I should really avoid threads involving katanas. This stuff can really get bananas.
This.
It really brings the oddballs out.
See, the thing is, you can "cut" a rope with a hammer. You just lie the rope on a hard surface, and smash away with the hammer in the same spot. You'll wear through after a while.
-Kle.
Context, though, is everything :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See, the thing is, you can "cut" a rope with a hammer. You just lie the rope on a hard surface, and smash away with the hammer in the same spot. You'll wear through after a while.
-Kle.
Tell me how that whole rescuing your friend thing works out, after you've smashed the rope tying his wrists together apart with your hammer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If an adamantine sword can cut through stone like it was butter, how does one keep it sharp? Obviously whet stone's are out. :) I doubt silk would work either given it's structural strength.
Diamond dust? Sounds expensive to keep maintained. :)
I really wish people could let go of the fact that the OP designated a katana as his weapon of choice. That has no bearing on the actual matter at hand. The weapon could be a longsword or a greataxe; [our] counter-points would remain the same.
Nothing I cited from the CRB has even been refuted except to say that RAW says 'hammers can't cut rope.' There hasn't been much of anything in the vein of what many people would call level-headed debate.
I should really avoid threads involving katanas. This stuff can really get bananas.
Never post in a thread with katanas
That stuff can get really bananas.So when all's said and done
Grab your dice bag and run!
Let's get something to eat: Benihana's?
The weapon could be a longsword or a greataxe; [our] counter-points would remain the same.
Actually, the type of weapon should come into play in the discussion.
I would have less of a problem with an adamantine axe cutting down / through a stone wall than having a longsword do the same. You don't really see people grabbing their sword to chop open a wooden door, but you do see them grabbing an axe to do the job.
I don't dispute that an adamantine sword could, eventually cut through a stone wall, but an an adamantine axe should be able to do it much quicker. I would see a penalty on the sword trying to do the job, as it is not quite the appropriate item - perhaps a 50% damage reduction penalty.
I also do not see adamantine weapons as a hot knife cutting through butter when attacking / cutting through items.
Best part is that an adamantine sap, or spear, or a hand crossbow with adamantine bolts, would also destroy that wall. Since hardness doesn't count, it is just a question of time. Frankly, this is insane.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really wish people could let go of the fact that the OP designated a katana as his weapon of choice. That has no bearing on the actual matter at hand. The weapon could be a longsword or a greataxe; [our] counter-points would remain the same.
Nothing I cited from the CRB has even been refuted except to say that RAW says 'hammers can't cut rope.' There hasn't been much of anything in the vein of what many people would call level-headed debate.
I have to agree, you say 'katana' and some peoples' brains turn off.
Funny thing about the 'you want a lightsaber' crowd. 1) a Lightsaber would be akin to using a corrosive adamantine weapon 2) even a Lightsaber can't cut through things instantantiously. In TPM (and in the Clone Wars series) the lightsaber doesn't cut through all walls instantaniously and some things it can't cut through at all (Qui-gon was melting the blast door, not carving it up like roast beast).
I don't think any (rational) people are saying that the sword goes through the wall like a hot knife through butter (or a lightsaber through a Jedi's limbs.) Take any blade and press it against the skin. you're going to maybe cut flesh (if it's really sharp) but not hack off the limb. An adamantine katana/longsword/paring knife isn't going to slide right into a wall and then cut a straight line to the ground because of gravity. It's going to do damage normally.
Likewise, since the wall is an easy target, it shouldn't take much effort for swing 1 to come in at an angle, swing 2 at a different angle etc, and carve chunks out (again kind of like carving roast beef) (See Stonecutter in the Second Book of Swords for an example.
So yeah, knife through clay is a good example.
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.
Um...sure, but it doesn't remove friction. Even if you sliced through a wall the weight of the stone would push the two pieces together and friction would make removing that wall piece, even with 4 cuts to form a square nearly impossible. Cut through a block of cheese and then try to just push the top piece off the bottom one...now extrapolate that to 500+ lbs of stone.
The stabbing someone through the wall thing is cool though.
I don't think any (rational) people are saying that the sword goes through the wall like a hot knife through butter (or a lightsaber through a Jedi's limbs.)
I point out a couple of previous posts to you then.
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?...
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.
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.
So yeah, knife through clay is a good example.
Agreed, it's a slow painful process, but you could eventually cut a big enough hole in a stone wall with an adamantine blade to get out, but it's not going to be slice chop like a sword cutting through cheese.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
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.Um...sure, but it doesn't remove friction. Even if you sliced through a wall the weight of the stone would push the two pieces together and friction would make removing that wall piece, even with 4 cuts to form a square nearly impossible. Cut through a block of cheese and then try to just push the top piece off the bottom one...now extrapolate that to 500+ lbs of stone.
The stabbing someone through the wall thing is cool though.
How many hit points does that wall have? How much damage will the adamantine butter knife* do in a round? Besides, you'd not be making a cube. If you're smart you're making small cuts and smaller chunks. Remember, the round isn't you swing once (or 4 times) every 6 seconds, it's an abstraction.
If you've no ranks in engineering you're likely dropping a wall on yourself. :)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Agreed, it's a slow painful process, but you could eventually cut a big enough hole in a stone wall with an adamantine blade to get out, but it's not going to be slice chop like a sword cutting through cheese.
Well if the cheese was a 5'x5'x5' cheese with the hitpoints of stone, yes. To the adamantine weapon, it effectively is a big piece of cheese (hardness zero) :-)
Agreed, it's a slow painful process, but you could eventually cut a big enough hole in a stone wall with an adamantine blade to get out, but it's not going to be slice chop like a sword cutting through cheese.Well if the cheese was a 5'x5'x5' cheese with the hitpoints of stone, yes. To the adamantine weapon, it effectively is a big piece of cheese (hardness zero) :-)
I take the same stance on the 5x5x5 block of cheese. If I give you a steel sword, and tell you to cut a hole in it big enough to crawl through, it's going to take you awhile, it's not going to be snicker snack time. :)
I take the same stance on the 5x5x5 block of cheese. If I give you a steel sword, and tell you to cut a hole in it big enough to crawl through, it's going to take you awhile, it's not going to be snicker snack time. :)Agreed, it's a slow painful process, but you could eventually cut a big enough hole in a stone wall with an adamantine blade to get out, but it's not going to be slice chop like a sword cutting through cheese.Well if the cheese was a 5'x5'x5' cheese with the hitpoints of stone, yes. To the adamantine weapon, it effectively is a big piece of cheese (hardness zero) :-)
Wait, i'm confused; are you saying I should invest in a brilliant energy adamantine katana, or a katana of spell storing with transmute rock to mud cast into it? ...Fifth level? DARN IT!
A) It's adamantine, NOT a lightsaber. I had some of the same issues with my group when they started treating like a monomolecular sword instead of a really sharp unbreakable sword.
B) A sword vs a wall is an ineffective weapon, and should do half damage. Steel through clay is a good analogy, but the weight and heft of even an unbreakable katana is not the right tool for the job of knocking a hole in a wall.
IMHO, of course.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
@Twowolves.
I personally was ignoring the 'right tool for the right job' argument and just looking at mechanics. Would you allow a knowlege (engineering) check to make the right cuts for full damage?
Also doesn't it depend on the wall? I mean a sword can slice through a shoji with little effort, but would have trouble slicing through one of those huge rolls of paper like in printing houses. In game terms, the paper has the same 'hardness' but its 'hitpoints' are greater because of the thickness.
A foot think paper wall has 24 HP (a little weak IMHO) a foot thick stone wall has 180 HP. Even ignoring the hardness, it's going to take a bit of effort to carve out a hole in that wall (let's figure 30 points a strike (conservative estimate)*) that's 6 attacks. at full damage, 12 at half. So our 6th level fighter is still going to take 3 rounds or 6 rounds to get through. Add hardness back in (8) and it's 22 points a shot. 9 hits at full damage 25 at half damage. Now we're talking 5 rounds, or 13 for our mythical fighter.
Or to put it another way, yes, it will go through the wall like a knife through cheese. That's still a lot of cheese.**
*
**
I should really avoid threads involving katanas. This stuff can really get bananas.This.
It really brings the oddballs out.
Oh, how I agree. A katana is worthless against steel armor, to say nothing of a stone wall.
I can see stabbing through a wall with an adamantine weapon being totally appropriate, even though it does little damage to the wall itself (I'd say 1hp to the wall, and -1 damage to the target on the other side, aside from full concealment, etc penalties). But essentially you have a situation not unlike shooting a concrete bunker with a .50BMG - you can do a hell of a lot of damage, and have the stuff go through like it's nothing, without making it passable or bringing it completely down. Or perhaps imagine a wood shack being shot by an assault rifle - the bullets go through with little problem, but the structure remains more or less intact unless the support members are broken.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Adamantine weapons ignore 20 hardness. Yes, it's a rule.
However this is also a rule:
Ineffective Weapons: Certain weapons just can't effectively deal damage to certain objects. For example, a bludgeoning weapon cannot be used to damage a rope. Likewise, most melee weapons have little effect on stone walls and doors, unless they are designed for breaking up stone, such as a pick or hammer.
One can argue till one is blue in the face about how an adamantine weapon (katana or not) should carve through stone as easily as butter, but the GM is perfectly within his rights to say a sword of any kind will never do any damage to a stone wall, excepting superficial scratches. He doesn't even need to use the default "GM is always right" rule.
Not saying every GM should rule such a way, just pointing out that a GM MAY rule that way and arguing against such a ruling is expressing sour grapes at best. If you love the idea of an adamantine katana slashing through castle walls and bank vaults with the greatest of ease.. my point is keep in mind it won't fly at every table. Best to ask your GM his view on the topic before you commit.
|
I would probably use the "Ineffective Weapons" rule to say that the adamantine katana would (at most) do half damage. Unlike a pick or hammer it will not cause radial cracks in the stone, but rather single smooth slashes with relatively little depth due to friction (I treat adamantine as "steel, but better"). With targeted strikes I would let the player deal half damage (knowledge engineering check)? With completely wild swings, I would make them deal 1/10th damage (hey, it's a 5'x5'x5' chunk of material, that takes a while even if it's butter).
Even with 1/10th damage, your average 20th level fighter (with his ~+40 modifier) would deal a few points per hit and be through in about 18s of full-round attacks. If they were half that level (assume a +20 modifier) it would take around a minute or so. Seems wolverine-level appropriate.
But hey, since this entire argument is centered around the fact that this form of digging is innately "rule 0", it doesn't matter what I rule it will be correct. (With the exception of the examples explicitly listed.)
I'm definitely in the "Ineffective Weapon" rule camp, and not the "it's a lightsaber" camp.
If it's like a lightsaber, and there is no 'right tool for the right job', then adamantine is way underpriced.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Oh, how I agree. A katana is worthless against steel armor, to say nothing of a stone wall.
<geek hat>but why? Is it the shape of the blade, or the metalurgy? If it's the metalurgy, then 'pointy end goes here' works the same no matter the blade's accent.</geek hat>
Just wondering, since in the game 'katana' stats also work for a 'great scimitar' between a scimitar and falchion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We really need a lightsaber katana, with a bent blade. Then again, perhaps the sheer awesomeness of this sword would destroy the universe.
Ineffective Weapons
Certain weapons just can't effectively deal damage to certain objects. For example, a bludgeoning weapon cannot be used to damage a rope. Likewise, most melee weapons have little effect on stone walls and doors, unless they are designed for breaking up stone, such as a pick or hammer.
A adamantite sword makes a piss poor pick, so the damage it does would be largely superficial, say half damage.
Oh, how I agree. A katana is worthless against steel armor, to say nothing of a stone wall.<geek hat>but why? Is it the shape of the blade, or the metalurgy? If it's the metalurgy, then 'pointy end goes here' works the same no matter the blade's accent.</geek hat>
Just wondering, since in the game 'katana' stats also work for a 'great scimitar' between a scimitar and falchion.
It's both shape and metallurgy. The iron available to the Japanese wasn't of the highest quality, so they compensated with the extreme care that was used to forge katanas. However, this didn't change the fact that, while certainly sharp, they were also brittle compared to most other cutting swords. They were also somewhat thin. That's why they were treated with such care. Now, Japanese armor was mostly a mix of leather and metal, but the metal was less than other countries' armor contained, so this wasn't too much of an issue. However, against non-Japanese armor, which has more metal of higher quality, a katana will chip or bend. The issue is that, while certainly sharp, it just isn't durable enough to hack away at somebody wearing a lot of metal. As I said earlier, the Japanese fighting style was such that this wasn't a major problem, but when fighting anyone else instead of each other it would be. As for stabbing with it like you recommended, a katana can be used in such a manner, but a stabbing motion with a blade of it's size, shape, and weight probably won't be accurate enough to slip through a weak point in armor reliably, and it leaves the wielder vulnerable. The simple fact of the matter is that the katana is a blade good for a very specific style of warfare developed do to a lack of good iron, but not good for other styles of warfare.
Of course, all of this assumes a steel katana, not an adamantium katana.
If it's like a lightsaber, and there is no 'right tool for the right job', then adamantine is way underpriced.
Even if adamantine can't put holes in walls (I personally prefer on the side of cinematic vs. realism; cutting holes in walls/floors with swords is something which definately shows up a lot for 'martial' heroes in fiction), you can't really deny its worth as the ultimate lockpick/safecracker.
Doors have weakpoints in their hinges, and smaller things like safes you can probably go strait through the relatively minor thickness fairly easily over the course of a few rounds.
Adamantine is really amazingly priced for what it does.
I have no issues with the concept of Adamantine Tools being very useful for certain things, just not swords. A sword's blade is too thick to slice open a steel safe.
Now, adamantine thieves tools, I can readily see. Imagine something like a cheese slicer (the kind with a wire) that's used to slice open the hinges. Or, an adamantine drill used to drill through the lock quickly and easily. Adamantine lockpicks that are unbreakable and therefore you don't accidentally bend or break them.
I just don't see a sword as a good thieve's tool.
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?
The basis would be common sense. It is much easier to view it as a mace cutting through a rope. It is not the correct tool.
What type of weapon CAN get through the wall? Medieval sappers used military picks. Things designed specifically for that purpose. A pick axe could. Perhaps even a maul. I have yet to encounter a circumstance where I allowed a sword to cut through a stone wall.
Not allowing a sword to cut through a stone wall is not a nerf. It just makes as much sense as snapping a slack rope with a maul.
That is my primary complaint with the post above. IF anyone wants make a sword cut through stone that is fine. But to accuse a DM of nerfing something because it falls in line with reality and common sense, THAT is the part that crosses the line. I run my game with real world physics implied. The rules are not anywhere close to an accurate simulation but that is not necessary, because I can take care of the rest. When you try to make the rules simulate physics in specific situations they break down. It is best to apply common sense in those cases.
Not exactly the same thing but I did have my magus spelltrike his way through an iron door before...though I specifically targeted the hinges and had the whole door collapse.
If an adamantine sword can cut through stone like it was butter, how does one keep it sharp? Obviously whet stone's are out. :) I doubt silk would work either given it's structural strength.
Diamond dust? Sounds expensive to keep maintained. :)
If adamantine is indeed the substance of ultimate hardness, then it would not lose its edge. It does not need to be sharpened. There are conflicts however. How would you make a cold forged adamantine weapon?
In that case DR20/cold forged and adamantine is pretty good.
I'm not sure about this - the thread raises some good questions.
I think the most valid point is probably that Adamantium ignores hardness. I had a player who was a monk one time, who was literally trying to punch through a mountain. Now granted, it took a LONG time in game, but the rules didn't expressly forbid it and in fact seem to support the ability to do so - I let it happen because really, it didn't harm anything.
I don't see a lot of valid counter-arguments for an adamantium weapon being able to sunder a stone wall, though. Stone plate armor is pretty thick (as is a tower shield) and I don't understand the reasoning that leads to the weapon being able to bust through those things but suddenly the *BAMF* BUT IT'S A WALL! ruling doesn't make a lot of sense.
It really has nothing to do with the weapon being a katana, and everything to do with the adamantium. Don't specific rules bust general ones?
Then again, the prd states;
"Adamantine: Mined from rocks that fell from the heavens, this ultrahard metal adds to the quality of a weapon or suit of armor. Weapons fashioned from adamantine have a natural ability to bypass hardness when sundering weapons or attacking objects, ignoring hardness less than 20 (see Additional Rules). Armor made from adamantine grants its wearer damage reduction of 1/— if it's light armor, 2/— if it's medium armor, and 3/— if it's heavy armor. Adamantine is so costly that weapons and armor made from it are always of masterwork quality; the masterwork cost is included in the prices given below. Thus, adamantine weapons and ammunition have a +1 enhancement bonus on attack rolls, and the armor check penalty of adamantine armor is lessened by 1 compared to ordinary armor of its type. Items without metal parts cannot be made from adamantine. An arrow could be made of adamantine, but a quarterstaff could not."
It calls out weapons or objects specifically. I don't know... but personally, it makes more sense to me that if the hardness of the wall is less then 20 it should be able to cut right though it.
Just my two cents, of course.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
<snip detailed explaination>Oh, how I agree. A katana is worthless against steel armor, to say nothing of a stone wall.<geek hat>but why? Is it the shape of the blade, or the metalurgy? If it's the metalurgy, then 'pointy end goes here' works the same no matter the blade's accent.</geek hat>
Just wondering, since in the game 'katana' stats also work for a 'great scimitar' between a scimitar and falchion.
Thank you, that's what I was wondering
Of course, all of this assumes a steel katana, not an adamantium katana.
Or admantine for that matter ;-)
I could see the adamantine katana/longsword/butterknife being thrust into a stone wall, but it's going to take a lot of strength/power/skill (damage) to slice chunks out of it. Again, it's damage vs destruction. Poking holes in a 5' thick wall of stone is not going to be as effective as using a pick, because of the nature of the strike.
Now a thin wall will fall to the adamantine butterknife faster.
So for an inch thick stone wall, Fred makes one slash, two slash and the hole is made.*
If it's a iron or steel wall, 1 inch thick, it's 30 HP hardness 10.
Now I'm keeping it an inch thick. If the wall is wider than the blade is long, you're in trouble.** But you can 'Wolverine' a wall pretty easily in Pathfinder.
As to sword as lockpick, again, it can damage the safe (we'll call it 2 inches thick, so 60 HP) you're cutting corners off of it, or scarring the edge. it's not going to be fast or efficent, and once you cut through, you might damage the contents. Best to let a rogue do it.
*
**
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
<megasnip> It calls out weapons or objects specifically. I don't know... but personally, it makes more sense to me that if the hardness of the wall is less then 20 it should be able to cut right though it.
It can 'cut right through it' as soon as the wall's hit points are depleted. All the adamantine butter knife means is that the stone wall's 8 points of hardness are ignored.
Wait, i'm confused; are you saying I should invest in a brilliant energy adamantine katana, or a katana of spell storing with transmute rock to mud cast into it? ...Fifth level? DARN IT!I take the same stance on the 5x5x5 block of cheese. If I give you a steel sword, and tell you to cut a hole in it big enough to crawl through, it's going to take you awhile, it's not going to be snicker snack time. :)Agreed, it's a slow painful process, but you could eventually cut a big enough hole in a stone wall with an adamantine blade to get out, but it's not going to be slice chop like a sword cutting through cheese.Well if the cheese was a 5'x5'x5' cheese with the hitpoints of stone, yes. To the adamantine weapon, it effectively is a big piece of cheese (hardness zero) :-)
I know you jest... but you would be better off investing in the brilliant energy adamantine katana because the Rock to mud spell does not affect worked stone. At least I am pretty sure it doesn't.
It can 'cut right through it' as soon as the wall's hit points are depleted. All the adamantine butter knife means is that the stone wall's 8 points of hardness are ignored.<megasnip> It calls out weapons or objects specifically. I don't know... but personally, it makes more sense to me that if the hardness of the wall is less then 20 it should be able to cut right though it.
Absolutely! I didn't mean to imply that the walls hit points were ignored, or that it was a lightsaber or even going to be a clean job - just that I don't understand why hardness would be different for a wall then it is for a sword or suit of armor. :-)
I reckon hardness and hp of objects is way off.
When players can routinely one round their way through a castle gate and portcullis, or the walls of a fort, the game gets a bit stupid.
Monks punching through castle walls is equally stupid. Really? He can punch a 5'x5' cube out of a castle wall?
I think they need to revist this part of the game, or define exactly what the damage means. Does overcoming the hardness and hp of a wall leave a 5' hole in it? or does it just make a bunch of smaller holes and cracks? What are the odds of structural collapse?
Annoyingly cheezy.
|
|
I reckon hardness and hp of objects is way off.
When players can routinely one round their way through a castle gate and portcullis, or the walls of a fort, the game gets a bit stupid.
Monks punching through castle walls is equally stupid. Really? He can punch a 5'x5' cube out of a castle wall?
I think they need to revist this part of the game, or define exactly what the damage means. Does overcoming the hardness and hp of a wall leave a 5' hole in it? or does it just make a bunch of smaller holes and cracks? What are the odds of structural collapse?
Annoyingly cheezy.
No, no they can't. No-one seems to take into account the idea of rubble. The object doesn't DISAPPEAR. It just breaks. The HP given is the point where the object is no longer usable for its former purpose, not the point that it disintegrates entirely. It would take several rounds to clear 5'x5'x5' of rock debris. If the wall was only 1' thick, then maybe you could get away with just calling the area on either side difficult terrain, but once you get to a certain point you have to move some debris out of the way to even access the deeper parts of the wall.
Speaking of disintegrate, if that spell can get rid of a 10'x10'x10' area of an object instantly, then why is it so surprising that a martial character of the same level that spends a few minutes could break a lot of objects too?
It's not like we're expecting level 1 characters to run up and break castle walls with their fists.
It's not like we're expecting level 1 characters to run up and break castle walls with their fists.
But a level 6 with an Adam. sword can carve through inch thick steel walls in six seconds easily.
A low level (1 or 2) fighter can trash a castle gate in how quick a time??
Who needs battering rams or siege engines.
The basis would be common sense. It is much easier to view it as a mace cutting through a rope. It is not the correct tool.
So you base this on "common sense"? You DO realize you're assigning real-world properties to something that doesn't actually exist, right? What if someone else thought it was "common sense" that adamantine was so naturally smooth that it was, say, immune to friction? Would they be incorrect in that? Possibly, but not because it's "common sense", but rather because it's something called "opinion". Stop parading "opinion" as something more. I think it's common sense to follow the rule unless a specific one goes against it. The "right tool for the job" suggested rule is NOT specific, and it clearly does not take special materials into consideration. So how is your opinion "common sense" and mine is not?
Not allowing a sword to cut through a stone wall is not a nerf. It just makes as much sense as snapping a slack rope with a maul.
I'm sorry, but no. This analogy gets tossed around here all the time, and it pains me because it ignores the #1 most important factor: ADAMANTINE. If there was a giant block of flesh with as much HP as a stone wall, but no hardness, would so many people ban hacking at it with a sword? Adamantine ignores hardness- which is the entire crux of the issue. Why would it be as necessary to drive all of a weapon's force into a tiny point (such as with a pick) if the weapon was able to pierce through the wall as easily as it pierced through cloth? It is NOT the same as snapping a slack rope with a maul because the material ignores the biggest obstacle in dealing damage to objects: Their hardness. A better analogy would be if the maul attacking the rope were made of a magical material that was so innately cold that it instantly froze any object it hit, dealing extra damage to objects. I'd imagine something like that snapping a rope easily, despite the fact that it's a maul.
The rules are not anywhere close to an accurate simulation but that is not necessary, because I can take care of the rest.
It's fine for you to "take care of the rest". But when you do so, call it what it is- opinion. Not fact, not common sense, opinion. There's no such thing as "common sense" and "fact" when dealing with properties and concepts that DO NOT EXIST. Nobody in the entire world knows what properties adamantine, or mithral, or silversheen, or byeshk or densewood or force or any other fictional material has, so how in the world could they be in the realm of "common sense"?
|
|
It's not like we're expecting level 1 characters to run up and break castle walls with their fists.
But a level 6 with an Adam. sword can carve through inch thick steel walls in six seconds easily.
A low level (1 or 2) fighter can trash a castle gate in how quick a time??
Who needs battering rams or siege engines.
Compare it to someone cutting through that much butter with a regular sword. Does it seem like it would take more or less time than that?
Also remember, you still aren't taking into account debris and the lack of shapeliness of the whole. The debris (in the case of a steel door) would be sharp and dangerous. And the hole would likely be something none-too-suitable for climbing through either (akin to a broken window, only worse because it's harder to smooth out).
More than likely that character would hack at the hinges to weaken the door, then kick it down (bursting, but at a substantially lower DC due to prior damage). This may require a DC10 (or higher, if a complex or unusual door) knowledge check of some kind.
By level 11, when a caster can use a spell to pretend the door never existed even if it was a solid admantine door 20 feet tall, 15 feet wide and over 3 feet thick, I would expect a fighter to get through a steel door decently well (even if it has some caveats).
It is NOT the same as snapping a slack rope with a maul because the material ignores the biggest obstacle in dealing damage to objects: Their hardness.
Out of curiosity, would you have any problems to an adamantine maul snapping a slack rope? That is, using an adamantine bludgeoning weapon to damage a rope?
Out of curiosity, would you have any problems to an adamantine maul snapping a slack rope? That is, using an adamantine bludgeoning weapon to damage a rope?
Not any easier than a normal maul. After all, rope has hardness 0. ;-)
In all seriousness, though, yes, I would allow a bludgeoning weapon to damage a rope. If it was indeed slack, then I would probably apply a circumstance penalty to the attack roll, but that's all. I have no problem envisioning a heroic character swinging a hammer fast enough to snap a rope.
In all seriousness, though, yes, I would allow a bludgeoning weapon to damage a rope. If it was indeed slack, then I would probably apply a circumstance penalty to the attack roll, but that's all. I have no problem envisioning a heroic character swinging a hammer fast enough to snap a rope.
I think that a fair bit of the argument comes down to what people consider inappropriate weapon to damage something. Interpretations vary, with none being more correct than the other.
A few of us have been suggesting that while an adamantine blade could indeed cut through a wall, it would take a penalty to not being the best "tool" to use and would just take longer to do the job.
Oh, for those saying it would be as easy as using a sword throught butter, I have news for you....I can put up a wall of butter that will take you hours to cut through with your steel sword.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Frozen butter of course
:)
I think that a fair bit of the argument comes down to what people consider inappropriate weapon to damage something. Interpretations vary, with none being more correct than the other.
I agree. This is definitely the realm of DM interperetation- my posts have always been from a rules perspective. The rules don't give any reason to think that attacking a wall with a sword (adamantine or otherwise) would be any more difficult, so I don't think it should. What gets me is the people swearing up and down that it's "common sense". If it were "common sense" for walls to be difficult to hack through with a sword, such a broad category would have had a mention. (I can see someone attacking a wall with a sword coming up far more often than hitting a rope with a hammer, but which one gets a mention?) Or are people saying that it's stone that's so resistant to slashing damage? I'd think that would come up even more than a blanket statement against walls. My point is that if it were such "common sense" it would have been mentioned before an oddball case like hitting a rope with a hammer. DM fiat is always an option, but the rules are there unless there's a good reason to get rid of it. "Common sense" is rarely a good reason.
A few of us have been suggesting that while an adamantine blade could indeed cut through a wall, it would take a penalty to not being the best "tool" to use and would just take longer to do the job.
Except I think the fact that it's adamantine, and not just an ordinary sword, DOES make it just as good of a tool as something else. Another poster earlier on used a (fairly accurate) example of using a sword against a block of clay- a good example of something with no hardness but lots of hit points. However, when attacking a block of clay, would a pick or a hammer really have worked any better than a sword? When you're using something that completely bypasses hardness, I don't see why one type of weapon would be better than another.
Also, in my example with the rope above, the reason I'd apply a penalty to attacking the rope (which is a penalty to attack, mind you, not damage), it's the same penalty I'd apply to any weapon, not just a hammer- because the rope is slack. Not because of what type of a weapon was being used.
Oh, for those saying it would be as easy as using a sword throught butter, I have news for you....I can put up a wall of butter that will take you hours to cut through with your steel sword.
And to be fair, I don't know if anyone's quite used the exact analogy of butter, but the important distinction (at least in regards to all of my posts- I can't account for anyone else) is that easy =/= fast. I say that it's just as easy to cut through a steel or stone wall with an adamantine weapon as it would be to cut through a paper wall, and I stand by that, but by no means is it going to take the same amount of time. Hardness is bypassed, not hit points. It may be easy to slice into a stone wall, but until you get through those hundreds of hit points, that wall is still there, no matter how easy it is. 500 hit points of butter is going to take the same amount of time as 500 hit points of stone, and it'll be just as easy. But one inch of butter is NOT the same as one inch of stone. I, for one, never made a "lightsaber" analogy. My argument has been consistent from the beginning.