|
If you want doors that aggressive PCs can't hack through, just say they're constructed in such a way that piercing, slashing, and blunt damage types are all ineffective. Adamantine weapons won't help at all then, and the door will have to be dealt with in some manner other than being chopped down.So in other words, when the PCs try to do something like this the GM's response should be to say "It doesn't work".
If you aren't going to follow the mechanics for how adamantine works, why use it at all. Make up some GM fiat driven "Force" doors with Hardness 50 and 10 layers (a disintegrate eats 1 layer) so the players at least know that you are blatantly pulling the "no you don't" card from the onset instead of making up stuff as you go along to shut down the PCs when they do something unexpected or unwanted.
That's exactly how the rules for adamantine work. I invite you to re-review page 174 of the CRB, specifically the Ineffective Weapons rule.
If a GM doesn't want an an adamantine dagger to functionally equate to a "get through any barricade, ever" key, the CRB has the GM's back when he says "I don't care if your dagger is adamantine. You can't carve a tunnel through the city walls with it."
So, yes. If the GM doesn't want the PCs to hack their way through a door or any other obstacle, he's covered. It's no travesty to be "forced" to use a Strength check to break the door or a Disable Device to unlock it, "as the game intended".
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you want doors that aggressive PCs can't hack through, just say they're constructed in such a way that piercing, slashing, and blunt damage types are all ineffective. Adamantine weapons won't help at all then, and the door will have to be dealt with in some manner other than being chopped down.So in other words, when the PCs try to do something like this the GM's response should be to say "It doesn't work".
If you aren't going to follow the mechanics for how adamantine works, why use it at all. Make up some GM fiat driven "Force" doors with Hardness 50 and 10 layers (a disintegrate eats 1 layer) so the players at least know that you are blatantly pulling the "no you don't" card from the onset instead of making up stuff as you go along to shut down the PCs when they do something unexpected or unwanted.
That's exactly how the rules for adamantine work. I invite you to re-review page 174 of the CRB, specifically the Ineffective Weapons rule.
If a GM doesn't want an an adamantine dagger to functionally equate to a "get through any barricade, ever" key, the CRB has the GM's back when he says "I don't care if your dagger is adamantine. You can't carve a tunnel through the city walls with it."
So, yes. If the GM doesn't want the PCs to hack their way through a door or any other obstacle, he's covered. It's no travesty to be "forced" to use a Strength check to break the door or a Disable Device to unlock it, "as the game intended".
Then a guy with a pick trivializes your doors "as the game intended".
Certain weapons just can't effectively deal damage to certain objects. For example, a bludgeoning weapon cannot be used to damage a rope. 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.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then a guy with a pick trivializes your doors "as the game intended".
Certain weapons just can't effectively deal damage to certain objects. For example, a bludgeoning weapon cannot be used to damage a rope. 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.
When did they become "my" doors?
I've been talking about GM agency trumping Player agency.
If the GM wants to say the player can't hack a door down without risk of failure and instead has to succeed on a strength check to force the door open via violence, he can do so. He can say that "most doors" may be readily damaged by picks, sure, but not this particular one. It doesn't matter what the excuse is, but maybe because it has a thick veneer of iron that holds the wood behind it together. Likewise, hypothetically, a hammer might be said to be useless as well because the wood used has just the right amount of give to flex with the blows. These rules say that GM gets to tell the Player what's what, not the other way around.
If the GM wants to say possession of an adamantine pick/dagger/needle doesn't equate to infinite and permanent passwall spellcasting, he's allowed to do so under the rules. He doesn't HAVE to prevent adamantine picks from tunneling through city gates/bank vaults/entire mountains, but he MAY.
|
|
Here's a sample GM/Player interaction to better illustrate what I'm getting at:
GM: The door doesn't open, it must be locked or stuck fast.
Player: I want to force it open.
GM: Ok, gimme a strength check, DC25.
Player: Screw that, I'll just hit it with my adamantine pick until it falls apart.
GM: Um, no you won't. If you want to force the door open, you'll need to succeed on the strength check.
Player: But adamantine ignores hardness!
GM: Sure, you ignore hardness with your Zero damage per hit. Any "damage" you do is superficial only.. you're not causing any structural integrity loss by making tiny holes.
Player: But, surely if I poke enough holes it'll fall apart?
GM: Yep. We'll resolve whether you can turn those holes into meaningful "damage" via the strength check I originally asked for. Heck, I might even give you a circumstance bonus for using an "appropriate tool".
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Player: I spent three thousand gold on this item specifically because by RAW it allows me to tunnel through anything with hardness below 20 and because my strength of 'only' 18 isn't enough to shove down a strong door with my bare hands. Why didn't you inform me of this house rule sooner?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Player: I spent three thousand gold on this item specifically because by RAW it allows me to tunnel through anything with hardness below 20...
It never told you anything of the sort. It's an assumption to think it does, and my point is that's a faulty assumption.
The ineffective weapon rule gives the GM trump power. Any object can be said to be undamaged by any weapon. Strictly by RAW, which I suspect you really enjoy, a waterballoon can be ruled invulnerable to an adamantine needle.
It's up to the GM's discretion to decide what's undamaged by what. And that discretion absolutely trumps anything and everything the player says. The rule allows a GM to say a given door is unlike "most" doors and a hammer or pick just isn't effective in this case.
How many shops could afford to buy something that expensive anyway?
This, to me, is the compelling argument. Sure it gets you, with MONTHS of forge time, cheap adamantine gear, but you can't just liquidate the doors. Even a metropolis has a purchase limit of 100,000 gp. It would take years to get the full value out of those doors, and that's years the PCs aren't adventuring. For the same time expenditure, they could make far more money other ways.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What would you regard as a suitable universal key, deusvult? Picks are actually called out as being pretty good for this kind of situation. What do you want? A hammer? A chainsaw?
Choosing "no suitable weapon" is generally regarded by the referees as "cheating".
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If this must be made personal, then here's my personal opinion:
If there's enough room for enough PCs to assist the highest strength PC to succeed on a take 20 on the strength check to bust the door anyway, then it's a waste of everyone's time to worry about what kinds of weapons work and what kinds don't. Factor in crowbars & such and only in corner cases is it going to be relevant as to what kinds of weapons can replicate the effects of a successful strength check to break.
As far as the rules go, I think it's pretty well established that GM reading > Player reading. GM opinion > Player opinion. Making me a bad guy doesn't change that dynamic. So I stand by what I've been saying. If the GM doesn't want to give the PCs a bypass to the Strength Check, the players don't get to force him to give them one. Being clever and thinking outside the box is one thing, insisting one can force the door without a strength check isn't necessarily that.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hi, meet AM BARBARIAN and his trusty friend Adamantine Earthbreaker, with co-star Power Attack
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hi, meet AM BARBARIAN and his trusty friend Adamantine Earthbreaker, with co-star Power Attack
GM:"It doesn't work."
See, adamantine doors are fine.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Time to find a better GM, it sounds like.
As far as the rules go, I think it's pretty well established that GM reading > Player reading. GM opinion > Player opinion. Making me a bad guy doesn't change that dynamic. So I stand by what I've been saying. If the GM doesn't want to give the PCs a bypass to the Strength Check, the players don't get to force him to give them one. Being clever and thinking outside the box is one thing, insisting one can force the door without a strength check isn't necessarily that.
Sure, but don't try and pretend it's RAW. It's a house rule that weapons cannot be used to damage doors, or at least not adamantine doors. Kinda weird, but whatever, it's your game. As long as you told the player about it before she bought that adamantine pick, you aren't at fault here.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hi, meet AM BARBARIAN and his trusty friend Adamantine Earthbreaker, with co-star Power Attack
Sorry, due to the way the earth is made, it is immune.
Also, you guys realize adamantine doesn't bypass its own hardness? It only ignores hardness of less than 20.
Just curious, but how are PCs moving large adamantine doors from the depths of a dungeon or tops of a tower?
Bag of Holding = 2 ft. diameter opening
Portable Hole = 6 ft. diameter opening
Teleport Object 15th lvl caster = max 750 lbs, 45 cu ft.
I guess the portable hole could do it, depending on the door....
Or, are we saying that they are getting hacked into pieces?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just curious, but how are PCs moving large adamantine doors from the depths of a dungeon or tops of a tower?
Bag of Holding = 2 ft. diameter opening
Portable Hole = 6 ft. diameter opening
Teleport Object 15th lvl caster = max 750 lbs, 45 cu ft.I guess the portable hole could do it, depending on the door....
Or, are we saying that they are getting hacked into pieces?
Treasure stitching, shrink item, Polymorph any object, Ant Haul + Barbarian + Teleport, Animate object, Give it to the dwarf ...
Where there's a will there's a way.
P.S. Had a funny thought. With Poly any object you could turn it into a human (temporarily) and have it walk itself out.
Edit: that's with no math and off the top of my head. Actual results may vary.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
P.S. Had a funny thought. With Poly any object you could turn it into a human (temporarily) and have it walk itself out.
Edit: that's with no math and off the top of my head. Actual results may vary.
I just had the weirdest sense of deja vu. Have you said this before?
EDIT: Well, there is this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
P.S. Had a funny thought. With Poly any object you could turn it into a human (temporarily) and have it walk itself out.
Edit: that's with no math and off the top of my head. Actual results may vary.I just had the weirdest sense of deja vu. Have you said this before?
EDIT: Well, there is this.
lol. Well damn. I've become predictable. I guess I have a certain diction I use with regularity.
Edit: the fact that it's two pages worth is really funny.
Also, you guys realize adamantine doesn't bypass its own hardness? It only ignores hardness of less than 20.This ^. Good catch, Ipslore. Adamantine pick does not tunnel through adamantine. Adamantine pick plus AM BARBARIAN, still might work though.
i think AM uses a lance, but that new signature skill kind of kill of the Real power of AM BARBARIAN.
Consider this: due to hardness, the first 20 points are subtracted from damage, (as mentioned above, adamantine bypasses 19, NOT 20).
Hammering on the door with whatever tool you choose is going to make a fair amount of noise...
Sure, you can remove the doors, given time... don't be shocked when every monster in the dungeon shows up at once though.
This thread is funny.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Consider this: due to hardness, the first 20 points are subtracted from damage, (as mentioned above, adamantine bypasses 19, NOT 20).
Hammering on the door with whatever tool you choose is going to make a fair amount of noise...
Sure, you can remove the doors, given time... don't be shocked when every monster in the dungeon shows up at once though.
This thread is funny.
The assumption is usually that the party kills the monsters and then steals the doors, or kills the monsters while stealing the doors.
When the dungeon is level appropriate for level 5 characters, and has 1 million gp doors in it, there is a serious problem once they clear out the dungeon and have time to hack down the doors.