|
I can't testify to how well hammers do against styro foam walls but I sure as hell would never use a machete against a masonry wall instead of a sledgehammer.
Even when you have something as easy to cut through as drywall you'd be better off with a sledge for mass destruction.
Different problem entirely. Picture the same sledgehammer against a sheet of cloth hanging from a rope clothsline.... Which has nothing to do with the fact that I have already agreed that when hardness is counted - you need to get something to bypass the hardness. Hammers do that by massive force putting a lot of energy into one spot. In hard rock mining they do it with chisles, and DON'T use the hammer on the rockface (the hammer will break too).
For a masonry wall - (that would be hardness of 6 or 8 in the game right?) ... I might like to try something that cuts it like jello (hardness 0). I think the results would be different.
I see where your coming from, though I think the cloth analogy would need to be securely attacked cloth rather then loose cloth since walls are rather secure.
But your jello reference shows me a bit why we differ. You see while Jello would be indeed be hardness 0, so is 1 inch thick rope. 1 Inch thick rope is a lot harder to deal with then jello.
Another hardness 0 object that would make a comparison to a wall rather well would be ice.
Ice is hardness 0 and a wall of ice in real life would be far easier to damage with a sledgehammer then a machete. Though a pick would be the most ideal way.
I think if you treat every thing as jello you get a lightsaber effect which I don't think was intended.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What makes a regular sword not work against a stone wall is the fact that if you swing a steel sword at a stone wall you'll break the sword. Otherwise it would do as well as chopping at a wood door (ie, not as good as an axe, but certainly much better than an arrow) An adamantite sword gets rid of this problem.
Ruling it as ineffective is just churlish, has no basis in common sense, and completely ignores that there are three categories for weapon vs object effectiveness, not two. If the PC's want to bang on the wall to go through and ring the dinner bell for every monster in the dungeon let them.
|
|
actually, you're loosing me here. I've always considered Ice to have a hardness much like wood - perhaps more. Having fallen onto it more than once, (hurting myself badly) and not even scratched the ice.
.
and even then, what's the best tool to get thru an Ice wall? Ax. The edge adds a lot to it...
Sorry about not being clear, I'm not articulating as well as I hoped.
But ice is hardness O by Raw.
As for an ice axe, assuming we are thinking of the same thing then its not a slashing weapon at all. More of a pick and piercing then chopping tool.
|
@nosig:
I think you have hammers and sledgehammers confused.
Mining hammers are sledgehammers, 30 pounds, or more, of heavy duty weight. They don't use chisels with those, they just bash the stone. And the stone breaks. Large hammer head with immense weight causing impact damage over a large area is broken stone.
Picks do large amounts of damage over a smaller area, but they mainly break the stone up, as well, so that it can be shovelled out.
The problem with using a sword to chop at a wall is that it is not going to do a good job at it, hardness notwithstanding.
A sword is going to make a long (relatively), thin cut, which may do some damage to the wall, but, unless you continue the same cut all the way around, is not going to cause the wall to magically fall down.
Overall, a hammer will bash big holes in the wall, the pick with make smaller but deeper holes per hit, and a sword-like object will make long, thin cuts which do nothing to the overall integrity of the wall until you have the cut in place to pull out a section entire.
Consider using a torch to cut a metal plate. Yes, there will be a hole where the flame has passed, but the piece is still going to be pretty much intact until the cutting point has completely scribed an area, whether square or round. The same would hold for a sword-like object, a long thin cut, which doesn't really do much until the cut is completed.
That is where my objection to an admantine sword cutting open a wall/door lies. Until it makes an area of cut-away material, represented by doing less damage per hit than you would think it might, that door or wall isn't breached until you have made a bunch of cuts into it.
|
|
A sword is going to make a long (relatively), thin cut, which may do some damage to the wall, but, unless you continue the same cut all the way around, is not going to cause the wall to magically fall down.
Very few techniques actually cut stone. Abrasive wires/disks/ saws. But most "cutting" stone is just really controlling where you break it.
There's a few ways i could see doing this.
1) Is to just swing at the wall like you would with an axe. You don't swing so that the entire blade winds up in the wall, you swing so that the point and top few inches hit the stone. It basically turns a 5 foot long blade into a concentrated 6 inch cutting surface. Real sword would get dulled at best, snap in half more likely. A neigh unbreakable sword could handle it.
2) You put your hand on the blade and stab at the wall repeatedly, like an orc powered jack hammer. It turns a sword into a chisel. This would ruin a steel sword tout suite, but again.. strange fantasy metal.
|
|
A sword is going to make a long (relatively), thin cut, which may do some damage to the wall, but, unless you continue the same cut all the way around, is not going to cause the wall to magically fall down.Very few techniques actually cut stone. Abrasive wires/disks/ saws. But most "cutting" stone is just really controlling where you break it.
There's a few ways i could see doing this.
1) Is to just swing at the wall like you would with an axe. You don't swing so that the entire blade winds up in the wall, you swing so that the point and top few inches hit the stone. It basically turns a 5 foot long blade into a concentrated 6 inch cutting surface. Real sword would get dulled at best, snap in half more likely. A neigh unbreakable sword could handle it.
2) You put your hand on the blade and stab at the wall repeatedly, like an orc powered jack hammer. It turns a sword into a chisel. This would ruin a steel sword tout suite, but again.. strange fantasy metal.
Doesn't that just support the "swords do less damage" school?
You don't use a sword to chop wood, either, so that's a bad analogy. Why not? Because an axe is a wedge...it forces aside the wood and creates an opening you can withdraw the ax from, or it forces the wood explosively apart, cracking it 'ahead' of the blade itself with leverage.
A sword is narrow and gets caught and stopped.
Sure, the wood may have 0 hardness. It still has hit points. Humans don't have hardness, but it is VERY easy to get a weapon stuck in a human body, it's basically a trope of gritty, realistic combat. It's why Samurai actually ended up using their tanto knives more often then their katanas...the narrow blades got wedged in something, and trying to yank them out was going to get you killed in the middle of a fight.
So what's going to happen is that sword is going to slice into the stone, ignoring the hardness, do some damage...and then be caught in the rock EXACTLY like any sword that is doing 10 hp less damage. That's it. That's all the benefit it gets...doing 10 hp more damage. It doesn't get to ignore the realities of the fact it's hacking stone. It can't ignore the fact that a narrow cross-section means it is easy to get wedged and trapped.
Adamantine means one thing...it ignores the hardness when you cut it, which means it does +10 damage to stone AT BEST. Trying to say it means you can slice stone like cheese is ignoring the fact stone has hit points, and +10 damage against stone is less then a good strength score and class abilities gives you at later levels.
A sword cutting into a tree is going to get caught and held. It doesn't matter if it's adamantine or steel. The adamantine will probably be worse, since it cut further into the tree, and has more weight pinning it in place. The axe, being a wedge, is considerably easier to withdraw.
==Aelryinth
It's a really hard sword, not a lightsaber or monomolecular whip.
I would use the "inefficient weapons" rule for doors, not allow it for solid stone walls, for the record.
And "best material" is relative. Both of my characters picked up cold iron very early on, because it's the cheapest option and because it seems like the authors for PFS in the first 2-3 years had a love-on for fey. Now one has an adamantine axe (and the cold iron one as a back up) and the other has enchanted the cold iron longsword. This one is a cleric and about to upgrade that +1 cold iron longsword by adding Greyflame to it. Now, for the cost of one of his 9 channel energies/day it overcomes magic, cold iron, good and silver DR. The other character, a bard, is about to have the Versitile Weapon spell so as to cover adamantine (base weapon), magic (Arcane Strike), slashing/blunt/piercing cold iron and silver (Spell).
Ok.... just to be sure I am understanding your ruleing.
At your table, a player you have never encountered before, states that he is going to use him Adamantine greatsword to:
a) cut thru a locked wooden door
b) cut thru a stone door
c) cut thru a wooden wall (6" thick)
d) cut thru a stone wall (6" thick)
e) dig thru a 5' think stone wall.can he do it?
From me the answers to all of the above would be Yes (with the understanding that he would have to have some way to clear the rubble away for e)
a) if he doesn't do enough damage to destroy the table, his sword is now stuck in the wood and he's going to have to pry it free.
b) if he just slices into the stone, his sword is going to get stuck, and he's going to have to pry it free, really slowing him down. Strength check = damage done, maybe? I can see him powering into the swing with all his force...and then, since hardness isn't going to affect lateral pressure, being unable to extract his own sword from the stone, he wedged it so tight.c) He's VERY unlikely to chop down the whole wall in one swing...which means his sword is going to get stuck repeatedly in the wall, or he's going to be cutting it so shallowly he's not doing full damage.
d) repeat c)
e) repeat c), it's going to take a very, very long time for him to carve through that much stone.
Suitable tools means something. Pick the right form for the job. By your logic, a steel sword should be just as good as a steel axe or hammer, if an adamantine sword is as good as an adamantine axe or hammer.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still like the idea of a pair of Adamantine gauntlets.
"I PUNCH MY WAY TO ANYWHERE."
-j
Animated objects are effectively treated like creatures...you disassemble them. There are no rules for animated objects aside from what's in their description...we can safely assume that the animating force changes the very nature of what they are.
Yes, they'd apply to walls of stone and walls of iron. If you can't cleave right through the wall, a thin blade is going to get stuck...it's just how it works. A pick or an axe creates it's own wedge, and a hammer, of course, doesn't have the same problem.
Right tool for the job and all.
I would probably allow the character to back off after his weapon got stuck a time or two from overenthusiasm, and make cuts that didn't go in so deep...but I'd also minimize his damage while doing it, since he's making long, shallow cuts, which are going to take a while to bring down anything. There's a penalty for timidity, as well.
Again, right tool, no worries.
==Aelryinth
|
I still like the idea of a pair of Adamantine gauntlets.
"I PUNCH MY WAY TO ANYWHERE."
-j
You joke, but when you look at the encumbrance rules monstrously strong characters, i.e. 34 str enlarged, have a heavy load of 5,600 lbs. That is about the load a mini excavator can lift. Having seen small excavators break up concrete sidewalk with merely steel buckets, I can imagine these characters with Adamantine Gauntlets making short work out of brick walls. 1' think stone walls would still take awhile, but that is represented by its hp.
The whole "hammer vs styrofoam" issue is misleading. Hammers vs foams are, indeed, a classic example of "inneffective weapons". Just like clubs vs ropes.
Remember, ropes have Hardiness 0 too. And yet, you can't cut them with a club. Or a warhammer. Or a +5 adamantine warmammer.
You could try to change your example to a different one, instead of styrofoam. Just take a different material with 0 hardiness. for example, glass.
Would you break a 10' thick wall of glass faster with a titanium laser sharpened scalpel? Or with a rusty iron maul?
Just because the adamantine sword make the wall to have hardiness 0, it doesn't mean the wall become spongeous like a styrofoam. There are a TON of different materials with 0 hardiness. Not all of them are shock-absorving and easy to cut like styrofoam.
To see how absurd is this, swap your greatsword by an adamantine scalpel. Or a needle. And now start to destroy walls, just because the adamantine needle can make tiny holes in the wall without difficulty.
The sword is NOT a good tool to break a wall. Adamantine or not. In the same way, shurikens aren't good either. A group of guys with decent level, deadly aim, weapon training and greater weapon specialist in throwing weapons, carrying two dozen shurikens, "could" take down a castle. Except the rules say they can't, because they aren't using hammers or picks to take down walls.
|
|
To see how absurd is this, swap your greatsword by an adamantine scalpel. Or a needle. And now start to destroy walls, just because the adamantine needle can make tiny holes in the wall without difficulty.
So how did a very large sword suddenly become a small dagger?
Its not that the sword cuts the stone: thats not how you dig through stone. The edge of the tool pulverizes the stone, turning it to powder. You then have the force of a heavy object pressing against the stone, hopefully somewhere where that force can break off another chunk.
The only things working against a sword here are
1) a real one would snap, the problem is solved by using adamantite.
2) the force/weight are spread out over a larger area.
3) with a strait blade Its hard to get a swing in because parts of the wall are in the way/are hitting the lower part of the blade where you don't have any force behind it.
The options are not optimal or bust. AGAIN there are three options.
To see how absurd is this, swap your greatsword by an adamantine scalpel. Or a needle. And now start to destroy walls, just because the adamantine needle can make tiny holes in the wall without difficulty.So how did a very large sword suddenly become a small dagger?
Does it matter? If adamantine ignores hardiness and you just do damage vs hit points (as some people defends in this thread), then a tiny dagger is nearly as fast as a two handed sword. Take two (adamantine) daggers, weapon specialist, greater weapon specialist, weapon training, piranha strike, and two weapon fighting for extra attacks, and you can carve a hole in the chinise great wall in a couple of rounds.
Unless you apply the rule of inneffective weapons vs objects, and rule out "dagger" as "effective weapon vs a wall" because the rule says you need a pick or hammer. But in that case, other blades are excluded too, because they aren't picks or hammers. That includes adamantine rapiers, adamantine shortswords, adamantine starknives, adamantine kerambits, and adamantine greatswords too. None of those are hammers or picks.
|
|
Does it matter? If adamantine ignores hardiness and you just do damage vs hit points (as some people defends in this thread), then a tiny dagger is nearly as fast as a two handed sword. Take two (adamantine) daggers, weapon specialist, greater weapon specialist, weapon training, piranha strike, and two weapon fighting for extra attacks, and you can carve a hole in the chinise great wall in a couple of rounds.
Hence why in a fantasy setting you make the wall out of something else.
You're not stopping that by not leting the sword work either because if you rule the sword doesn't work they'll just show up with an adamantite earthbreaker.
Unless you apply the rule of inneffective weapons vs objects, and rule out "dagger" as "effective weapon vs a wall" because the rule says you need a pick or hammer.
The rule does NOT say only picks and hammers work. The rule says that most weapons don't work but that picks and hammers do.
Does it matter? If adamantine ignores hardiness and you just do damage vs hit points (as some people defends in this thread), then a tiny dagger is nearly as fast as a two handed sword. Take two (adamantine) daggers, weapon specialist, greater weapon specialist, weapon training, piranha strike, and two weapon fighting for extra attacks, and you can carve a hole in the chinise great wall in a couple of rounds.Hence why in a fantasy setting you make the wall out of something else.
You're not stopping that by not leting the sword work either because if you rule the sword doesn't work they'll just show up with an adamantite earthbreaker.
I have no problem with a player breaking a wall with an adamantin earthbraker at all.
I have a problem with a player cutting a castle with an adamntine kerambit, though.
Unless you apply the rule of inneffective weapons vs objects, and rule out "dagger" as "effective weapon vs a wall" because the rule says you need a pick or hammer.The rule does NOT say only picks and hammers work. The rule says that most weapons don't work but that picks and hammers do.
The rule says most weapons don't work, unless they are designed for breaking up stone, such as a pick or hammer. Sure, you could use some other weapons. Like an earthbreaker. Or a Mattock of the titans. Or a tunnel drilling machine.
A greatsword, however, isn't designed to breaking up stone.
And we have come full circle now.
Please realize that a hammer is not designed to brake up stone. In fact, the "Hammer and Pick" used to tunnel thru rock is a pair of tools used together (and often pictured in stylized fashion as crossed hammer and pick, with the hammer...
In Pathfinder, by RAW, obviusly they are. It is explicitly said so in the "ineffective weapons vs objects" rule.
On the other hand, I have personally take down a masonry stone wall with a hammer like that Doing something very similar to this And I mean in reality, not in a fantasy world
|
|
And we have come full circle now.
Please realize that a hammer is not designed to brake up stone. In fact, the "Hammer and Pick" used to tunnel thru rock is a pair of tools used together (and often pictured in stylized fashion as crossed hammer and pick, with the hammer...
So hammer sucks for mining, I don't think I've seen a scenario where the player shave to mine their way out of trouble.
For walls and doors, hammers are very useful.
Can't upgrade material without actually getting a whole new suit, or resorting to some sort of powerful magic, like a limited wish at the least.
==Aelryinth
|
|
I'm going to attempt to put this argument to rest.
As a GM, I care to an extent what the rules state. However, if you come up to me and say, "I'm breaking down this wall with my Adamantine Dagger" I'm going to laugh at you. I'm going to deny it. Or instead, I'm going to ruin your weapon. As a GM, I am expected to incoporate some type of reality into my games, because if I don't have, say, gravity...then you're in trouble, right?
I understand Adamantine weapons can break down walls. But a blade is a blade, and a hammer is a hammer. No matter the metal, it's not going to be able to do that job. People have said that tools have uses. They've explained that the knife cuts rope, the hammer breaks stone.
I will, however, consider if the wall is made of wood that you can. But if it's stone, no way.
I wouldn't say they CAN'T.
It would just take a heck of a long time.
People have tunneled significant distances with just spoons and the like, after all. It just takes them ages.
-k
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Re: Why would anyone want a mithral weapon?
Answer: Style.
To use my own experience, Dexios follows Shizuru*, so the entire 'sunlight reflecting off of stuff' fits for him. He has Mithral breastplate (because that 10' speed differe). I'm planning to get the mithral katana. Why? They match.
Talyn OTOH has an adamantine dueling sword and noqual armor. I'd get the noqual sword and call him the green knight, but the adamantine sword is to keep it from being sundered easily.
*
I wish Mithril was immune to Rust and corrosion like it was back in the day.
|
|
...(Oh, and to answer the PMs - no, I do not have a PC with an Adamantine weapon, though I may have to go buy one now. A dagger I think.)
I am not completely sold on adamantine as the best material for a weapon. With certain builds adamantine makes sense, mainly with a sunder build. If you are always destroying stuff then yes you would want it. However, most people just want adamantine to bypass the few constructs with DR/adamantine. In some cases this DR can be pretty high. However, this is a rare occurrence and is probably not worth spending a minimum 3001 gp on.
As a solution, I have a +1 bow and I have arrows blanched in adamantine. For 201gp you can have 20 adamantine arrows that will bypass adamantine based DR. These will not ignore hardness but your not sundering with a bow anyway.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I wish Mithril was immune to Rust and corrosion like it was back in the day.
Personally, I wish mithril would allow the item to be treated as one catagory lighter when beneficial. So a mithral two hander could be used in one hand, a mithral one hander could be treated as light (and thus finessable). Then again, Dexterity based fighters need love.
"Mithril! All folk desired it. It could be beaten like copper, and polished like glass; and the Dwarves could make of it a metal, light and yet harder than tempered steel. Its beauty was like to that of common silver, but the beauty of mithril did not tarnish or grow dim."
Silversheen ain't the same!
-j
|
I wish Mithril was immune to Rust and corrosion like it was back in the day.Personally, I wish mithril would allow the item to be treated as one catagory lighter when beneficial. So a mithral two hander could be used in one hand, a mithral one hander could be treated as light (and thus finessable). Then again, Dexterity based fighters need love.
Hum, what? I'm pretty sure only armor becomes a category lighter with mithral... not weapons.
and I'll just continue to run them the other way, the way the rules say. Mostly so I don't have to remember the rules I invented last time.
Oh, I DO run the game the way the rules say.
The rules say that you can't break a wall with a weapon not designed to break stone, like hammers or picks.
Of course, you can houserule it, so in your home game adamantine greatswords can break walls (or regular steel greatswords too, They just need slightly more strength and slightly more time, in hands of a competent user like a PC). You can use your house rule for adamantine kerambits (or regular steel kerambits used with power attack/piranha strike). You can make fighters specialist in the bladed scarf to be part of wrecking crews. You can houserule clubs cutting ropes too, or hammers breaking styrofoam.
But, however, it's just a house rule. The official, RAW rule, is that some weapons are inneffective against objects. In particular, blades are inneffective against walls, because blades aren't built to destroy stone, like hammers and picks do.
That's the RAW. Yours is a houserule.
|
Hum, what? I'm pretty sure only armor becomes a category lighter with mithral... not weapons.I wish Mithril was immune to Rust and corrosion like it was back in the day.Personally, I wish mithril would allow the item to be treated as one catagory lighter when beneficial. So a mithral two hander could be used in one hand, a mithral one hander could be treated as light (and thus finessable). Then again, Dexterity based fighters need love.
ill have to check but I think weapons too.