The Bola is a bludgeoning weapon that sure as rain can cause damage to a rope.
Don't believe me? Watch this VideoActually, 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.
I did not claim the video showed a blunt object cutting a rope through blunt force, as that is not what the CRB claims. The CRB claims that "a bludgeoning weapon cannot be used to damage a rope" the video shows that a bola (a bludgeoning weapon) could be used to damage a rope.
Now.... Crimeo was complaining that I "selectively edited" the quote - that I didn't include the text about how "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."
But he must have forgotten that I have already addressed those points repeatedly.
I have mentioned that since the adamantium dagger is such a rare and specialized item, it falls outside the limits of the generalized rule pertaining to "most weapons" as 'most weapons' have not been created with an extremely rare ability to bypass hardness.
I have mentioned that the rule in question does not say "most weapons have NO effect' but rather it says 'most weapons have LITTLE effect' which is empirically true - as most weapons, when wielded against something with DR 8/adamantium would have little effect.
I have even mentioned that the general rule about sundering objects being limited to slashing and bludgeoning weapons is overridden by the specific rule that picks are able to damage stone despite them being only piercing in nature. HOWEVER, that same specific overrides general means that, when the listing for adamantium states:
"Adamantine is extremely strong and favored by weapon and armor smiths alike for its ability to cut through solid barriers with ease and endure heavy blows.
Weapons fashioned from adamantine have a natural ability to bypass hardness when sundering weapons or attacking objects, ignoring hardness less than 20.
Then it TOO should be treated as a clearly more specific rule than the General rule about what can or cannot damage stone.
So Crimeo is basically saying that a DM can chose to Rule Zero it so that Adamantium Daggers do not damage stone.
Okay. Fair enough.
But if you are choosing to adjudicate what happens based on the rules, this will not occur.
Glad we got that all cleared up.
Well, as you explained it, making it so that adamanitium daggers do NO damage to a stone wall requires that the meaning of 'little' actually be that of the word 'no' or 'none' rather than 'lesser amount'
But that line of thinking would mean that a little kid was actually not a kid at all, but rather a non-existent entity...
Sure you offered up a token gesture indicating that the effect on the stone they are talking about IN THE DAMAGING OBJECTS section of the book is some how purely noise and not actually damage at all.., but that sure looks like you are REALLY stretching there.
I tend to approach rules questions from a game balance perspective. I also have no qualms throwing out any rule that doesn't make sense to me. Lastly, I consider "realism" a dirty word when it comes to game design.
So while I can't say anything about strict RAW or what's "realistic", here is my take on the debate:
Can an adamantine pickaxe be used to tunnel through a stone wall with enough effort? Clearly yes.
Is there a huge mechanical difference between a pickaxe and a dagger? Well, a dagger is cheaper, but not by much (certainly not compared to the 3000 you spend on adamantine in the first place), and is a simple weapon instead of a martial weapon. However, for this purpose simple/martial doesn't matter - if you aren't proficient you just take a penalty on attack rolls, and attack rolls don't matter against walls. So someone who is only proficient with simple weapons is still going to be able to use an adamantine pickaxe to tunnel through a wall just as easily as someone proficient with the pickaxe.
Mechanically speaking, then, being able to use an adamantine dagger to tunnel through a wall is not meaningfully more powerful than being able to use an adamantine pickaxe to do the same. So if you allow the one, there's no reason not to allow the other - at least from a game balance perspective.
Is tunneling through walls in the first place "broken"? Well, it can certainly be difficult to balance encounters around. But then the same is true of dimension door, earth glide, passwall, etc. For that matter, any party that wants to make dungeons trivial can just grab a Lyre of Building, which is easily capable of collapsing the entirety of the average dungeon in a matter of hours.
So yeah, I'd allow it.
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.
I find the very idea of an adamantine sword bouncing off a stone wall rather humorous.
Ok... Let's try out your bizarre trolling logic
"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 "effect" here is not pertaining to damage (despite it being in the DAMAGING OBJECTS section of the rules), but rather that it is one of the "bazillion other effects" that could occur relative to a stone...
Now, you suggested that the "little effect" was causing noise... That would mean that most melee weapons cause noise when used on "stone walls and doors unless they are designed for breaking up stone, such as a pick or hammer"
Oh... So in your example, picks and hammers DONT make sound when banging them against stone...
Hmmm... That doesn't seem to make sense... There are still a bazillion options out their to choose from...Liquification? Combustion? Pixilization? Mummification? Vaporization?
No... None of those seem right either
Now, either the 'ineffective weapons' rules are so vague in their meaning that they should be completely ignored... OR, maybe there is a general topic that the rule falls under that could give us s better idea which of the bazillion 'effects' it is talking about..,,
Oh, Wait - the rule is in the DAMAGING OBJECTS section of the rules - maybe we can all agree that the effect on the stone that is being discussed in the rule is DAMAGE?!??
Also - if you are going to be so hardline/literal about the "ineffective weapons" rule... Please realize that it limits itself to melee weapons.
So while an adamantium dagger would not be effective in damaging stone, an adamantine dart or javelin would have no problems being effective.
Yay for literalism to the point of idiocy!
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...
I linked a historical account of quarrying methods earlier. Removing stone was very much done by putting small holes in the slab then cracking it with a wedge. The only reason why doing it this way isn't compatible with the regular combat based rules for breaking down the wall is that you are no longer removing it through raw force.
|
I find the very idea of an adamantine sword bouncing off a stone wall rather humorous.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.
It's a sword. Very thin and sharp and meant to cut through armor, bone and tissue.
Let's assume that it behaves like a hot knife through butter on the way in for the sake of discussion. At the end of your swing, when your momentum ceases, is it then stuck forever in that stone wall just like Excalibur was? Because I don't care how easy it goes in with momentum: the adamantine has a friction coefficient like any other metal and pulling that sucker out will demand a STR check if I've ever seen a call for one...
Crimeo keeps referencing a line in the CRB that says:
"Certain weapons just can't effectively deal damage to certain objects."
As if it said
"Certain weapons just can't deal damage to certain objects."
But the primary statement is only talking about varrying levels of efficiency with regards to damaging objects (thanks to that extra adverb) and not a binary system of YES/NO to damage.
We have pointed out that anyone weaker than 20 strength would be incapable of cutting stone with a dagger at all. At 20 strength, on average it would take 60 strikes of a dagger to cut a 1" tall by 1" deep groove in stone. That is a pretty ineffective tool right there.
Let's compare it to a Pickaxe.
You would only need a strength of 12 to be capable of damaging stone with a Pickaxe. And, at 20 strength, on average it would take 4 strikes of the Pickaxe to make a 1" tall by 1" deep groove in the stone. So a Pickaxe is 15x more effective than the dagger at 20 strength and infinitely more effective at 12-19 strength.
Now - all of this follows RAW, and furthermore supports what the ineffective weapon rules state as. The one thing it doesn't do is require the DM to come up with extra house rules/rule zeroes to get you to that point.
That way, when you introduce an adamantium weapon into the equation, you don't have to say "NO! The Weapon doesn't get to do the one thing it specifically says its capable of doing" because you haven't wasted time building a false construct of extra rules around how damaging objects works.
I tend to approach rules questions from a game balance perspective. I also have no qualms throwing out any rule that doesn't make sense to me. Lastly, I consider "realism" a dirty word when it comes to game design.
So while I can't say anything about strict RAW or what's "realistic", here is my take on the debate:
Can an adamantine pickaxe be used to tunnel through a stone wall with enough effort? Clearly yes.
Is there a huge mechanical difference between a pickaxe and a dagger? Well, a dagger is cheaper, but not by much (certainly not compared to the 3000 you spend on adamantine in the first place), and is a simple weapon instead of a martial weapon. However, for this purpose simple/martial doesn't matter - if you aren't proficient you just take a penalty on attack rolls, and attack rolls don't matter against walls. So someone who is only proficient with simple weapons is still going to be able to use an adamantine pickaxe to tunnel through a wall just as easily as someone proficient with the pickaxe.
Mechanically speaking, then, being able to use an adamantine dagger to tunnel through a wall is not meaningfully more powerful than being able to use an adamantine pickaxe to do the same. So if you allow the one, there's no reason not to allow the other - at least from a game balance perspective.
Is tunneling through walls in the first place "broken"? Well, it can certainly be difficult to balance encounters around. But then the same is true of dimension door, earth glide, passwall, etc. For that matter, any party that wants to make dungeons trivial can just grab a Lyre of Building, which is easily capable of collapsing the entirety of the average dungeon in a matter of hours.
So yeah, I'd allow it.
I'm not sure you could use a lyre of building to 'collapse' a dungeon, as it can't be used to destroy something. However, you could use it to create a bunch of openings where there were none before, I suppose.
==Aelryinth
|
|
I'm not sure you could use a lyre of building to 'collapse' a dungeon, as it can't be used to destroy something. However, you could use it to create a bunch of openings where there were none before, I suppose.
==Aelryinth
Yes that item has always been problematic IMO.
I would probably allow this in-game as the item can only do this once per week. However the Perform DC 18 should go up at least by +1 per previous check. Also if an enemy attacks I'd say it qualifies as auto interruption, as the user is already straining to keep it going.
I would restrict it to one tunnel per use (if they go 5 foot wide by 15 foot long and punch through, that's it, done until next week).
If they don't tunnel through, I'd say 5 foot wide by 40 foot long (8 squares) per day (i.e. 5 foot long tunnel per hour... a 100 humans would be bottlenecked by the 5 foot wide opening but you can rule there's 4 guys tunneling and the rest are clearing the rock out of the dungeon, and making wood beams to build arche as you go, etc.)
Because I don't care how easy it goes in with momentum: the adamantine has a friction coefficient like any other metal and pulling that sucker out will demand a STR check if I've ever seen a call for one...
Who says its friction coefficient will make it require a STR check? Who says that "ease of slipping in AND out" isn't part and parcel of its physical properties by virtue of being adamantine? Heck, I always considered the masterwork cost to be representative of how difficult it is to work with, on account of being slippery as hell (though yes, if you go out of your way to craft your sword/dagger/pick/whatever to have a rough surface, then I totally agree that it would be difficult to pull out).
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.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.Ignoring hardness doesn't do anything if the weapon is incapable of damaging the object in the first place.
Sorry, but an adamantine hammer isn't going to be cutting a rope easily any time soon.
I've been skimming this interesting thread to avoid trolls. While I've read my point of view hinted at, I hope this post will advance the argument.
1. Premise one: adamantine weapons (Pathfinder) work like lightsabers (Star Wars) on material with hardness 20 and below. Both are fantasy concepts. Potentially, there were some Star Wars materials with hardness greater than 20, like energy shields.
2. There are ample examples of lightsabers, the size of longswords/katanas, cutting through objects big and small. When things are big, like blast doors and bulkheads, the fantasy examples take time. Typically, the story cuts away (pun intended) to another scene between the start and finish of the job. The game mechanic for this activity is doing regular small hit point damage to something with lots of hit points.
3. Therefore, if we compare an adamantine dagger with adamantine longswords/katanas, the game mechanics would say that the dagger cuts 2.5 hit points per round instead of 4.5. Thus, daggers would cut 55% the speed of the larger longswords/katanas.
4. One of the key parts of these examples of lightsabers cutting through big objects is the use of gravity to clear the section that has been separated. Once completely cut, the door/bulkhead falls away. This is the key, because it identifies the issue with attempting to tunnel. Yes, you can use spoon to tunnel, but you need to find a place to put the separated material. That's why we haven't seen any examples of lightsabers tunneling (at least I haven't): it takes too long for the story.
5. How else can you make a lightsaber using Pathfinder rules? Every game needs the potential for lightsabers. ;D
my two gp
cheers
Sorry, but an adamantine hammer isn't going to be cutting a rope easily any time soon.Apply the right amount of tension to a rope and a WOODEN hammer can cut it. (Well, you know, in real life at least.)
The exception that proves the rule.
The exception that proves the rule.Sorry, but an adamantine hammer isn't going to be cutting a rope easily any time soon.Apply the right amount of tension to a rope and a WOODEN hammer can cut it. (Well, you know, in real life at least.)
Is it an exception? All you have to do is pull the rope taught and hammer it against another hard surface. You could even use two rocks. No special equipment necessary.
How to cut a rope without a knife (or, how to cut a rope with a hammer).
It's 'taut', not 'taught', fyi.
==Aelryinth
heh
ba dum tsk
I just love how if an weapon isn't designed to do something, then it automatically becomes incapable of doing it.
Like a Great Sword isn't designed to be thrown. Its ineffective at being thrown. By the standards in this thread where ineffective = Not Able to, that would mean that the Great Sword couldn't ever be thrown.
A creature with this special quality ignores damage from most weapons and natural attacks. Wounds heal immediately, or the weapon bounces off harmlessly (in either case, the opponent knows the attack was ineffective). The creature takes normal damage from energy attacks (even nonmagical ones), spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities. A certain kind of weapon can sometimes damage the creature normally, as noted below.
And by the logic of Ineffective = not able to harm, we'd have skeletons who would be immune to piercing and slashing weapons, as they are ineffective against such beings.
but well, that isn't what happens is it? The attack is diminished because of the damage reduction thus not producing the decided result of full damage.
This dagger has transcended the state of being a "Most melee weapon" entering into a class known as masterwork special material weapons. Particularly in this case, an Adamatine Dagger.
In fact, pretty much because of its strength, hardness and special material properties, its basically a chisel. A sharper pointy one than the flat tips most people know of. (And yes, Chisels do come in tapered points)
It's the first paragraph in the PRD. Maybe you should try the PRD instead of the SRD?
Actually I got it form the SRD as well. Universal monster rules
And while the weapon bounces of harmlessly, It only does so at 5 or less damage from a non bludgeoning weapon would seem like weapon was useless. Even doing 6 or more, the weapon is still ineffective against those bones but now its doing a little bit of damage.