Does the mace of smiting destroy the adamantine golem?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 55 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

19 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
A mace of smiting is a +3 adamantine heavy mace that has a +5 enhancement bonus against constructs. When it deals a successful critical hit to a construct, it completely destroys the construct (no saving throw). A critical hit dealt to an outsider deals ×4 damage rather than ×2.
Quote:
An adamantine golem is nearly impossible to destroy. Even if reduced below 0 hit points, its fast healing continues to restore hit points, though the golem is helpless unless above 0 hit points. It can only be permanently destroyed if reduced to negative hit points and then decapitated using an adamantine vorpal weapon—alternatively, miracle or wish can be used to slay it while it is at negative hit points.

So, does a critical hit with the mace of smiting destroy an adamantine golem?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would say that the adamantine golem discription is the more specific of the two and therefore beats the general effect from mace of smiting against constructs. (specific overrules general)

If it came up, I would rule that a critical reduced the adamantine golem to 0 hp but wouldn't completely destroy it.

Liberty's Edge

Again we have a situation in which 2 specific rules collide. I'd probably rule it the same way DD does, seems a more than fair compromise.


Especially considering the Adamantine Golem is made of Adamantine.
Even if it didn't have the special rules, I might as GM make some specific rules regarding effects like that.


If you were trying to find a consistent literal interpretation, the mace says you 'destroy' it, and the golem says you can't 'permanently' destroy it without a vorpal blade. So it's destroyed, but not permanently.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd FAQ it just in case, but I'd say a weapon specifically made to destroy constructs should do the job it was made to do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would rule the opposite. the Mace is specifically designed to destroy one type of creature only. so the mace overwrites the admantium golems description because the Golem is a construct. and the description below of the vorpral admantium sword ect.. is in my mind a general description of how to normally kill a AD Golem.

i think it ruins the whole point of a mace of smiting if it doesnt do what it says. I cant think of a time when i have read the maces description and said...gotta buy that. it wont happen alot in your game chances are unless your characters know they are going to admantium Golem city.


Hm. If a weapon said it permanently destroyed any evil outsider who fails a DC 13 save, and you used it on the CR 37 king of all demons who can normally only be killed by one specific thing, and he rolled a 1 on his save, I'd expect him to survive. But I suppose another GM might disagree.

The mace of smiting can still work on normal golems and still temporarily destroy an adamantine golem. It's not ruined if that's all it can do.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The important question, as always, is "which way is more fun"?

I submit that it's more fun for the players to be able to destroy golems than to be prevented from destroying them. Doing cool stuff is usually more fun than not doing cool stuff.

Of course, this works both ways, and if the party wizard specializes in making adamantium golems, then it might be more fun not to have them blown away by mooks with cheap GI issue weapons. But a mace of smiting probably doesn't fall into that category.


Major_Blackhart wrote:

Especially considering the Adamantine Golem is made of Adamantine.

Even if it didn't have the special rules, I might as GM make some specific rules regarding effects like that.

The mace of smiting is also adamantine.

Personally, when making a decision, I would take into account several factors, including how expensive the mace is (over 75k), how terrible maces are in general (there's a reason fighters take EWP [falcata], and clerics won't be taking Improved Critical (mace) to use one item marginally more effectively), the specific nature of the weapon, and the fact that it takes a specific 8th-level druid spell to allow the mace to overcome the golem's damage reduction.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.

When you consider that the Adamantine Golem is specifically vulnerable to vorpal weapons, and that this mace is essentially vorpal aganist contructs, I'd have no trouble allowing it. That said, the RAW is unclear.


Matthew Downie wrote:

Hm. If a weapon said it permanently destroyed any evil outsider who fails a DC 13 save, and you used it on the CR 37 king of all demons who can normally only be killed by one specific thing, and he rolled a 1 on his save, I'd expect him to survive. But I suppose another GM might disagree.

The mace of smiting can still work on normal golems and still temporarily destroy an adamantine golem. It's not ruined if that's all it can do.

Actually, in stories that NAT 1 save is called a Chekhov's gun.

So, yeah, the CR 37 is dead because that is how save or dies work.


The mace does not say it reduces the golem to 0 hp. If it did I would say that is a rule contradiction. The mace just says the golem is destroyed.

It is kinda like a death affect on a living creature.

As an example if you have fast healing and you are taken out via hit points the fast healing brings you back, but if you are just outright killed by a method that bypasses hit points, then fast healing would not help.

edit:Maybe I should have read the entire adamantine golem entry..I see the problem now.


Lobolusk wrote:

I would rule the opposite. the Mace is specifically designed to destroy one type of creature only. so the mace overwrites the admantium golems description because the Golem is a construct. and the description below of the vorpral admantium sword ect.. is in my mind a general description of how to normally kill a AD Golem.

i think it ruins the whole point of a mace of smiting if it doesnt do what it says. I cant think of a time when i have read the maces description and said...gotta buy that. it wont happen alot in your game chances are unless your characters know they are going to admantium Golem city.

If it was a Mace of Beast Slaying,* would you let it work on a Tarrasque? How about a 3.5 Tarrasque? The latter is pretty similar in wording.

I do not see how one can say such a mace would permanently destroy an Adamantine Golem -- it does not meet the requirements, duplicate the requirements, or even have one of the requirements as a spell requirement for construction. In no way does it satisfy the requirements to permanently destroy such a golem.

*This is made up, but assume it does to Magical Beasts what the Mace of Smiting does to constructs.


wraithstrike wrote:

The mace does not say it reduces the golem to 0 hp. If it did I would say that is a rule contradiction. The mace just says the golem is destroyed.

It is kinda like a death affect on a living creature.

As an example if you have fast healing and you are taken out via hit points the fast healing brings you back, but if you are just outright killed by a method that bypasses hit points, then fast healing would not help.

Except the Golem's description allows it to be destroyed without being permanently destroyed.

Adamantine Golem wrote:
It can only be permanently destroyed if reduced to negative hit points and then decapitated using an adamantine vorpal weapon—alternatively, miracle or wish can be used to slay it while it is at negative hit points.


Drachasor wrote:


If it was a Mace of Beast Slaying,* would you let it work on a Tarrasque? How about a 3.5 Tarrasque? The latter is pretty similar in wording.

I do not see how one can say such a mace would permanently destroy an Adamantine Golem -- it does not meet the requirements, duplicate the requirements, or even have one of the requirements as a spell requirement for construction. In no way does it satisfy the requirements to permanently destroy such a golem.

*This is made up, but assume it does to Magical Beasts what the Mace of Smiting does to constructs.

Yes, the Tarrasaque has an entry that he can be killed he just comes back to life in 3 rounds.

So the Mace of Beast Slaying would kill him in PF.
In 3.5, the Msce would reduce him to negative his Max HP instead (still need to wish).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To be fair, constructs generally have a very low "story value," so a weapon that automatically destroyed them 5% of the time isn't as world-breaking as a weapon that destroyed outsiders with no save.

Just as an example, the disruption property (+2 bonus, bludgeoning melee only) is just as likely to one-shot undead as a vorpal weapon.


Starbuck_II wrote:
Drachasor wrote:


If it was a Mace of Beast Slaying,* would you let it work on a Tarrasque? How about a 3.5 Tarrasque? The latter is pretty similar in wording.

I do not see how one can say such a mace would permanently destroy an Adamantine Golem -- it does not meet the requirements, duplicate the requirements, or even have one of the requirements as a spell requirement for construction. In no way does it satisfy the requirements to permanently destroy such a golem.

*This is made up, but assume it does to Magical Beasts what the Mace of Smiting does to constructs.

Yes, the Tarrasaque has an entry that he can be killed he just comes back to life in 3 rounds.

So the Mace of Beast Slaying would kill him in PF.
In 3.5, the Msce would reduce him to negative his Max HP instead (still need to wish).

And the Adamantine Golem has a similar blanket immunity to being destroyed. He needs something very specific to be destroyed permanently. While it doesn't detail what happens if it fails a save against an effect that would destroy it, it does state that unless very specific requirements are met it CANNOT BE PERMANENTLY DESTROYED.

Saying the Mace of Smiting would kill it is like saying a (Su) Disintegrate-like effect would kill it. This is just not something the text allows. It's quite explicit on the ONLY options.


Disintegrate doesn't specifically state "automatically destroys constructs with no save."


Since the mace of smiting only crits on a natural 20 without spending a feat specifically on this simple weapon, it is essentially just like a vorpal weapon: Natural 20 results in instant death. The mace is also adamantine, just like the golem.

And if I'm going to spend 75k on a 1d8/x2 simple weapon, I'd like to get my money's worth.


Orfamay Quest wrote:

The important question, as always, is "which way is more fun"?

I submit that it's more fun for the players to be able to destroy golems than to be prevented from destroying them. Doing cool stuff is usually more fun than not doing cool stuff.

Of course, this works both ways, and if the party wizard specializes in making adamantium golems, then it might be more fun not to have them blown away by mooks with cheap GI issue weapons. But a mace of smiting probably doesn't fall into that category.

That would be one hell of a wizard to specialize in making adamantine golems. He'd need to travel to the Plane of Earth each time, and each golem would take over a year to create and cost 1/3rd of his wealth-by-level at 20th.


Thelemic_Noun wrote:
Disintegrate doesn't specifically state "automatically destroys constructs with no save."

And it wouldn't matter if it did.

Thelemic_Noun wrote:

Since the mace of smiting only crits on a natural 20 without spending a feat specifically on this simple weapon, it is essentially just like a vorpal weapon: Natural 20 results in instant death. The mace is also adamantine, just like the golem.

And if I'm going to spend 75k on a 1d8/x2 simple weapon, I'd like to get my money's worth.

That's would be a house rule. The Mace of Smiting does not satisfy the requirements to PERMANENTLY destroy an Adamantine Golem -- this is absolutely clear.


Actually we have two contradicting specific rules, and there is no guidance about which specific rule overides another specific rule so we have to wait for the PDT to make a decision about which one will have precedence in this case.

We can continue to debate it and Drachasor you forget to quote my
"edit". :)

edit:There is only a two minute difference between our post so maybe you were typing while I was editing... I withdraw the last sentence.


I guess I don't see a difference between Permanently destroyed and just plain destroyed they both mean the same thing. if something is destroyed it is not coming back or reforming it is basically ceasing to exist or function?

what is the difference?

destroyed means not coming back.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mace of Smiting would be pretty terrible if it didn't destroy the likes of an adamntine golem (or any construct) on a natural 20 wouldn't it? That is its entire purpose.


Lobolusk wrote:
I guess I don't see a difference between Permanently destroyed and just plain destroyed they both mean the same thing. if something is destroyed it is not coming back or reforming it is basically ceasing to exist or function?

Things can be destroyed and then reform. A number of hard-SF games, for example, make a distinction between broken (but functional), destroyed (but reparable),and irreparable. The terms are, of course, just terms and I could call them "Huey", "Dewey," and "Louie." But the concept is still there.

The question is whether or not something that is magically enhanced with self-repair capacity can recover from what would 'destroy" a normal object/creature.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In the absence of official clarification, I would probably rule this way as a GM:

The mace destroys the golem, but not permanently. The golem is reduced to negative kajillion hp. It is out of play for purposes of the campaign. However, the tiny particles that make up the golem are slowly creeping back together a la Iron Giant, and given years or decades, the golem will return.

Keeps the mace useful for the PC and retains the golem's tarrasque like unkillableness.


Thelemic_Noun wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:

The important question, as always, is "which way is more fun"?

I submit that it's more fun for the players to be able to destroy golems than to be prevented from destroying them. Doing cool stuff is usually more fun than not doing cool stuff.

Of course, this works both ways, and if the party wizard specializes in making adamantium golems, then it might be more fun not to have them blown away by mooks with cheap GI issue weapons. But a mace of smiting probably doesn't fall into that category.

That would be one hell of a wizard to specialize in making adamantine golems.

Some campaigns are more high-powered than other campaigns.

You're right, of course. But the key point remains: it's (usually) fun for the good guys to blow the bad guys away like leaves in the wind. It's (usually) not fun for the bad guys to blow the good guys away in similar fashion. The purpose of GM rulings is NOT to enforce some sort of fascist bondage-and-domination discipline upon the players, nor is it to make their very expensive and hard-won toys useless as soon as they're acquired. That's actually one of the signs of a very bad GM, in my opinion.

So, "which way is more fun?" Acknowledging, of course, that "fun" varies by table.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Lobolusk wrote:
I guess I don't see a difference between Permanently destroyed and just plain destroyed they both mean the same thing. if something is destroyed it is not coming back or reforming it is basically ceasing to exist or function?

Things can be destroyed and then reform. A number of hard-SF games, for example, make a distinction between broken (but functional), destroyed (but reparable),and irreparable. The terms are, of course, just terms and I could call them "Huey", "Dewey," and "Louie." But the concept is still there.

The question is whether or not something that is magically enhanced with self-repair capacity can recover from what would 'destroy" a normal object/creature.

I don't think that is correct unless PF defines the word differently if something is destroyed it is unable to come back or be repaired

from Dictionary.com

Definition of DESTROY

transitive verb
1
: to ruin the structure, organic existence, or condition of <destroyed the files>; also : to ruin as if by tearing to shreds <their reputation was destroyed>
2
a : to put out of existence : kill <destroy an injured horse>
b : neutralize <the moon destroys the light of the stars>
c : annihilate, vanquish <armies had been crippled but not destroyed — W. L. Shirer>
intransitive verb


Lobolusk wrote:
I guess I don't see a difference between Permanently destroyed and just plain destroyed they both mean the same thing. if something is destroyed it is not coming back or reforming it is basically ceasing to exist or function?

The Adamantine Golem's indestructibility makes this distinction by talking about the only ways to PERMANENTLY destroy it.

It is unfortunate that it doesn't clarify the mechanics of this statement the way the 3.5 Tarrasque does.

Claxon wrote:
Mace of Smiting would be pretty terrible if it didn't destroy the likes of an adamntine golem (or any construct) on a natural 20 wouldn't it? That is its entire purpose.

It's going to be pretty terrible either way. It's like Vorpal in that it is overpriced. That said, the Adamantine Golem has a very specific ability about how it is indestructible, so lumping it in with all the other constructs in the game doesn't make sense. It is qualitatively different in terms of its survivability. It's almost as hard to permanently destroy as the 3.5 Tarrasque.


Lobolusk wrote:


I don't think that is correct unless PF defines the word differently.

Not at all. Definitions 1, 2b and 2c all allow for the the possibility of something being restored from the "destroyed" state, as does 2a in the case where resurrection magic is available.

Quote:


Definition of DESTROY

transitive verb
1
: to ruin the structure, organic existence, or condition of <destroyed the files>; also : to ruin as if by tearing to shreds <their reputation was destroyed>
2
a : to put out of existence : kill <destroy an injured horse>
b : neutralize <the moon destroys the light of the stars>
c : annihilate, vanquish <armies had been crippled but not destroyed — W. L. Shirer>
intransitive verb

Armies that are "destroyed" (2c) are routinely moved away from the front, resupplied, given replacement troops for their losses, possibly retrained, and then sent back into combat. This is because a "destroyed" army is one that has been damaged to the point where the command structure (definition 1) no longer functions and it basically turns into an armed mob running away as fast as it can. I can similarly "destroy" (1) a building by causing significant structural damage, but repairing such damage is routine for a skilled contractor. Hell, one of my friends' fathers loves taking "destroyed'" cars (typically from junkyards) and restoring them, because he loves classic pony cars. (I think he's a Trans Am specialist, as it happens. He's got something like six of them scattered around his farm.) Similarly, I can destroy (definition 1) a file by shredding it, and all it requires to restore it is sticky tape and patience.

And of course definition 2b just suggests that you render something ineffective, not even inoperative.


Neither rule is "more general".
They're two specific rules. They conflict.
Not really a point in posting what won't be more than opinions.
FAQ'd for the Devs to clarify if the immovable object stays immovable or the unstoppable force stays unstoppable.
Anyone else who hasn't FAQ'd it FAQ's it. Then we'll know.


ShoulderPatch wrote:

Neither rule is "more general".

They're two specific rules. They conflict.
Not really a point in posting what won't be more than opinions.
FAQ'd for the Devs to clarify if the immovable object stays immovable or the unstoppable force stays unstoppable.

They actually don't conflict.

The Mace destroys golems. Just destroys them.

The Adamantine Golem allows its destruction, but can only be PERMANENTLY destroyed by certain means. The mace is not one of those means.

So the mace can destroy the Adamantine Golem, just not permanently. No conflict.


Drachasor wrote:
ShoulderPatch wrote:

Neither rule is "more general".

They're two specific rules. They conflict.
Not really a point in posting what won't be more than opinions.
FAQ'd for the Devs to clarify if the immovable object stays immovable or the unstoppable force stays unstoppable.

They actually don't conflict.

The Mace destroys golems. Just destroys them.

The Adamantine Golem allows its destruction, but can only be PERMANENTLY destroyed by certain means. The mace is not one of those means.

So the mace can destroy the Adamantine Golem, just not permanently. No conflict.

And I generally agree with that and it's how I'd rule it a.t.m.

However as it's an open fact that different wording/terms are used in different places because of different writers, something this close isn't absolute.
That's why we have a FAQ button.
Debating this doesn't seem productive.
FAQ'ing does.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Drachasor wrote:
So the mace can destroy the Adamantine Golem, just not permanently. No conflict.

People keep saying this, but what does that mean in actual mechanical game terms?

To me there is no difference between permanently destroyed and destoryed in terms of mechanics, unless a Dev defines it.

I will FAQ, I think this is a silly corner case, but one that really can't be resolved by any means other than FAQ.


"Destroyed" is a defined term for constructs, my friends!

Constructs wrote:
Not at risk of death from massive damage. Immediately destroyed when reduced to 0 hit points or less.

So it means they are at 0hp or less. An Adamantine Golem does not get permanently destroyed and has fast healing. While not as explicit as we would like, I believe how to handle it is fairly clear.


Drachasor wrote:
...like, I believe how to...

It's clear what you believe. (I stated above, I even agree.)

Every person ever arguing a side here believes .
The Devs know how it should work.
And like GI Joe taught is, knowing is half the battle (the other half is rolling the crit)

This is a corner case involving a niche item. Those rulings haven't always in the past gone the way everyone BELIEVED they would. I don't think it's unfair to get it it's moment of clarification. Given it's % of WBL isn't minor and specific use, even if I think I know how it works here it seems a little fairer to know.

Hence, FAQ.

[Edit: Just to be clear Drach, I'm in agreement with you and think that's how it would be ruled, I even think thematically/RP that's the better way (the big bad final ultimate golum gets up even from the one things all lesser constructs would fear if they could), but weirdly unique and focused items are a place in game balance I like to default to Devs to be sure on]


I'd only point out that it seems people aren't familiar with a lot of the terms and abilities being discussed. This seems to be causing a lot of confusion.

Beyond that, any real fix would require errata. I rather loathe how they use the FAQ in place of errata a lot of the time. So I can't say I'm a fan of "Let them state what the rules should be in a FAQ." I'd prefer to discuss what the rules are.

I don't really see the room for debate here at all.

1. The Mace destroys constructs on a 20.

2. A Construct is destroyed when it reaches 0 hp or less.

3. The Adamantine Golem can only be PERMANENTLY destroyed in a limited number of ways.

4. The mace is not one of those ways.

5. The Adamantine Golem has fast healing.

I don't see where there is any confusion. The Mace destroys the Golem, but its ability ensures it can recover. It is pretty cut and dry. Not perfect, but clear enough. There's certainly no way for the mace to permanently destroy the Adamantine Golem by RAW.


In this case where when something (a contruct) reaches 0 hp it is destoryed. It is not a transitive property necessarily.

Being destroyed by the mace doesn't necessarily mean it has 0 hp.

How can fast healing be relevant if you don't even know what hp value it should have?

Is it 0? Is it reduced to negative it's non-existant con? Is it reduced to negative whatever it gets the extra 40 hp in it's 30d10+40 hp from?

Unless we know how to handle it's hp we don't even know how long it takes for the darn thing to reconstitute itself under your ruling.


Claxon wrote:

In this case where when something (a contruct) reaches 0 hp it is destoryed. It is not a transitive property necessarily.

Being destroyed by the mace doesn't necessarily mean it has 0 hp.

How can fast healing be relevant if you don't even know what hp value it should have?

Is it 0? Is it reduced to negative it's non-existant con? Is it reduced to negative whatever it gets the extra 40 hp in it's 30d10+40 hp from?

Unless we know how to handle it's hp we don't even know how long it takes for the darn thing to reconstitute itself under your ruling.

I freely grant that part is unclear and up to the DM (though 0 hp or 0 - crit damage seem to be the main options, imho). What is clear, however, is that the mace cannot permanently destroy an adamantine golem.


I'd rule the mace destroys adamantine golems permanently. The arguements pro destroying just have more merit. I don't think that would be a houserule, but an interpretation of the rules. Something I have to do a lot.

Drachasor can repeat his opinion a thousand times and I still won't change my mind.


But what if I use my mental powers?


My arguement is simply that you're taking a mostly useless item that is a significant investment in WBL and removing potentially the only truly redeeming thing about it. In the interest of "what is more fun?" I would say let the mace destroy the admantine golem, permanently. There's only a 5% chance it will happen. Besides, if they can knock the darn thing to 0 hp so that it stop function in the first place they can probably keep it down until they can wish it dead or otherwise get rid of it.


Claxon wrote:
My arguement is simply that you're taking a mostly useless item that is a significant investment in WBL and removing potentially the only truly redeeming thing about it. In the interest of "what is more fun?" I would say let the mace destroy the admantine golem, permanently. There's only a 5% chance it will happen. Besides, if they can knock the darn thing to 0 hp so that it stop function in the first place they can probably keep it down until they can wish it dead or otherwise get rid of it.

Your statistics are wrong. You're using real world statistics. You need to use Plot Statistics. More specifically, there's an oft-neglected statistical function called the Heisenberg Certainty Principle which states that if the GM designs a major encounter with a creature with any explicit weakness, the game probability of that weakness being triggered increases in an inverse relationship to the likelihood of the actual probability of that weakness being trigger.

50/50 chance of dropping that enemy with the superawesome magic item you found earlier in the dungeon? It will never happen.

1/8000 chance your BBEG kicks it when the players combine the MacGuffin with the Whatsamajig and pray to the Goddess of Whatserface to defeat it forever? 100% guaranteed that the first player in the initiative order rolls three 20s in a row.

This is why Plot Armor was invented.


Claxon wrote:

In this case where when something (a contruct) reaches 0 hp it is destoryed. It is not a transitive property necessarily.

Being destroyed by the mace doesn't necessarily mean it has 0 hp.

How can fast healing be relevant if you don't even know what hp value it should have?

Is it 0?

Yes, it is 0 Hp but also add damage from Mace. So Fast Heal might not be above 0 after resolution.


fretgod99 wrote:
Claxon wrote:
My arguement is simply that you're taking a mostly useless item that is a significant investment in WBL and removing potentially the only truly redeeming thing about it. In the interest of "what is more fun?" I would say let the mace destroy the admantine golem, permanently. There's only a 5% chance it will happen. Besides, if they can knock the darn thing to 0 hp so that it stop function in the first place they can probably keep it down until they can wish it dead or otherwise get rid of it.

Your statistics are wrong. You're using real world statistics. You need to use Plot Statistics. More specifically, there's an oft-neglected statistical function called the Heisenberg Certainty Principle which states that if the GM designs a major encounter with a creature with any explicit weakness, the game probability of that weakness being triggered increases in an inverse relationship to the likelihood of the actual probability of that weakness being trigger.

50/50 chance of dropping that enemy with the superawesome magic item you found earlier in the dungeon? It will never happen.

1/8000 chance your BBEG kicks it when the players combine the MacGuffin with the Whatsamajig and pray to the Goddess of Whatserface to defeat it forever? 100% guaranteed that the first player in the initiative order rolls three 20s in a row.

This is why Plot Armor was invented.

Even more reason to let it work.


Claxon wrote:
My arguement is simply that you're taking a mostly useless item that is a significant investment in WBL and removing potentially the only truly redeeming thing about it. In the interest of "what is more fun?" I would say let the mace destroy the admantine golem, permanently. There's only a 5% chance it will happen. Besides, if they can knock the darn thing to 0 hp so that it stop function in the first place they can probably keep it down until they can wish it dead or otherwise get rid of it.

I'd actually say that interesting combats are a lot more fun than one-hit kills. Solving the problem of how to contain the fast healing golem remains is more fun and interesting than "bam, dead" too.

But yes, the Mace of Smiting is a bad weapon. Just because it is bad doesn't mean it needs some sort of redeeming value if that's against the rules. It's feelings won't be hurt if we just let it be bad and pretend it doesn't exist. No reason to ignore what the text clearly states.

More significantly, if you want to house-rule how it works in your games then that's fine. But it is a good to know when you are making a house rule and when you are not. With this it is explicit that the Mace will not permanently destroy the Adamantine Golem.


I dunno, sometimes the most exciting thing for me is when my character manages to one shot something, especially if it's by rolling two natural 20s in a row followed by a confirmation roll (yes, I'm aware thats a house rule) to straight up kill something. I don't care if its a mook or the BBEG, it's cool for me to utterly destory it, especially in such a prolific fashion that's statistically rare.

Further, the adamantine golem is more a thought problem than a serious threat with it's "can only be destroyed this way!" clause. For a CR 19 monster fast healing 10 isn't a big deal, neither is its AC of 33 or its 205 hp. It's really only its plot armor. Which boils down to have an adamantine vorpal weapon (and vorpal is a terribly s$!~ty quality) or have a 17th level cleric/wizard. And hopefully its a cleric so you don't have to pay 25,000 gp to wish it dead. An adamantine golem is about as lousy as the tarrasque as a monster because it can be easily be rendered unconcious and helpless, but it can't be "killed".

You also keep saying it's explicit and I thouroughly disagree. You have an interpretation of the rules (that I will agree isn't invalid) but I think is disingenuous to how the mace is supposed to work. I wont be upset with a rulinng either way. But I think either ruling without clarity by Dev's enters into houserule territory because we can't clearly know how these effects should interact.

The Exchange

if the golem is the big bad guy, no. if it is there to be defeated then yes.


I can just imagine an optimized fighter whaling away on this thing for 100 damage per round or more for, like, five hours, while the wizard teleports off to charm a half-dozen hill giants, purchase a huge cart, get the giants to haul the golem onto the cart, have the fighter stand on top of the golem and hack at it while the whole gang trundles off to the nearest volcano and dumps it in. Since it's not immune or resistant to fire (the designers figured a blanket immunity to magic would suffice), it is immersed and takes 20d6 fire damage in near perpetuity. When the volcano goes dormant thousands or millions of years later, the golem will remain inactive for at least twice that long, and more likely seven times as long.

Or just cast gate and have the hill giants shove it into a lava pit on the plane of fire.

1 to 50 of 55 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Does the mace of smiting destroy the adamantine golem? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.