthoclase Feldspar Apatite Fluorspar Calcite Gypsum Talc The list is not quantitative and represents an order only. The gap between Diamond and Sapphire is far greater than the gap between Sapphire and Talc. Most minerals exhibit a difference in hardness in different crystal directions. Diamond is no exception although the variations in hardness are not very great, they are of high practical importance. Diamond is harder than any other substance on earth, and to grind and polish diamond the only possible abrasive is diamond itself. This only works because one can abrade diamond along its softer directions by the action of its harder directions. It was found by diamond cutters that the direction parallel to the crystal axes are those of least hardness. Scratch hardness can now be measured more scientifically with an instrument called a sclerometer, named from the Greek meaning hard. A diamond point is moved across the flat surface of a material at greater and greater pressure until a scratch is produced. Diamond is given a value of 140,000 with Corundum (Sapphire) at just 1,000. There is also a Knoop hardness scale which gives diamond, on the cube surface, a value of 10,400 kg per square millimetre. Knoop Knoop (HK) hardness was developed by at the National Bureau of Standards (now NIST) in 1939. The indenter used is a rhombic-based pyramidal diamond that produces an elongated diamond shaped indent. Knoop tests are mainly done at test forces from 10g to 1000g, so a high powered microscope is necessary to measure the indent size. Because of this, Knoop tests have mainly been known as microhardness tests. The newer standards more accurately use the term microindentation tests. The magnifications required to measure Knoop indents dictate a highly polished test surface. To achieve this surface, the samples are normally mounted and metallurgically polished, therefore Knoop is almost always a destructive test. This hardness in diamond is important in its attractiveness as a gem and in its cutting efficiency as an industrial mineral. Resistance to abrasion is important as a scratch will impair the transparency, lustre and brilliancy of the stone. The hardness enables diamond to be highly polished to achieve its adamantine lustre and the facet edges to be sharp and remain so.
Watchman 04-04-06, 05:12 PM	That's why tensile strength and hardness are important. Also, I'm pretty darn sure diamond doesn't shatter that easily, as I said--I'll look it up.Then make sure to look up those "fault lines" or whatever they're now called in the appropriate jargon. They, and the hard crystalline structure's general problem with shock absorption (high-carbon steel suffers from the exact same problem for much the same reason), feature prominently in why a diamond sword would be a Very Bad Idea. Or in any case short-lived.
Arkan_Shadesfire 04-04-06, 05:25 PM	Well, it looks like you're right about that. It makes sense--hard objects usually are more brittle as well... ...still haven't found anything on exactly how easy diamond is to shatter though.
Watchman 04-04-06, 05:28 PM	Way too for the purposes of the original topic, anyway. :D
Dalthbar 04-04-06, 05:30 PM	Well, it looks like you're right about that. It makes sense--hard objects usually are more brittle as well... ...still haven't found anything on exactly how easily diamond is to shatter though. Well, a jeweler takes a small hammer and a small chizzel and gently taps unfinished diamonds to take pieces off to add facets to the stone. I'd say that would show that someone wielding a slashing or bludgeoning weapon of almost any material should be able to take parts of a diamond "sheet" off very easily. Piercing... probably not so easily, but it'd depend on lots of circumstance.
bondious 04-04-06, 06:14 PM	Has the Glasssteel spell been converted to 3.5 (or 3.0, for that matter)? If so then maybe a variation could be made to imbue a diamond/crystal weapon with a greater tensile strength, combined with its inherent hardness, to overcome its weaknesses to become a viable weapon. Could work.
Dalthbar 04-04-06, 06:20 PM	Has the Glasssteel spell been converted to 3.5 (or 3.0, for that matter)? If so then maybe a variation could be made to imbue a diamond/crystal weapon with a greater tensile strength, combined with its inherent hardness, to overcome its weaknesses to become a viable weapon. Could work. Umm... why not use glass then and save tons of money :rolleyes:
bondious 04-04-06, 06:26 PM	Umm... why not use glass then and save tons of money :rolleyes: Because I'm thinking the point is to make the weapon out of diamond, to utilize its hardness and for flavor in the OP's game. :D
Dalthbar 04-04-06, 06:32 PM	Because I'm thinking the point is to make the weapon out of diamond, to utilize its hardness and for flavor in the OP's game. :D Yeah, but the posted just mentioned using Glassteel (from 2nd Ed) to make the diamond a viable substance (since it really isn't in it's natural form). Glassteel (if you don't have your 2nd ed PHB handy) "turns normal, nonmagical crystal or glass into a transparent substance that has the tensile strength and unbreakability of actual steel" (8th level Wizard spell - pg 240 PHB). If you're going to do this to diamond (which the actual spell desc doesn't say you can, it only mention crystal or glass), then why not just do it to glass and save a ton of money? There's nothing that alludes to using a harder substance would yeild a stronger substance since the glass is "turned into" the new substance - opposed to just "hardening" the glass.
Nom 04-04-06, 06:48 PM	If a remember correctly the difference between stone and steel is 4, to steel's advantage. The difference between adamant and steel is 8. Adamant has the inantely magical ability to bipass hardness and hardness based DR as well, diamond, no matter how hard will never be able to do that. Even if diamond were stronger (which I doubt) it's still got that whole brittle problem. Adamant on the other hand is less brittle than pearlite and stronger than martensite.I assume the above is talking D&D, not real world? Strictly speaking, the D&D 'hardness' value is misnamed. It actually measures resistance to damage (usually impact damage), not resistance to scratching. 'strength' would probably be a more accurate term.
bondious 04-04-06, 07:36 PM	If so then maybe a variation could be made to imbue a diamond/crystal weapon with a greater tensile strength, combined with its inherent hardness Hmmm...what about that sentence says that I am going to use the ACTUAL Glassteel spell to try and turn diamond into...whatever? Could it be the word VARIATION that made you think this? I don't know. Did silvanas ask for "glass" weapons? No. For that matter, why do you feel the need to jump all over me about a simple idea? Who knows? The point is that I'm trying to come up with something useful and constructive for silvanas to use that is POSSIBLY under or at least in the SPIRIT OF the D&D RULES. That's it, sorry you don't like it...not my problem. Thank you.
silvanas 04-04-06, 08:03 PM	Many Thanks to Bondious and the others who are actualy trying to help me with these questions i have given other than argue about various (pointless) topics unrealated or about the cost of a diamond in RL. Im really not Concerned with the cost. Just the dice rolls and enchantments placed on these items. My plan is to make this an anceint weapon of some kind.... They (the PCs) are not gonna buy it! Please, keep the arguing to a bare minimum :D
Dalthbar 04-04-06, 08:05 PM	Someone's a bit on the sensitive side. That aside, the initial intent was for diamonds in their natural form to be used due to their perceived hardness. That right there means the talk about glassteel and other enchantments are moving away from the initial intent. However, my points are this: 1) diamonds are not vaible for weapons and/or armor 2) if you're going to spend the time to research and create spells, why force yourself to use a component that A) is SUPER expenseive and B) is not commonly found in large enough quantities to really accomplish what is desired when there's a suitable alternative that will give you the look and feel of what is sought after As neat as the bragging rights would be, it just doesn't make sense to use diamonds. That's all. -- Edit: If you're going to have to enchant the item anyway (instead of just using actual diamond in it's natural form), you can make it whatever you want. Just decide how it will function (mithril, adamantine, etc), use those stats and run with it. If it's unique then there's nobody to tell you you're wrong.
Arkan_Shadesfire 04-05-06, 04:40 AM	I think the point is he wants a Diamond Weapon, real world feasability be damned. I'm sorry I let myself get distracted by the debate over diamond hardness, monoblades, ect--they are interesting subjects but not the point of this thread. I can't find any official stats on diamond hardness and hit points, but considering that Adamantine is only twice the hardness of steel, I think diamond should be harder. Also, after looking up Adamantine in the SRD: Weapons fashioned from adamantine have a natural ability to bypass hardness when sundering weapons or attacking objects, ignoring hardness less than 20... ...Adamantine has 40 hit points per inch of thickness and hardness 20. Since adamantine's ability to ignore hardness is natural--not magical as someone claimed earlier--then a diamond weapon should also have the ability to ignore any hardness less than it's own. Going strictly by the rules, you should make it work just like an adamantine weapon, but increase the hardness and any hardness-dependant abilities. Considering this is an ancient (ie: The method for making it has long since been lost) weapon, I'd just assume that whoever made it figured out how to fix the shattering problem, assuming you don't want to deal with that in game.
Watchman 04-05-06, 05:43 AM	Magic that in practice does weird things to the stuff at molecular level would sound like a good candidate. Pretty weird too I'd say, since taking diamond out of its peculiar and annoyingly inherently fragile crystal matrix molecule arrangement most likely leaves you with a lump of carbon, which isn't really the thing to insipre terror in most circles. :P "A wizard did it." That seems to be a good enough excuse for everything else (includin patently kooky creatures), so I don't see why it shouldn't work here too. Or maybe the "diamond" blade is actually a trans-planar import. That the niche of Prime Material the campaign tromps in doesn't have suitable raw materials to make such weapons doesn't mean all the multitudous other planes lack them too, and stuff gets around...