Adamantine daggers do what?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

401 to 450 of 482 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
PRD: Weapons: Melee and Ranged Weapons wrote:
Melee weapons are used for making melee attacks, though some of them can be thrown as well. Ranged weapons are thrown weapons or projectile weapons that are not effective in melee.

If "not effective" means have no effect, then ranged weapons cannot be used at all in melee. Now, you can shoot a bow while in melee... It just triggers attacks of opportunity... Clearly a less effective fighting style for melee compared to simply using a melee weapon.

Also, one can use something like a javelin (ranged thrown weapon) as an improvised melee weapon... Treating it like a spear. Doing so would result in a -4 penalty to your melee attack... Once again, this is clearly a less effective fighting style for melee than simply using a melee weapon.
However both of these example are possible things one is able to do. And both examples will have effect in melee (the fact that improvised weapon master and point blank master feats exist allow these approaches to become quite effective)... Therefore "not effective" does not mean having no effect.

PRD: Weapons: Special Weapon Features: ***Strength (#) wrote:
***Strength (#): This feature is usually only applied to ranged weapons (such as composite bows). Some weapons function better in the hands of stronger users. All such weapons are made with a particular Strength rating (that is, each requires a minimum Strength modifier to use with proficiency and this number is included in parenthesis). If your Strengthbonus is less than the strength rating of the weapon, you can't effectively use it, so you take a –2 penalty on attacks with it.

If "can't effectively" means "can't at all" then there wouldn't simply be a -2 penalty to use it that way. Nope... Can't effective just means it isn't as easy.

Let's leave the weapons section of the rules... Let's go to Gamemastering/Special Abilities

PRD: Gamemastering: Special Abilities: Supernatural Abilities wrote:
Blindsight: Some creatures possess blindsight, the extraordinary ability to use a non-visual sense (or a combination senses) to operate effectively without vision.

Since this ability implies that in order to operate effectively without vision, one requires some sort of extra ability (in this instance it is provided by blindsight, though it could also be provided by a magical item, I suppose)

If 'operate effectively' meant to be able to operate at all - that would mean that blind characters are completely helpless and can take no action unless they had blindsense or something similar... But being blind only creates the Blinded Condition with its assortment of penalties... But one can still operate while blind. You can move, attack, cast personal spells... All sorts of things...

Therefore once again, not being able to do something effectively does not mean incapable of doing it at all.


Okay, so we have three places where ineffective is partial power, one place where ineffective = totally useless ("bouncing harmlessly off of")

Here's another place where ineffective = totally removed:

Quote:

Ineffective Racial Trait: ...

Detriment: You do not receive the benefit of one of the positive racial traits for your character (including the extra feat for human characters).

And another where it means failure (of anything you care about, but you could argue maybe half way if you are of the opinion that bubbles have any relevance in game), spell "Wall of Water":

Quote:
Spells or spell-like effects with the fire descriptor used within a wall of water are ineffective unless the caster makes a caster level check (DC 20 + spell level). If the check succeeds, the spell creates a bubble of steam instead of its usual fiery effect, but otherwise the spell works as described. A supernatural fire effect is ineffective underwater unless its description states otherwise.

Symbol of Death more clearly turns off entirely

Quote:
Until it is triggered, the symbol of death is inactive (though visible and legible at a distance of 60 feet). To be effective, a symbol of death must always be placed in plain sight and in a prominent location. Covering or hiding the rune renders the symbol of death ineffective, unless a creature removes the covering, in which case the symbol of death works normally.

3.5 vs. 3.5? Whatever, I'll stop there since we are tied, but hey we could do this all day!

Apparently, they have no consistent usage of it. Where does that leave us? Exactly where we were before, when I said I was happy to believe your interpretation as being just as RAW as mine: i.e. GM fiat on the usage in object damage rules that could go either way.


Crimeo nailed it.

GM gets to decide.

Has always been this way, funny that this thread is still going.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Crimeo wrote:
Because the PRD is more often wrong compared to the SRD.

That has not been my experience. Not at all...


How is a dagger made of adamantine less effective than a stone chisel which is certainly designed for cutting stone? They share a general shape and could be used in the same manner. Indeed, the dagger would certainly hold its edge longer than the chisel. I don't get the line of reasoning that a material harder than stone cannot in fact damage said stone, especially considering the fact that adamantine is not in any way fragile or easy to chip.


Trogdar wrote:
How is a dagger made of adamantine less effective than a stone chisel which is certainly designed for cutting stone? They share a general shape and could be used in the same manner. Indeed, the dagger would certainly hold its edge longer than the chisel. I don't get the line of reasoning that a material harder than stone cannot in fact damage said stone, especially considering the fact that adamantine is not in any way fragile or easy to chip.

It's as if the game designers have played the game, seen this in use, didn't like it and put text in to prevent it!


alexd1976 wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
How is a dagger made of adamantine less effective than a stone chisel which is certainly designed for cutting stone? They share a general shape and could be used in the same manner. Indeed, the dagger would certainly hold its edge longer than the chisel. I don't get the line of reasoning that a material harder than stone cannot in fact damage said stone, especially considering the fact that adamantine is not in any way fragile or easy to chip.

It's as if the game designers have played the game, seen this in use, didn't like it and put text in to prevent it!

Or that they didn't want a standard, conventional steel (or lesser) dagger to be able to simulate a chisel, but then left a deliberate out within the ruleset to accomodate unusual circumstances (such as materials).


My martial with an adamantine warhammer will literally wreck dungeons


Sorry - was away for a day... Crimeo, I suppose we have come to an agreement, though I still feel there is subtle differences between or stances.

We both seem to agree that the wording is so ambiguous in the ineffective weapon rules, that it basically falls on the GM to create his/her own rules as to what is appropriate or not. But for me this basically means that aside from "YOU CANNOT DAMAGE A ROPE WITH A BLUDGEONING WEAPON" rule, there are no actual written rules for what ineffective weapons are. So in effect, this turns the section into a prompt - something that just lets GMs comfortably rule 0 things in their home games related to ineffective weapons. but GM's don't need such a prompt - as that is always within their power to do... this just provides a little bit of text support for a GM to hold up in case the players revolt.

So... I guess what I am saying is (where I feel the two of us differ) that outside of the ineffective weapon rules, there are some very UNAMBIGUOUS rules related to what adamanium weapons are able to do. As such, for me, the quasi-"default setting" for pathfinder would be that an adamantium dagger is able to bypass the hardness of stone (because the special properties says it can). And as such, with enough time and effort, a PC using an adamantium dagger would be able to carve a tunnel through stone.
****At no time have I stated that this would be an efficient use of time or effort - just that it could be done.

In order for an adamantium dagger to NOT be able to do this in a game, it would require a GM in a particular game, to make an active ruling, overturning the adamanitum weapon properties on the grounds of their interpretation of both what constitutes ineffective weapons, and the impact that using an ineffective weapon has on what one is trying to accomplish.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Can you cut through a wall with an adamantine dagger? Eventually yes.....IF you don't collapse the wall on yourself first. It will take a tremendous amount of time and effort though. Of course, every monster in the place is going to investigate the sound of someone banging away on a wall and take appropriate steps to ambush them, cast preparatory spells, reinforce the wall from the other side to slow them down, prepare hideously lethal traps since they know exactly where you will emerge and have PLENTY of time to rig them up. Additionally the BBEG whom you were hoping to surprise (?...noise anybody?) is likely going to have moved to a different location and taken additional steps to prepare.

Not to mention the fact that a party trying to emerge through a hole in a wall is going to be easy to pick off with a murder-pocket of defenders set up with reach weapons to keep them pinned in place while being pelted with burning oil, etc...

Just because something is vaguely possible does not mean it is intelligent.


Just thought of something else:

When talking about realism, a history of people breaking out of prison via tunneling should be evidence enough that one can tunnel through walls with something as simple as a sharpened spoon or a knife.


Quote:
So in effect, this turns the section into a prompt - something that just lets GMs comfortably rule 0 things in their home games related to ineffective weapons.

This is where you lose me. That's not what rule zero is. Rule zero, at least in terms of when it is "invoked" is basically "break the rules if it means having more fun."

But you don't have to break any rules here, no matter which way you rule it. Due to there not being any clear definition, BOTH interpretations are equally valid, correct, and RAW-compliant, and in fact, there exists no better or more RAW-compliant way to play the game than either of those interpretations.

Quote:
outside of the ineffective weapon rules...

All the rules exist at once, none are privileged.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber
Entryhazard wrote:
My martial with an adamantine warhammer will literally wreck dungeons

... yes

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber
bookrat wrote:

Just thought of something else:

When talking about realism, a history of people breaking out of prison via tunneling should be evidence enough that one can tunnel through walls with something as simple as a sharpened spoon or a knife.

I hope the PCs have months' worth of rations and a place to get rid of their exrements

Edit: I just found a rather nasty use for "bag of holding"


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
bookrat wrote:

Just thought of something else:

When talking about realism, a history of people breaking out of prison via tunneling should be evidence enough that one can tunnel through walls with something as simple as a sharpened spoon or a knife.

I hope the PCs have months' worth of rations and a place to get rid of their exrements

Edit: I just found a rather nasty use for "bag of holding"

Interdimensional porta-potty?

Now I kind of want to see a quest where the DM has the party find one used for that purpose.....


bookrat wrote:

Just thought of something else:

When talking about realism, a history of people breaking out of prison via tunneling should be evidence enough that one can tunnel through walls with something as simple as a sharpened spoon or a knife.

Which is why personally I would allow it if the PC has knowledge: Engineering/Dungeoneering and makes the checks to understand proper methods of cutting the appropriate amount of materials for the task, without just creating a mess/cave in or producing tons of noise.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber

Yup... those escaped cons usually need months or years of prep to pull this off. And I haven't seen the stats for those who probably died in the attempt either. Those two guys who recently escaped in the U.S.: one of the two went on a diet for months to fit within a pipe their tunnel led to...


Ineffective could mean daggers deal 1/2 damage thus a club deals 1/2 its damage versus a rope. (meaning not good versus a dagger to cut it)


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
bookrat wrote:

Just thought of something else:

When talking about realism, a history of people breaking out of prison via tunneling should be evidence enough that one can tunnel through walls with something as simple as a sharpened spoon or a knife.

I hope the PCs have months' worth of rations and a place to get rid of their exrements

Edit: I just found a rather nasty use for "bag of holding"

Yeah, if they were using normal daggers. Adamantine daggers, however, ignore hardness. :)

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber

They'll still need to move the broken stone and dirt somewhere. Sorry. Guards arrive, stick you with their spears through jail bars a few times, and then they take your fancy dagger.


Cuffs of my pants, Bags of dirt under my cloths, in my boots etc. For further information watch "The Great Escape"

And really, why would the party need months of rations and a way to remove their excrement if they're in a prison?


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
They'll still need to move the broken stone and dirt somewhere. Sorry. Guards arrive, stick you with their spears through jail bars a few times, and then they take your fancy dagger.

The point isn't that they're in a prison, the point is that some people in prison have been able to do exactly what some here say can't be done - and they're doing it with sharpened spoons.

If that can work, then an adamantine dagger would definitely work.

This discussion isn't about the situations you'd be in when you'd try it, it's about whether or not it's possible. Some say no, citing realism. Some say no citing rules text. Since plenty of others have tackled the rules text argument, I decided to try it from the realism argument.

I say it's possible to dig through a wall with an adamantine dagger, and I'm citing reality where people have dug through walls with ineffective equipment considerably weaker than our fantasy adamantine.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber

Sure. I guess there's things that could be worse to dig through walls than an adamantine dagger. It's a slow proposition though. Not suitable for the average adventurer's patience.


Yes... Despite my repeated empassioned argument in favor of rules sanctioned adamantium dagger dungeon wall tunneling, it is in no way my preferable approach as an adventurer.

By far, my preference would be:

1 Half-Orc Barbarian10/Fighter4 + Body Bludgeon Rage Power + Power Attack + Catch off Guard + Throw Anything + Improvised Weapon Mastery + Weapon Focus/Specialization: Dwarf Body.... + Enlarge Person.

Pick up a dwarf wearing an Adamantium Dwarven Boulder Helmet - and repeatedly swing him (head first of course) at the dungeon wall dealing 3d8+25 bludgeoning damage per swing. AND IT OVERCOMES HARDNESS!


Oddman80 wrote:

Yes... Despite my repeated empassioned argument in favor of rules sanctioned adamantium dagger dungeon wall tunneling, it is in no way my preferable approach as an adventurer.

By far, my preference would be:

1 Half-Orc Barbarian10/Fighter4 + Body Bludgeon Rage Power + Power Attack + Catch off Guard + Throw Anything + Improvised Weapon Mastery + Weapon Focus/Specialization: Dwarf Body.... + Enlarge Person.

Pick up a dwarf wearing an Adamantium Dwarven Boulder Helmet - and repeatedly swing him (head first of course) at the dungeon wall dealing 3d8+25 bludgeoning damage per swing. AND IT OVERCOMES HARDNESS!

As a GM, I would allow this.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber

Skull damage. Adamantine helm ignores skull hardness too.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber

You meant a dwarf corpse... riiiiight?


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
You meant a dwarf corpse... riiiiight?

Uhhhh.

Not at all.
Nope.
Why would you ever throw a delightfully crunchy valued companion to harm them?

フフ          ム`ヽ
/ ノ)         ) ヽ
/ |  ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°`)⌒(ゝ._,ノ
/ ノ⌒7⌒ヽーく  \ /
丶_ ノ    ノ、  |/
   `ヽ `ー-‘_人`ーノ
    丶  ̄ _人’彡ノ
   /`ヽ /\_')


Well... It seemed the writers at Paizo didn't want to encourage players dragging around dead meat bag weapons, as the rules for body bludgeon make it so that as soon as the 'weapon' dies, it becomes completely useless. Given that the dwarf in my above example takes every bit of damage I deal with him as well.... I'm going to need a lot of dwarves to make my new tunnel through the cavern. Fortunately, dwarves grow like weeds in most cavernous settings... It is unlikely that I will run out of men to fill my adamantium boulder helmet....


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If adamantine can cut through rock like butter, what can it do to people? Isn't it unrealistic that it cuts rock and steel as if they were skin, but doesn't cut skin any better? Maybe it should deal like +2d6 or more damage.


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Sure. I guess there's things that could be worse to dig through walls than an adamantine dagger. It's a slow proposition though. Not suitable for the average adventurer's patience.

So it takes a long time. I just want to take a moment to call back to the very beginning of this thread (four posts in) where the possibility of the adamantine dagger as a tunneling tool was first raised.

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.

Not happening in reasonable combat time. Did we miss that part? This point had already been conceded before the argument had begun.


Astral Wanderer wrote:
If adamantine can cut through rock like butter, what can it do to people? Isn't it unrealistic that it cuts rock and steel as if they were skin, but doesn't cut skin any better? Maybe it should deal like +2d6 or more damage.

It bypasses hardness. Since humanoid flesh is not treated as having hardness to begin with, it takes our effective hardness of 0 and bypasses it down to 0, resulting in the same thing, anyway. Steel and iron blades treat humanoid flesh as hardness 0; all adamantine does is make sure.

Humanoids do have DR sometimes, and if the subject in question doesn't have a DR that works against adamantine, then yes, the adamantine is accomplishing more than steel or iron.


But that's because of how hardness was geared mechanically. What is hardness in reality? If something can cut steel like butter, skin should be less than thin air for it.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber
Astral Wanderer wrote:
If adamantine can cut through rock like butter, what can it do to people? Isn't it unrealistic that it cuts rock and steel as if they were skin, but doesn't cut skin any better? Maybe it should deal like +2d6 or more damage.

It used to be +1 to damage back in the day. I would also support a bonus to damage instead of that annoying hardness bypassing... it would completely solve most problems. Of course everyone would now want to wield one, so you might want to add "+1 to damage caused by weapons, which increases by an additional 2d6 to damage when sundering, attacking objects, animated objects, constructs and objects"

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber
Astral Wanderer wrote:
But that's because of how hardness was geared mechanically. What is hardness in reality? If something can cut steel like butter, skin should be less than thin air for it.

Exactly, so those rules don't really work when considering tunneling. This is basically to break down a door, cut a rope quick or when you sunder stuff. Tunneling isn't really targeted by those rules.

Also, ever tried to sink a knife in frozen meat? (even cold / frozen butter) Hardness is not the be all end all: you need to apply tremendous force to penetrate dense objects (and hard stone is pretty dense compared to frozen butter)


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Astral Wanderer wrote:
But that's because of how hardness was geared mechanically. What is hardness in reality? If something can cut steel like butter, skin should be less than thin air for it.

Exactly, so those rules don't really work when considering tunneling. This is basically to break down a door, cut a rope quick or when you sunder stuff. Tunneling isn't really targeted by those rules.

Also, ever tried to sink a knife in frozen meat? (even cold / frozen butter) Hardness is not the be all end all: you need to apply tremendous force to penetrate dense objects (and hard stone is pretty dense compared to frozen butter)

Unless adamantine works by creating some sort of radiation field that forcibly moves those dense molecules out of the way (similar to my previous example of how my car's power steering augments my strength and makes steering my car so much easier). Again, it depends on if you see adamantine as "steel plus" or "horacalcum less".

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber

I don't see adamantine as a powered lightsaber or vibro-axe, no. It's an extremely hard metal from the stars that can only be forged in two places in Golarion. Bonus damage would work better than ignoring hardness. But since I don't really want to see a change in those rules, I think DMs have a responsibility to enforce the ineffectual weapons clause in a very strict manner.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
I think DMs have a responsibility to enforce the ineffectual weapons clause in a very strict manner.

My goal as GM here is to help the players of martial characters have fun have by altering their environment (the same way a caster can with low level spells), and not force them all to switch to pickaxes. I don't think strict enforcement helps to achieve that.


How much damage can an adamantine danger do to a stone golem or a robot, and why is that different than a stone wall?


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
I don't see adamantine as a powered lightsaber or vibro-axe, no. It's an extremely hard metal from the stars that can only be forged in two places in Golarion. Bonus damage would work better than ignoring hardness. But since I don't really want to see a change in those rules, I think DMs have a responsibility to enforce the ineffectual weapons clause in a very strict manner.

Now I'm curious, as lorewise I've never heard this.

bookrat wrote:
How much damage can an adamantine danger do to a stone golem or a robot, and why is that different than a stone wall?

Clearly martials shouldn't even be fighting robots or golems, as that is unrealistic, and therefor the hardness-ignoring, skymetal dagger they have is useless against them. [/s]

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber
Matthew Downie wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
I think DMs have a responsibility to enforce the ineffectual weapons clause in a very strict manner.
My goal as GM here is to help the players of martial characters have fun have by altering their environment (the same way a caster can with low level spells), and not force them all to switch to pickaxes. I don't think strict enforcement helps to achieve that.

Your choice. I like to make axes and picks appealable in the sense that they were based on tools and can serve those ancient purposes better than a 1 millimetre thin adamantine katana, daggers and other high crit range puny fragile things that were designed to cut through flesh exclusively (thus the high crit range). I'm all for "yes but if magic and dragons are allowed..." but at some level you have to suspend disbelief a little (Golarion people probably still use fork and knives to eat and picks and shovels to dig)

By the way, although it's harder than steel and bypasses hardness, it's still metal, and thus if you wedge it in a rock crack and pull sideways, you'll bend that dagger (even worse for a sword as it's longer). Use a dagger for mining application and I'll ask you to make for skills checks at some points... you might end up with an expensive bent piece of metal from the STARSZZZZZ MAN!!!

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

More likely you'd stab the wall, the dagger would stick, your fingers slick with sweat would go over the guard, and you'd slice your fingers off.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other, I suppose.

==Aelryinth

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber
bookrat wrote:
How much damage can an adamantine danger do to a stone golem or a robot, and why is that different than a stone wall?

Yep. You found the only creatures that is the exception to the rule (you forgot animated objects, which would help your case even more). Those you cited don't have hardness but DR that is bypassed by... wait for it... :)

But I'll take a gander anyhow: those have moving parts and are not dense cubes of hard rock? Geez I feel we are moving this game to Minecraft or something...

Earth elementals though: what up with that??

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber
Sangerine wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
I don't see adamantine as a powered lightsaber or vibro-axe, no. It's an extremely hard metal from the stars that can only be forged in two places in Golarion. Bonus damage would work better than ignoring hardness. But since I don't really want to see a change in those rules, I think DMs have a responsibility to enforce the ineffectual weapons clause in a very strict manner.
Now I'm curious, as lorewise I've never heard this.

Riddleport and Alkenstar. You're welcome! :)


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
bookrat wrote:
How much damage can an adamantine danger do to a stone golem or a robot, and why is that different than a stone wall?

Golems and robots have weak spots that can be targeted. A solid stone wall just doesn't.


Ravingdork wrote:
bookrat wrote:
How much damage can an adamantine danger do to a stone golem or a robot, and why is that different than a stone wall?
Golems and robots have weak spots that can be targeted. A solid stone wall just doesn't.
SRD wrote:
A stone golem's body is chiseled from a single block of hard stone, such as granite, weighing at least 3,000 pounds. The stone must be of exceptional quality, and costs 5,000 gp.

*Ahem*.

Solid block of exceptional quality sounds quite structurally sound in my opinion.


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
bookrat wrote:
How much damage can an adamantine danger do to a stone golem or a robot, and why is that different than a stone wall?

Yep. You found the only creatures that is the exception to the rule (you forgot animated objects, which would help your case even more). Those you cited don't have hardness but DR that is bypassed by... wait for it... :)

But I'll take a gander anyhow: those have moving parts and are not dense cubes of hard rock? Geez I feel we are moving this game to Minecraft or something...

Earth elementals though: what up with that??

Slight correction: robots do not have DR. They have hardness.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Sangerine wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
bookrat wrote:
How much damage can an adamantine danger do to a stone golem or a robot, and why is that different than a stone wall?
Golems and robots have weak spots that can be targeted. A solid stone wall just doesn't.
SRD wrote:
A stone golem's body is chiseled from a single block of hard stone, such as granite, weighing at least 3,000 pounds. The stone must be of exceptional quality, and costs 5,000 gp.

*Ahem*.

Solid block of exceptional quality sounds quite structurally sound in my opinion.

Haha, touche!

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber
bookrat wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
bookrat wrote:
How much damage can an adamantine danger do to a stone golem or a robot, and why is that different than a stone wall?

Yep. You found the only creatures that is the exception to the rule (you forgot animated objects, which would help your case even more). Those you cited don't have hardness but DR that is bypassed by... wait for it... :)

But I'll take a gander anyhow: those have moving parts and are not dense cubes of hard rock? Geez I feel we are moving this game to Minecraft or something...

Earth elementals though: what up with that??

Slight correction: robots do not have DR. They have hardness.

I know, same as animated objects. Earth elementals though have DR 5/-. Let's think on that. It stops adamantine weapons by 5 points per strike. Yeahhhhhh....

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber
Sangerine wrote:
SRD wrote:
A stone golem's body is chiseled from a single block of hard stone[...]

emphasis mine...

401 to 450 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.