Adamantine daggers do what?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

351 to 400 of 482 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Nigrescence wrote:
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.

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.


Oddman80 wrote:

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.

I agree. I was just pointing out that the video is not about a blunt weapon cutting rope but about rope/string cutting rope. I know that a bola has rope as part of it, but that does NOT mean blunt weapons can be assumed to do so. It's only proof that rope can be used in such a way.

But I also added that by making a rope taught, you can use a blunt weapon to then "cut" the rope.


Quote:
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.

That's a perfectly reasonable interpretation you could make if you were a GM ruling on this issue.

But since this logic and interpretation isn't written anywhere, it is not NECESSITATED by RAW. I can just as easily instead interpret it as "most" means ">50% of melee weapons do not have an effect on stone walls" Okay, and that is still true after I rule that adamantine daggers don't have an effect on walls... No rules have been broken.

Quote:
it says 'most weapons have LITTLE effect'

Sure! And as a GM I can, if I so choose, faithfully interpret this to mean "Not enough of an effect to cause hitpoint damage, but still SOME effect, namely making a lot of noise and alerting people to your presence"

You can interpret it in another way if you like. RAW is ambivalent. It does not tell you what "little" means.

Quote:
Then it TOO should be treated as a clearly more specific rule than the General rule about what can or cannot damage stone.

It doesn't matter, because I don't have to disagree or negate this rule. The dagger DOES absolutely bypass hardness. No disiagreement at all.

It just so happens though, that if you never do damage in the first place, whether or not you bypass hardness is irrelevant, because hardness is only defined as being subtracted from the hardness you do.

Ineffective weapons don't DO any damage to begin with, so whether you then subtract hardness from 0 or not doesn't matter.

0 - 0 = 0.
0 - hardness (minimum 0) = 0.

Only IF you have an effective weapon, like a pick or a hammer (I can rule as a GM, you may rule otherwise), does the damage get done, and then the hardness issue become relevant.

8 - 0 = 8 (adamantine yayyy)
8 - 8 = 0 (iron boooo)


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.


No not rule zero. Completely consistently with all written RAW, choose interpretations within the defined logical constraints that result in adamantine daggers not damaging stone.

You could also choose interpretations also within all written RAW that would result in it damaging stone. RAW is ambiguous enough as is to allow it to fall either way, within GM interpretation.


Nigrescence wrote:


But I also added that by making a rope taught, you can use a blunt weapon to then "cut" the rope.

Unfortunately if you tried to make rules for that it's complexity would be immense for a niche rule, as you would then need to figure out what the resulting tug on both ends of the rope would do(set off the trap, break at a weaker point like where the rope winches the door up, etc.)as well as what the resulting snap of the rope does.


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.


Quote:
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'

Incorrect, it does not say "do little DAMAGE" it says "have little EFFECT."

If it said little damage and I ruled 0 damage, I would be breaking the rule. But there are bazillions of effects other than damage. As long as it has any such effect, it can be having "little effect" An example being "causing to make noise"


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

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.


Quote:
IN THE DAMAGING OBJECTS section

it's also in the ineffective weapons section of that section... You wanting to stretch that to suddenly include damage again is no more or less of a stretch than interpreting effect to mean things other than damage, my friend.


Quote:
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

There is a significant difference when you consider that stone is not the only thing a person might want to break. Sure you can just buy a pickaxe for the same price, but that's not effective against wood. You buy a hatchet, that's not effective against stone. Etc.

So to be able to go through anything would require multiple tools, and that DOES make a cost difference and significantly effect design and gameplay choices.


Crimeo wrote:
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.

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?!??


Oddman80 wrote:
... bunch of stuff ...

No, man, I mean, like, don't you, you know, um, like, get it? This dude can explain it better, and you know, just um, listen and uh, right on, dude.

Crimeo wrote:

If you attack a stone wall with a weapon, it does no damage because of hardness. But then, you know, because it is ineffective no damage can be done. So, like, even if it bypasses hardness, it still does no damage, you know, because the hardness means it does no damage, meaning it is ineffective.

So you have to do damage to have any effect on the stone wall, because of the wall's hardness, so if you don't do damage because of the wall's hardness, you don't get any effect from bypassing the hardness, so you do no damage. It's just, um, logic man. It's in the rules! citation needed


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!


Oddman80 wrote:

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!

But what if I then choose to throw the Adamantine Dagger as a thrown weapon? After all, it can be used as a thrown weapon with a range of ten feet. So now suddenly it works!

Also, an Adamantine Arrow would be even better, because it would be super cheap. Only 60 gold more than the normal cost of an arrow and you have your very own Adamantine tool!


Quote:
If you attack a stone wall with a weapon, it does no damage because of hardness.

No, it does no damage because of being an "ineffective tool." Nothing to do with hardness.

Quote:
But then, you know, because it is ineffective no damage can be done.

correct.

Quote:
So, like, even if it bypasses hardness, it still does no damage, you know, because the hardness means it does no damage,

No, not because hardness. Nothing to do with hardness. Because it's an ineffective weapon.

Quote:
meaning it is ineffective.

No, it's "ineffective" because the GM deemed it as such. One example of a reason for this is "not being designed for breaking up stone", but it does not specify any limits on reasons. It is purely left up the the GM's discretion what is ineffective.

Nothing to do with hardness (<-Starting to see a pattern?)

this is how it goes:
GM DECIDES INEFFECTIVE ----> NO DAMAGE ----> EVERYTHING ELSE IRRELEVANT
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Also - if you are going to be so hardline/literal about the "ineffective weapons" rule... Please realize that it limits itself to melee weapons.

It does not:

Quote:
Certain weapons just can't effectively deal damage to certain objects.

Certain weapons. Not "certain melee weapons." One of the two examples (that's why it says "For example,") it gives mentions melee weapons, yes. It is an example. The GM can come up with any other ineffective categories he likes. Such as also adding "the majority of ranged weapons cannot affect stone..."

Quote:

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...

just sound = little effect

sound + a bunch of damage = not little effect


Crimeo wrote:
No, it's "ineffective" because the GM deemed it as such.

An admission that your "logic" depends on a rule zero approach after all, despite your previous protestation to the contrary. Ok guys, we've got a confession. We can move on now.

Yes, a DM can also decide that your Adamantine Rapier can't even pierce this block of vanilla pudding. Excellent! A DM can decide any damn fool thing they want. That doesn't mean it is reflected in the rules as you had previously insisted.


If by "rule zero" you mean "things plainly printed in the CRB" then yes!

Quote:
Certain weapons just can't effectively deal damage to certain objects.

That's ALL it says. It gives examples, but never defines this any further or places any boundaries on it. Therefore, completely GM fiat, simple as that.

Quote:
A DM can decide any damn fool thing they want.

Yes, when it comes to tools damaging materials, they can. That is RAW, sorry. If you think it is dumb, you are welcome and have my endorsement to make as many house rules contrary to it as you like all day long.

I would agree with you that it is dumb, and I made suggestions earlier in this thread about what I would think would be entirely more sensical revamps to the whole system. But this is what RAW is ^


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

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.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber
Entryhazard wrote:
Crimeo wrote:
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.

I find the very idea of an adamantine sword bouncing off a stone wall rather humorous.

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.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

MaxAstro wrote:

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

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber
Aelryinth wrote:

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.)

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber

oh and major noise drawing every enemy in the dungeon, too... :)


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
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).


Quote:
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.

It says "can't effectively" i.e. without the contraction "not effectively" which to me very clearly means "Has no effect. Not effective, ineffective, no effect: synonymous."

You read it and see "Has a little bit of an effect" I'm not personally sure how exactly you are arriving at "not effective" being "has some effect", but whatever man, go for it.

Quote:
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.

Interpreting "not effective" as having "no effect" is not "adding a house rule", lol...?

Also even though I don't quite understand your reading of "still an effect, but a little one", I'm happy to also say that your interpretation is also valid, also RAW, and also not a house rule. Text can be ambiguous, maybe you have different idioms where you are or something. They should have spelled it out clearly to have not required any interpretation (fiat) in the first place. But oh well.

Quote:
Let's compare it to a Pickaxe.

If you were trying to suggest that the pickaxe doing more damage than the dagger without any adjustment satisfies being "ineffective" then this is a misleading example, because in other instances it is no longer true. A giant 1d8 or whatever warhammer attacking a rope, without any adjustment, would be much more effective than a 1d4 dagger attacking a rope, which would be the opposite of one of the suggested examples of inappropriate weapons. The fact that it happens to work out for dagger and pickaxe example is a coincidence only. Appropriateness and big-ness just happen to overlap in that instance but not all instances.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Azraiel wrote:
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.

Sorry, but an adamantine hammer isn't going to be cutting a rope easily any time soon.


Ravingdork wrote:
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.)

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber

wow... if you're DMing a game where PCs can cut ropes with hammers, well... you're not the baseline type of DM! LOL ;)


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


Quote:
5. How else can you make a lightsaber using Pathfinder rules?

Magic item of constant stone shape?

Ooh, scratch that. Fabricate, and it works with anything.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Nigrescence wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
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.


Ravingdork wrote:
Nigrescence wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
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.

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).

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

It's 'taut', not 'taught', fyi.

==Aelryinth


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:
It's 'taut', not 'taught', fyi.

I guess even a bookrat has to be taut a thing or two sometimes.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

heh


ba dum tsk


I know what Adamantine daggers do!
They create arguments!


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.

Quote:
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)


But neither the improvised weapons section nor the Damage reduction section says "ineffective." Possibly because neither of those situations DOES make a weapon ineffective. But who knows.

(Your other quote, notice, equates the "ineffective" portion with "bounces off harmlessly"). Edit: wait, is that from another printing of the DR section? Confused. The SRD one says "Some magic creatures have the supernatural ability to instantly heal damage from weapons or ignore blows altogether as though they were invulnerable."

Anyway, dumb way of writing things regardless, but *shrug*


It's the first paragraph in the PRD. Maybe you should try the PRD instead of the SRD?


Because the PRD is more often wrong compared to the SRD. This would be one example, since I just checked my hard copy sixth edition book I have right here and it says the SRD text, not the PRD.

It was also wrong recently in a thing I looked up with druids being able to leave slots open to prepare later in the day, while the SRD was correct. They seem to be better at catching the changes than whoever updates the paizo one.

(Also, inconvenient lack of links.)


PRD = Pathfinder Reference Document

SRD = Standard Reference Document [3.5 or 3.0]

D20PFSRD = Fan-Created Pathfinder Reference Document with occasional errors and includes 3rd Party Open Content.


Okay, but the fans do a more accurate job of publishing the correct text online than Paizo does for their own products, is what I'm saying.

This is the second time in a week or so that the PRD text has been incorrect (compared to my fully up to date latest edition hard copy) and the (d20 is the one I mean PF)SRD has been spot on. And there have been ones before, but I don't remember exactly which paragraphs.


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.


"from most weapons and natural attacks." The occasional one is strong enough to not bounce off harmlessly and ineffectively. And thus becomes harmFUL and effective.

I would say that this clunky wording was maybe the reason they rewrote it in the latest edition. But the new wording is actually just as clunky, just differently so ("They are invulnerable! ...except only against some damage" lol)

Edit: ohhhh wait you're getting that from the bestiary. Maybe both wordings are up to date. I was looking at the core rulebook section: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/special-abilities#TOC-Damage-Reductio n (I guess it doesn't cite source for that one, but it's the text from the CRB pg 561)

351 to 400 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.