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?
No, no your right I didn't realize adamantium really didn't exist. I thought it was a real. Thank you for pointing that out.
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?
Yes, there is nothing In the rules to suggest that. What is common sense and not opinion is the structure of the sword is not designed to demolish stone. That actually is not common sense it is fact. That distinction is important. You want to give me an adamantine pick and it sure as hell will get through.
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?
I would not let the sword cut through that wall of flesh. Flesh actually can be quite solid. Try cutting through a wall of rhino. Or even cow. Progress with a sword would be limited. Stabbing a sword sized hole through approx 1/2 inch OK, but not in one go. Several stabs would be required unless we're talking pneumatic forces.
By rules we know adamantine ignores hardness. We do not know it is frictionless, hot, or cold. Your maul analogy does not work in that case. I don't argue the sword could not puncture the wall. Common sense dictates it would not demolish the wall.
Like I said, I take care of the rest. Not just due to opinion, but due to informed opinion.
Too hard to edit posts on the Droid. Where I said the sword would get 1/2 inch through I meant to say it would make one slice a 1/2 inch in width up to its length.
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?Yes, there is nothing In the rules to suggest that. What is common sense and not opinion is the structure of the sword is not designed to demolish stone. That actually is not common sense it is fact. That distinction is important. You want to give me an adamantine pick and it sure as hell will get through.
Might i point out I have worked in a machine shop plenty of times. We have on at my college. No one shapes anything with a blunt instrument. We have saws, laser cutters, and lathes, all of which are designed to cut up large blocks of steel. Not one of those could be classified as bludgeoning damage which you insinuate is right for the job. They're all slashing or piercing and they're all common to the industry.
Besides if you've ever worked with large chunks of stone either you'd know that when they get large enough you don't hit them with a sledge. you stick a point object against it, smack on that until it cracks apart, then demolish the smaller pieces.
If this was to me I did not intend to insinuate bludgeoning weapons could do the job. I o ly referenced them In regard with a rope. In the machine shop there are many different kinds of slashing and piercing tools. That is where the rules breakdown. There is s,b,p and hardness. In no way can that simulate specific physics for sapping. That is beyond the scope of the rules. I have not read siege engines in ultimate combat. Perhaps that handles these situations better.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In a race through a mountain between a man with an iron pickaxe and his exact clone with an adamantine katana, all other things being equal, I personally would rule that the man with the pickaxe would finish YEARS ahead of the man with the katana. And his name would be John Henry.
Adamantine weapons do not break, I get that. Consider this. If you got a sword guaranteed not to chip, break or bend, would it really help you destroy a castle wall with it? My take is no, but when you have tired of trying, you would still have an undamaged sword. Then, people add all sorts of Wolverine adamantium claws mojo to the equation. It was never really the deal with adamantine weapons. Sure, I get it, if two people smash their swords together with ungodly force, one sword is going to break. Still, this depends more on the force involved, not that adamantine weapons are any kind of nanowires. And no, a sword is an absolutely pathetic excavation tool. This rule that it bypasses hardness is stupid.
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.
Here is where I will disagree.
I don't think attacking a wall with a sword is difficult. Damaging it is something else.
The Adamantine "ignores hardness" rule and the "ineffective weapons" rule have to be considered together. You seem to saying that the adamantine rule trumps the ineffective weapons rule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the best examples of appropriate tools to damage objects I've read was from an article about armour for a completely different game. It gave the following scenario:
Imagine you have a tree, about a foot in diameter (it's not a very old tree, but yeah). If a strong warrior with a greatsword took a swing at it, he could probably fell the tree in a few swings, at most.
Now, take the exact same kind of wood, and build a sturdy fence/wall from planks. Then take a swing at it with the same greatsword... more likely than not, you've put a couple of small chips into it, despite the fact that the wall is in fact thinner than the tree was.
This is because of the relative shapes of a tree vs a wall - with a sword, you have a lot more difficulty getting a useful angle of attack attacking a flat surface, compared to a cylindrical pillar.
I also see this as the main reason some large monsters (like say, a dragon) can have such high armour class - the difficulty isn't in HITTING the damn thing, but rather to hit it in such a way that it does something meaningful and doesn't just glance off. With the D&D/Pathfinder version of armour class (where armour makes it harder to hit rather than reducing damage) it's even more so, but even in systems where hitting and getting through armour are separate mechanics it's valid - a "miss" isn't necessarily a complete whiff, it can connect. It just can't connect meaningfully...
One of the best examples of appropriate tools to damage objects I've read was from an article about armour for a completely different game. It gave the following scenario:
Imagine you have a tree, about a foot in diameter (it's not a very old tree, but yeah). If a strong warrior with a greatsword took a swing at it, he could probably fell the tree in a few swings, at most.
Now, take the exact same kind of wood, and build a sturdy fence/wall from planks. Then take a swing at it with the same greatsword... more likely than not, you've put a couple of small chips into it, despite the fact that the wall is in fact thinner than the tree was.
This is because of the relative shapes of a tree vs a wall - with a sword, you have a lot more difficulty getting a useful angle of attack attacking a flat surface, compared to a cylindrical pillar.
I also see this as the main reason some large monsters (like say, a dragon) can have such high armour class - the difficulty isn't in HITTING the damn thing, but rather to hit it in such a way that it does something meaningful and doesn't just glance off. With the D&D/Pathfinder version of armour class (where armour makes it harder to hit rather than reducing damage) it's even more so, but even in systems where hitting and getting through armour are separate mechanics it's valid - a "miss" isn't necessarily a complete whiff, it can connect. It just can't connect meaningfully...
A strong warrior smashing down a FOOT THICK TREE with A FEW BLOWS??? That sure is some warrior. Otherwise, I generally agree with you. Except, now chop down that tree with an adamantine spear or sap........
One of the best examples of appropriate tools to damage objects I've read was from an article about armour for a completely different game. It gave the following scenario:
Imagine you have a tree, about a foot in diameter (it's not a very old tree, but yeah). If a strong warrior with a greatsword took a swing at it, he could probably fell the tree in a few swings, at most.
Now, take the exact same kind of wood, and build a sturdy fence/wall from planks. Then take a swing at it with the same greatsword... more likely than not, you've put a couple of small chips into it, despite the fact that the wall is in fact thinner than the tree was.
This is because of the relative shapes of a tree vs a wall - with a sword, you have a lot more difficulty getting a useful angle of attack attacking a flat surface, compared to a cylindrical pillar.
I also see this as the main reason some large monsters (like say, a dragon) can have such high armour class - the difficulty isn't in HITTING the damn thing, but rather to hit it in such a way that it does something meaningful and doesn't just glance off. With the D&D/Pathfinder version of armour class (where armour makes it harder to hit rather than reducing damage) it's even more so, but even in systems where hitting and getting through armour are separate mechanics it's valid - a "miss" isn't necessarily a complete whiff, it can connect. It just can't connect meaningfully...
In AD&D the designers attempted to address this with a table of weapon effectiveness vs armor. It was cumbersome and focused on only ONE factor of the abstraction of combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A strong warrior smashing down a FOOT THICK TREE with A FEW BLOWS??? That sure is some warrior. Otherwise, I generally agree with you. Except, now chop down that tree with an adamantine spear or sap........
I would do that to show off how cool I am with the hardest material in the known universe. Then after everyone is impressed at how well my spear can pierce the tree, I am going to put it down and ask one of them if I can borrow their iron axe.
I totally started this *pats self on back*
Though im completely sad that after 115 posts, we still dont know if I can cut a whole in a wall with my katana :(
|
Seems that it says most melee weapons, Swords, spears, etc. would not deal any meaningful damage to the wall or door. Picks, Hammers, Axes (For doors at least)would be totally fine. Just because you have an adamantine weapon, doesn't mean you can cut through anything, Even with an adamantine pickax it would still take some time to dig through a wall of stone.
"...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."
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Silly is the way of RAMVORD
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also known as the theory of martials can't have nice things becasue reality only ceases to exist in relation not to your actual level but only in relation to how many levels of caster you can possible manage. The audacity of some to think that it is broken that a well built fighter can go through door with a sword that ignores its hardness while next to him the mage is making a tunnel throught the solid stone wall in a fraction of the time pains me.<marked as favorite>
Using a katana on a solid stone wall is definitely not an appropriate use.
It not an appropriate use of a 50gp non-masterwork katana you spent the last hour sharpening with a whetstone. -- It is very definitely an appropriate use of a 3,050gp adamantine weapon whose specific special-materials function is to turn stone golems into inanimate granite chunks.
I totally started this *pats self on back*
Though im completely sad that after 115 posts, we still dont know if I can cut a whole in a wall with my katana :(
The answer is yes, but it would take you a very long time.
You can't 'cleave' through the stone...that's where 'effectiveness' comes in. You can ignore hardness, chop in...and your sword still stops. It doesn't bust out peices, it doesn't break up the stone. You're only going to be able to make shallow cuts that have to overlap and so carve off little triangles of stone in bits and peices. Your sword doesn't break the stone up, and it's not a lightsaber that can't get caught on and stuck on the stone.
Picture yourself slicing through maybe an inch or two of stone in one to three foot passes. that's what you'd be doing here. Your sword isn't going to saw through the stone, piercing it does nothing.
Carving that hole would take a very long time.
===Aelryinth
What if the katana is made of Unobtanium?
Silly is the way of RAMVORD
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
if martial characters had the ability to warp reality they would then be casters.
It is not broken or unbalancing in anyway if you allow a martial character the nonsensical ability to tunnel through stone with a knife. It is just silly, and the rules are not designed to handle that situation.
If a GM likes implausible situations let the guy with an adamantine butter knife dig through a mountain. If a GM wants more plausibility they will exercise rule 0 and laugh when the player asks if their adamantine sword can cut through 10 foot thick stone.
Certainly nothing wrong with allowing it. Fringe has high ratings and is in the realm of utter nonsense so there is a market for it.
What if the katana is made of Unobtanium?Then you must make sweet love to blue rabbits with tentacles prior to attacking the wall. The decide the wall is meant to stay whole, and you make more sweet blue rabbit tentacle love.
Won't that make the purple voles jealous?
|
|
Won't that make the purple voles jealous?What if the katana is made of Unobtanium?Then you must make sweet love to blue rabbits with tentacles prior to attacking the wall. The decide the wall is meant to stay whole, and you make more sweet blue rabbit tentacle love.
That's when the orgy starts, which also includes katanas.
RAMVORD
Hewn stone roughly 10ft thick has roughly 1800 hit points.
Earlist i could probably afford an adamantine Katana 5th level.
Lets assume maxed str even so a 22 with a belt. Two handing the katana makes that +9 to the d8 roll and heck power attack for +6 more so a total of 19.5 lets round up so 20.
1800/2=900
900/6
150/10
15 mins to get through that section of wall assuming someone is standing around clearing the rubble. Yeah that so out of reality for a super human strength guy with a mythical material in hand facing a 10ft stone wall.
Nope When I Gm I assume adamantine is approriate for damaging objects.
I ask everyone who has used this arguement do you apply it towards sunder if not why if so with what weapons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As soon as you call them and tell them where to find Adamntine at sure.
All snark aside even in a fantasy world it would be way to expensive to oufit a whole mining company with adamantine anything. However oversized picks arent that high and even with a -2 to hit its fairly certain that these guys won't miss rock.
And before you say oversized katanas remeber no EWP they are already Two hands meaning you can't wield them bigger.
As soon as you call them and tell them where to find Adamntine at sure.
I think you missed the point.
Adam. Katanas are better for digging and tunneling than Adam. Picks based on the logic we are being presented, which frankly doesn't make sense at all.
Re read my post i said adanamtine is approiate not the katana.
Now this is slightly true Shifty but at teh point that a company can afford to use adamantine to mine with they are better off using magic anyways.
Well we don't have adamantine floating about, but we do have all sorts of ridiculously hard metals that would be notionally equivalent.
I think the problem is that people are equating 'adamantine' with monofilament weapons, or worse yet, treating them as the old vorpal sword (which was ultimately a lightsaber).
Its a really really hard, really really sharp weapon.
If I took our hardest sharpest modern steel and had a Katana made, and then hit a reasonably soft stone with it (lets say a brick wall perhaps), I doubt I'd be cutting through too many walls.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now make it from something that treats anything other than itself as if it were flesh or cloth or paper. if you can make me that weapon I promise we could both be rich.
|
|
So, an adamantine pick, is only as capable as a normal pick. You see, it's adamantine part that matters, and that is really all that matters. It cannot be compared to anything that exists in the real world, so don't. How well it works, is up to the DM, but it works, as per RAW. Just flavor it well, and all is gravy.
Now make it from something that treats anything other than itself as if it were flesh or cloth or paper.
Where does it say that Adamantine has this property?
"Mined from rocks that fell from the heavens, this ultrahard metal adds to the quality of a weapon or suit of armor."
I also note it is only twice as hard as a steel equivalent, and only 33% harder than Mithril, which apparently doesn't have half the urban legends about it cutting stuff up:
Adamantine
HP/inch 40
Hardness 20
Mith
HP/inch 30
Hardness 15
Iron or steel
HP/inch 30
Hardness 10
Similarly it isn't that amazingly durable either...
"Weapons and armor normally made of steel that are made of adamantine have one-third more hit points than normal."
Whilst it is great at overcoming DR, it doesn't seem to do any additional damage to anything, it carves into flesh like any other flea market iron weapon. Doesn't get any bonus to crunch through iron platemail, in fact the weapon is only as good at hitting and injuring an opponent as any other masterwork, but mundane, weapon I might be trucking about.
If it was treating his armour like cloth or tissue paper, surely I'd be gunning for his touch AC right? The Platemail would be a hinderance not a help to my opponent, yet... it isn't.
And I note that even the heaviest armours only provide a DR of 3, which is attractive, but still has a 25% chance of an average 10 str man penetrating it with a modest iron dagger.
This stuff is being waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay overstated.
How about the part where it overcomes hardness meaning it treats anything with less than 20 hardness as hardness zero.
Weapons fashioned from adamantine have a natural ability to bypass hardness when sundering weapons or attacking objects, ignoring hardness less than 20.
That is where we get this from it does treat them as such and the fact that ac still applies is to me an issue with ac whcih treats all weapons as equal in this regard except for guns.
Hardness: Each object has hardness—a number that represents how well it resists damage. When an object is damaged, subtract its hardness from the damage. Only damage in excess of its hardness is deducted from the object's hit points (see Table: Common Armor, Weapon, and Shield Hardness and Hit Points, Table: Substance Hardness and Hit Points, and Table: Object Hardness and Hit Points).
Looking at this it seems that in fact stone resist damage as well as paper from adamantine in fact only adamantine resist damage from adamantine.
IE. a guy needs a 18 str to twohand a regular pick to chisel through stone. Guess there are no miners in the world using picks.
Hewn stone has a 8 hardness and with a 1d6 weapon in two hands an average roll yields 9.5 avg damage or for the wall above 180 mins. Which is ten times longer than the actual 18 mins for adamantine earlier. If he also has PA and is level 5 however it becomes a mere 20 mins with far cheaper weapon so i guess 2 minutes for the adam is far to unbelievable.
The reason the ac still applies is because the Adamantine just isn't what you guys are cracking it up to be.
It's just not that good. Sorry, but there you have it.
For 3k you guys reckon you are getting lightsabers?
Now with regards to your hardness/hp illustration above, all you illustrate is taht by overcoming hardness you can begin to damage the material.
Now you claim it treats it like 'tissue paper' but this is just categorically not the case.
It can damage both easily enough, but the stone can still bear a smackton more damage than the tissue paper.
Paper or cloth DR 0
HP 2/in. of thickness
So you'd need to do 24 hp to cut through a foot of it.
Stone DR 8
HP 15/in. of thickness
So you need to do 180 hp to cut through a foot of it.
You need to hit over and over and over and over again... thats not paper, nor even cheese.
Therefore
Adamantine does not mean stone = paper.
This mythical quality just aint there.
Nope lightsabers would allow me to get throught that wall in a far quicker than a pick not just two minutes.
The point being that the properties of the Adamantine are being seriously overstated, and the 'awesomesauce' nature of it simply doesn't justify the inappropriate weapon being suddenyl acceptable based on its material of manufacture.
Nor does the inappropriate rule give hard and fast rulings on what is or is not allowed therefore it is up to the DM.
Also my earlier numbers may be off so posting so they can be checked.
Lets look at two miners Steel and Adam both have 15 str and both have PA
there foreman ask them to test out mining tools steel a steel version and adam a adamantine version.
At level one the both try picks on a 3 foot thick hewn slab 540 hp 8 hard.
Both get an average of 1d6+9 or 12.5 a swing.
Adam takes 540/12.5 = 43.2 swings or when put in minutes 4.3 minutes.
Steel takes 540/4.5 = 120 swings or 12mins.
The boss then hands them Katanas
Both get an average of 1d8+9 or 13.5 a swing
Adam takes 540/13.5 = 40 swings or 4 mins
Steel cant get through.
Steel goes to his boss and says "Yeah those adamantine weapons are nice but lets just see what cheaper bigger picks can do."
Steel gets out a Large pick and swings 540/5.5 = 98 swings or about 10 mins. So while yes a pick takes about 3 times as long it is far cheaper and easier to find guys trained in it. Heck for cheaper than that a +1 pick only needs 8 mins to get through.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Using a katana on a solid stone wall is definitely not an appropriate use.
It not an appropriate use of a 50gp non-masterwork katana you spent the last hour sharpening with a whetstone. -- It is very definitely an appropriate use of a 3,050gp adamantine weapon whose specific special-materials function is to turn stone golems into inanimate granite chunks.
...and everybody went <blank-out> and pretended they didn't see it.
I.e., why is an adamantine katana appropriate for attacking a stone golem but not a stone wall?
<cricket.wav>
So, by your reasoning, since a katana does more damage than a pick does, then a katana is a better tool for tunneling through rock with.
The problem is here isn't "appropriateness", but two oversights in the game-machinics:
1) Paizo should have made smashing objects analogous to coup de grace -- then the advantage of the pick over the sword is clear: it's a 4x crit weapon. If all attacks are automatic crits, the wall falls apart fast under the pick.
2) Picks (and to a lesser extent axes) need "updated" text entries denoting special effectiveness at destroying objects. (Case in point: according to p173 of the CRB, under "Smashing an Object", you can't even use a pick because the section specifies bludgeoning or slashing weapons!)
...I'm gonna guess it's too late for anything to get tucked into the 5th printing....
Agreed Mike combine that with the much cheaper pick and you can outtfit a whole digging team for less than one adamantine katana and 50 guys digging are faster than one.
Also to note even with the "right weapon" one needs at least a 16 str if you round 3*1.5 to five to even deal an average of 1.5 a round to the stone without PA.
Next week the failure of chopping trees with Axes.