Adamantine daggers do what?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

251 to 300 of 482 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

TomG wrote:
If I may be a bit impertinent, it's likely that those suggesting tunneling with a dagger have never, for example, dug a hole or ditch (or grave), hewn stone with a pickaxe, or even trenched a sprinkler system, or any other digging/mining work, using hand tools. Even in soft clay and with tools designed for the job it's not easy or fast. Straightforward, yes, but definitely not fast.

I think it's more a question of differences in how people think of adamantine working. Imagine if substances effectively become soft as warm butter when under pressure from an adamantine blade. You might not be able to scrape a hole through a butter wall in a few seconds with a ten inch blade (and I admit I've never tried) - it might not be easy or fast - but the idea that you couldn't affect it at all would seem like obstructive GMing.


TomG wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
I'm gonna go ahead and rule [ineffective weapons] in my game, anyhow. Regardless of the base material of a dagger, it's still just a dagger. At best I'll allow a resourceful party the benefit of the doubt and use an adamantine dagger as a "sink anywhere" piton upon which they can safely tie a rope for climbing... they could also use it to extract the eye gems of a big statue, for example. Maybe they can also use it to engrave stone walls with markers or crude art.

I agree, and will do the same.

If I may be a bit impertinent, it's likely that those suggesting tunneling with a dagger have never, for example, dug a hole or ditch (or grave), hewn stone with a pickaxe, or even trenched a sprinkler system, or any other digging/mining work, using hand tools. Even in soft clay and with tools designed for the job it's not easy or fast. Straightforward, yes, but definitely not fast.

A dagger hammered into stone is similar to the quarrying methods used to extract, split and shape limestone and granite for all of human history. Pound your spikes in a row, knock in a wedge, split out the stone. One invincible spike should be plenty, though time consuming.

http://www.cheops-pyramide.ch/khufu-pyramid/stone-cutting.html

Of course, that sounds more like a profession or craft check than a brute force method using combat rules, but pulverizing the stone with a pick or hammer is going to produce tons of debris compared to a splitting method. This should save the time and effort of moving debris that has much greater volume than the initial stone wall.


TomG wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
I'm gonna go ahead and rule [ineffective weapons] in my game, anyhow. Regardless of the base material of a dagger, it's still just a dagger. At best I'll allow a resourceful party the benefit of the doubt and use an adamantine dagger as a "sink anywhere" piton upon which they can safely tie a rope for climbing... they could also use it to extract the eye gems of a big statue, for example. Maybe they can also use it to engrave stone walls with markers or crude art.

I agree, and will do the same.

If I may be a bit impertinent, it's likely that those suggesting tunneling with a dagger have never, for example, dug a hole or ditch (or grave), hewn stone with a pickaxe, or even trenched a sprinkler system, or any other digging/mining work, using hand tools. Even in soft clay and with tools designed for the job it's not easy or fast. Straightforward, yes, but definitely not fast.

You are indeed being a bit impertinent. Some of us have done a great deal of manual labor of this sort in our lives [or at the very least I have.]

The whole point of substances having hit points is that you have to chip away at those hit points to cut through the substance.

The fact that adamantine ignores hardness doesn't change the fact that a dagger is dealing 1d4+Stat[+magic if any, +Power Attack penalty*2] when a two-handed weapon could be dealing 2d6+Statx1.5[+magic if any, +Power Attack Penalty*3]

Now if you want to houserule a modification to the innefectual weapons thing into something realistic and half the damage dealt by such a weapon, I could understand that.

But given enough damage a dagger WILL dig through a target, and an adamantine dagger will do so much more quickly than a normal dagger because it ignores the hardness of its target.


After all this back and forth, I would now employ this idea:

Sure, tunnel away, no problem. No, don't tell me your average damage, no, don't tell me how long you think it will take...

The clanging, scraping noise of you slowly chiseling away at the wall summons every monster within earshot.

Roll initiative, as you face every monster in the dungeon at once.


Lets be realistic here Alex... that depends entirely on the size of said dungeon.

In most cases you're only calling down 3-4 encounters on yourself at most which may or may not be the whole dungeon.

EDIT: also I HIGHLY doubt that excavating by hand is going to be any louder than combat.


kyrt-ryder wrote:

Lets be realistic here Alex... that depends entirely on the size of said dungeon.

In most cases you're only calling down 3-4 encounters on yourself at most which may or may not be the whole dungeon.

EDIT: also I HIGHLY doubt that excavating by hand is going to be any louder than combat.

Fair enough, but it isn't silent. Point is, the GM isn't obligated to allow it in the first place, it isn't a clever idea, why would someone obsess over being able to do it?


Might as well dynamite the whole dungeon and dig out the treasure later.

Way less risk.


alexd1976 wrote:

Might as well dynamite the whole dungeon and dig out the treasure later.

Way less risk.

Sounds good to me.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:

Might as well dynamite the whole dungeon and dig out the treasure later.

Way less risk.

Sounds good to me.

Also less fun.

At least, after the first time. The first time is hilarious, especially when the GM doesn't see it coming. :D

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
TomG wrote:
If I may be a bit impertinent, it's likely that those suggesting tunneling with a dagger have never, for example, dug a hole or ditch (or grave), hewn stone with a pickaxe, or even trenched a sprinkler system, or any other digging/mining work, using hand tools.

I participated in plenty of sandbag details, and have grounded my share of generators in hard ground. And foxholes don't dig themselves either.


alexd1976 wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:

Might as well dynamite the whole dungeon and dig out the treasure later.

Way less risk.

Sounds good to me.

Also less fun.

At least, after the first time. The first time is hilarious, especially when the GM doesn't see it coming. :D

It's amazing. All the mooks in the dungeon die and anything of any potency all scramble to the surface all at once to deal with whoever destroyed their home.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:

Might as well dynamite the whole dungeon and dig out the treasure later.

Way less risk.

Sounds good to me.

Also less fun.

At least, after the first time. The first time is hilarious, especially when the GM doesn't see it coming. :D

It's amazing. All the mooks in the dungeon die and anything of any potency all scramble to the surface all at once to deal with whoever destroyed their home.

Have you SEEN the cave-in rules? Nothing survives that short of golems.


alexd1976 wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:

Might as well dynamite the whole dungeon and dig out the treasure later.

Way less risk.

Sounds good to me.

Also less fun.

At least, after the first time. The first time is hilarious, especially when the GM doesn't see it coming. :D

It's amazing. All the mooks in the dungeon die and anything of any potency all scramble to the surface all at once to deal with whoever destroyed their home.
Have you SEEN the cave-in rules? Nothing survives that short of golems.

Teleportation [and Dimension Door if close enough to the surface], Passwall, Earth Glide, Etherealness/Ethereal Jaunt, Burrow into solid earth and dig up to the surface away from the dungeon complex...


I know what abilities can help you escape it, but unlike some people, I don't just grant every ability listed to every monster in every dungeon. :D


I figure if you're living underground, you're likely to have some ability to escape caveins [or you're still a mook and only your family will mourn your death... oh wait they died too.]

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Maybe this is a good time to admit that the rules around tunneling in stone, like the Craft/profession rules, are at best an extremely rough approximation of reality, intended to cover corner-ish cases like hacking down a door (instead of picking the lock or forcing it with a Str check.) Adamantine weapons are meant to be used for sundering and occasionally as 'master keys', not as burrowing tools.

They are rules of convenience, like how Burrow speeds almost never leave a usable tunnel.

The more your game focuses on these out-of-focus rules, the weirder things get. It doesn't matter if that's because you have an Alchemist PC who can churn out potions daily, but still takes weeks to make basic alchemical items.
Or why 8 hardness and oodles of hit points means explosive weapons are basically useless at blasting stone walls.
Or if you have players who made the logical leap between hacking down a door and hacking through a wall.
Or you have a glibness bard who can test the limits of 'impossible' Bluffs.
Or you just think too hard about why a 35-foot tall Rune Giant is restricted to the same 5-foot step as a 6-foot human being.


MeanMutton wrote:
Adagna wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
MeanMutton wrote:
Adagna wrote:
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.
Why because then your characters would realize that actions have consequences?
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.

Actually, since this situation is entirely in the "GM Fiat" area of the rules, the worst person at the table is the player who keeps arguing with the GM over a ruling.

Ceiling collapse is entirely justified. +1

Shadow Lodge

Matthew Downie wrote:
I think it's more a question of differences in how people think of adamantine working. Imagine if substances effectively become soft as warm butter when under pressure from an adamantine blade.

Some people do seem to think that touching any adamantium item to a wall creates the instantaneous effect of a passwall spell.

:P

Steel is harder than dirt, but digging a hole is a lot more work that simply touching a shovel to the earth and watching fissures appear.

Shadow Lodge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
TomG wrote:
If I may be a bit impertinent, it's likely that those suggesting tunneling with a dagger have never, for example, dug a hole or ditch (or grave), hewn stone with a pickaxe, or even trenched a sprinkler system, or any other digging/mining work, using hand tools.
I participated in plenty of sandbag details, and have grounded my share of generators in hard ground. And foxholes don't dig themselves either.

Little known fact: every trench in WWI was instantly dug by one Army man as he touched his adamantium shovel to the ground. The earth was cleaved mightily! We're just lucky that the westernmost bits of Europe didn't completely split off from the rest of the continent and float off into the ocean.


since you mention the tall Giant limited 5ft step, lol think of the dexterity that would be required do take such a small step when the creatures natural stride would be 15+ft. I always find it funny these massive creatures like giants and dragons end up in the smallest layers, according to most battle maps. I often wonder how they even got into those rooms. considering the rest of the hallways are like 10ft wide and the dragons are 25 to 30ft space hogs. how tall are the ceiling to all these rooms lol some of them are often described as being 10 to 15ft tall. how did that 20ft tall giant even get in that room does he crawl through the hall way every day. The rooms size for a dragon that is over 200ft long are often equivalent to one of us living in one of those small prebuilt tool shed you see outside home depot, and then filling it 3 quarters full with treasure living in that and we are also having to fight in it. most of the time the dragon can take only take 3 or 4 5ft steps and have covered the whole room. It just some of those things just have to expect and not try to think about to much.


Kthulhu wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
TomG wrote:
If I may be a bit impertinent, it's likely that those suggesting tunneling with a dagger have never, for example, dug a hole or ditch (or grave), hewn stone with a pickaxe, or even trenched a sprinkler system, or any other digging/mining work, using hand tools.
I participated in plenty of sandbag details, and have grounded my share of generators in hard ground. And foxholes don't dig themselves either.
Little known fact: every trench in WWI was instantly dug by one Army man as he touched his adamantium shovel to the ground. The earth was cleaved mightily! We're just lucky that the westernmost bits of Europe didn't completely split off from the rest of the continent and float off into the ocean.

Nah, just every trooper with an Adamantine shovel would have dug perhaps 2-3 times faster than normal is all.


I assumed the "5 foot step" was just minor adjustments while taking other actions. You aren't stepping there so much as adjusting your position while taking some other action.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
I figure if you're living underground, you're likely to have some ability to escape caveins [or you're still a mook and only your family will mourn your death... oh wait they died too.]

At least is solves the goblin baby dilemma.


Kthulhu wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
TomG wrote:
If I may be a bit impertinent, it's likely that those suggesting tunneling with a dagger have never, for example, dug a hole or ditch (or grave), hewn stone with a pickaxe, or even trenched a sprinkler system, or any other digging/mining work, using hand tools.
I participated in plenty of sandbag details, and have grounded my share of generators in hard ground. And foxholes don't dig themselves either.
Little known fact: every trench in WWI was instantly dug by one Army man as he touched his adamantium shovel to the ground. The earth was cleaved mightily! We're just lucky that the westernmost bits of Europe didn't completely split off from the rest of the continent and float off into the ocean.

That is one hell of a STR bonus, no wonder we won.


ErichAD wrote:
I assumed the "5 foot step" was just minor adjustments while taking other actions. You aren't stepping there so much as adjusting your position while taking some other action.

Agreed, to me it makes MORE sense for bigger creatures, less sense for smaller ones...

I mean, an eagle on the ground has a speed of 10.

A five foot step is half a move for him normally.

Scarab Sages

Kthulhu wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
TomG wrote:
If I may be a bit impertinent, it's likely that those suggesting tunneling with a dagger have never, for example, dug a hole or ditch (or grave), hewn stone with a pickaxe, or even trenched a sprinkler system, or any other digging/mining work, using hand tools.
I participated in plenty of sandbag details, and have grounded my share of generators in hard ground. And foxholes don't dig themselves either.
Little known fact: every trench in WWI was instantly dug by one Army man as he touched his adamantium shovel to the ground. The earth was cleaved mightily! We're just lucky that the westernmost bits of Europe didn't completely split off from the rest of the continent and float off into the ocean.

Nah, That's what the Lyre of Building is for! You can go through that ground in only *cough* *mumble* *cough* hours! (but really, does anyone have numbers for how fast humans build/tunnel?)

Also, 0 hardness =/= 0 hp. It still takes effort to chip through a sheet of ice even though it has 0 hardness.


What about the other skymetals?

Abysium: glows, source of energy, and sickening to be around for lengthy periods of time

Djezet: liquid metal (at all temperatures), heightens magic

Horacalcum: warps time

Inubrix: phases through iron and steel, slightly less malleable than lead

Noqual: tough as iron, weighs half, resistant to magic

Siccatite: either constantly hot or constantly cold

In comparison to those, is a super-hard material with the ability to negate hardness in lesser materials really so wild?


Tectorman wrote:

What about the other skymetals?

Abysium: glows, source of energy, and sickening to be around for lengthy periods of time

Djezet: liquid metal (at all temperatures), heightens magic

Horacalcum: warps time

Inubrix: phases through iron and steel, slightly less malleable than lead

Noqual: tough as iron, weighs half, resistant to magic

Siccatite: either constantly hot or constantly cold

In comparison to those, is a super-hard material with the ability to negate hardness in lesser materials really so wild?

No one is debating the negation of hardness, it is simply a discussion of tunneling speed while using a tool not made for tunneling.


Well, what about a pickaxe makes it good for breaking up rocks? Because daggers do piercing damage too. I would have said it's the crit but you can't crit objects. So... yeah, a dagger should be just as useful for tunneling as a pickaxe (if a little less powerful).

And I already did the math. 5 foot cube of rock takes about 12 and a half minutes to tunnel through. That's assuming average damage, 1 attack a round, and 20 Str.

For boredom's sake, let's run it with a pickaxe. 1d8+7 average 11.5, 3.5 after hardness, 258 rounds, 25.8 minutes. So... yeah, about twice as fast using adamantine.

More attacks, a better weapon than a dagger, higher strength, lots of things could change this, but with the same conditions the dagger is really only twice as fast.


And an adamantine Heavy Pick digs nearly twice as fast again as the adamantine dagger [3-4x as much as the mundane pick.]

This seems about right to me.


Bob Bob Bob wrote:

Well, what about a pickaxe makes it good for breaking up rocks? Because daggers do piercing damage too. I would have said it's the crit but you can't crit objects. So... yeah, a dagger should be just as useful for tunneling as a pickaxe (if a little less powerful).

And I already did the math. 5 foot cube of rock takes about 12 and a half minutes to tunnel through. That's assuming average damage, 1 attack a round, and 20 Str.

For boredom's sake, let's run it with a pickaxe. 1d8+7 average 11.5, 3.5 after hardness, 258 rounds, 25.8 minutes. So... yeah, about twice as fast using adamantine.

More attacks, a better weapon than a dagger, higher strength, lots of things could change this, but with the same conditions the dagger is really only twice as fast.

Based on the assumption that only damage type matters, sure.

Ask your GM, it's not your call.

Leverage counts, at least according to Archimedes, but what did he know?

In any case, daggers aren't made with mining in mind, so it's up to the GM to allow it, not the players.


No, not based on the assumption that only damage type matters. But by the game rules, the only thing the pickaxe is is a two-handed piercing weapon. It doesn't have any other special properties. It doesn't get a bonus to break stuff. That puts it in the same category as a spear or the halberd. So either the pickaxe should have some kind of bonus vs objects or any other big piercing weapon can be used like a pickaxe.

Sure, leverage matters. Presumably that's taken into account in weapon damage. Maybe in the two-handing rules. But there are no rules for "more leverage". There isn't even a suggestion that you should change anything because of "more leverage". Again, a pickaxe and a spear are exactly the same by the rules, except the spear can be thrown, braced, and has a lower crit range. And none of those matter for digging through a wall.


Bob Bob Bob wrote:

No, not based on the assumption that only damage type matters. But by the game rules, the only thing the pickaxe is is a two-handed piercing weapon. It doesn't have any other special properties. It doesn't get a bonus to break stuff. That puts it in the same category as a spear or the halberd. So either the pickaxe should have some kind of bonus vs objects or any other big piercing weapon can be used like a pickaxe.

Sure, leverage matters. Presumably that's taken into account in weapon damage. Maybe in the two-handing rules. But there are no rules for "more leverage". There isn't even a suggestion that you should change anything because of "more leverage". Again, a pickaxe and a spear are exactly the same by the rules, except the spear can be thrown, braced, and has a lower crit range. And none of those matter for digging through a wall.

If only there existed some text addressing whether or not a given item was intended for tunneling through stone...

Hrm...


alexd1976 wrote:
Bob Bob Bob wrote:

No, not based on the assumption that only damage type matters. But by the game rules, the only thing the pickaxe is is a two-handed piercing weapon. It doesn't have any other special properties. It doesn't get a bonus to break stuff. That puts it in the same category as a spear or the halberd. So either the pickaxe should have some kind of bonus vs objects or any other big piercing weapon can be used like a pickaxe.

Sure, leverage matters. Presumably that's taken into account in weapon damage. Maybe in the two-handing rules. But there are no rules for "more leverage". There isn't even a suggestion that you should change anything because of "more leverage". Again, a pickaxe and a spear are exactly the same by the rules, except the spear can be thrown, braced, and has a lower crit range. And none of those matter for digging through a wall.

If only there existed some text addressing whether or not a given item was intended for tunneling through stone...

Hrm...

You mean the text that most definitely does not say that a pickaxe is a good weapon for tunneling through stone?
Ineffective Weapons wrote:
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.

You'll notice it's a pick, not a pickaxe. Clearly separate and different, by pedantry @#$%^&*. If you insist on pedantry I can do it as well, but it's pretty boring.

If you mean the text of the pickaxe itself:

Pickaxe wrote:
A two-handed version of the heavy pick, the brutal pickaxe is equally effective at breaking up earth and stone as it is at sundering flesh and bone. Often a weapon of convenience for commoners, the pickaxe is also a favorite among brutes and thugs who value the intimidation factor afforded by the immense weapon.

It's as good at breaking up earth and stone as it is at sundering flesh and bone. Which... it isn't that good at. If it means the game term, there's much better weapons for sundering. If it means the normal english definition, slashing weapons are way better at it.


Bob Bob Bob wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
Bob Bob Bob wrote:

No, not based on the assumption that only damage type matters. But by the game rules, the only thing the pickaxe is is a two-handed piercing weapon. It doesn't have any other special properties. It doesn't get a bonus to break stuff. That puts it in the same category as a spear or the halberd. So either the pickaxe should have some kind of bonus vs objects or any other big piercing weapon can be used like a pickaxe.

Sure, leverage matters. Presumably that's taken into account in weapon damage. Maybe in the two-handing rules. But there are no rules for "more leverage". There isn't even a suggestion that you should change anything because of "more leverage". Again, a pickaxe and a spear are exactly the same by the rules, except the spear can be thrown, braced, and has a lower crit range. And none of those matter for digging through a wall.

If only there existed some text addressing whether or not a given item was intended for tunneling through stone...

Hrm...

You mean the text that most definitely does not say that a pickaxe is a good weapon for tunneling through stone?
Ineffective Weapons wrote:
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.

You'll notice it's a pick, not a pickaxe. Clearly separate and different, by pedantry @#$%^&*. If you insist on pedantry I can do it as well, but it's pretty boring.

If you mean the text of the pickaxe itself:

Pickaxe wrote:
A two-handed version of the heavy pick, the brutal pickaxe is equally effective at breaking up earth and stone as it is at sundering flesh and bone. Often a weapon of convenience for commoners, the pickaxe is also a favorite among brutes and thugs who value the intimidation factor afforded by the immense weapon.
It's as good...

I'm not seeing the part where it says daggers are made for tunneling through stone, please clarify.


Quote:
Well, what about a pickaxe makes it good for breaking up rocks?

In real life:

1) A lot of momentum for being fairly heavy
2) All that momentum concentrates at a small point to deliver a strong shockwave
3) That shockwave shatters brittle rock, biting in and doing some of the macro work of the pick
4) The wedge shape and handle now aid leveraging chunks off also due to brittleness. Both during impact, and conscious leveraging sometimes if you get behind a good chunk / have soft or rotten rock

Sometimes if the rock has a lot of seams and unevenness you can skip to step #4 by just striking an area where it will already wedge and pull without having to make its own holds.

Note that the wedging I'm talking about is often over the course of several swings. It's actually sort of like using a hatchet, as you bite in, a bite will get undercut and then crack out and fly off, but depending on the rock it could be a few swings to get similar results to 1 or two hatchet swings on wood.


alexd1976 wrote:
I'm not seeing the part where it says daggers are made for tunneling through stone, please clarify.

Same part where it says a pickaxe is made for tunneling through stone.


Bob Bob Bob wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
I'm not seeing the part where it says daggers are made for tunneling through stone, please clarify.
Same part where it says a pickaxe is made for tunneling through stone.

that would be where the pickaxe says it is "A two-handed version of the heavy pick"

which when paired with:
"unless they are designed for breaking up stone, such as a pick"

is where it states: "a pickaxe is made for tunneling through stone"

unless you have text stating "Adamantine is designed for breaking up stone" there is no similar claim for your dagger.. regardless of whether the pickaxe has better reasoning or not.


Quote:
but really, does anyone have numbers for how fast humans build/tunnel?

I have used it to breaks up stones in a yard a couple feet across. It's really damn slow. A couple swings on average may chip off as much as the top joint of your thumb. This was limestone, mind you, not like diorite or whatever craziness. Eventually a boulder like that will crack which is the goal, but I don't think it would happen like that on solid wall.

I imagine it would take one person, I don't know, 2 years maybe, to dig out a living room. I have seen a few crazies on youtube who have used heavy machinery to dig bugout caves or whatever who manage to dig the equivalent of a few pathfinder cubes of material out with JACKHAMMERS and small construction vehicles on the order of many weeks (full time equivalent). No idea where to confirm pickaxe numbers. Old railroad tunnel speeds may help, but they would have whole teams of cycling people, and professionals (unlike me OR your party member) so who knows.

The adamantine pickaxe is going at least several thousand times faster than reality. Probably a lot more than that.

Incidentally, using a pickaxe to break tough SOIL was amazingly easy, definitely far easier than a shovel.


Clearly we need a Pathfinder rules reference show similar to Myth Busters in order to solve these challenges in real life simulations.


Kthulhu wrote:
Some people do seem to think that touching any adamantium item to a wall creates the instantaneous effect of a passwall spell.

I've seen some people say the 'substances such as rock and metal and diamond have a hardness of zero against adamantine' rule takes precedence over the 'some weapons are the wrong shape to damage a wall' rule, and some people who say the latter rule takes precedence. I haven't seen anyone saying anything like what you're saying they're saying.

Earlier I claimed that you can destroy a metal breastplate with an ordinary rapier without damaging the rapier - maybe you could ridicule that?


ErichAD wrote:
Clearly we need a Pathfinder rules reference show similar to Myth Busters in order to solve these challenges in real life simulations.

If only real life situations mattered in a game where rules are approximations of said situation.

But it is a game, with rules to follow, regardless of real life.


Quote:
Earlier I claimed that you can destroy a metal breastplate with an ordinary rapier without damaging the rapier - maybe you could ridicule that?

Not ridicule by any means, it does seem silly at first to break a breastplate. But this one I actually don't think is that bad. Could you not cut the straps if you were very lucky and skilled?

Remember, it only needs some mending to be good as new, not repaying the whole price. "The straps are cut and need to be replaced before I can wear it properly again" seems right for "broken". There is no need for "shredded to ribbons"

Adamantine I think takes a lot of flak because it legitimately is way less realistic than most of these other mundane examples, but at the same time, it does still seem itself mundane. Because it's flavored as if it's just a matter of its hardness and sharpness doing it.

So even though other things are just as unrealistic like other starmetals, if they are flavored as magic, people are just like "oh well.. magic. Okay." Adamantine I think is one of it not the more unrealistic thing that isn't described in a magical way. it's just one one side of that critical threshold.


I'd put Adamantine hardness-penetration in the Extraordinary category, like Troll regeneration.


Matthew Downie wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Some people do seem to think that touching any adamantium item to a wall creates the instantaneous effect of a passwall spell.
I've seen some people say the 'substances such as rock and metal and diamond have a hardness of zero against adamantine' rule takes precedence over the 'some weapons are the wrong shape to damage a wall' rule, and some people who say the latter rule takes precedence. I haven't seen anyone saying anything like what you're saying they're saying.

I believe the word you're looking for is 'hyperbole'.

It was funny.

(But yes, I've been at a table with players that essentially expect a substantially similar effect.)


When you use hyperbole to characterise the arguments of those who disagree with you, it's called 'creating a straw man'.

Shadow Lodge

1) Adamantine is not adamantium. Adamantine is NOT indestructible.

2) For those of you referencing the fact that Wolverine seems to be able to slice through virtually anything like a white-hot razor through half-melted butter...adamantine is not adamantium. Also, about 99% of the time a comic/cartoon shows that, Wolverine wouldn't be anywhere near strong enough to actually do it, despite the indestructibility and sharpness of his claws.


Crimeo wrote:

Adamantine I think takes a lot of flak because it legitimately is way less realistic than most of these other mundane examples, but at the same time, it does still seem itself mundane. Because it's flavored as if it's just a matter of its hardness and sharpness doing it.

So even though other things are just as unrealistic like other starmetals, if they are flavored as magic, people are just like "oh well.. magic. Okay." Adamantine I think is one of it not the more unrealistic thing that isn't described in a magical way. it's just one one side of that critical threshold.

I get this point. I'm just on the opposite side. I don't think of adamantine as "steel plus"; I think of it as "horacalcum less".

I have no problem attributing any number of physical properties to the substance, even physical properties that violate the laws of physics, in order to explain away what it can do.

For example, power steering makes my heavy car easier to steer. Without it, my mere human physically-unfit strength would have a more difficult time. Power steering hydraulically augments what I do.

Who's to say adamantine (and for that matter, adamantium) doesn't do something similar? No, Wolverine has never been depicted as having the strength to carve out a tunnel and simple hardness on the part of his adamantium claws wouldn't overcome the incompressibility of bedrock, so that must mean that some other property is in play. Maybe adamantium (and adamantine) actively create a radioactive (or pseudo-supernatural) field that transmutes the materials it's being used against into, effectively, butter, at least for the purposes of overcoming those other materials' hardness.

In comparison with a skymetal that perpetually generates its own heat or one that warps time, a skymetal that creates an "anti-hardness" field seems entirely appropriate.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Aelryinth wrote:
By the rules, you never need to sharpen ANY sword, or repair ANY armor.

But you CAN sharpen your sword if you WANT to. Ultimate Equipment says you can use a whetstone to add +1 damage to your next attack if you spend a while sharpening you non-magical blade.

To my knowledge, this would even work on a non-magical adamantine blade.


Kthulhu wrote:

1) Adamantine is not adamantium. Adamantine is NOT indestructible.

2) For those of you referencing the fact that Wolverine seems to be able to slice through virtually anything like a white-hot razor through half-melted butter...adamantine is not adamantium. Also, about 99% of the time a comic/cartoon shows that, Wolverine wouldn't be anywhere near strong enough to actually do it, despite the indestructibility and sharpness of his claws.

Neither Adamantium is indestructible, just insanely hard, like PF/D&D Adamantine.

(Also a metal called Adamantine does exist in the Marvel Universe. It's hard as Adamantium but also grants resistance to magic and mental attacks)

251 to 300 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.