One of us is.
|
See, that is still arguing, about which one is arguing.
That doesn't actually make sense.
One can continue to try to instigate an argument, but an argument, involves more than one person.
Unless, you are suggesting that one is arguing, with oneself.
If that's the case, then they are not arguing with you.
Now, what it could be, is a disagreement.
Though, I suspect, this will become a disagreement, about whether or not there is a disagreement.
ಠ_ಠ
|
See, that is still arguing, about which one is arguing.
That doesn't actually make sense.
One can continue to try to instigate an argument, but an argument, involves more than one person.
Unless, you are suggesting that one is arguing, with oneself.
If that's the case, then they are not arguing with you.
Now, what it could be, is a disagreement.
Though, I suspect, this will become a disagreement, about whether or not there is a disagreement.
ಠ_ಠ
Prove it?
|
|
Prove it?See, that is still arguing, about which one is arguing.
That doesn't actually make sense.
One can continue to try to instigate an argument, but an argument, involves more than one person.
Unless, you are suggesting that one is arguing, with oneself.
If that's the case, then they are not arguing with you.
Now, what it could be, is a disagreement.
Though, I suspect, this will become a disagreement, about whether or not there is a disagreement.
ಠ_ಠ
See, that is still arguing, about which one is arguing.
Is not.
ker·fuf·fle
kərˈfəfəl/
noun
noun: kerfuffle; plural noun: kerfuffles
a commotion or fuss, especially one caused by conflicting views.
"there was a kerfuffle over the chairmanship"
What?
I like the word. >.>
|
|
nig·gard·ly
ˈniɡərdlē/
adjective
adjective: niggardly
1. not generous; stingy.
"serving out the rations with a niggardly hand"
synonyms: cheap, mean, miserly, parsimonious, close-fisted, penny-pinching, cheeseparing, grasping, ungenerous, illiberal; More
informal; stingy, tight, tightfisted
"a niggardly person"
antonyms: generous
meager; scanty.
"their share is a niggardly 2.7 percent"
synonyms: meager, inadequate, scanty, scant, skimpy, paltry, sparse, insufficient, deficient, short, lean, small, slender, poor, miserable, pitiful, puny; More
informal; measly, stingy, pathetic, piddling
"niggardly rations"
antonyms: lavish, abundant
adverb
archaic
adverb: niggardly
1. in a stingy or meager manner.
I like Cowabunga.
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1990)
Leonardo: We were awesome!
Michaelangelo: Bodacious!
Raphael: B+&$@in'!
Donatello: Uh...
Michaelangelo: Gnarly!
Leonardo: Radical!
Raphael: Totally tubular, dude!
Michaelangelo: Wicked!
Leonardo: Hellacious!
Donatello: Uh, mega...
[Splinter clears his throat, the Turtles clam up]
Splinter: I have always liked... Cowabunga.
Leonardo, Michaelangelo, Raphael, Donatello: COWABUNGA!
Splinter: [laughs] I made a funny!
Movie Clip
/cevah
I like cocktale.
As big of a Danny Trejo fan as I am I like the Godzilla and Mr Bean an awful lot.
edit: Oh, and the Mr. T one.
I like Danny Trejo.
Can hardly wait for Machete Kills Again... in Space. Check out the trailer here.
/cevah
...what? Oh, god, they are just getting hilarious with it now. I'll have to check it when I get home.
|
|
Sorry to ask an on-topic question, but:
it's been well established that an adamantine weapon ignores hardness 19 and lower.
Do additional effects of an adamantine weapon (such as flaming or other energy damage types) "carry through" along with the adamantine weapon, or do they have to overcome hardness separately?
If I have an adamantine shocking shortsword, which normally does 1d6 slashing plus 1d6 electricity, and I attack a robot with hardness 5, do I do:
a) 1d6 slashing plus 1d6 electricity
or
b) 1d6 slashing plus 1d6-5 electricity?
|
|
Okay, let's forget robots and make it a generic animated object then. The point of my question was whether an adamantine weapon also enables its accompanying effect to overcome hardness.
To me it would seem that since the property is part of the weapon, and the weapon as a whole penetrates hardness, then the additional effect would also penetrate hardness.
Except the two things are entirely separate. An Adamantine weapon overcomes Hardness because Adamantine is hard. It does not somehow make your fire better at burning things.
|
|
Except the two things are entirely separate. An Adamantine weapon overcomes Hardness because Adamantine is hard. It does not somehow make your fire better at burning things.
They are in fact completely un-separate. The flaming quality is woven into the very fabric of the sword. If the sword goes through the hardness, then the part of the sword that penetrates is still flaming. The flaming part doesn't somehow stay outside the hard shell but is carried along with the sword. That part of the sword that stabs through a stone creature's chest doesn't extinguish along the length that is inside the creature.
And it doesn't make his bits any less fireproof, regardless of where you stick the sword.
The sword is hard. The fire is not.
|
|
Unless there's a differential between the outer surface and the innards, like in robots which have a hard outer shell and more vulnerable internal components. Then it matters a whole lot where you stick the sword. If it penetrates the hardness of the outer shell, the fire can do a lot of damage on the circuit boards underneath.
Unless there's a differential between the outer surface and the innards, like in robots which have a hard outer shell and more vulnerable internal components. Then it matters a whole lot where you stick the sword. If it penetrates the hardness of the outer shell, the fire can do a lot of damage on the circuit boards underneath.
You're applying specifics to an abstract concept in order to make your case.
Which means you've already reached the extent of your ability to argue within the rules.
There is no location based damage in Pathfinder. Either you hit, or you don't. You deal damage, or you don't.
You shoot somebody in the head, knee, chest, left pinky finger..it all deals the same amount of damage.
You burn the the outer shell, circuitry, fuel system...doesn't matter. It is irrelevant.
Adamantine weapons ignore Hardness.
Fire damage does not. Nor does Cold damage, Acid damage, Electricity damage, or any other type of damage that is subject to Hardness.
...Except the Fire damage is not a function of the weapon being Adamantine whatsoever. It is a weapon special ability.
The converse is also true: DR stopping your weapon damage entirely does not stop the fire damage from your Flaming weapon.
They are additional damage dice. They do not interact with the material your weapon is made of in any way.
They are a part of the weapon. When the weapon penetrates the hardness, the effect also penetrates the hardness. If you have a rule to cite to the opposite, let's hear it.
That's not how this works. "It doesn't say I can't" doesn't mean you CAN.
Adamantine weapons overcome Hardness >20.
Fire damage does not.
End of story.
Those are the respective rules for those things interacting with Hardness.
Your Adamantine weapon doesn't make the Fire overcomes Hardness any more than dealing Cold and Fire damage to a Fire immune creature lets you hurt it with Fire.
|
|
The only difference for an +1 flaming adamantine sword hitting an object with hardness 5 vs a person with damage reduction 5/adamantine and resistance fire/acid/cold/sonic/electricity/divine/positive/negative 5 is the fact that the object only needed 10 characters and the person needed 104 characters to describe the damage they reduce from being hit.
You're applying two lots of damage so hardness is applied twice, it makes perfect sense.
|
|
+1 flaming dagger with 4d6 sneak attack vs hardness 5
Damage types: 1d6 fire, 1d4+4d6 physical.
No you do not apply hardness to sneak attack. You apply the hardness to the fire damage and to the physical damage.
2 scorching rays, one of which has 4d6 sneak attack vs hardness 5.
Damage types: 4d6+4d6 fire damage and 4d6 fire damage.
No, you do not apply hardness to sneak attack. You apply the hardness to the fire damage twice because there are two rays.
|
|
Think of hardness as damage reduction adamantine coupled with energy resistance of a certain number to all known and unknown elements.
This means that if you have weapon attack that deals X amount of physical damage, Y amount of fire energy damage, Z amount of divine energy damage with Kd6 sneak attack, because it's a weapon attack the sneak attack is physical damage.
You add the sneak attack and the physical amount of damage together because it's the same type of damage. Then you subtract the hardness (damage reduction) from the physical damage. After that you do the same for the fire energy damage and the divine energy damage. The numbers you are left with are then all subtracted from the total hitpoints of the target.
|
|
Think of hardness as damage reduction adamantine coupled with energy resistance of a certain number to all known and unknown elements.
But what if it shouldn't be thought of like that? I don't think it's been established anywhere in the rules that hardness equals DR+ER.
But let's drop the flaming issue for a while. What about a merciful weapon instead, then? It also causes extra +1d6 damage but of the same type as the weapon. Does that, then, avoid the double hardness?