|
Can you direct me to the posts that suggested anything remotely like that? Maybe link, say, five of them? I hope I wasn't just blind to miss the posts made by "most people", but I'll give you the chance to show me before I rule out the possibility.
it'll still cut through stone like a knife through butter.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Adamantine, getting duller.
Riiiiiiiiight.
I second that. Your adamantine weapon don't get dull by fighting a adamantine golem, why punish martials any further?
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can you direct me to the posts that suggested anything remotely like that? Maybe link, say, five of them? I hope I wasn't just blind to miss the posts made by "most people", but I'll give you the chance to show me before I rule out the possibility.it'll still cut through stone like a knife through butter.
"Like a knife through butter" implies something like punching through a skyscraper with barely a loss of momentum?
And one post is "most people", "filling" the thread?
"Damn shame the game doesn't work like the real world isn't it?"Wait, then how did you determine that a dagger was an ineffective weapon against a wall in the first place?
It sounds like you're changing the standards of what it takes for something to work so as to only favor what you already want to be the result, and trying to avoid directly addressing any inconvenient counterpoints.
But I don't want to come to that conclusion prematurely; maybe your posts just look that way by chance. Could you explain your position in a bit more detail? Thanks.
Besides the fact that the rules for the game we are playing have called out weapons that would be effective for the actions you are trying to take?
Read the quoted rules above, that is where we get "ineffective" from.
I didn't change anything. The stated standard is the same no matter what material or properties of the material are, for the ineffective weapon.
Just because it has properties that would make doing something easier, doesn't change the fact that it isn't the "right" tool for the job.
If the GM wants to play that way, that is on them. But it is as much a house rule as anything else if played that way.
By the rules, you never need to sharpen ANY sword, or repair ANY armor.
Yet, in real life, those are timely and tedious tasks that must be carried out every day, called 'maintenance of gear.'
If you don't do them, then your gear falls apart eventually.
It's just hand-waved to 'down time'.
So, yes, the adamantine dagger WILL get duller. IF your knife gets duller just cutting CHEESE, then adamantine will get duller cutting stone. It has HP, after all.
Unless, of course, you have a whetstone around that will sharpen something made of adamantine.
==Aelryinth
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I second that. Your adamantine weapon don't get dull by fighting a adamantine golem, why punish martials any further?Adamantine, getting duller.
Riiiiiiiiight.
Really.. . is there any where people won't bring up the martial caster disparity debate?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really.. . is there any where people won't bring up the martial caster disparity debate?I second that. Your adamantine weapon don't get dull by fighting a adamantine golem, why punish martials any further?Adamantine, getting duller.
Riiiiiiiiight.
Space... because Martials can't get there without a caster anyway. :P
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Besides the fact that the rules for the game we are playing have called out weapons that would be effective for the actions you are trying to take?
So, is it that you're taking "such as a pick or a hammer" to mean "only a pick or a hammer," or is it that you think a blade into a wall is comparable to a hammer onto a rope?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Best sabotage tool ever.
-> With a few slice you can cut through most support beams in structures.
-> With a few stabs you can destroy most pieces of equipment you want to break (try to shoot that balista/trebuchet now!)
-> Cut through prison bars with ease
-> Cut the retention chains of a drawbridge
-> Cut the hinges of a door in a few attack rolls
-> Cut through the bottom of that clearly trapped treasure chest
-> Plant it into a wall and descend using your weight pushing down
-> Cut off the moat of a boat in a few chops
-> Great way to split gold bars for loot
-> Wonderful item to carve your initials in stuff made out of hard stuff.
-> Cut through bad GM plot walls and literal walls (if you cannot deal with a weapon that ignore less than 20 hardness and inflict 1d4 + whatever STR your player has in HP, you cannot deal with anything and should reconsider your GMing style)
But an adamantine warhammer, or pick? Those could get through the wall in minutes.So I guess 3000gp IS justification then?
It can be justification...for a 3000gp tool that you only use for demolition.
A strange reality of this game is that only a few of the weapons actually get used. Daggers, greatswords, falchions, scimitars, whichever one of those polearms does bludgeoning as well...etc, etc.
You find very few people use hammers or axes for much besides flavor- at least with the optimizers of these boards. Hammer might also be kept around for the occasional skeleton and the like, but it is usually not that well upgraded. Maybe a pick as part of a specilized butterfly sting build, but that is a relative side case.
Now, the common high power options for killing things are not usually the ones that would be that effective against stone wall. Daggers particularly are already highly effective and versatile weapons available to every single class. Having your main weapons upgrade so they also break down dungeon design without going out of your way (since you are making sure they are hard to break) doesn't quiet sit right. (you can of courseargue that spells can do this as well, but that is a relatively limited resource, and well...we all know the spell system is kind of...no, really wonky, so I'll leave that for now)
Now, as a 3,000 gp tool that you keep around for skeletons as well (maybe with an oil of bless weapon if you face a lich or something)... yeah, it is alright.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How long does it take to tunnel through 5 ft. thick wall of butter with a knife?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How long does it take to tunnel through 5 ft. thick wall of butter with a knife?
Refrigerated or do you store your butter wall in a butter dish on the counter?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just have the dungeon collapse on their heads after they cut through a structural load baring wall. Maybe give them a knowledge:engineering check to be sporting about it. Nip it in the bud. Just because a thing can be done doesn't mean it should be done....
Don't do this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You guys realise that admantine daggers treat stone as hard as paper right?
You can't. A knife isn't effective at tunneling through butter. Just use your hands.
So what we need are adamantine monks?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just have the dungeon collapse on their heads after they cut through a structural load baring wall. Maybe give them a knowledge:engineering check to be sporting about it. Nip it in the bud. Just because a thing can be done doesn't mean it should be done....Don't do this.
Or do it. You'll kill off all your players and they wouldn't need to play with a GM that would do this anymore.
Now I want to play some brain dead stooge with an adamantine meteor hammer and no self control. thanks guys.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
logically the dagger should be able to damage the wall.
Meanwhile the game-ist assumption is in place saying that since the weapon ignores hardness it cuts thru solid objects like a lightsaber.
This seems like the selective application of logic to me.
Imagine using a diamond knife to carve your way thru a stone wall...nearly impossible, you could do it "Shawshank redempion" style over a long period, but that's about it.
The game says adamantine ignores hardness....it also says that knives are ineffective at tunneling.
The rules are pitted against one another, applying GM fiat to the situation takes it out of the realm of RAW and into the realm of irreconcilable opinion based argument.
For instance, I don't see adamantine allowing a character to swing effortlessly thru solid rock...it just means that it can actually do damage.
Again, the rules don't cover the particulars of improvised mining and tunneling.
I'm waiting for the "OreFinder" expansion...so I can try and dig up the Arkenstone :D
Hmm.... Adamantine Daggers should be able to cut through an inch of stone as well as a masterwork dagger can cut through 7.5 inches of paper.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
doable, but it would be nice to have a saw instead. Saw, an adamantine dagger with a 5 gold piece sawback modification on it.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm.... Adamantine Daggers should be able to cut through an inch of stone as well as a masterwork dagger can cut through 7.5 inches of paper.
Actually, that much paper is very difficult to cut through. That's easily enough to stop most small arms fire and would stop most penetration from a stab.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, how are we cutting the wall?
Stabbing/picking it? Take forever.
How about sawing motion? Much better.
I mean, when I cut open watermelon bins a saw-like knife works much better than a normal boxcutter.
These are made of cardboard so knife should be effective, but the type of cutting methods matters.
Balance it so it stays blade down and just let it drill a hole through the center of the Earth.
Actually, 7.5 inches of paper in Pathfinder has 0 hardness and 15 hp.
So it's not very hard at all with a d4 dagger. Even with no Strength mod, that only takes between 15 and 4 attacks, usually about 8. Even just a +2 to damage makes that a range of 5-3 attacks. That's 30-18 seconds.
Besides the fact that the rules for the game we are playing have called out weapons that would be effective for the actions you are trying to take?So, is it that you're taking "such as a pick or a hammer" to mean "only a pick or a hammer," or is it that you think a blade into a wall is comparable to a hammer onto a rope?
A device is an effective weapon, because it is designed to be a weapon.
A device is an effective tool, because it is designed to be a tool.
A tool may be an effective weapon.
The majority of tools will also be ineffective weapons.
A weapon may be an effective tool.
The majority of weapons will also be ineffective tools.
Using a weapon as a tool doesn't automatically mean it is an effective tool because some others are.
A device may have properties that would possibly help it act like a tool or weapon, but would still be an ineffective tool or weapon.
A normal dagger is ineffective tool for bring down a wall, or carving stone. Adding properties to it, doesn't change that it still is an ineffective device for what you are trying to use it as. It just means it would be more effective than the rest of the ineffective devices.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why because then your characters would realize that actions have consequences?Or do it. You'll kill off all your players and they wouldn't need to play with a GM that would do this anymore.Just have the dungeon collapse on their heads after they cut through a structural load baring wall. Maybe give them a knowledge:engineering check to be sporting about it. Nip it in the bud. Just because a thing can be done doesn't mean it should be done....Don't do this.
Because "rocks falling on your heads killing everyone because you did something I don't like" is the exact, word-for-word definition of the absolute worst type of GM.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because "rocks falling on your heads killing everyone because you did something I don't like" is the exact, word-for-word definition of the absolute worst type of GM.Why because then your characters would realize that actions have consequences?Or do it. You'll kill off all your players and they wouldn't need to play with a GM that would do this anymore.Just have the dungeon collapse on their heads after they cut through a structural load baring wall. Maybe give them a knowledge:engineering check to be sporting about it. Nip it in the bud. Just because a thing can be done doesn't mean it should be done....Don't do this.
Who would probably be justified in doing it, to the type of players who try to weasel absolutely every advantage out of the rules and get anything they can for "nothing."
It is a two way street, sorry.
There is a reason the vast majority of people don't GM, if players had to deal with themselves in a game they were running... they'd probably be tempted to do such things too.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
OK thats it, Im buying that named Adamantine Crowbar.
Actually, 7.5 inches of paper in Pathfinder has 0 hardness and 15 hp.
That's why I said it. Because it's equivalent to an adamantine dagger attacking an inch of stone (0 hardness 15 hitpoints)
You guys realise that admantine daggers treat stone as hard as paper right?
You can't. A knife isn't effective at tunneling through butter. Just use your hands.So what we need are adamantine monks?
I am pretty sure brothers of the seal prestige class has abilities directly relating to this.
Hmmm....yes...
Yes, they can ignore 1 hardness per level when attacking an object. Walls count, right?
I guess this works thematically, since they are the 'monks built for exploring and protecting dungeons' prestige class. With this, they just make the dungeons themselves.
Or do it. You'll kill off all your players and they wouldn't need to play with a GM that would do this anymore.Just have the dungeon collapse on their heads after they cut through a structural load baring wall. Maybe give them a knowledge:engineering check to be sporting about it. Nip it in the bud. Just because a thing can be done doesn't mean it should be done....Don't do this.
...or he could just have a rock or two fall, do a small bit of damage, and then let them know that it was probably not a good idea. That way, they only lose a use of a CLW wand or two.
I can understand disliking a 'rocks fall' situation, but there is a question of basic game play and map design.Skipping everything without spending resources (or running the risk of being caught alone, in the case of an elemental body wizard or something) can create situations that are hard to account for. It might not necessarily be the best way to handle this (asking OoC would be first choice, and then you can go into other ways to handle this with mechanics afterwards)
At the very least, players should spend a resource to pull this off. Such as skill points in knowledge engineering. Even then...I would reserve the right to call 'load bearing' on at least some of the walls (this unfortunately might lead to situations of randomly deciding 'nuhuh, can't do it', since I think GMing is already hard enough with storywriting and encounter balancing, and it might be hard to balance your life with the need to carefully examine each and every wall to decide which ones would ruin the dungeon if freakin' noclipped)
I am pretty sure brothers of the seal prestige class has abilities directly relating to this.Hmmm....yes...
Yes, they can ignore 1 hardness per level when attacking an object. Walls count, right?
I guess this works thematically, since they are the 'monks built for exploring and protecting dungeons' prestige class. With this, they just make the dungeons themselves.
You have to take at least 8 levels though, ugh. Plus I hate PrC's. Amulet of Mighty Fists should just be allowed to be made from special materials.
They spent resources on adamantine. It costs a set amount that they paid for.
|
|
I can understand disliking a 'rocks fall' situation, but there is a question of basic game play and map design.Skipping everything without spending resources (or running the risk of being caught alone, in the case of an elemental body wizard or something) can create situations that are hard to account for. It might not necessarily be the best way to handle this (asking OoC would be first choice, and then you can go into other ways to handle this with mechanics afterwards)
And then there are times when players forget all their resources like this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
I can understand disliking a 'rocks fall' situation, but there is a question of basic game play and map design.Skipping everything without spending resources (or running the risk of being caught alone, in the case of an elemental body wizard or something) can create situations that are hard to account for. It might not necessarily be the best way to handle this (asking OoC would be first choice, and then you can go into other ways to handle this with mechanics afterwards)At the very least, players should spend a resource to pull this off. Such as skill points in knowledge engineering. Even then...I would reserve the right to call 'load bearing' on at least some of the walls (this unfortunately might lead to situations of...
The issue of basic game play and map design already comes up with the 50 ways casters can do the exact same thing. FFS, a level 4 druid can turn into a Dire Badger and just tunnel straight through the damn wall. If you want to pull the same "load bearing" nonsense, the druid can simply dig around the load bearing areas. This isn't even getting into things like telling the rest of the party to leave and then hollowing out the walls and causing the entire dungeon to collapse room by room and kill all the threats. Would you allow that? Or is this just warping the fabric of the game world in order to prevent PCs from jumping the rails? Is this one of those situations where the adventure can't survive "creative" player actions (are we really at the point where cutting through a wall is so creative that it breaks things). I take it these dungeons are all dimensionally locked as well, right? Otherwise, the occasional load bearing wall can be teleported past. Summoned Earth Elementals with earth glide can get the exact distance to dimension door, and they can give info on the layout of the room beyond(including any creatures touching the ground).
The gist of all this is that it sounds like any adventure that can't handle a PC bypassing a frigging wall will have a whole load of issues. Using an explanation of "load bearing" to stop that particular trick is basically trying to ineffectually patch over the issue instead of acknowledging it and fixing it or flat out telling the PCs that the adventure will break if they go happy happy hacky on the walls like they usually do, so please say on the tracks for this one, because it's author hasn't heard of the phrase "no plan survives first contact with the PCs" and "plans" around the PCs following the obvious path they lay out.
They spent resources on adamantine. It costs a set amount that they paid for.
But did they spend it for a wallbuster, or because adamantine weapons are nice...as weapons?
The fact that they have a large boost when used to sunder (which can make it very easy to take out a nice holy symbol or such), and it is fairly resistant to sunder attempts itself (which means you don't need to spend as much to fix your big fancy magic sword) seem like the main draws.
The 'adventurer's lockpick' has always been that 'one weird trick...' and 'GM's hate it!'. It was not the main mechanical purpose of the special material.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thought experiment for those discussing the "ineffective weapons" thing:
Okay, so let's suppose that an adamantine dagger is an "ineffective weapon" against a stone dungeon wall, because daggers aren't designed to destroy walls. Thus, the adamantine dagger can't damage the stone wall.
Now, suppose I cast stone shape, replacing a segment of wall with a 3ft-high stone box. It's open on top, with inch-thick sides. The box's sides are still stone walls, but they're thinner than the length of the blade and I can cut down from the top instead of chiseling in from the side. Can the adamantine dagger damage these stone walls, or is it still an "ineffective weapon" because daggers aren't designed for destroying stone walls?
Suppose I cast stone shape again. The box now turns into humanoid figure; basically, a stone scarecrow/training dummy. It's not a wall now, but it's still an object, and made of the same material. Can the adamantine dagger damage it, or is it still an "ineffective weapon" because daggers aren't designed to destroy stone statues?
Now suppose I animate this statue I just made, turning it into some kind of stone golem. It's still made of the same stuff as the stone wall my dagger couldn't scratch, but now it's a creature who happens to have hardness. Can the dagger harm it now, since daggers are designed to hurt creatures?
swords are designed to cut steel walls of space ships.
Laser bounce off walls of space shipsBut laser swords (light sabers) melt right through them.
The light saber is special.
The adamantine weapon is special.
Simple reason why the rules say most weapons are ineffective at smashing walls: Lots of weapons do d8 damage or lower - less than or equal to the hardness of stone. They're physically incapable of damaging the stone unless you're fairly strong. It's a consequence of the rules and not an actual rule.
However, once you have an adamantine weapon, that's no longer an issue, since it ignores hardness.
That's not to say that it's easy to cut through stone with a adamantine dagger. It still takes 36 seconds to cut through an inch of stone on an average character, and there are also the geometric considerations to make it tough.
EDIT: Rope? That's probably about right though. Tough to smash a rope with a hammer.
Simple reason why the rules say most weapons are ineffective at smashing walls: Lots of weapons do d8 damage or lower - less than or equal to the hardness of stone. They're physically incapable of damaging the stone unless you're fairly strong. It's a consequence of the rules and not an actual rule.
However, once you have an adamantine weapon, that's no longer an issue, since it ignores hardness.
That's not to say that it's easy to cut through stone with a adamantine dagger. It still takes 36 seconds to cut through an inch of stone on an average character, and there are also the geometric considerations to make it tough.
That assumes that the only reason for the lack of effectiveness has to do with hardness; one of their other examples is cutting a rope using a hammer, which I think invalidates that theory and supports a need for a specific mechanical effect to be applied.
You need the tool to provide the correct mechanical effect on the wall for it to change the wall efficiently. Slashing would push material out of the way compacting it, no matter how sharp the blade your strength would need to be phenomenal in order to compress the stone like that. Using a hammer, a gauntlet or a real demolishing tool would probably be the best. All we really do is swap out the adamantine dagger for an adamantine pick axe and we're done for the day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thinking about it, you can destroy a rope with a hammer, and even relatively easily: it just needs to be relatively tight. That's more consequence of its circumstances rather than the item itself. I'll agree with you that those rules are insufficient and they need a proper mechanical effect though.
It's tough to try to imagine how a material that hard actually works, since it's not something that most of us regularly experience. Primarily, the complicated bit is the ignoring hardness bit. Nothing I'm aware of actually has that property, and it does mean that what normally holds, like the compression issue, doesn't. The adamantine knife really does, in theory, cut through steel or stone just as easily as paper, or butter, or bread or what have you. I'd say the difficulty in doing so is compensated for by the Hit Points.
Of course, cutting through the wall is just a line, rather than the wide area effect that a bludgeoning weapon does. No arguments from me in that regard. Pick or hammer is definitely the way to go for speed. I think it's possible with a dagger though.
Heading back to the original topic: You could probably adapt a dagger or two to make some impromptu pitons or something. A character with good balance could probably climb up a cliff face using just the daggers.
Thinking about it, you can destroy a rope with a hammer, and even relatively easily: it just needs to be relatively tight. That's more consequence of its circumstances rather than the item itself. I'll agree with you that those rules are insufficient and they need a proper mechanical effect though.
It's tough to try to imagine how a material that hard actually works, since it's not something that most of us regularly experience. Primarily, the complicated bit is the ignoring hardness bit. Nothing I'm aware of actually has that property, and it does mean that what normally holds, like the compression issue, doesn't. The adamantine knife really does, in theory, cut through steel or stone just as easily as paper, or butter, or bread or what have you. I'd say the difficulty in doing so is compensated for by the Hit Points.
Of course, cutting through the wall is just a line, rather than the wide area effect that a bludgeoning weapon does. No arguments from me in that regard. Pick or hammer is definitely the way to go for speed. I think it's possible with a dagger though.
Heading back to the original topic: You could probably adapt a dagger or two to make some impromptu pitons or something. A character with good balance could probably climb up a cliff face using just the daggers.
I am not so sure about that- there are two things that tend to increase with the tougher material: hardness adn hp/inch.
Paper and cloth have 1 hp/in, wood 5, stone has 8, iron has 10, mithral has 30, and adamantine has 40.
So it can be difficult to tell just where all the toughness of a material goes- while there is the word 'hardness', you find that harder materials tend to have more hp, which could represent that as well (it only has a small passing effect on density, since mithral has a ton more hp with 1/2 the weight).
So in the end, there is still resistence, and it does not necessarily go like butter. And given the fact that walls will normally be at least 1 foot thick in a castle/dungeon... it has about what? 90 hp? Maybe way more? You pretty much have to full attack for several turns just to get through, and that is with a proper hammer or pick.
OK thats it, Im buying that named Adamantine Crowbar.
blackbloodtroll recently pointed out to me that the Kunai description says that they can function as crowbars. So your adamantine blade can be an admantine crowbar. :)
How long does it take to tunnel through 5 ft. thick wall of butter with a knife?
Mmmm... 5 ft of butter. ~(_8^(|)
I am not so sure about that- there are two things that tend to increase with the tougher material: hardness adn hp/inch.
Paper and cloth have 1 hp/in, wood 5, stone has 8, iron has 10, mithral has 30, and adamantine has 40.
So it can be difficult to tell just where all the toughness of a material goes- while there is the word 'hardness', you find that harder materials tend to have more hp, which could represent that as well (it only has a small passing effect on density, since mithral has a ton more hp with 1/2 the weight).
So in the end, there is still resistence, and it does not necessarily go like butter. And given the fact that walls will normally be at least 1 foot thick in a dungeon... it has about what? 90 hp? Maybe way more? You pretty much have to full attack for several turns just to get through, and that is with a proper hammer or pick.
I guess all we can say is it's not a perfect simulation of what stuff is actually like. The ignore hardness bit of adamantine is particularly strange and hard to visualise; we just don't have experience in seeing a material that cuts through practically everything without much difficulty.
Still... compare a sharp knife through a single sheet of paper with a sharp knife through a stack of paper. It cuts through a single sheet easily and quickly, but much slower with the stack. The 'Hardness' hasn't changed, just the 'Hit Points'. There's that difference between the minimum damage threshold ('hardness') and the rate of cutting (Damage vs 'HP').
It's a weird but logical extension, according to the rules.
You should be able to push a dagger through a stone wall... but because it has so many Hit Points, it's going to take a while. For an 'average' character, a little over 7 minutes to push through a 1 foot stone wall.
---
Crimeo, I think you have it right. A measly 1d4+str damage isn't going to push the dagger more than a centimetre or two into a wall at best, which is about what you'd expect if you ran at a tree with a dagger in the same way. It might be able to cut through anything, but it doesn't mean it's easy.