You allow, in your games, someone to walk up to an NPC in an adamantine breastplate with an AC of 24 to say 'I aim for the arm' and then roll against an AC of 18 instead, and ignore the DR 2/-- from the Adamantine Breastplate? WOW that's a major house rule. There is NOTHING in the system to allow that.
Personally, I'd argue that aiming for the arm is exactly what the abstraction of AC is meant to represent. The opponent wearing a breastplate isn't any more difficult to make contact with (Touch AC), but it is more difficult to make an effective blow, as you'd need to connect with more power on armor, or hit the smaller targets like arms or other gaps in armor.
In general, I think characters should be assumed to know how to do whatever they're trained to do in an effective manner. If that's sundering, they're going for the weakest part of the weapon. Heck, maybe that's why there's an attack of opportunity involved with making sunder attempts without Improved Sunder -- you're concentrating more heavily on hitting the correct part of your opponent's weapon at the expense of keeping up your guard.
In the case of a wood hafted weapon, a significant portion of the weapon is made of wood, not adamantine. Therefore, it makes sense that the hardness is limited to that of wood, as it is a significant, prevalent weakness in the weapon. Of course, if you upgrade the haft to adamantine as well, the hardness of the entire weapon should be 20, as there is nothing weaker than adamantine to hit.
Where does it say only weapons primarily made of metal can made adamantine (so arrows are out)? And where does it say that the advantages of adanantine are all-or-nothing, that you can not have the DR and hardness negating properties if you don't also have the hardness and HP (which mechanically matters only defensively)?
Where does it say only weapons primarily made of metal can made adamantine (so arrows are out)? And where does it say that the advantages of adanantine are all-or-nothing, that you can not have the DR and hardness negating properties if you don't also have the hardness and HP (which mechanically matters only defensively)?
Ok, sorry, that's what I get for posting in a hurry so I can go eat my grilled cheese sandwhiches. :)
Hmmm, ok, so I guess RAW the weapon metal doesn't matter if it's a two handed shafted weapon. Not sure I agree with it as it says you are targeting a section fo the weapon rather than the weapon as a whole, but what the heck. Not the first inconsistency in the rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You allow, in your games, someone to walk up to an NPC in an adamantine breastplate with an AC of 24 to say 'I aim for the arm' and then roll against an AC of 18 instead, and ignore the DR 2/-- from the Adamantine Breastplate? WOW that's a major house rule. There is NOTHING in the system to allow that.Personally, I'd argue that aiming for the arm is exactly what the abstraction of AC is meant to represent. The opponent wearing a breastplate isn't any more difficult to make contact with (Touch AC), but it is more difficult to make an effective blow, as you'd need to connect with more power on armor, or hit the smaller targets like arms or other gaps in armor.
Again, the question is,
Everyone seems to be ignoring the question. The question is not either of the following :
A) Is it the case that in an abstract AC system, that making a solid hit on the adamantine breastplate guy means you hit him in an exposed spot like an arm.
B) Is it ok to let someone declare they are targeting an arm on an adamantine breast plate wearing NPC as flare, but still give the NPC the AC of the armor and the DR 2/--?
The question is are you going to allow a PC to declare a called attack and gain a very solid benefit of making a touch AC attack and bypassing DR 2/--? If you are, you are houseruling something that isn't in the system. If you are not, then the rule that a hafted weapon has only the hardness of the haft is inconsistent because it allows targeting of a specific part of the target.
That's the issue I see, but it appears to be a confirmed inconsistency in the rules.
It's a shame the rules don't have a provision for making the haft of a weapon of of, say, mithril. If you can use a pipe, it's not like there will be significant weight costs (or strength penalty since you retain most torsional or bending strength in a pipe vs. a solid bar).
Of course this begs the question of how hard it would be to fabricate pipe out of a hard material with the technology of that day and age.
The vast majority of axes and polearms had some kind of metal reinforcement near the head. During the Middle Ages, metal-hafted axes were fairly common.
A weapon not primarily made of metal would be a quarterstaff.
A spear or glaive presents an interesting puzzle in Pathfinder, since clearly the head would benefit from adamantine and also involve most of the cost and a good deal of the weight, while the pole would be the most vulnerable portion.
Again, the question is,
Of course not. From a narrative standpoint, the character is already attempting to do that, thus the increased difficulty to hit a smaller surface area (+6 AC from a breastplate), and in the case of adamantine, less successful indirect hits on the areas near the arm (DR2/-).
This is not an inconsistency because it assumes that the character, trained in the use of various weapons, will take the most effective means to accomplish the player's desired action -- in this case, sundering a weapon. Even the 7 Int, 7 Wis Fighter understands that she should aim for the haft -- such is represented by her Base Attack Bonus.
When a player makes a Sense Motive roll, the rules do not ask for a breakdown of what signs the character is looking for to detect deception (the equivalent of a called shot). Such is unnecessary, because knowledge of what to look for is an understood part of the characters innate intuition (Wisdom modifier) and experience/training (skill ranks, class skill bonus).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When a player makes a Sense Motive roll, the rules do not ask for a breakdown of what signs the character is looking for to detect deception (the equivalent of a called shot). Such is unnecessary, because knowledge of what to look for is an understood part of the characters innate intuition (Wisdom modifier) and experience/training (skill ranks, class skill bonus).
Exactly, nowhere else in the entire system do the rules break down in detail how something exactly, over 6 seconds, happens. But in this specific case, it's breaking it down to 'you attack the wooden part of the thing, not the exposed metal bit'.
If you imagine how someone wields a great axe, that wooden shaft is hugged in close to the body, while the head is exposed, until the moment of attack (think about how a fireman carries a fireman's axe, one hand near the head, one near the end of the haft).
Anyway, there is nothing else in the entire system that attacks one part of a thing and not the other part. Heck, even a colossal dragon can't be hit in the head, and it's head is as big as minotaur. It's an inconsistency.
Gunslingers can target certain parts of the body...
Dirty trick also assumes attacks on specific parts of a body. Of course this is why I don't have much use for dirty trick.
Exactly, nowhere else in the entire system do the rules break down in detail how something exactly, over 6 seconds, happens. But in this specific case, it's breaking it down to 'you attack the wooden part of the thing, not the exposed metal bit'.
Right, the rules don't break down to that much detail because it is assumed that the character knows and employs the most effective technique (abstracted by skill checks, attack rolls, AC, etc).
In this specific case, it would break down to "you attack the wooden part of the thing" because that is the easiest part of the weapon to break. Yes, your opponent is going to keep that close to the body and make it difficult for you to hit (their CMD), but if you can break their defenses and get in a good hit (exceeding their CMD with your CMB roll), you manage to hit the weakest part of the weapon.
But the wooden part of the thing, if the thing is a battle ax, is not the easiest thing to attack. It's behind an ax, for one thing.
This doesn't only apply to sunder, but also a 1 rolled on failed saves against area affects (or unattened). While the metal head may resist, the wood haft not as much.
Also to assume the weapon has the hardness of the metal is to still assume that only one part gets targeted.
This doesn't only apply to sunder, but also a 1 rolled on failed saves against area affects (or unattened). While the metal head may resist, the wood haft not as much.
Also to assume the weapon has the hardness of the metal is to still assume that only one part gets targeted.
Yes, but the rules always assume the best interpretation for the character if the effect is to be beneficial. The person being affected, not the person doing the affecting. So if you have a template and a racial bonus, then you take them in the order most beneficial. If you're applying multiple beneficial spell effects, you apply them in the order that makes it most beneficial to you (for example, if you have a spell that stops 15 pts of fire damage, and an affect that halves fire damage, you always halve the damage and then apply it to the resistance).
But in this case, with an area effect attack, you apply the worst effect for the character. Again, another inconsistency.
EDIT : And yes, the hardness & hp of items is an effect for the wielder.
It's a shame the rules don't have a provision for making the haft of a weapon of of, say, mithril. If you can use a pipe, it's not like there will be significant weight costs (or strength penalty since you retain most torsional or bending strength in a pipe vs. a solid bar).
I would be SO replacing any and all wooden haft of a weapon with mithril, especially if doing so means the difference between a hardness of 20 vs 15 vs 5. I wouldn't bother with making the entire weapon of adamantine, but it would be nice to see actual rules for replacing the haft of a weapon with a mithril version.
Adamantine tang, that is all.
There are no rules for a metal hafted two handed weapon.
So we are left to assume on that reading.
I loathe table variance in pfs.
|
so one side is claiming adamantine weapons don't have a hardness 20. that items made out of a special substance -don't- gain the hardness of the special substance, as listed in the special substance's description?
so an adamantine sword has only a hardness of 10. and an adamantine wall has a hardness of 20. so instead of deducing that adamantine weapons, called out as specifically ignoring hardness less than 20 ( because they're made of adamantine and have a hardness 20 themselves ) , there's a camp that wants adamantine weapons to be weaker?
ok, sanity checked. this thread is dumb. there's zero rules weight to the argument that adamantine weapons don't have a hardness of 20.
That debate has tailed off. We're now debating the hardness of an adamantine weapon which would normally have a wooden handle.
Steel has a hardness of 10. A steel sword has hardness 10. A steel greataxe has hardness 5 (because the wooden handle is bit you'd normally sunder?) So greataxes have half the hardness of swords, or 5 less hardness than swords, or always have a hardness of 5...?
so one side is claiming adamantine weapons don't have a hardness 20. that items made out of a special substance -don't- gain the hardness of the special substance, as listed in the special substance's description?
so an adamantine sword has only a hardness of 10. and an adamantine wall has a hardness of 20. so instead of deducing that adamantine weapons, called out as specifically ignoring hardness less than 20 ( because they're made of adamantine and have a hardness 20 themselves ) , there's a camp that wants adamantine weapons to be weaker?
ok, sanity checked. this thread is dumb. there's zero rules weight to the argument that adamantine weapons don't have a hardness of 20.
I don't think many people are arguing that an adamantine sword would have hardness 10. Yes, that would be silly. The main debate is, as Matthew Downie indicates, about wooden hafted weapons with adamantine heads.
|
Take a rank in Craft (origami).
During the mission briefing, make some paper weapons, playing it off as roleplaying a hobby.
When the GM says your adamantine weapon only has steel's hardness and HP, ask "So regardless of being a special material, we still default to the chart?"
When the GM says yes, say "Okay, I drop my sword as a free action, then as a move action I pull from my handy haversack the paper sword I made during the mission briefing, which apparently is as hard as steel."
To which the GM says:
"I'm sorry, you can't craft weapons or armor in PFS. >:-)"
|
|
To me, the problem with saying you will sunder the handle instead is that there is no rule in Pathfinder for 'calling your targets'.
Let's say someone is wearing a breast plate. Would you allow someone to say "I am going to avoid the breastplate by targeting their arm" and allow them to bypass the defense and hardness of an adamantine breastplate by targeting an arm? If not, why does someone get to target a great axe's handle? That's no different than targeting an arm to bypass the breastplate's hardness.
Actually, I almost didn't take a chainmail shirt because in *every* system I have ever run, you *could* bypass armor by making called shots to locations not covered by it. I was very surprised that that was dropped from pathfinder.
|
|
I don't think many people are arguing that an adamantine sword would have hardness 10. Yes, that would be silly. The main debate is, as Matthew Downie indicates, about wooden hafted weapons with adamantine heads.so one side is claiming adamantine weapons don't have a hardness 20. that items made out of a special substance -don't- gain the hardness of the special substance, as listed in the special substance's description?
so an adamantine sword has only a hardness of 10. and an adamantine wall has a hardness of 20. so instead of deducing that adamantine weapons, called out as specifically ignoring hardness less than 20 ( because they're made of adamantine and have a hardness 20 themselves ) , there's a camp that wants adamantine weapons to be weaker?
ok, sanity checked. this thread is dumb. there's zero rules weight to the argument that adamantine weapons don't have a hardness of 20.
Except that, by the RaW, if you argue that the RaW say the Adamantine greatax has a hardness of 5, then the same argument an Adamantine sword has a hardness of 10.
|
Yes, to summarize the evolution of this discussion:
Camp #1:
All weapons use the hardness ratings on the table in the CRB, regardless of material, because only armor utilizes subscript 4, which refers to special material hardness.
Camp #2:
Metal weapons made of Adamantine have a hardness of 20, but hafted weapons still just have the hardness of the weakest component: wood.
Camp #3:
That's silly. You pay for Adamantine, you get the hardness of Adamantine. End of story.
Actually, I almost didn't take a chainmail shirt because in *every* system I have ever run, you *could* bypass armor by making called shots to locations not covered by it. I was very surprised that that was dropped from pathfinder.
Every system must not have included D&D 3.x. That is a trope which Pathfinder merely carried on from it's predecessor. In an abstract system like d20, called shots have bad consequences. The system is meant to have a very aloof way of looking at combat. Putting in specific hit locations would likely slow it down, and remove some of the superhero flavor which is traditional to D&D.
@Flite you are trying to make a strawman arguement. The RAW doesn't say blades and hafted weapons must be treated the same in regards to how hardness is figured out. The chart clearly indicates otherwise.
@ Nefreet, in general I agree with your camp breakdown. But is camp 3's main arguement really that a character paying a bunch of money should then allow the rules to apply differently to that character?
Ultimate Combat has an optional rule for Called Shots. We play with it in a home game. It can certainly take down bosses quickly. I'm just dredding the day when the GM makes a boss that uses it against us.
If the GM isn't using it on you, then he's being a softie. Called shots are all well and good until the enemy uses them. At that point players get upset. The main problem with them is that while enemies are disposable so lingering effects are meaningless anything but short term, PCs have to go onto another combat with crippling injuries.
In the case of adamantine that is similar to what would happen, since the hardness of the weapon used for the sundering doesn't matter in PF. If an adamantine head is on a hafted weapon it negates the hardness of anything attacked, thus getting the offensive benefit, even if the hardness was below 20, which effectively only matters on defense.
so one side is claiming adamantine weapons don't have a hardness 20. that items made out of a special substance -don't- gain the hardness of the special substance, as listed in the special substance's description?
so an adamantine sword has only a hardness of 10. and an adamantine wall has a hardness of 20. so instead of deducing that adamantine weapons, called out as specifically ignoring hardness less than 20 ( because they're made of adamantine and have a hardness 20 themselves ) , there's a camp that wants adamantine weapons to be weaker?
ok, sanity checked. this thread is dumb. there's zero rules weight to the argument that adamantine weapons don't have a hardness of 20.
I have had A DM argue aadamantine weapons do not have special hardness, and htere are people that agree with that. I would love an official ruling to avoid table variance.
|
|
Once again, if anyone reading this wants to click the FAQ, Post #12 has the question we'd like answered.
I would like a specific ruling for all addy weapons. I have already faqed both.
I can understand with a weapon that has a wooden shaft and metal head (Axe) and having confusion on which hardness it would have, but just because the rules don’t explicitly say “adamantite weapons have a hardness of 20”, and wanting clarification because of that, is downright silly.
The rules clearly state that adamantite has a hardness of 20. So if the weapon is fully made of adamantite, there should be no question that it has a hardness of 20.
|
I can understand with a weapon that has a wooden shaft and metal head (Axe) and having confusion on which hardness it would have, but just because the rules don’t explicitly say “adamantite weapons have a hardness of 20”, and wanting clarification because of that, is downright silly.
The rules clearly state that adamantite has a hardness of 20. So if the weapon is fully made of adamantite, there should be no question that it has a hardness of 20.
Then we look at the chart for weapon and armour hardness, and notice that only armour takes on the hardness of its material. Weapon hardness seems to be based on the make of the weapon.
That's what the FAQ is for. If an adamantine sword has a hardness of 20, then the weapon chart should be updated to state that weapons take on the hardness of their material.
Ok, I do see your point now after looking after the weapon and armor hardness chart.
I really do not agree with Adamantite, or other special materials, for weapons not having the increased hardness. I feel Sunder is so powerful already, and having a strong weapon was one of the few ways to defend against it well. And no, increased HPs is not enough.
FAQ’d.
|
|
I actually do agree with you. I think that weapons made of adamantine SHOULD have more hardness; perhaps not the same hardness as armour, but increased hardness all the same.
My problem is the rules contradiction, and the fact that as a PFS GM I usually have to take the harsher ruling for the sake of giving players an even experience at tables.
The chart is for common weapons, not all weapons.
Well, I was going to say that originally as well, but as armor specifically calls out that the hardness is determined by the substance, it makes you wonder why weapons are not as well.
Likely because they are not as straightforward.
Well, I was going to say that originally as well, but as armor specifically calls out that the hardness is determined by the substance, it makes you wonder why weapons are not as well.
Because they probably forgot to do it in 3.5 and this chart in PF is C/P from 3.5. And they didn't check it out. Another thing is that in that chart there are nine entries for weapons and one for armor. Armor is made from one material (actually more then one but only outer part is that matter - metal or leather) and weapons can be made from more then one material. That's why there isn't any footnote number.
In weapons entries there are two hardness value:
10 for iron/steel
5 for wood
If morningstar (one handed hafted weapon, iron/steel head and wooden handle) have hardness 5 and 5 HP, so morningstar made of adamantine would have hardness 5 and 6HP.
You don't parry with head but with whole weapon and more like with handle so it's logically to say its wood hardness that matters in this example.
Special material entries says what hardness is for what material so everything made from adamnatine is 20. Period. Even if in chart of common weapons is not specificaly mentioned.
I still don't get what is all the fuss about this.
I'm curious about something. So if they didn't put that "4" in armor row, there wouldn't be this topic because everybody would know that material hardness apply to everything made from that material? Not just armor.
|
|
I still don't get what is all the fuss about this.
In home games, a GM is free to houserule how something like Adamantine hardness comes into play, but in Pathfinder Society the campaign leadership strives for consistency. Having a straightforward rules set allows players to make characters that will run smoothly from table to table, regardless of who is running their game. That's hard to do when there are differing opinions on how the hardness rules work.
In a recent thread over in the Pathfinder Society Forums someone posted quick reference charts for sundering weapons and armor. Charts help to speed up play when complex rules may be involved, such as summoning monsters, grappling, or, in this case, sundering. If there is no general consensus on hardness ratings, that impacts sundering builds to the point of frustration.
We're seeking an FAQ so we can settle the issue and move on.
Sorry mergy, but I think you've gone off the deep end here. Charts aren't the rules.
Because they probably forgot to do it in 3.5 and this chart in PF is C/P from 3.5. And they didn't check it out.
I highly doubt this is the case, and if so, it is poor QC on Paizo's part.
But the only thing we can do is make the assumption that the information in the book is as accurate as Paizo wanted it to be, considering they did make quite a few changes/clarifications from 3.5 to Pathfinder. So the only thing we can do is assume they wanted the weapon/armor hardness the same, as well.
You could be right in that it was overlooked, but if that was the case, I would assume we would receive an update on the FAQ instead of a "No answer needed."
Special material entries says what hardness is for what material so everything made from adamnatine is 20.
I do agree with you on this. It's the way we've always played it in our home game, and it's the way I feel it should always be. However, I can see why those would want the clarification in the FAQ due to the conflicting information.