| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Ok for the LONGEST time I've wanted an adamantine katana, for obvious reasons, cutting items and stuff is fun!
But then I ran into a bit of a wall.. literally.
What happens when I attack a wall with it? Walls have hardness and HP by thickness, but is that the WHOLE wall, does me slicing the wall for its hitpoints cause the whole wall to break?
Mind you a GM may always rule that a katana, even an adamantine one, deals no damage to stone walls, as he might rule that a hammer cannot damage a rope.
I wouldn't understand such a ruling at all. On what basis might a DM be possessed to make such an unnecessary nerf?
In other words, if you can't damage a stone wall with a sword that slices through steel as if it were cheese, what type of weapon COULD damage a stone wall? It's hardly like a hammer cutting a rope. Please elaborate?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah adamanitine katana in my games would slice through a wall I might make it do a little less damage than an adamantine pick or earthbreaker but I have read enough wolverine comics to know walls and adamantine blades combine to equal a wall in pieces.
Now saying that I do also make certain places in my games indestructible.
Also imagine a wall thicker than the blade is long without a lot of work removing chunks of wall might take awhile.
I once played a character who had an adamantine greatsword I stabbed a guy through a one foot thick wall it was damn fun. I had to make a listen check (3.5), overcome full cover and total concealment, the damage to the wall was reduced from my attack, but I still hit and sent the guy negative. Loved it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mind you a GM may always rule that a katana, even an adamantine one, deals no damage to stone walls, as he might rule that a hammer cannot damage a rope.
That sounds very zen.
A hammer cannot harm a rope, young grasshopper, for it is supple and the hammer is not subtle.
Using a katana on a solid stone wall is definitely not an appropriate use. You're applying a very concentrated force to a point on the wall, and depending on the makeup of the stone (yes, I know, too real world) the blade will just make a neat little hole and maybe some cracks. You'd have to do it a thousand times to actually break a wall that way. If it wasn't adamantine, I'd even say you run the risk of breaking the sword.
Well what about like carving a hole out of a wall?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's important to note, guys, that being adamantine is a BIG DEAL. Adamantine ignores hardness of 20 or less. What does that mean? Well, it means that, literally, you cut through even the hardest steel (even unenchanted adamantine itself) AS IF IT WERE FLESH. So if you'd let a normal katana cut through a wall of flesh (or, slightly more commonplace, a giant's stomach or leg or something) then an adamantine katana should be exactly as effective cutting through a wall of stone (or a wall of iron, even).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's important to note, guys, that being adamantine is a BIG DEAL. Adamantine ignores hardness of 20 or less. What does that mean? Well, it means that, literally, you cut through even the hardest steel (even unenchanted adamantine itself) AS IF IT WERE FLESH. So if you'd let a normal katana cut through a wall of flesh (or, slightly more commonplace, a giant's stomach or leg or something) then an adamantine katana should be exactly as effective cutting through a wall of stone (or a wall of iron, even).
Actually adamantine weapons (and tools) ignore hardness of less than 20. So, no, adamantine would still be affected by adamantine hardness. So vs. an adamantine sword hardness of 0-19 is treated as 0; hardness of 20+ is treated as 20+.
Makes sundering an adamantine weapon--even with an adamantine weapon--a real pain to pull off.
Master Arminas
Actually adamantine weapons (and tools) ignore hardness of less than 20. So, no, adamantine would still be affected by adamantine hardness. So vs. an adamantine sword hardness of 0-19 is treated as 0; hardness of 20+ is treated as 20+.
My mistake. Regardless, the rest of my post is still 100% valid. An adamantine weapon would still slice through a stone wall as if it were made of cheese.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually adamantine weapons (and tools) ignore hardness of less than 20. So, no, adamantine would still be affected by adamantine hardness. So vs. an adamantine sword hardness of 0-19 is treated as 0; hardness of 20+ is treated as 20+.My mistake. Regardless, the rest of my post is still 100% valid. An adamantine weapon would still slice through a stone wall as if it were made of cheese.
Not really, unless you have a monomolecular (width, not makeup) adamantine sword. The reason a sword is inappropriate to cut through solid stone is that it has a wide surface area on the sides. The problem isn't getting the adamantine to damage the stone, it's to push the blade through the stone and overcome the friction. What would happen is the blade would cut into the stone until the blades sides rubbed against enough stone to cause friction to overcome your strength. Then it'd get stuck. Anyone who's cut logs/split wood has had this happen with a steel axe at one time or another. The blade bites into the wood, get's wedged into it from friction on the sides of the blade, and can't move it anymore.
That's part of the reason why a sword is an inappropriate item for damaging a stone wall, no matter what it's made from. It has a thin cross section and get's easily wedged into place.
A pick on the other hand, has a piercing point, putting all the force into that one point, but the point then expands out to cut down on the risk of getting it stuck in the stone. In other words, the widest point is always already outside the stone, so it's easier to pull it out should it get stuck.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM, I would treat the relationship of adamantine to stone the same way I would treat the relationship of steel to ice. Basically, tell a story about how cool it looks when the character takes his super-sword and hacks a hole through the stone wall.
If the adamantine sword were used on a steel door, I would treat it like a sharp knife cutting through a door made of layered aluminum foil.
Use your imagination.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM, I would treat the relationship of adamantine to stone the same way I would treat the relationship of steel to ice. Basically, tell a story about how cool it looks when the character takes his super-sword and hacks a hole through the stone wall.
If the adamantine sword were used on a steel door, I would treat it like a sharp knife cutting through a door made of layered aluminum foil.
Use your imagination.
I am, I'm imagining a knife that cuts into a few layers and then get's stuck. Layered material is almost always stronger than solid material. The problem comes back to the issue of friction, once you get into the object, you're rubbing a flat surface against a flat surface.
Everyone keeps wanting to use the imagery of wolverine. Remember, when it comes to big steel or stone objects, wolverine doesn't slice through them like a drilling machine. He stands there slashing and slashing and leaving lots of marks on it, but it takes him hours to cut through a vault door. What he's good at slicing up is wood, or thin items of metal (like guns) where there's not enough cross-surface area for friction to get involved.
I am, I'm imagining a knife that cuts into a few layers and then get's stuck. Layered material is almost always stronger than solid material. The problem comes back to the issue of friction, once you get into the object, you're rubbing a flat surface against a flat surface.
Everyone keeps wanting to use the imagery of wolverine. Remember, when it comes to big steel or stone objects, wolverine doesn't slice through them like a drilling machine. He stands there slashing and slashing and leaving lots of marks on it, but it takes him hours to cut through a vault door. What he's good at slicing up is wood, or thin items of metal (like guns) where there's not enough cross-surface area for friction to get involved.
You're injecting far too much realism into a world full of magic. The situation, if you recall, involves an object made of a substance that does not actually exist, yet you're saying how it would react to real-world physics. Does D&D have rules for weapon friction? Does D&D have rules for an axe getting stuck in a log? No, because D&D isn't meant to be a reality simulator. It's a high-fantasy, cinematic roleplaying game. Realism went out the window the moment you picked up a d20 and realized you had a 5% chance to hit anything in the world.
That being said, you gave an example of Wolverine using his claws against a wall. Who said the katana was being used any differently? Did I, in my examples with the cheese and whatnot, say "every time you attack a stone wall, you simply hack straight into it once and you're done"? Mechanics-wise, the wall has HP and hardness (although adamantine ignores the hardness). Each time you attack, however you describe it, a certain amount of damage is deducted from the wall's HP. Repeat each round until the wall is out of HP or something else happens. You can picture that as someone hacking at the wall with rapid, quick slashes, like Wolverine's claws, or you could describe it as one wide arc that shaves a sheet of stone off one inch at a time, or you can describe it as your sword transforming into a drill that burrows through the wall for a round. (However you want.) Just because you imagined it in such a way that doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean that's how it works. In the game, the rules act a certain way. By the rules, an adamantine sword works against a stone wall. Imagine it however that makes sense to you.
But keep in mind, the game is meant to be fun, and the game is meant to be cinematic. If a DM arbitrarily declared that my magical weapon- which I specifically designed to be able to destroy things easily, hence adamantine- was incapable of damaging something by applying real-world physics to something magical, the game would cease being fun to me- especially if the impasse occured purely because the DM was incapable of picturing the situation in more than one way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're injecting far too much realism into a world full of magic. The situation, if you recall, involves an object made of a substance that does not actually exist, yet you're saying how it would react to real-world physics. Does D&D have rules for weapon friction? Does D&D have rules for an axe getting stuck in a log?
Yes, it does. It's called 'Unsuitable objects for damaging objects'. That's the whole point of that section. And the Axe getting stuck would be rolling a 1 on your check with the axe.
No, because D&D isn't meant to be a reality simulator. It's a high-fantasy, cinematic roleplaying game. Realism went out the window the moment you picked up a d20 and realized you had a 5% chance to hit anything in the world.
It is a reality simulator. It simulates the reality of the world called 'Pathfinder Roleplaying Setting'. It is, quite literally, a set of rules for the physics of this world. It has as a subset of it the physics of this world (which is why you fall if you fall off a cliff, gravity physics, why you get burned if you put your hand in a fire, molecular physics, etc). It also contains an extra set of physics for magic, as well as some postulated materials, which work in certain ways, but, not being magic, they don't violate the physical laws of that reality.
That being said, you gave an example of Wolverine using his claws against a wall. Who said the katana was being used any differently? Did I, in my examples with the cheese and whatnot, say "every time you attack a stone wall, you simply hack straight into it once and you're done"? Mechanics-wise, the wall has HP and hardness (although adamantine ignores the hardness). Each time you attack, however you describe it, a certain amount of damage is deducted from the wall's HP. Repeat each round until the wall is out of HP or something else happens. You can picture that as someone hacking at the wall with rapid, quick slashes, like Wolverine's claws, or you could describe it as one wide arc that shaves a sheet of stone off one inch at a...
The original description was 'it cuts through a wall like a knife through aluminum foil'. That is not hacking bits and chunks off as you postulate, it's saying that it slices through it with little or no effort. It describes more what would happen with a light sabre.
I am, I'm imagining a knife that cuts into a few layers and then get's stuck. Layered material is almost always stronger than solid material. The problem comes back to the issue of friction, once you get into the object, you're rubbing a flat surface against a flat surface.As a GM, I would treat the relationship of adamantine to stone the same way I would treat the relationship of steel to ice. Basically, tell a story about how cool it looks when the character takes his super-sword and hacks a hole through the stone wall.
If the adamantine sword were used on a steel door, I would treat it like a sharp knife cutting through a door made of layered aluminum foil.
Use your imagination.
I've cut multiple layers of aluminum foil with a kitchen knife on many occasions. It's quite easy. I'm sure a good quality katana could get through 1/4 inch of layered foil per cut.
What I was trying to suggest was that, since in the real world we don't interact with materials stronger than steel, it can be difficult to imagine the effects of adamantine weapons by picturing the weapon as stronger. I find it easier to imagine the target as weaker, for theatrical purposes.
I agree with you that it should take a fair amount of time to cut through a wall of stone or metal. It's certainly not going to be done in a single blow.
I've cut multiple layers of aluminum foil with a kitchen knife on many occasions. It's quite easy. I'm sure a good quality katana could get through 1/4 inch of layered foil per cut.
What I was trying to suggest was that, since in the real world we don't interact with materials stronger than steel, it can be difficult to imagine the effects of adamantine weapons by picturing the weapon as stronger. I find it easier to imagine the target as weaker, for theatrical purposes.
I agree with you that it should take a fair amount of time to cut through a wall of stone or metal. It's certainly not going to be done in a single blow.
I'm sure it could, until the resistance built up, it depends on surface friction, eventually it's stuck.
However, I'm mostly responding originally to the idea that it's going to cut through it with ease. It won't. I can see it getting through eventually though, spalling off sections.
Your against a weaker material is usually how I look at it too. My preference for stone is imagining a sword cutting through clay. No hardness, just HP. You can hack through a 6 inch wall of clay with a sword, but it's going to take forever. You just don't do enough per hack to really do anything.
My preference for stone is imagining a sword cutting through clay. No hardness, just HP. . .
Clay, I like that!
Yes, it does. It's called 'Unsuitable objects for damaging objects'. That's the whole point of that section. And the Axe getting stuck would be rolling a 1 on your check with the axe.
So, in other words, these "rules" that you're talking about are the section that instructs the DM to ad-hoc his own rules? Not a very convincing argument when the only rule is "make up your own rule as you see fit". This is the rules forum, and I'm looking for a rules discussion. While Rule 0 is a rule, one DM (you) will come up with quite a different rule than another (me). Are we both correct?
It is a reality simulator. It simulates the reality of the world called 'Pathfinder Roleplaying Setting'. It is, quite literally, a set of rules for the physics of this world. It has as a subset of it the physics of this world (which is why you fall if you fall off a cliff, gravity physics, why you get burned if you put your hand in a fire, molecular physics, etc). It also contains an extra set of physics for magic, as well as some postulated materials, which work in certain ways, but, not being magic, they don't violate the physical laws of that reality.
Except that this "reality" you're mentioning is not the same reality we live in. Where in the Pathfinder campaign setting book does it talk about the existence of molecules? Where does it talk about terminal velocity? I'm aware that the campaign world is its own world with its own rules, but YOUR claim is that those rules are the same as our own rules (while at the same time blatantly breaking the rules of our reality). Real-world physics only have a place in a roleplaying game as far as the rules call for them.
The original description was 'it cuts through a wall like a knife through aluminum foil'. That is not hacking bits and chunks off as you postulate, it's saying that it slices through it with little or no effort.
Actually, MY quote was that it cuts through a wall of stone as if it were a wall of flesh- which is accurate. You seem to be misunderstanding what I'm talking about. If someone walks up to a wall of stone 2 feet thick, that means it has hardness 8 and 360 hit points. Just because the adamantine ignores hardness doesn't mean it cuts through in one hit- it means it ignores hardness. In other words, it takes the same amount of time to cut through a stone wall with 360 hit points as it would take to cut through a paper wall with 360 hit points. Or a wall of flesh with 360 hit points. Or a wall of ice with 360 hit points. Whoever said it takes "little or no effort"? When I say "as easy as if it were flesh", that's what I mean. If an adamantine katana takes 30 blows to cut through a wall, a steel katana would take far, far more (as it would have to deduct hardness from each attack). Thus, hacking through a 360hp stone wall with an adamantine katana is just as easy as hacking through a 360hp ogre with a steel katana. Do you understand now?
Your against a weaker material is usually how I look at it too. My preference for stone is imagining a sword cutting through clay. No hardness, just HP. You can hack through a 6 inch wall of clay with a sword, but it's going to take forever. You just don't do enough per hack to really do anything.
But in that case, a pick or hammer wouldn't even be the right tool for the job; you need an adamantine scoop or something!
Sorry, couldn't resist adding that to a thread where a citation of Wolverine is described as "injecting far too much realism." :)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm with Eragar on this one. Arguing over physics based on a material we know next to zero about (scientifically speaking) doesn't make much sense. It's great that you know all that science-y stuff, but this is a game, and while the rules CAN simulate a great many things, it's not what many would call a simulation game. It's fantasy, just like Wolverine is fantasy, and Wolverine has [adamantine/-ium] claws.
The rules say adamantine ignores hardnesses of less than 20. If the hardness is less than 20 - as in the case of stone - then the adamantine ignores that hardness. The blade would deal damage as appropriate.
A reinforced masonry wall is typically 1 foot thick, has a hardness of 8, and has 180 hit points per 10'x10' section. Make the area a 20' line to better represent an actual wall and not a pillar, and that makes the wall 5'x20'. Logically, the 180hp would be divided evenly over the space, so for simplicity, I would assign each 5'x5' section one-fourth of the total HP (45).
An adamantine katana wielded by a PC with a Str of 16 would deal 1d8+4 damage two-handed. That's an average of 8-9 damage, but for the hell of it, I'll just roll a d8 until I get enough to make 45.
2+4=6 (6)
1+4=5 (11)
6+4=10 (21)
1+4=5 (26)
6+4=10 (36)
5+4=9 (45)
So after about six swings, an entire section of man-made wall has been sliced through.
If you disagree and think that you should have to deal the full 180 in damage to the wall to make any of it "destroyed" then you are well within RAW to do so, but remember that the entire section, 5'x20' would suddenly disappear from the map once they deal the last few damage to it. If we're going for verisimilitude, I think making a few logical changes to RAW (as I did in my example; dividing the HP up is not in the rules) would help carry the game.
The devs really should weigh in on this one, because it's a good question. While I agree that a hammer couldn't hurt a rope, I think that a bladed weapon could conceivably deal proper damage to stone, given that the weapon was made of material like adamantine. I would allow this as an effective weapon.
EDIT: I think this discussion has less to do with katanas than it does adamantine slashing weapons vs objects like walls and doors. The katana is just the preferred choice of the OP.
Am I to assume those who feel that way also ignore the rules for fighting in water? There are "simulationist" rules for that as well.
I have never seen the handle animal skill used per RAW (when I DM or play), and as written it is FAR more simulationist than any method of using it that we have used.
I would let the katana do the job.. but it would take some time and some dice rolls.
I think the way I would like to think about it is this. If you have ever taken a knife to cut a big block of cheese in half... the butcher knife is kind of hard to get the job done... but that wire based cheese cutter thing slides right through.
So there is something to be said for the right tool for the job... but the steel knife will eventually get the job done based upon force and time. So a wizard is going to have to work for a few rounds... while that barbarian may be able to do a nice sized door with four swings.
All I've gathered from all of this so far is .. "ask my DM" XDDD
*EDIT* OH! I just thought of something, would all the objections go away if I had a katana made of force? XD
If so , how do I make one >.>. If not, keep discussing me awesome adamantine katana ^0^
it sounds like what you want is a lightsaber. cut a circle out of the wall and then use the force to send it flying out to smash into the bad guys.
as an alternative if you have an arcane spellcaster in your group, disintegrate is quite possibly available, and luckily most walls dont get a fort save so they jsut suck it all up and turn to dust =)
|
Thus, hacking through a 360hp stone wall with an adamantine katana is just as easy as hacking through a 360hp ogre with a steel katana.
Except the wall doesn't try to cut through you with an ogre hook. Or do unspeakable things to your (hopefully) dead corpse, (or unconscious body, if you're unlucky).
Look, nobody is saying a katana, adamantine or otherwise, should be able to cut through a 500 hp stone wall in one hit. No matter what weapon you use, hammer, pick, katana, whatever, it's going to take a long, long time to do. An Adamantine katana just makes it easier than a non-adamantine katana. Why is there so much debate over this?
|
|
Look, nobody is saying a katana, adamantine or otherwise, should be able to cut through a 500 hp stone wall in one hit. No matter what weapon you use, hammer, pick, katana, whatever, it's going to take a long, long time to do. An Adamantine katana just makes it easier than a non-adamantine katana. Why is there so much debate over this?
Actually, I'm pretty sure there are some people out there who think it should be able to do so in a single hit, adamantine or not. They're the same people who think that a ninja should get +60d12 sneak attack at level 1 and a stealth modifier of +infinity, the samurai should get a +120 BAB bonus, and that the katana's base damage should 90d100.
|
I see that, I forgot to state that the most vocal, were upon my stated two sides. Often, those willing to bring forth a reasonable solution are overshadowed by those with strong opinions that refuse to altered. My words were meant to be to them, those stubborn, and unwilling to see the views and opinions of others, even if those are views and opinions are the same.
It's worth noting that Adamantine (the PFRPG material) bears no relationship to Adamantium (the Marvel Comics material) beyond an arbitrary similarity in spelling. While one may have been the original source for the other, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that the way one behaves should have bearing on the other. Wolverine's claws aren't even consistent in how they behave throughout the comic anyway.
The rule about improper tools not having any effect may or may not apply here. That's why it says the dm MAY rule. I think we can agree that a steel axe hitting a stone wall goes *BBBRRRRRIIINNGGGGGGG* and maybe chips off some stone. An adamantine katana might go *THUNK* and sink in a little ways -- I think most people can get on board with that. Where you lose me is it continuing through the stone like it's pudding. An iron axe, for instance, is very well suited to chopping through a wooden door, and even the axe just goes *thunk*
Hmmm It just doesnt seem very reasonable for a sword to be very good at cutting through a wall, but as a Martial Artist Monk can simply ignore the walls hardness and smash through castle walls with bare fists at a decent rate I guess I have little argument here.
Frankly I disagree with both, but if the rules let one go then it seems churlish to nay-say the other.
Why the fists (or Katana) don't get trashed doing so is also beyond me.
The rule about improper tools not having any effect may or may not apply here. That's why it says the dm MAY rule. I think we can agree that a steel axe hitting a stone wall goes *BBBRRRRRIIINNGGGGGGG* and maybe chips off some stone. An adamantine katana might go *THUNK* and sink in a little ways -- I think most people can get on board with that. Where you lose me is it continuing through the stone like it's pudding. An iron axe, for instance, is very well suited to chopping through a wooden door, and even the axe just goes *thunk*
Yeah, I gave up on the thread when I compared the Adamantine Katana's usefulness on a stone wall to a steel katana's usefulness cutting through a clay wall, and someone got all indignant and explained to me that I was a moron (in so many words). It's apparent that there are people in the thread who own stock in Adamantine Katana factories, and they are terrified they will lose their investment if everyone doesn't consider Adamantine Katana (tm) to be the next evolutionary stage of Light Sabre.
|
Our GM once allowed the Fighter to stab through a wall with his Adamantine Elven Curved Blade and hit the guy on the other side. I still think it was quite neat even if maybe not RAW.
Obviously, the wall cannot be too thick lest suspension of disbelief dies a ghastly death.
No sneak attack damage through a wall though, unless you are from Krypton.