Adamantine daggers do what?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 482 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Could people stop mentioning diamonds? Despite the origin of the words, admantine does not function like diamonds. Adamantine is super hard, NOT brittle, AND it is super sharp/penetrating/...weighted?

Attacking with adamantine is not anything like attacking with diamond.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ErichAD wrote:
Now I want to play some brain dead stooge with an adamantine meteor hammer and no self control. thanks guys.

With adamantine teeth?

Scarab Sages

Thac20 wrote:
ErichAD wrote:
Now I want to play some brain dead stooge with an adamantine meteor hammer and no self control. thanks guys.
With adamantine teeth?

No, an adamantine chakram sewn into the rim of a bowler hat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:

You guys realise that admantine daggers treat stone as hard as paper right?

No, they don't. Most people are complaining about you spend some minutes carving a wall with a fantasy metal, while a caster snap his fingers and the entire wall is gone.

3 cubic feet of rock have 900 hp. Give it to a STR 18+ person, that person uses Power Attack on it, and in about a minute the rock is gone.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kazaan wrote:

Begging the question fallacy: presuming the result of your premise is correct in order to support your premise.

Adamantine lets you ignore hardness which makes any weapon "appropriate" for damaging a stone wall.

Which seems obvious, since the stone wall has no hardness against it; you can pretty much scrape it away like butter.

Kazaan wrote:

Only "appropriate" weapons can damage a stone wall. Ergo, despite a non-adamantine dagger not being "appropriate" for such a task, an adamantine dagger becomes appropriate due to its material.

This is a fallacious argument because it presumes that adamantine construction makes the dagger "appropriate" in order to prove that adamantine construction makes the dagger "appropriate".

It doesn't "presume" that the dagger is appropriate. It concludes that it is through basic reasoning, and then follows from there.

Isn't the opposed argument just as much a contender for circular thinking?
"Most melee weapons not designed for cutting through stone have little effect on stone walls. I presume that an adamantine dagger is one of those ineffective weapons, even though it can sunder a greatsword or platemail - therefore it can't, therefore it is inappropriate."


Kthulhu wrote:

I find it amusing how this thread seems to be filled with people who think that when a substance makes contact with another substance that is less hard than it, the less hard substance is instantly annihilated.

If I had a spear made out of diamond, and I threw it at a skyscraper, judging from the comments here, most people would expect it to sail through the skyscraper with barely a loss in momentum.

Adamantine ignores hardness. Diamond doesn't.

This makes adamantine a pretty bizarre substance, which leads to conflicting interpretations where people try to apply common sense to something that was never sensible to being with.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Skylancer4 wrote:
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.

Then I may have misunderstood your original stance; I thought you were saying that, like the bludgeoning-versus-rope example in the CRB, any "ineffective" device will fail to ever deal damage to the target. But if you're saying that adamantine does indeed make a dagger better at hacking at a stone wall than if it was a steel dagger, then I've got no beef with you. :)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Jiggy wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
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.
Azraiel wrote:
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?

Is your lack of response a "yes"? Like, you really did mean that just that one post about a knife through butter when you said most people were filling the thread with a notion comparable to a diamond spear passing uninhibited through a skyscraper?

Dark Archive

Two pages debating adamantine dagger vs wall... Has anyone on the against side ever seen what a pick is like IRL? Its a piece of sharpened metal on a stick with added weight on the back. It's thicker than a single blade because in our non-fantasy world iron and steel can snap or atleast bend at that thickness. Now let's take this ALIEN metal that is extremely dense(hp/inch), as hard or harder than diamond(hardness) and as a special property that ignores the hardness of thing(only material that does that, could be considered a special property that can split the link between mollecule or even atoms?). With all of that, maybe you don't need the added thickness to stop it from bending or breaking, the extra leverage given by the placement of the wood handle or the extra weight to add to it's impact force.


Hyamda wrote:
Two pages debating adamantine dagger vs wall... Has anyone on the against side ever seen what a pick is like IRL? Its a piece of sharpened metal on a stick with added weight on the back. It's thicker than a single blade because in our non-fantasy world iron and steel can snap or atleast bend at that thickness. Now let's take this ALIEN metal that is extremely dense(hp/inch), as hard or harder than diamond(hardness) and as a special property that ignores the hardness of thing(only material that does that, could be considered a special property that can split the link between mollecule or even atoms?). With all of that, maybe you don't need the added thickness to stop it from bending or breaking, the extra leverage given by the placement of the wood handle or the extra weight to add to it's impact force.

Extra leverage, extra swing radius, extra weight, better application of force (since you don't have to worry about scrapping your knuckles against the wall). These are all rather important elements for making a more effective tool.

All of these add up to a much, much better effect. And this is from someone that has actually had to take both chisels pick-ish tools against cement and wall.

(and again- while it says it ignores hardness, that seems like hardness the game mechanic, while actual hardness seems spread over a couple item stats)

Just because it is made out of unobtainium, a spoon doesn't magically turn into a good shovel.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm just going to leave this here.


Pretty convincing video, it does show that splitting and cracking the material is required for making good progress, restricting our knife to free standing walls rather than solid rock; and the addition of a normal hammer to make a chisel would help out adamantine knife considerably.


Whats the point of adamantine weapons if not breaking stuff then?


Imbicatus wrote:

I'm just going to leave this here.

Not too convincing for the scenarios we are looking at, actually.

A. A hammer was applied. Minor point, since you could just so happen to have a hammer. You have a hammer on your character sheet right now, eh? (and thus the furious scribbling in begins)

B. I would say that the block is of much, much poorer quality than a stone wall. It has those big holes in it, if you haven't noticed. That is more of a knife against 1 inch of cement. He seemed to aim for the weakest point. And the latter bits of the solid block has very, very good angles that you would never get when breaking up a wall.

C. I am fairly sure that the block is designed around distributing weight over its entire area, rather than defending against a single point. Walls, with their lack of large holes and with support that goes more than two inches out (with the later attempts- compare that to a wall hat goes for a good dozen feet to the left and right of the block), have a lot of material that can help absorb that blow.

D. Causing cracks is not necessarily the problem- again, I prefer picks since they can actually excavate and pull out the material (ah, found another advantage of adding he handle- you can get the curve in better than with your hand, depending on the dagger design). Even when when he starts hacking bits of teh block away, they have a nice convenient place to go. The wall, especially in the beginning, does not really have that.

E.... I think an adamantine knife might actually be worse for breaking the block than an iron one. At least if we go with the 'knife through butter' argument. If it is actually that impossibly sharp, it will just pierce straight through. The action in this video, resistence actually helps- it pushes the side, forcing it to bend (and since cement isn;t that great at bending, it breaks instead).

This problem can be seen in real life when you compare the bullet wounds from a gun with an very fast muzzle velocity (like a high power rifle) versus one with a lower velocity (like a hand gun). At times, the slower bullet might end up doing more damage because it sticks around and slows down (transferring energy into the material it is hitting), while he fast bullet just goes clean through and loses relatively little energy.

Actually, I don't think of chisels as very sharp tools. Maybe that is due, not only to the fact that keeping an edge of masonry tools would be a bit difficult, but because it is more effective with its wok without the keen edge.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber

Wow, some people here never tried to cut a piece of cheese before on their lives.

Adamantine Dagger: Very good pairing with my Mithral Pot!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I want an adamantine knife set and cutting board now.


lemeres wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:

I'm just going to leave this here.

Not too convincing for the scenarios we are looking at, actually.

A. A hammer was applied. Minor point, since you could just so happen to have a hammer. You have a hammer on your character sheet right now, eh? (and thus the furious scribbling in begins)

B. I would say that the block is of much, much poorer quality than a stone wall. It has those big holes in it, if you haven't noticed. That is more of a knife against 1 inch of cement. He seemed to aim for the weakest point. And the latter bits of the solid block has very, very good angles that you would never get when breaking up a wall.

C. I am fairly sure that the block is designed around distributing weight over its entire area, rather than defending against a single point. Walls, with their lack of large holes and with support that goes more than two inches out (with the later attempts- compare that to a wall hat goes for a good dozen feet to the left and right of the block), have a lot of material that can help absorb that blow.

D. Causing cracks is not necessarily the problem- again, I prefer picks since they can actually excavate and pull out the material (ah, found another advantage of adding he handle- you can get the curve in better than with your hand, depending on the dagger design). Even when when he starts hacking bits of teh block away, they have a nice convenient place to go. The wall, especially in the beginning, does not really have that.

E.... I think an adamantine knife might actually be worse for breaking the block than an iron one. At least if we go with the 'knife through butter' argument. If it is actually that impossibly sharp, it will just pierce straight through. The action in this video, resistence actually helps- it pushes the side, forcing it to bend (and since cement isn;t that great at bending, it breaks instead).

This problem can be seen in real life when you compare the bullet...

I guess i am getting involved in this debate now...

A. A rock or gauntlet or pommel or any other descriptive item a player could come up with works just as well.

B. The game makes no distinction between types of rock, if the game made you do a check against basalt vs granite vs sandstone for anything other than fluff i think a lot of players would walk away. we have a set of attribute to represent "Stone wall"

D. You could chisel the wall at angles to quickly remove chunks at a time, think of how lumber jack cut segments out of a tree to control the direction in which it falls.

E. As the dagger is not a two dimensional object i would purpose that the wall is far more likely to crack and displace when the dagger is used against the wall.

More generally at some point we must all agree there is a social agreement to play under a set of assumptions to keep the game going. If it works and what the ramifications are will be up to the GM.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I want an adamantine knife set and cutting board now.

When you get it, invite me over for an Argentinian barbecue, i'll bring the cuts!

Sovereign Court

Imbicatus wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
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.

Yeah - I know that phone books are the bargain basement way to armor a car.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Torbyne wrote:

B. The game makes no distinction between types of rock, if the game made you do a check against basalt vs granite vs sandstone for anything other than fluff i think a lot of players would walk away. we have a set of attribute to represent "Stone wall"

D. You could chisel the wall at angles to quickly remove chunks at a time, think of how lumber jack cut segments out of a tree to control the direction in which it falls.

E. As the dagger is not a two dimensional object i would purpose that the wall is far more likely to crack and displace when the dagger is used against the wall.

More generally at some point we must all agree there is a social agreement to play under a set of assumptions to keep the game going. If it works and what the ramifications are will be up to the GM.

B. oddly...the game might. There is an entrying in 'destroying objects' called masonry (1ft thick). It has 90 hp...or the equivilant of 4 in of stone (15 hp/in)

But I am not the one using a real video in an argument about game mechanics. I am just arguing that it isn;t a good example

D, The lumber jack is still dealing with an object that is curved towards them, and they can get at it with more than one angle. Plus they aren't cutting the tree down with knives.

E. (not sure of how this flows from my E, but I am making a genral statement based off of your E. My E was mostly just a random thought since all these arguments have really gotten me into the mood for mechanical discussions)

But these are the people making the game. It is literally their job to consider the ramifications of the rules (whether they successfully do that job on time, or whether they end up having to nuke/nerf a dozen or so options since they were way, way, more powerful than they had thought is of course up for debate).they felt that digging with daggers was silly, and since wall carving is a relatively minor side advantage of a perfectly functional material... than sure, why not add a somewhat flavor based rule that works off of a rather basic logic. But if you want to change it in your home game, that is your business. But this is literally their business when it comes to books.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Are humanoid hands effective weapons for smashing through a stone wall?

Does the Hulk have humanoid hands?

Can the Hulk smash through a stone wall?

(That's not actually me being serious. I'm just shaking my head at how long this is going.)


Milo v3 wrote:


Attacking with adamantine is not anything like attacking with diamond.

Well, ignoring the fact that adamantine literally means "like diamond," sure, that's true. :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adamant

Kazaan wrote:


Appropriate or inappropriate for damaging an object is based on the weapon itself, not what it is comprised of, unless what it is comprised of specifically mentions overriding this rule. You wouldn't say that an adamantine bludgeon can cut a rope, would you? It's equally ridiculous to say that an adamantine dagger can dig through a wall.

So, you seem to be arguing those statements are rules rather than examples. I guess we can conclude that you cannot use a musket to damage a rope, then.

Dark Archive

Tectorman wrote:
(That's not actually me being serious. I'm just shaking my head at how long this is going.)

You're right let's get back on topic.

An adamantine dagger can apparently be used by a pirate ship halfling cook to make french cuisine.
A scalpel for your friendly neighbourhood vivisectionist.
Sculpting Ivory into a small representation of grappled succubi.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Dagger is one of the weapons that every class is proficient with. It makes a good hold out weapon as well.

An adamantine dagger makes a good weapon for a scenario writer to drop in if there are too many constructs and WBL would be too low to be sure the group has an Adamantine weapon. You can even use it while grappled.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am coming in late to the game... but i find it interesting that the people that pointed to the rules about "appropriate vs inappropriate" weapon types as evidence that an adamantine dagger COULD NOT be used to cut through a stone wall were almost all in support of an adamantine pick being an acceptable tool/weapon for cutting through that same wall...

I find this interesting, because picks are piercing weapons, and the first paragraph in the "Damaging Objects" section points out that

Smashing an Object wrote:
Smashing a weapon or shield with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon is accomplished with the sunder combat maneuver. Smashing an object is like sundering a weapon or shield, except that your combat maneuver check is opposed by the object's AC. Generally, you can smash an object only with a bludgeoning or slashing weapon.

So it seems that, while these people are willing to ignore the "generally" umbrella with regard to the ability of a piercing weapon (whether it be adamantine or regular steel) to damage an object, they are unwilling to accept that an ADAMANTINE DAGGER is completely atypical (it is made of an incredibly rare material that bestows highly irregular properties upon it), and therefore does not need to stay under the "most" melee weapons umbrella of the below quote:

Ineffective Weapons wrote:
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.

If the "most had been removed from the quote, it would read "Melee weapons have little effect on stone walls and doors, unless they are designed for breaking up stone, such as a pick or hammer."

It seems people are reading the quote as if the "most" is not there. But as the "most" is there - it is saying that there are in fact weapons though they are uncommon) that do not need to be designed for breaking up stone, and yet will still be quite effective in doing so.... I firmly believe an Adamantine dagger would fall into that latter categorgy.


Entryhazard wrote:
Whats the point of adamantine weapons if not breaking stuff then?

DAGGERS are all we are talking about. There's plenty of utility in adamantine picks for breaking stone, or adamantine hatchets for breaking wood.

As for the dagger, not much point in terms of breaking stuff. Still has a point in damaging DRX/Adamantine creatures though.

Quote:
they are unwilling to accept that an ADAMANTINE DAGGER is completely atypical (it is made of an incredibly rare material that bestows highly irregular properties upon it), and therefore does not need to stay under the "most" melee weapons umbrella

Emphasis mine. Need to fall under the umbrella? No I agree not. Going to fall under it anyway with me as a GM? Yes.


I wouldn't say people are ignoring that line so much as treating it as the minority indicator it is. The line about weapons functioning or not is discussing their form and purpose, not their quality or material.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ErichAD wrote:
I wouldn't say people are ignoring that line so much as treating it as the minority indicator it is. The line about weapons functioning or not is discussing their form and purpose, not their quality or material.

Because I can break walls of stone with a ice hammer, because the material don't matter. Makes sense, right?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ErichAD wrote:
I wouldn't say people are ignoring that line so much as treating it as the minority indicator it is. The line about weapons functioning or not is discussing their form and purpose, not their quality or material.

yes - but the line that talks about form and purpose is with regard to "most weapons" i.e. the common everyday ones - the ones made of wood and steel. When you add functionality to a weapon by making it out of a special material, you do not then remove that same functionality because a common version couldn't achieve the same thing.

that would be like saying "most melee weapons have little effect on Rakshasas, unless they are piercing weapons, such as picks or spears."

and then try to say a Good aligned War Hammer wouldn't be perfectly effective at damaging a Rakshasa because it isn't a piercing weapon.

The former statement is a very true statement, as most bludgeoning and slashing weapons will be rather ineffective against Rakshasas. Good Aligned weapons are very rare, and fall outside the breadth of the statement. This does not make them ineffective against Rakshasas.

Likewise, most melee weapons ARE rather ineffective at damaging stone walls and doors... but ones that are able to completely ignore hardness fall outside the breadth of that categorization

Now that i think about it... what I find really interesting is that, even though a "pick" is specifically called out as being effective at breaking up stone - based on the rules of the game, you would actually need to have a 20 STR to be able to have any chance of causing even a single point of damage to a stone wall or door if you were to use a Pick... nothing in the text of the pick says it reduces or ignores hardness when attempting to sunder stone... So, according to the Ability Score descriptors, only PCs that are as strong or stronger than Apes, ogres, flesh golems, and gorgons (ones who are able to out-wrestle a work animal) would be capable of using a pick to work in a mine...


Quote:
yes - but the line that talks about form and purpose is with regard to "most weapons" i.e. the common everyday ones - the ones made of wood and steel.

"Most" means "greater than 50%"

It is simply saying that most weapons in the world are not designed for stone breaking. Which is true. >50% of the weapons in the world are indeed not designed for stone breaking. Probably only like 5% of them are designed for stone breaking.

It's not some sort of deeply meaningful riddle or anything, nor does it imply paragraphs of logic in between the lines. It's just a simple observation.

Quote:
Likewise, most melee weapons ARE rather ineffective at damaging stone walls and doors... but ones that are able to completely ignore hardness fall outside the breadth of that categorization

A purely opinion-based judgment call that you are welcome to make if you are the GM.

Quote:
Now that i think about it... what I find really interesting is that, even though a "pick" is specifically called out as being effective at breaking up stone - based on the rules of the game, you would actually need to have a 20 STR to be able to have any chance of causing even a single point of damage to a stone wall or door if you were to use a Pick...

Yes, and if your GM rules that daggers are not effective tools for breaking up stone, then you would need to have infinite strength to break the stone wall with a dagger, thus, a steel pick would, in actuality, be a better tool for it if that's the ruling. Even if it's really hard to break stuff with it.

By the way, a pickaxe is 1d8 damage, so you only need 12 STR to do damage with it, not 20... (roll an 8, +1 strength modifier will do 1 point damage)

I think you are looking at the "light pick" which says "The pick is a type of war hammer with a very long spike on the reverse of the hammer head. Usually this spike is slightly curved downwards, much like a miner's pickaxe. " I.e. it's a weapon designed and modified for war. Whereas the "pickaxe" says "Often a weapon of convenience for commoners..." i.e. it is supposed to be an actual industrial pickaxe.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

So, if people are done trying to hammer a few sentences that are intended to allow GMs and players to assert their own common sense into iron-clad legalese supporting one side or another, can we get back to humorous or inventive uses for a non-magical but incredibly durable and sharp dagger?


Ross Byers wrote:
So, if people are done trying to hammer a few sentences that are intended to allow GMs and players to assert their own common sense into iron-clad legalese supporting one side or another, can we get back to humorous or inventive uses for a non-magical but incredibly durable and sharp dagger?

Well that depends, what you can do with it, probably depends on what the rules (and your GM) allow you to. "Hammering" out what it can do by the rules, lets us discuss what you can do with it, does it not?


Skylancer4 wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

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?

Let us take the discussion where it really is headed.

Is paying an additional 3000gp for your weapon, justification for bypassing and trivializing numerous encounters, plot points and various other situations in the game?

My gut is saying no.

If tunneling us ruining your game there are bigger problems at work.


Quote:
If tunneling us ruining your game there are bigger problems at work.

How do you figure? What kind of puzzles can you give me that tunneling through anything at like 10ft/round is not going to cause problems for?

I can think of a couple, but you need an entire campaign full of them, lest we solve those same two puzzles with the same two countermeasures implausibly deployed 73 times in a row.

(Ideally puzzles that do NOT involve adding more things to the permanency list, since that causes new side effect issues for munchkin players using them themselves later)


I could give you thousands of puzzles and scenarios which tunneling won't solve.

Or I could rely on a dungeon in attempt to falsify a challenge that magic laughs at anyway.

For what it's worth though, I don't 'dungeon' as a GM the vast majority of the time. I'm an Open World GM


Well sure if you just never ever have dungeons or any enclosed spaces, traps, or buildings whatsoever in your "Dungeons and Dragons" game, then I suppose you can avoid tunneling being an issue.

I was assuming that you weren't just going to narrow the scope of the game to like 1/3 of its normal content just to avoid some issues with a dagger...


Crimeo wrote:

Well sure if you just never ever have dungeons or any enclosed spaces, traps, or buildings whatsoever in your "Dungeons and Dragons" game, then I suppose you can avoid tunneling being an issue.

I was assuming that you weren't just going to narrow the scope of the game to like 1/3 of its normal content just to avoid some issues with a dagger...

Or Stone Shape, or Passwall or Etherealness or a Burrow Speed [easily achievable by magic] or Scry+Teleport or Earth Glide... [should I continue?]


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Crimeo wrote:

Well sure if you just never ever have dungeons or any enclosed spaces, traps, or buildings whatsoever in your "Dungeons and Dragons" game, then I suppose you can avoid tunneling being an issue.

I was assuming that you weren't just going to narrow the scope of the game to like 1/3 of its normal content just to avoid some issues with a dagger...

Or Stone Shape, or Passwall or Etherealness or a Burrow Speed [easily achievable by magic] or Scry+Teleport or Earth Glide... [should I continue?]

Yeah, when you are like level 7-9, you start to get some spell slots that BEGIN to APPROACH the utility of an adamantine tool (interpreted thusly) that your party can buy halfway through level 1.

Still not as good though, despite being 7 level higher resources. Stone shape, taking into account number of spell slots per day, is literally 200 times slower than digging with adamantine, even if the wizard is the one wielding the tool. Passwall also takes days and days to do what a dagger could do in 2 hours (inchworming along overlapping tunnels so you don't suffocate when the spells end without any exit to shunt you to), and is temporary versus the dagger permanent. Teleport only works if you know the blueprints or have been there (the significant minority of puzzle destinations), also temporary. Burrow and earth glide don't let you take people or gear with you, also temporary. And all of these use up spell slots that make you less prepared for other things, so even AT those levels, the dagger is precious and overly powerful, because it just uses up a pound in your backpack, not two dozen of your highest level spell slots...

101 to 150 of 482 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Adamantine daggers do what? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.