Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
alexd1976 wrote: Have you SEEN the cave-in rules? Nothing survives that short of golems. Of all the times I've used it, I have yet to kill anyone over 10th-level with a cave-in.
Skylancer4 wrote: 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. You do know that killing joy isn't an xp granting encounter, right?
ErichAD wrote: Skylancer4 wrote: 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. You do know that killing joy isn't an xp granting encounter, right? Because playing the game by the rules is an entirely "unfun" and joy-killing experience?
You must be great fun at parties...
Ok, everybody arguing all about WEAPONS as "appropriate" mining tools are completely ignoring the fact that there is an actual mundane adventuring gear item CALLED Miner's Pick which is clearly intended to be used for such a purpose. It is not a fighting pick. It is not a combat pick. In fact, if it IS used in combat it is to be treated as a two-handed improvised weapon that deals piercing damage equal to that of a heavy pick of its size.
But you'll note that it is not actually a 'weapon' heavy pick. It is ALWAYS treated as improvised if used in combat (unless there's some obscure feat or class feature or something that somehow gives proficiency in a Miner's Pick) and is never classed as a weapon.
So all of you suggesting that an "appropriate" mining tool is a light pick (martial light melee weapon) or that it is a heavy pick (martial one-handed melee weapon) are completely and utterly out of their minds.
The 'pick' weapons, both heavy and light, are exclusively weapons in their primary and appropriate function. I mean, you wouldn't consider a Lucerne Hammer to be an "appropriate" hammer. Some of them aren't even shaped properly to be used in the mundane capacity.
Any appropriation of these COMBAT WEAPONS (specifically MARTIAL weapons) as mundane tools is an abuse of the outline.
The ONLY "appropriate" mining pick is the miner's pick, listed in table 6-9 on page 158 of the CRB.
You will also note that the miner's pick weighs 10 pounds. Whereas the MARTIAL weapons weigh only 6 pounds for the heavy pick, and a measly 3 pounds for the light pick. Because the latter two are explicitly MILITARY WEAPONS whereas the miner's pick is a mundane tool which would be unwieldy in combat but perfectly appropriate for its sole intended use (which is unarguably the only mundane item "appropriate" for such a task).
THERE.
/miningdiscussion
Also, anything that completely overcomes the hardness of an object should be deemed appropriate for cutting/digging/destroying said object. Let us say that a stone wall has DR 20/Good (just bear with me). If you had a good-aligned weapon, then your weapon is completely appropriate for destroying/digging/cutting said wall. You rip through that wall. Then you realize that the wall is actually the internal flesh lining of an evil beast which has swallowed you and your party whole, and it is now up to you to get out or die trying (feel free to steal this concept for your own campaigns, I'm proud of the hilarity and obscurity of the method of escape and it would be a cool way to let someone feel their good-aligned weapon or their Paladin powers of blessing their weapon has truly saved the day in a unique way). Of course, after they emerge it's up to them to somehow escape from a creature that had DR 20/Good. Hah!
ErichAD wrote: You do know that killing joy isn't an xp granting encounter, right? It depends on the CR of the joy, and how much joy was present when such a challenge was defeated.
Nigrescence wrote: Also, anything that completely overcomes the hardness of an object should be deemed appropriate for cutting/digging/destroying said object. Actual real life "hardness" only relates to mainly slicing and indenting. Neither of these two things is how the large majority of stone is removed in mining. Mining rock is mostly done by pressure and warping and rocks being weak against deformation due to being brittle (impact shockwaves + wedging). Thus, bypassing hardness has little to do, in and of itself, for being appropriate for mining.
Of course you could say "well pathfinder hardness is different" but that requires the GM to desire the outcome that you do in the first place, and if so, you wouldn't need this roundabout way of getting there.
Pathfinder hardness is, unquestionably, mechanically very different from real life hardness. Even more so, special materials or abilities that overcome hardness are ABSOLUTELY not comparable to real life hardness. Most of them don't even BEGIN to make sense in regards to real life hardness.
I know a bit of the basics of mining and material hardness (though I'm certainly no expert), more than perhaps most.
Are you really expecting a mystical metal which overcomes such hardness, in a universe that also has reality warping magic and other such items and creatures with special, often mystical properties and abilities, to be completely dominated by our real life limitations?
If I wanted to play an utterly, dreadfully, horribly mundane gaming system, I know that there are some out there. That isn't D&D, and that isn't Pathfinder. Embrace the wonkiness. Embrace the extraordinary. Embrace the Adamantine Dagger. Hardness is a bit of an abstraction, much like the Hit Point system. Embrace it.
And above all, respect the miner's pick and all of the relevant points I made about it.
(This is in no way a means to defend to the death my current character's choice to lug around a boatload of miscellaneous gear, including a miner's pick which as of yet hasn't seen purposeful use but I am certain will some day soon. That 10 pounds won't be for nothing some day!)
In fact, I'd like to see someone make a thread wherein they detail every single aspect of the game and how it does not comport with OUR reality, the one we live in. One memorable example is where I had dropped a giant rock from midair and our party being full of nerds decided that we should use actual physics calculations to determine the amount of force the impact had, and how long it took (in rounds) to hit the ground, and our enemies (nobody knew where I had gone or what I had done until the rock hit, and nobody saw it coming).
So yeah, have fun reducing everything to "real life", and ignore the Wizard and Cleric bending your puny so-called "reality" into nothing and laughing at your feeble attempts to overly make mundane something innately extraordinary (Adamantine). Heal you instantly. Done. Restore lost limbs. Done. Teleport to the other side of the planet. Done. Create a new dimension. Done. Bring someone back to life OVER A DAY AFTER THEIR DEATH, cold stiff. Bring someone back to life who has been utterly VAPORIZED. I mean, really. Are you kidding me? Adamantine can't break rocks? Hah!
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
What do the people saying an adamantine dagger would be ineffective against a wall think about an adamantine Traveler's Any-Tool trying the same thing? Presumably there is some tool that would be appropriate, so the any-tool can become it.... (Plus it's cheaper than the dagger!)
@Nigrescence
Did you just argue both points? No-one saying anything about the picks were arguing the weapons worked for it, we were arguing the appropriate tool works and the dagger does not work as well. Likewise, everyone arguing Adamantine's ineffectiveness were talking about the dagger....
Clearly, a martial character with a fancy dagger is over powered because they could cut away the entire world into nothing due to the dagger being infinitely usable. -.-
Cause Gee, being able to make five foot holes in solid stone is just so overpowered and allows those pesky martial characters to so easily by pass all the encounters
M1k31 wrote: Did you just argue both points? Got a problem with that? Do you not want anyone to add depth to both sides?
Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber
The mechanics break down in regards to architecture/engineering/stonework. If a dwarf or gnome team of engineer comes up with a powered rock drill or excavator and are careful to use adamantine parts for the drill bit or excavator teeth, I'd say we can then start talking about the 'advantages' of adamantine vs. steel in terms of stone.
However even a guy with a proper adamantine miner's pick is gonna be out of breath after going through 5 feet of stone... come on! this is hard labour there... and I'd be reading the Endurance feats and related Fort / Con check rules at that point.
There's also the whole aspect of elastic modulus of steel vs. adamantine we haven't talked about. Steel, which is probably more elastic than adamantine, probably absorbs more energy and deformation within itself, thus passing less vibrations to the hands and arms of the user. Hand-Arm Vibration Syndrome is a thing you know, and anyone in my game who chips at rock repeatedly with a perfectly hard tool is gonna suffer somehow. HAVS can be bad: "Early symptoms are usually tingling and/or numbness in hands and fingers. After a while, this turns to impaired sensibility and limited dexterity. A fully developed Neurological Vibration damage is irreversible, causing a high disability and work incapability. At this stage, the normal capacity of the hand is disappeared with a significant reduction to control the hand, eg. dropping things easily, inability to insert a key in a lock or to pour a drink into a glass etc."
So we give the tool a handle/haft engineered to absorb the shock for the user.
Keep in mind that while its a perfectly hard material it also has something magical about it. After all, a suit of adamantine chainmail isn't at all going to give you the same effects as adamantine fullplate (Or even just a breast plate). Hitting you with a bludgeoning weapon isn't going to be impacted at all against that chain mail or chain shirt.
If you're wanting to do more of these things that are glossed over, why stop at just 'chipping rock with a perfectly hard tool'? Adamantine Armor is hard, as is adamantine weapons. Clearly, in combat anyone who swings around an ada sword in combat should also suffer from this HAVS.
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote: What do the people saying an adamantine dagger would be ineffective against a wall think about an adamantine Traveler's Any-Tool trying the same thing? Presumably there is some tool that would be appropriate, so the any-tool can become it.... (Plus it's cheaper than the dagger!) By RAW you cannot make a Traveler's anytool out of adamantine, it only lists weapons and armor. So this would still require GM fiat, and if your GM was trying to make this not happen, obviously he would not grant that fiat.
Quote: Pathfinder hardness is, unquestionably, mechanically very different from real life hardness. Even more so, special materials or abilities that overcome hardness are ABSOLUTELY not comparable to real life hardness. That's not my point. My point is that if it is like real life, then it doesn't apply, OR if (I agree much more likely) it is not like real life, then it's purely GM fiat about how it does actually function. Which gives the GM all the latitude he needs to simply explain it in a way that makes it not help something to be appropriate for mining, if that's the end result he wants, without breaking any RAW.
So you're stuck between a rock of unhelpful reality and a hard place of fiat that will only ever help the GM's desired result. There's no argument remaining for how an adamantine dagger etc. MUST, objectively, outside the context of a certain GM, be an appropriate mining tool.
I think "Ineffective tool" is less about "Is this absolutely positively designed for the task at hand?" and more about how you can't cut ropes by bashing it with a mace.
Ah the good old "its not realistic" argument come to rear its ugly head to kill all fun...
I still wonder how people can seruously use the "not realistic" argument when you got a guy who can literally turn into a dragon and slow time to a crawl...
Quote: I still wonder how people can seruously use the "not realistic" argument when you got a guy who can literally turn into a dragon and slow time to a crawl... Easy, magic is a well defined system with specific rules. It functions just like an additional set of physical laws. This is no reason to just throw logic or consequence out the window. Only to modify it by duly adding X rules about how Y happens in Z situations.
People didn't stop thinking that walking through walls was unrealistic just because some guy discovered and quantitatively described gravity. Why? Because gravity doesn't cover the situation of walking through walls. And adding rules doesn't just instantly invalidate everything else ever.
Why would you think that anything else normally unrealistic stops being so just because some other new rules (spells) were added, if and when those new rules do not cover the current situation?
If/when somebody is casting create water or similar, then it takes precedence over conservation of mass. But if/when nobody is casting any such spells, mass not being conserved is still unrealistic.
Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber
My point is that while you can probably sink that adamantine dagger anywhere, it still is just a short thin sharp weapon. You can poke very slender one inch slits into that stone all day. Great. But that wall ain't coming down.
If you manage to "shave" the rock due to rough wall angles then you deal with the rock weight.
1 1/4"(30mm) thick slab of granite is: 18 lbs per sq. ft.
Hope you got that endurance feat to move that rock...
Crimeo wrote: Quote: I still wonder how people can seruously use the "not realistic" argument when you got a guy who can literally turn into a dragon and slow time to a crawl... Easy, magic is a well defined system with specific rules. It functions just like an additional set of physical laws. This is no reason to just throw logic or consequence out the window. Only to modify it by duly adding X rules about how Y happens in Z situations.
People didn't stop thinking that walking through walls was unrealistic just because some guy discovered and quantitatively described gravity. Why? Because gravity doesn't cover the situation of walking through walls. And adding rules doesn't just instantly invalidate everything else ever.
Why would you think that anything else normally unrealistic stops being so just because some other new rules (spells) were added, if and when those new rules do not cover the current situation?
If/when somebody is casting create water or similar, then it takes precedence over conservation of mass. But if/when nobody is casting any such spells, mass not being conserved is still unrealistic. Bring me an alloy in the real world that works like adamantine and we're talking
Crimeo wrote:
Why would you think that anything else normally unrealistic stops being so just because some other new rules (spells) were added, if and when those new rules do not cover the current situation?
1) Barbarians have 12 hd, While this doesn't seem much at at first, After a number of levels of that HD along with Con bonuses, You're looking at HP that would allow a Barbarian jump out of an airplane, smash into the ground and just get up and dust himself off.
2) While barbarians can dust them self off from the damage, Rogues now have the ability to jump somewhere about 200 feet or so and land without much issue and not taking a single point of damage.
3) A fighter (Or really any class honestly,) have the ability to take a 1~3 ton bolder to the face thrown by a hill giant, and get him and dust themselves off.
4) A rogue previous was only able to create a camoflague once per day. Unchained rogues no longer have that limitation.
5) Fighters are proficient with all martial weapons. Ever. Martial. Weapon. Including Kobold Tail blades even if they're not a kobold.
6) Monks can punch adamantine golemns without breaking their hands. Brothers of the seal have the ability to eventually ingore up to 10 points of hardness with there fists.
Quote: Barbarians have 12 hd, While this doesn't seem much at at first, After a number of levels of that HD along with Con bonuses, You're looking at HP that would allow a Barbarian jump out of an airplane, smash into the ground and just get up and dust himself off. That would be a rule. The reason they have to tell you that rule is BECAUSE it violates the underlying default assumption of physics.
When there is not any such rule, physics still applies. (And so on for all of your examples).
Adamantine daggers, by contrast, have no clear rule making them an exception, since it is left up to GM fiat whether tools are appropriate. Thus leaving them to invoke as much real physics or not as they desire in determining said appropriateness. All you know for sure is that they bypass hardness if/when they are appropriate for a task.
Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber
Entryhazard wrote:
Bring me an alloy in the real world that works like adamantine and we're talking
titanium
Quote: Bring me an alloy in the real world that works like adamantine and we're talking I'm not sure what your argument here is.
Crimeo wrote: All you know for sure is that they bypass hardness if/when they are appropriate for a task. This is incorrect. They bypass hardness. Period. Their ability to bypass hardness does not, in any way, have a limit set that they must be appropriate for a task to bypass hardness. They bypass hardness. That is their innate property. Whether the DM thinks that makes it appropriate for a task is a different matter.
Crimeo wrote: Quote: I still wonder how people can seruously use the "not realistic" argument when you got a guy who can literally turn into a dragon and slow time to a crawl... Easy, magic is a well defined system with specific rules. It functions just like an additional set of physical laws. This is no reason to just throw logic or consequence out the window. Only to modify it by duly adding X rules about how Y happens in Z situations.
People didn't stop thinking that walking through walls was unrealistic just because some guy discovered and quantitatively described gravity. Why? Because gravity doesn't cover the situation of walking through walls. And adding rules doesn't just instantly invalidate everything else ever.
Why would you think that anything else normally unrealistic stops being so just because some other new rules (spells) were added, if and when those new rules do not cover the current situation?
If/when somebody is casting create water or similar, then it takes precedence over conservation of mass. But if/when nobody is casting any such spells, mass not being conserved is still unrealistic. A completely normal, non magical being can survive falls from the stratosphere...
He can also bench press rhinos...
Oh and if you wanna go full science, Dragons should not exist, giants are impossible, giant insects would suffocate, and half elves are impossible.
The game has HORRIBLE physics, simple as that. Even things that dont have the "well magic" clause defy reality. Like gravity. The game has no rules regarding gravity. If you have protection from fire you can even chill on the sun because there is no rules regarding being crushed by overwhelming gravity...
Purple Dragon Knight wrote: Entryhazard wrote:
Bring me an alloy in the real world that works like adamantine and we're talking
titanium Actually titanium is more like Mithril. It is strong but very light weight compared to steel. But it is far from strongest. It just makes very good armor for things that are concerned with weight like Jets. Depleted Uranium or Tungsten would be a slightly closer analogy to Adamantine.
Quote: This is incorrect. They bypass hardness. Period. Their ability to bypass hardness does not, in any way, have a limit set that they must be appropriate for a task to bypass hardness. They bypass hardness. That is their innate property. Whether the DM thinks that makes it appropriate for a task is a different matter. For hardness to be bypassed, you have to make an attack. If you aren't allowed to make an attack, you therefore cannot bypass hardness by way of not being able to make an attack to take advantage of the material property. Just a semantics thing, sorry if confusing.
Quote: A completely normal, non magical being can survive falls from the stratosphere... And? The book explains to you when normal physics doesn't apply. That doesn't have to be JUST for magic. Any rule overrides the default of our known physics. But when there's not a rule, you default to physics.
Everything you listed is the case because there are explicit rules overriding anything default. This is not contradicting anything.
Crimeo wrote: Quote: This is incorrect. They bypass hardness. Period. Their ability to bypass hardness does not, in any way, have a limit set that they must be appropriate for a task to bypass hardness. They bypass hardness. That is their innate property. Whether the DM thinks that makes it appropriate for a task is a different matter. For hardness to be bypassed, you have to make an attack. If you aren't allowed to make an attack, you therefore cannot bypass hardness by way of not being able to make an attack to take advantage of the material property. Just a semantics thing, sorry if confusing.
Quote: A completely normal, non magical being can survive falls from the stratosphere... And? The book explains to you when normal physics doesn't apply. That doesn't have to be JUST for magic. Any rule overrides the default of our known physics. But when there's not a rule, you default to physics.
Everything you listed is the case because there are explicit rules overriding anything default. This is not contradicting anything. It has no rules regarding being able to survive any fall. Instead it just has a cap on damage. Thats it. So there is no rule saying "mundane guy survives because sheer bad assery"
There is no rule saying giant bugs survive despite not habing a high enough oxygen concentration.
There is literally 0 mention of any gravity rules... at all... (fun fact, in PF, terminal velocity is the same EVERYWHERE)...
So yeah, using "its unrealistic" is a very piss poor argument...
So it has no rule except for the rule it has?
Fall damage = base of 1d6/10ft. If it HADN'T told me this, then I would have worked it out by calculating the force of impact using -32 ft/s^2 and then looking that up in the carrying capacity tables to judge a STR modifier as if somebody were hitting you with the ground.
But since it does tell me that with a rule, then they've overridden gravity, gravity works now linearly in Golarion, and has no terminal velocity (AFAIK, there might be a rule), not quadratically. Okie dokie.
That's unrealistic, but doesn't matter, because it was explicitly overriden. Rules take precedence.
Unrealism is still a problem however for things that are not overriden, though.
Crimeo wrote: For hardness to be bypassed, you have to make an attack. If you aren't allowed to make an attack, you therefore cannot bypass hardness by way of not being able to make an attack to take advantage of the material property. Just a semantics thing, sorry if confusing. I checked again and by the reading you are correct. However, easily fixed. You can just attack the wall or ground or whatever.
Nigrescence wrote: I checked again and by the reading you are correct. However, easily fixed. You can just attack the wall or ground or whatever. That IS what the breaking objects rules cover. From that page:
Quote: Each object has hardness—a number that represents how well it resists damage. When an object is damaged, subtract its hardness from the damage. and later:
Quote: Certain weapons just can't effectively deal damage to certain objects. So your attack is not doing damage if the tool isn't appropriate. Hardness is only subtracted from dealt damage, which you did none of in the first place.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Nigrescence wrote: You will also note that the miner's pick weighs 10 pounds. Whereas the MARTIAL weapons weigh only 6 pounds for the heavy pick, and a measly 3 pounds for the light pick. Because the latter two are explicitly MILITARY WEAPONS whereas the miner's pick is a mundane tool which would be unwieldy in combat but perfectly appropriate for its sole intended use (which is unarguably the only mundane item "appropriate" for such a task). Did you know that the light and heavy pick weapons don't actually have a weapon description?
andreww wrote: Azraiel wrote: A moderately concealable wall opener. An Adamantine dagger probably won't create a passage-sized hole through a wall in reasonable combat time, but it'll still cut through stone like a knife through butter. No, it wont
Ignoring hardness doesn't do anything if the weapon is incapable of damaging the object in the first place. I's say I defy you to justify how a weapon that ignores the hardness of the object altogether is not effective, but apparently that challenge has stood the test already.
Quote: which is unarguably the only mundane item "appropriate" for such a task Well that's more than a little silly to say "unarguable" especially considering the heavy pick goes out of it's way in the description to say "equally effective clearing rock or breaking skulls" (paraphrased). But it is one valid interpretation a GM could make legitimately, for sure.
So... I think people are placing WAY to much faith in the CRB right now... What was stated as a sort of anecdotal aside is being taken as hardline gospel...
"Certain weapons just can't effectively deal damage to certain objects. For example, a bludgeoning weapon cannot be used to damage a rope."
I call B.S.
The Bola is a bludgeoning weapon that sure as rain can cause damage to a rope.
Don't believe me? Watch this Video
So if the CRB is just wrong on this basic fact - why would you you be so certain a highly specialized dagger can't cut stone?
TriOmegaZero wrote: Did you know that the light and heavy pick weapons don't actually have a weapon description? I did, which I found out when I made that post. So you can only assume that they are only weapons. They are also martial weapons at that.
Crimeo wrote: So your attack is not doing damage if the tool isn't appropriate. Hardness is only subtracted from dealt damage, which you did none of in the first place. Are you seriously arguing that it does no damage because hardness isn't ignored yet? Then I guess only weapons made out of Adamantine are "appropriate" to sunder ANY piece of equipment or object. Except they aren't. Because apparently in your incorrect view... I'm not even going to go further. Adamantine weapons bypass hardness up to a certain point.
Crimeo wrote: the heavy pick goes out of it's way in the description to say "equally effective clearing rock or breaking skulls" (paraphrased). No, it doesn't say that at all. In fact, as noted, the heavy pick and light pick actually do not have a weapon description at all in the CRB. And I could not find anywhere where it says that about the heavy pick. I don't believe "paraphrase" is the same as "completely invented out of the delusion of my own mind".
Again, people, the ONLY appropriate item for clearing rock is the Miner's Pick mundane adventuring gear item, weight of ten pounds.
/thread
That was very honest of you to quote the hammer and rope example, but not the example in the next sentence that says things other than picks and hammers probably won't harm stone, directly relevant to this thread.
*eyeroll*
Quote: So if the CRB is just wrong on this basic fact CRB stated rules overrules physics. A video of a bolas doing something on Earth is only relevant if there is no rule covering the situation in the book. There is one here--it gives you an explicit example that bludgeoning weapons don't harm rope, so bolas or ropes must therefore work differently in golarion.
Quote: Are you seriously arguing that it does no damage because hardness isn't ignored yet? No, the reason it doesn't do damage is because it says inappropriate tools don't do damage. Not ever getting to the point where hardness is relevant is a side effect of this.
If they ever DID get to the point of doing damage, then yes they would bypass hardness, but it doesn't matter, because if they're an ineefective tool, they never do the damage.
Quote: No, it doesn't say that at all. In fact, as noted, the heavy pick and light pick actually do not have a weapon description at all in the CRB. I apologize, I meant the 15lb pickaxe, the one larger than the heavy pick. http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/weapons/weapon-descriptions/picka xe
Quote: 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.
Oddman80 wrote: The Bola is a bludgeoning weapon that sure as rain can cause damage to a rope.
Don't believe me? Watch this Video
Actually, that video is of a classic trick often used with hikers and campers and is taught to Boy Scouts (among many useful things taught to Boy Scouts).
However, that video is NOT of a blunt weapon being used to cut a rope. It is using rope or string to cut a rope. Not the same thing.
It is possible, though, by repeatedly hitting a very taught rope with a hammer to "cut" it that way. It takes many blows, though.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Nigrescence wrote: I did, which I found out when I made that post. So you can only assume that they are only weapons. I don't assume any such thing in the absence of information.
Crimeo wrote: No, the reason it doesn't do damage is because it says inappropriate tools don't do damage. Not ever getting to the point where hardness is relevant is a side effect of this.
If they ever DID get to the point of doing damage, then yes they would bypass hardness, but it doesn't matter, because if they're an ineefective tool, they never do the damage.
So I was right. You ARE seriously arguing that it does no damage because hardness isn't ignored yet. Convenient catch-22 you have there, eh? However all you need to do is ATTACK with it to have it ignore the hardness. You simply don't understand how the rules work.
Crimeo wrote: I apologize, I meant the 15lb pickaxe, the one larger than the heavy pick. Yes, that fifteen pound Pickaxe would indeed be as effective as the Miner's Pick. I didn't mention it because I wanted to see if anyone would catch it. You will note, however, that it is still primarily a weapon above all else. It is only its massive size and sturdy construction which makes it very arguably comparable to the Miner's Pick in its use to take down stone. I would certainly say it would serve in that regard. But the light pick and heavy pick are only military weapons and not effective in the task.
TriOmegaZero wrote: Nigrescence wrote: I did, which I found out when I made that post. So you can only assume that they are only weapons. I don't assume any such thing in the absence of information. It would be an assumption to suggest that they are anything OTHER than weapons, and such an assumption would be COMPLETELY without substance.
So I'm actually assuming less. It is still an assumption that they are weapons. One which is fully founded by the content of the CRB.
For the sake of it, let me rephrase. You can only determine that the light pick and heavy pick are ONLY weapons, as there is no other information about them leading to suggest otherwise. It would be an unfounded assumption to presume them anything but weapons.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
What are you talking about? Catch22???
It goes:
1) Attack roll to hit. Hit? Proceed:
2) Determine whether appropriate tool. Appropriate? Proceed:
3) Roll damage and apply STR etc.
4) Subtract hardness from this value if not made out of adamantine.
5) Apply result to hitpoints.
Your adamantine dagger is stopped at step #2 and does not proceed further. There is nothing circular or catch-22 about it, it's a simple linear flowchart.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Nigrescence wrote: It would be an assumption to suggest that they are anything OTHER than weapons, and such an assumption would be COMPLETELY without substance. I don't suggest such a thing, so there should be no problem.
Crimeo wrote: What are you talking about? Catch22???
...bunch of gibberish...
As I said, you don't understand the rules. And now, it's clear that you don't understand the meaning of a catch-22. Google is your friend.
Quote: Certain weapons just can't effectively deal damage to certain objects. You do. not. deal. damage. You don't roll damage. There is no damage from which to subtract hardness. Hardness or lack thereof is utterly irrelevant if you have an inappropriate tool.
This is just a standalone rule.
|
