Post/Author/DateTime	Post
necrosnoop110 01-30-04, 10:47 PM	3.5 Core How much does making a shield out of Adamantine add to the total cost? They seemed to have left "shield" out of the additional cost chart in both the DMG and the SRD. Am I missing something? Thanks
Seeker95 01-30-04, 10:58 PM	Well, you could either treat a shield as light armor, and add 5,00gp to the price for an adamantine shield. In our campaign, we treat it the same as a weapon, and add only 3,000gp. Then we shrug our shoulders and ask why anyone would want an admantine shield anyway. For that price, we could get a +1 shield with money to spare.
cwslyclgh 01-30-04, 11:04 PM	well if you have fought the same damn blackguard three times now and he has sundered your shield all three times in a row...
X105_Strike 01-31-04, 04:31 AM	Maybe this is why: Adamantine: Thickness:3in. Break DC:66 Hardness:20 HP:120hp
Seeker95 01-31-04, 10:24 AM	Originally posted by X105_Strike Maybe this is why: Adamantine: Thickness: 3in; Break DC: 66; Hardness: 20; HP: 120hp Nice stats. But for 3000gp, I can afford 150 shields with the same AC benefit, just in case I get sundered that many times. But wait, you say, the adamantine is great for magical shields that you cannot replace so easily. At the levels at which you can afford a magical adamantine shield (5th level for a simple +1 adamantine shield, 8th for a +2 equivalent, 9th for a +3, etc.) As a general tactic, sunder is not that big of a concern. To sunder a shield, you have to forego an attack on its wielder. At the levels at which having your shield sundered is a real loss, a single mis-directed attack is also the difference between life and death. The creature that tries to sunder your shield *dies* within one more round. If he is not likely to die in the next round, then he is still better off killing you (and not your shield) with that attack. When it comes to shields, the cost increase of adamantine is not worth it. At levels at which the cost becomes worth it, the sunder tactic is too inefficient. Sunder a weapon to reduce the opponent's chance to hurt you a lot. Sunder his shield, and you've wasted a chance to reduce your opponent's ability to kill you. Adamantine is better left to weapons and fortress doors.
X105_Strike 01-31-04, 07:02 PM	Originally posted by Seeker95 Nice stats. But for 3000gp, I can afford 150 shields with the same AC benefit, just in case I get sundered that many times. But wait, you say, the adamantine is great for magical shields that you cannot replace so easily. At the levels at which you can afford a magical adamantine shield (5th level for a simple +1 adamantine shield, 8th for a +2 equivalent, 9th for a +3, etc.) As a general tactic, sunder is not that big of a concern. To sunder a shield, you have to forego an attack on its wielder. At the levels at which having your shield sundered is a real loss, a single mis-directed attack is also the difference between life and death. The creature that tries to sunder your shield *dies* within one more round. If he is not likely to die in the next round, then he is still better off killing you (and not your shield) with that attack. When it comes to shields, the cost increase of adamantine is not worth it. At levels at which the cost becomes worth it, the sunder tactic is too inefficient. Sunder a weapon to reduce the opponent's chance to hurt you a lot. Sunder his shield, and you've wasted a chance to reduce your opponent's ability to kill you. Adamantine is better left to weapons and fortress doors. Yes, I do admit that sunder is not efficient on shields, however, sunder works on weapons, which is why there are adamantine weapons i guess.