Does an adamantine golem's slam bypass DR / Adamantine?


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 401 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
phantom1592 wrote:


If there is only a small portion of the golem actually made of Adamantine... do you let attacks aim for the steel/Iron/Gem portions?

Cause seriously...if even the hands aren't adamantine... I'm certainly not going to AIM for part with the heaviest DR... I'll aim for the weak jointy parts.

Maybe thats why it has DR, but can't bypass it, because its covering the bits you naturally aim for and not the fists.

Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Saethori wrote:
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
But it's not 4000 lbs of metals plus 100,000 gp of other stuff. It's 4000 lbs of metals worth 100,000. Any iron or steel used in the construction is already included in that 4,000 pounds.

This causes some interesting thoughts, especially with my original weighing in on the thread.

Raw Adamantine is priced at 300gp a pound. To get 4,000 pounds that is its minimum weight would cost 1,200,000gp. Much much over our budget, so obviously the golem can't be anywhere close to pure adamantine.

How much adamantine does 100,000gp get you? 333. Let's say it's just 300, so we have 10,000gp left to spend on other materials.

To get some arbitrary values, our hypothetical adamantine golem has:
-300 pounds of adamantine (90,000gp)
-9 pounds of mithral (4,500gp)
-9 pounds of platinum (4,500gp)
-10 pounds of gold (500gp)
-3670 pounds of iron (367gp)
-2 pounds of "other metals" to make up that last 133gp.

Our mighty adamantine golem is, at most, only 7.5% adamantine! I'm not sure how it can possibly be called that, when you have to fill in nearly 90% of it with mundane iron. Maybe just its outer shell?

This is an even more bizarre proposition if we consider my previous 70,000lb ballpark. 300 pounds of adamantine to a 70,000lb frame would make up a mere 0.4% of its body. That's more of a metal impurity than anything else.

Long story short... I'm pretty sure Rule of Cool is in full swing here and the folks at Paizo didn't want to inject our fun little fantasy game with tricky scientific data, so they just gave players vague numbers.

I'm not complaining about Paizo, mind, I think it's perfectly reasonable of them to focus on being a fantasy game developer rather than trying to inject too much realism. I mean, it's a universe where you can conjure lightning bolts and massive fireballs out of thin air, so scientific realism left Golarion ages ago.

300 lbs is actually pretty close to the weight of a huge suit of adamantine fullplate (250 lbs, per the math in the book). Another 50 lbs for internal supports maybe?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I don't think it's too much to say it's just kind of an adamantine coating. Like a chocolate-covered golem with a creamy nougat center.

It seems fairly reasonable to assume this, since the same principle applies in many ways to some weapons made from adamantine as well; 3,000 gp to adamantize a weapon, but some weapons weigh more than 3,000 gp worth of adamantine, so they probably cover the parts that matter most.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Saethori wrote:

Yeah, I don't think it's too much to say it's just kind of an adamantine coating. Like a chocolate-covered golem with a creamy nougat center.

It seems fairly reasonable to assume this, since the same principle applies in many ways to some weapons made from adamantine as well; 3,000 gp to adamantize a weapon, but some weapons weigh more than 3,000 gp worth of adamantine, so they probably cover the parts that matter most.

However, even a thin coat of adamantine should still bypass DR/Adamantine the way that silver blanch on a sword does. It's strong and well covered enough to give it open ended DR for itself.. so it must count as being 'made' of Adamantine.

Especially if an adamantine arrow or crossbow bolt is enough to justify bypassing the DR.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I do agree. When all these semantics and injecting realism into a fantasy game is over, it's clear that the golem has enough adamantine to be called an "adamantine golem". That has to count for something.


Assuming an adamantine covered fist, what if the golem used his fist as an improvised weapon?

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Adamantine golems have DR 15/epic. That allows them to bypass adamantine DR.
If transmute metal to wood is cast on them their DR is briefly downgraded to DR 15/adamantine. That ALSO allows them to bypass adamantine DR.

So... yes, an adamantine golem can bypass adamantine DR.

The argument that it's slam attacks do not bypass adamantine DR because this is not stated in the stat block is logistically equivalent to arguing that these slam attacks also do not bypass bludgeoning DR because THAT is not stated in the stat block.

The DR bypass rules are not restated for each and every appropriate attack type/alignment/material on every creature in the bestiaries. That doesn't change the fact that the bypass rules exist, and when applied to adamantine golems result in them bypassing adamantine (and bludgeoning) DR.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:

Adamantine golems have DR 15/epic. That allows them to bypass adamantine DR.

If transmute metal to wood is cast on them their DR is briefly downgraded to DR 15/adamantine. That ALSO allows them to bypass adamantine DR.

So... yes, an adamantine golem can bypass adamantine DR.

Having DR 15/epic only allows them to bypass epic DR. It doesn't allow them to bypass other DR.

Can you point to the rule that says having DR 15/adamantine makes their weapons able to bypass adamantine DR?

CBDunkerson wrote:
The argument that it's slam attacks do not bypass adamantine DR because this is not stated in the stat block is logistically equivalent to arguing that these slam attacks also do not bypass bludgeoning DR because THAT is not stated in the stat block.

The argument is different because there are rules which say that all slam attacks are bludgening weapons. Those are here. I have not seen any rules that say having DR 15/epic or DR 15/adamantine allows you to bypass adamantine DR with your natural attacks.

CBDunkerson wrote:
The DR bypass rules are not restated for each and every appropriate attack type/alignment/material on every creature in the bestiaries. That doesn't change the fact that the bypass rules exist, and when applied to adamantine golems result in them bypassing adamantine (and bludgeoning) DR.

Can you please point to the specific bypass rules which can be applied to the adamantine golems which can result in them bypassing adamantine? The argument isn't "the rules need to be reprinted with the adamantine golem". The argument is "there are no rules which allow the adamantine golem to bypass adamantine DR".

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MeanMutton wrote:
Having DR 15/epic only allows them to bypass epic DR. It doesn't allow them to bypass other DR.

The CRB writeup on DR says;

Weapons with an enhancement bonus of +3 or greater can ignore some types of damage reduction, regardless of their actual material or alignment.

The attached table then shows a +4 equivalent weapon bonus as sufficient to bypass adamantine DR.

The Bestiary writeup on DR then says;
A few very powerful monsters are vulnerable only to epic weapons—that is, magic weapons with at least a +6 enhancement bonus. Such creatures' natural weapons are also treated as epic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.

+6 > +4. Ergo, natural weapon attacks of creatures with epic DR bypass adamantine DR.

Quote:
Can you point to the rule that says having DR 15/adamantine makes their weapons able to bypass adamantine DR?

Yes, if we accept that Adamantine Golems have adamantine DR because they are mostly made of adamantine. At which point... adamantine weapons bypass adamantine DR. From the same Bestiary entry linked above;

"Some monsters are vulnerable to piercing, bludgeoning, or slashing damage. Others are vulnerable to certain materials, such as adamantine, alchemical silver, or cold-forged iron."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Edit: Wait, I see the point there. Nevermind.


I wish to note that the DR/epic means that they can defeat DR/adamantine still doesn't resolve whether they can defeat hardness. They'd need an actual adamantine effect for that.

phantom1592 wrote:


However, even a thin coat of adamantine should still bypass DR/Adamantine the way that silver blanch on a sword does.

I don't agree with this. I see silver and cold iron (and most other material DRs) as an "allergy" type of DR where a coating makes sense, but adamantine seems pretty clearly a hardness issue that has to be overcome by something physically robust enough to break through.


Wait...is there actually a debate going on about how many lbs. of adamantine are in an adamantine golem?

Personally, I don't find that interesting or enjoyable. To each their own, I guess. :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I assume that if something has enough of a material to overcome DR, it would similarly overcome hardness. If it hits as Adamantine at any level, it should hit as Adamantine at all levels.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
MeanMutton wrote:
Having DR 15/epic only allows them to bypass epic DR. It doesn't allow them to bypass other DR.

The CRB writeup on DR says;

Weapons with an enhancement bonus of +3 or greater can ignore some types of damage reduction, regardless of their actual material or alignment.

The attached table then shows a +4 equivalent weapon bonus as sufficient to bypass adamantine DR.

The Bestiary writeup on DR then says;
A few very powerful monsters are vulnerable only to epic weapons—that is, magic weapons with at least a +6 enhancement bonus. Such creatures' natural weapons are also treated as epic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.

+6 > +4. Ergo, natural weapon attacks of creatures with epic DR bypass adamantine DR.

Quote:
Can you point to the rule that says having DR 15/adamantine makes their weapons able to bypass adamantine DR?

Yes, if we accept that Adamantine Golems have adamantine DR because they are mostly made of adamantine. At which point... adamantine weapons bypass adamantine DR. From the same Bestiary entry linked above;

"Some monsters are vulnerable to piercing, bludgeoning, or slashing damage. Others are vulnerable to certain materials, such as adamantine, alchemical silver, or cold-forged iron."

The 'overcoming DR' table is based on Enhancement bonus, not equivalents, as was mentioned earlier in the thread.

You need a +4 weapon to punch adamantine...or, in this case, a +2 Construct Bane weapon, which is +4 equivalent.

A +1 Holy Flaming sword, which is +4 equivalent, does not punch cold iron, silver or adamantine DR. Or Lawful, for that matter.

The OLD Epic rules, which is what you are looking at, specifically state you need a weapon with a +6 weapon to punch Epic DR...in other words, Epic Weapons, OR mundane +4/+5 weapons with an appropriate Bane.

The NEW Epic weapons introduced a completely new mechanic, that 'epic weapons', which is ANY weapon enhanced to the total of +6 of abilities, will punch Epic DR. Since Epic DR is just a heavier version of x/Magic, this actually makes some sense. The Epic exclusivity of 'beyond mortal' has now been taken over by Mythic in Paizo.

So, no, having Epic DR doesn't automatically punch through ANYTHING but DR / Epic or Magic. Never has, never will. You are reading far too much into the ability.

==Aelryinth

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Oh, and there's no way an adamantine golem is made of solid metal. You all did the weight calculations above.

A set of full plate sized for humans weighs 50 pounds.

Adamantine golems are huge, ergo, triple human height.

Now, armor won't go up by the cube law, since you aren't going to make it twice as thick just because it's bigger.

But a triple size suit of full plate will be 3^3, or 27 times heavier, if perfectly in proportion. That right there is 1,350 lbs. And that's for a completely empty suit of Huge Armor.

So an adamantine golem is mostly empty space.

Iron Golems, by the way, follow the same paradigm...there's NO WAY they are made of the solid metal.

Furthermore, golems are creatures, not objects, and just don't get treated the same way as weapons are without specific rules to say they do.
Lastly, adamatine-plated is not treated as adamantine, and since the golems aren't pure adamantine, there's no support for treating them as such for purposes of being a weapon OR DR.

Seriously, shouldn't they also have DR 3/adamantine, if you're going to be silly about comparing them to objects made of adamantine?

If you're really miffed, just say they are all equipped with adamantine gauntlets, and the problem is solved. It's a minor house rule that neatly acknowledges the core rules, and won't hurt anything.

==Aelryinth


GM Rednal wrote:
I assume that if something has enough of a material to overcome DR, it would similarly overcome hardness. If it hits as Adamantine at any level, it should hit as Adamantine at all levels.

So you'd let a +4 wooden club effortlessly smash down a stone wall?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:
The 'overcoming DR' table is based on Enhancement bonus, not equivalents, as was mentioned earlier in the thread.

You mean the table with "Weapon Enhancement Bonus Equivalent" in large bold letters at the top?

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

which refers to Bane, taking a weapon from +2 to +4 against a specific foe, for example.
====================
This is off the Paizo PFSRD:

Overcoming DR: Damage reduction may be overcome by special materials, magic weapons (any weapon with a +1 or higher enhancement bonus, not counting the enhancement from masterwork quality), certain types of weapons (such as slashing or bludgeoning), and weapons imbued with an alignment.

Ammunition fired from a projectile weapon with an enhancement bonus of +1 or higher is treated as a magic weapon for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. Similarly, ammunition fired from a projectile weapon with an alignment gains the alignment of that projectile weapon (in addition to any alignment it may already have).

Weapons with an enhancement bonus of +3 or greater can ignore some types of damage reduction, regardless of their actual material or alignment. The following table shows what type of enhancement bonus is needed to overcome some common types of damage reduction.

DR Type Weapon Enhancement Bonus Equivalent
cold iron/silver +3
adamantine* +4
alignment-based +5
* Note that this does not give the ability to ignore hardness, like an actual adamantine weapon does
================

Note the bolded part you are conveniently ignoring. Text trumps table. The text explicitly says Enhancement bonus. Equivalent in this case refers to secondary effects that can raise an enhancement bonus up, such as Bane, or a Sun Sword's additional bonus against Evil.

Also note the italics part at the bottom. Being able to overcome DR/Adamantine doesn't allow you to overcome hardness...it's right there in the rules.

==Aelryinth


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Atarlost wrote:

Does a silver teapot used as an improvised weapon bypass DR/silver? Of course it does.

I have had a gnome cleric in a mithral breastplate used as a silver weapon against a werewolf.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:
which refers to Bane, taking a weapon from +2 to +4 against a specific foe, for example.

So... "Equivalent" does not mean equivalent. It means Bane.

And your source for that view is.... ?


CBDunkerson wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
The 'overcoming DR' table is based on Enhancement bonus, not equivalents, as was mentioned earlier in the thread.
You mean the table with "Weapon Enhancement Bonus Equivalent" in large bold letters at the top?

Huh. Did they change that at some point? I could have sworn it was very specifically NOT an equivalent.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

CBDunkerson wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
which refers to Bane, taking a weapon from +2 to +4 against a specific foe, for example.

So... "Equivalent" does not mean equivalent. It means Bane.

And your source for that view is.... ?

The very rule you looked at and ignored the text of. Look up.

==Aelryinth

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

BigNorseWolf wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
The 'overcoming DR' table is based on Enhancement bonus, not equivalents, as was mentioned earlier in the thread.
You mean the table with "Weapon Enhancement Bonus Equivalent" in large bold letters at the top?
Huh. Did they change that at some point? I could have sworn it was very specifically NOT an equivalent.

It's not. Read the text. I quoted it right off the PFSRD.

==Aelryinth


Aelryinth

Wouldn't that mean that Raw, a +3 flaming shocking weapon would bypass alignment, since it has a +3 enhancement bonus and a +5 equivilant?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:

It's not. Read the text. I quoted it right off the PFSRD.

==Aelryinth

It was read. Please don't assume it wasn't just because someone is parsing it differently from you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You know if there's one part of an adamantine golem i was going to be sure was actual adamantine it would be the fists.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Aelryinth

Wouldn't that mean that Raw, a +3 flaming shocking weapon would bypass alignment, since it has a +3 enhancement bonus and a +5 equivilant?

No. It takes a +5 Enhancement bonus to bypass alignment. Or a +3 Bane weapon against that creature, which is equivalent to a full +5 enhancement bonus.

'+3 or Greater' Enhancement bonus. Alignment takes that full +5.

The ONLY DR that takes +6 Equivalent and ignores Enhancement reqs is the 'revised' Epic DR, which was a fairly recent change. Note it is not on the table.

The text trumps the table.

==Aelryinth

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

BigNorseWolf wrote:
You know if there's one part of an adamantine golem i was going to be sure was actual adamantine it would be the fists.

+1000 gp for adamantine gauntlets.

But, really, if the hands are supposed to be flexible, are you really going to make them all of adamantine?

==Aelryinth

Liberty's Edge

A better argument would be that 'equivalent' on the table is saying that the listed +X is 'equivalent' to the listed DR type.

That's a plausible reading. The 'equivalent means bane' is just not - given the complete lack of any mention of the Bane ability in that section.

In any case, the view that natural weapon attacks from DR/Epic creatures can't bypass other DR types would potentially make 'Epic' less powerful than '+3'. To me, that seems unlikely to be the intent.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

You guys are probably putting more thought and effort into figuring out the anatomy of the golem then the original creators did.

Without doing an autopsy of the golem and a breakdown or weights and materials used i would assume that an Adamantine golem would be made mostly of Adamantine. that is not an absurd assumption.

With that said. if said golem used part of his body (His body being made of Adamantine) to attack or damage something then the quality of the material that is striking said object would apply, in the case bypassing hardness less then 20 and overcoming DR Adamantine.

We can then take this and apply it to every other conscturct or golem made of materials.

Mithral Golem
Cold Iron Golem
Adamantine Cobra
Mithral Cobra
Cold Iron Cobra (Ironically this is the only construct explicitly states it overcomes cold iron DR.... but that seems to be a habit with cold iron Creatures and such in general as they all say explicitly that they overcome cold iron DR...)

Now even though it is not stated explicitly for all other special material constructs (cold Iron excluded) it is a logical assumption that they can over come the DR they are stated to be made of.

Edit: To add
Lack of rules or absence of wording or clarification is not a rule in itself, just because it does not explicitly say it can do something does not mean that then the rule is that it cant possibly do that. It then comes down to reasonable conclusions that we can infer from the materials at hand.


Aelryinth wrote:


The text trumps the table.

==Aelryinth

They're not necessarily in conflict.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

CB, text trumps table.

Does ANYWHERE in the text reference this reading of 'equivalent' you are trying to make stick?

No. It mentions straight enhancement bonus. That's it. You are essentially trying to argue that the header on a column trumps the definition and explanation of the rule itself!

As the rule ONLY references the enhancement bonus of the weapon, the only 'equivalents' would be those things which directly affect the enhancement bonus. Bane does that...a +2 Construct Bane sword will punch DR/Adamantine against COnstructs, but won't break DR/Silver or Cold Iron otherwise...it doesn't have the enhancement bonus.

That is the way the rule has ALWAYS been. It was done that way EXPLICITLY so that there is a reason for Enhancement bonuses to be permanent on a weapon.
The reason is that in 3.5 the best weapons were +1/+9 weapons you tossed Greater Magic Weapon on, resulting in a +14 weapon. This is because you only needed the + to hit and damage. TO bypass DR, you needed the 'golf bag' of adamantine, silver and/or cold iron weapons.

In Paizo, they made you able to bypass DR if you just took up the permanent Enhancement bonus of your weapon high enough. No more 'golf bag'.

If your interpretation is true, they just shot themselves in the foot, because once again you don't need a +3-+5 weapon to bypass DR, you can GMW your +1 weapon with +4 of other extras on it, and we are right back to where we started. YAY, spellcasters rule again!

It doesn't work that way. That's all there is to it.

==Aelryinth

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Shadowlords wrote:

You guys are probably putting more thought and effort into figuring out the anatomy of the golem then the original creators did.

Without doing an autopsy of the golem and a breakdown or weights and materials used i would assume that an Adamantine golem would be made mostly of Adamantine. that is not an absurd assumption.

With that said. if said golem used part of his body (His body being made of Adamantine) to attack or damage something then the quality of the material that is striking said object would apply, in the case bypassing hardness less then 20 and overcoming DR Adamantine.

We can then take this and apply it to every other conscturct or golem made of materials.

Mithral Golem
Cold Iron Golem
Adamantine Cobra
Mithral Cobra
Cold Iron Cobra (Ironically this is the only construct explicitly states it overcomes cold iron DR.... but that seems to be a habit with cold iron Creatures and such in general as they all say explicitly that they overcome cold iron DR...)

Now even though it is not stated explicitly for all other special material constructs (cold Iron excluded) it is a logical assumption that they can over come the DR they are stated to be made of.

Or, you know, you can go by the rules, and only those creatures that have rules in place that state they can pass DR can actually do so.

Because creatures are not weapons or armor and don't follow the same rules.

I'm not saying you can't House Rule this if you think it makes sense...but if they can't punch DR, there's likely a reason why. They aren't weapons, they are creatures.

==Aelryinth

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:


The text trumps the table.

==Aelryinth

They're not necessarily in conflict.

I would beg to differ.

'+3 or greater enhancement bonus' is definitely not the same as '+3 or greater enhancement equivalent'.

It goes against game design and the very intentions they made this apply in the first place. If you go by the column header, we are right back to 3.5 where people who can cast GMW end up with +14 Weapons, and everyone else gets +10 weapons.

Text trumps table, and so the only interpretation that is not 'in conflict' is those equivalents that temporarily add to enhancement bonuses.

That's the way it has ALWAYS been read.

==Aelryinth


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
the only 'equivalents' would be those things which directly affect the enhancement bonus.

Thats a REAALLY convoluted argument and really bad on paizos part if true, because they use equivalent with regards to magical enhancement bonuses all the time.

Quote:
You are essentially trying to argue that the header on a column trumps the definition and explanation of the rule itself!

I've never played that way before but i have to say the argument that it works is so far better than the one that it doesn't. Starting a new thread to avoid more derail


2 people marked this as a favorite.

But if you took a piece of the adamantine golems and used it as an improvised weapon THEN it would bypass, but only if it's being used as an improvised weapon and not by the creature itself?

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

CBDunkerson wrote:

A better argument would be that 'equivalent' on the table is saying that the listed +X is 'equivalent' to the listed DR type.

That's a plausible reading. The 'equivalent means bane' is just not - given the complete lack of any mention of the Bane ability in that section.

In any case, the view that natural weapon attacks from DR/Epic creatures can't bypass other DR types would potentially make 'Epic' less powerful than '+3'. To me, that seems unlikely to be the intent.

Actually that IS the intent. they basically nerfed the heck out of DR/Epic, so they could use it more freely.

They revised Epic DR and SPECIFICALLY made it so that any +6 equivalent weapon, instead of ENHANCED weapon, bypassed the DR. It's the only DR like that.

I'm actually suprised that you didn't venture that a +3-5 equivalent ability would satisfy the condition. Like, Vorpal, a +5 ability, could bypass any DR.

But, no, it isn't mentioned in the text, where it would definitely have to be spelled out. Enhancement bonus only, to give a REASON to keep enhancement bonuses.
Your interpretation removes that incentive and makes GMW almighty again.

==Aelryinth

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

RDM42 wrote:

But if you took a piece of the adamantine golems and used it as an improvised weapon THEN it would bypass, but only if it's being used as an improvised weapon and not by the creature itself?

I dunno, how many creatures out there have DR/adamantine golem?

Remember, it's not an adamantine weapon. It's a golem partly built out of adamantine.

As a comparison, I hit you with a chain built out of adamatine, gold, mithral and steel. Does it bypass DR/Adamantine?

The correct answer is no. It needs to be all adamantine to bypass the DR. Same reason why you need Alchemical Silver weapons to bypass silver DR, and can't just silverplate your magic sword.

blanches FTW!

==Aelryinth

Liberty's Edge

Ok, setting aside all the disputed interpretations and inferences... YOU have said that DR/Epic in the Bestiary was originally +6 enhancement bonus (i.e. not EQUIVALENT enhancement bonus). Correct?

Indeed, the Bestiary entry still reads that way.

Ergo, at that time, a creature with DR/Epic would have slam attacks that were equivalent to +6 enhancement bonus magic weapons and WOULD bypass adamantine DR. Correct?

SO! Do you believe they intended to take that ability away when they adjusted the requirements to bypass DR/Epic for the Mythic rules? Or should creatures with DR/Epic still be considered +6 for bypass purposes? After all, they do not have any of the various 'no enhancement' weapon enchantments on their natural attacks to 'dilute' the +6 effect.

Dark Archive

Aelryinth wrote:
Shadowlords wrote:

You guys are probably putting more thought and effort into figuring out the anatomy of the golem then the original creators did.

Without doing an autopsy of the golem and a breakdown or weights and materials used i would assume that an Adamantine golem would be made mostly of Adamantine. that is not an absurd assumption.

With that said. if said golem used part of his body (His body being made of Adamantine) to attack or damage something then the quality of the material that is striking said object would apply, in the case bypassing hardness less then 20 and overcoming DR Adamantine.

We can then take this and apply it to every other construct or golem made of materials.

Mithral Golem
Cold Iron Golem
Adamantine Cobra
Mithral Cobra
Cold Iron Cobra (Ironically this is the only construct explicitly states it overcomes cold iron DR.... but that seems to be a habit with cold iron Creatures and such in general as they all say explicitly that they overcome cold iron DR...)

Now even though it is not stated explicitly for all other special material constructs (cold Iron excluded) it is a logical assumption that they can over come the DR they are stated to be made of.

Or, you know, you can go by the rules, and only those creatures that have rules in place that state they can pass DR can actually do so.

Because creatures are not weapons or armor and don't follow the same rules.

I'm not saying you can't House Rule this if you think it makes sense...but if they can't punch DR, there's likely a reason why. They aren't weapons, they are creatures.

==Aelryinth

Again you are taking the absences of rules as a rule itself. just because it does not explicitly state that it does do that does not mean that it doesn't.

In the same regards just because it doesn't say it can does not mean it does. we came to the conclusion it does by a logical assumption that something made of Adamantine would count as Adamantine for the purposes of hardness and DR. does not matter if it is a creature or weapon or object the qualities of the material are still in effect and should apply regardless.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

CBDunkerson wrote:

Ok, setting aside all the disputed interpretations and inferences... YOU have said that DR/Epic in the Bestiary was originally +6 enhancement bonus (i.e. not EQUIVALENT enhancement bonus). Correct?

Indeed, the Bestiary entry still reads that way.

Ergo, at that time, a creature with DR/Epic would have slam attacks that were equivalent to +6 enhancement bonus magic weapons and WOULD bypass adamantine DR. Correct?

SO! Do you believe they intended to take that ability away when they adjusted the requirements to bypass DR/Epic for the Mythic rules? Or should creatures with DR/Epic still be considered +6 for bypass purposes? After all, they do not have any of the various 'no enhancement' weapon enchantments on their natural attacks to 'dilute' the +6 effect.

No. You are again reading things into the rules.

Having Epic DR meant they could bypass Epic DR (and all lesser magic DR). That's it. End stop. Magic DR in 3.5 was based on DR 10/+1, 15/+2, 20/+3, etc. Different rules set. By making it the equal of a +6 weapon, it effectively bypassed all magic DR and Epic DR as well.

It doesn't make their Nat Weapons +6 enhancements any more then GMW does. It just lets them bypass Epic DR.

Please note, that rule is a holdover from 3.5, where the whole material DR could NOT be bypassed by Epic or Magic enhancement bonuses at ALL. So, you could have a +10 weapon, and be up against Dr/Adamantine, and still couldn't punch it.

Epic DR has since been revised to be vulnerable to any weapon with +6 worth of enhancements on it. They were VERY precise as to this...so a +1 Vorpal sword can punch Epic DR. So now, Balors don't have to worry about the DR of Solars.

========

I THINK what you are trying to argue is that under PF rules, because creatures with Epic DR explicitly had +6 enhancement equivalent nat attacks (not just 'Epic' attacks), they could bypass all material and alignment under PF rules?

That might indeed be a very appropriate interpretation. After all, they are EPic creatures, and it would be thematic for them to ignore all lesser DR.

I don't believe that was the INTENTION...but it is a possibility. The only creature in Core PF with DR Epic is the SOlar, so in most cases it is a moot point. If you were importing the Epic rules and running the new Paizo rules, it is certainly a viable interpretation.

Which is probably why they nerfed it down to fit into the rest of the material DR rules, and made Mythic the new big DR on the block.

It's worth mentioning that James Jacobs says that he would rule that a paladin's smite wouldn't bypass DR Mythic, despite it supposedly bypassing all DR. The question came up because in the Wrath of the Righteous AP, at one point you are leading an army of paladins, and are attacked by a mythic creature with DR 10/mythic. Smiting paladins should go right through the thing, but alas, you need an explanation of why they can't.

==Aelryinth

Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:

Wait...is there actually a debate going on about how many lbs. of adamantine are in an adamantine golem?

Personally, I don't find that interesting or enjoyable. To each their own, I guess. :)

African or European adamantine golem??


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Slithery D wrote:

I don't agree with this. I see silver and cold iron (and most other material DRs) as an "allergy" type of DR where a coating makes sense, but adamantine seems pretty clearly a hardness issue that has to be overcome by something physically robust enough to break through.

The Adamantine weapon blanch disagrees with you.

Dark Archive

Aelryinth wrote:


If your interpretation is true, they just shot themselves in the foot, because once again you don't need a +3-+5 weapon to bypass DR, you can GMW your +1 weapon with +4 of other extras on it, and we are right back to where we started. YAY, spellcasters rule again!

It doesn't work that way. That's all there is to it.

==Aelryinth

While i agree with you on the RaW on weapon enhancements i don't see how they would have shot themselves in the foot and we are right back to where we started with the other interpenetration. it would infact just be easier to bypass DR and you wouldn't need a special weapon for DRs.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Shadowlords wrote:

Again you are taking the absences of rules as a rule itself. just because it does not explicitly state that it does do that does not mean that it doesn't.

In the same regards just because it doesn't say it can does not mean it does. we came to the conclusion it does by a logical assumption that something made of Adamantine would count as Adamantine for the purposes of hardness...

No, I'm taking the absence of a rule as there not being a rule allowing you to do what you want to do.

You are 'inventing' a new rule, and I'm stating there is NO rule allowing you to do that. Weapons are objects, and creatures are not objects. That's a rule.
Weapons and creatures are treated differently. That's a rule, too.

There is NO RULE that says creatures made of x material are treated the same as weapons made of that material.

There ARE rules that say when a creature's natural attacks are treated as X for punching DR. These are included in a creature's stat blocks, or in rules related to the special abilities of the monster.

I'm not inventing a rule in absence. I'm obeying the rules. The rules say this and this applies, not "If we don't mention it, infer and invent your own rules."

"A creature with the name of a material and primarily composed of that material is to be counted as that material when using natural attacks" would be a rule.
It does not exist. You are inferring that it does.

It's a decent HOUSE RULE. But it's not a rule.

==Aelryinth


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's a FAQ that addresses some of these issues:

faq wrote:

DR/Epic: How do the new rules for overcoming DR/epic (page 7) interact with weapon special abilities that have variable enhancement bonuses, such as bane and furious?

Essentially, there are now two ways to overcome DR/epic with magic weapons.

The first way is presented in the Universal Monster Rules in the Bestiary: You can use a weapon that has an actual enhancement bonus of +6 or higher. Currently the Pathfinder RPG has no weapons with a permanent +6 or higher enhancement bonus (though you can temporarily achieve a +6 or higher enhancement bonus with certain magical or class abilities).

The second way is presented in Mythic Adventures: You can use a weapon that has a total "plus-equivalent" of +6 or higher. For example, a +1 vorpal longsword and a +2 flaming frost shock keen longsword both are +6-equivalent magic weapons.

A weapon with a conditional or variable enhancement bonus, such as bane or furious, gets the best of both options. As a baseline, it include the plus-equivalences for its enhancement bonuses and special abilities; when the conditional or variable enhancement bonuses activate, it adds those to its total as well.

For example, a +3 undead-bane longsword is a +4-equivalent weapon, which on its own is not enough to overcome DR/epic. When used against an undead creature, its enhancement bonus increases by an additional +2, making it effectively a +6-equivalent weapon (+3 baseline enhancement bonus, +1-equivalent from bane, +2 conditional enhancement bonus against undead from bane) and therefore able to overcome that undead creature's DR/epic. (Another way of looking at it is when bane is active, you add its conditional +2 enhancement bonus to the weapon's normal +4-equivalent bonus, temporarily giving you a +6-equivalent weapon).

posted September 2013

So, for DR/Epic you can overcome it with a total equivalent bonus.

For DR/everything else then you need an actual enhancement bonus because the "plus equivalent" only applies to DR/Epic.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Shadowlords wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:


If your interpretation is true, they just shot themselves in the foot, because once again you don't need a +3-+5 weapon to bypass DR, you can GMW your +1 weapon with +4 of other extras on it, and we are right back to where we started. YAY, spellcasters rule again!

It doesn't work that way. That's all there is to it.

==Aelryinth

While i agree with you on the RaW on weapon enhancements i don't see how they would have shot themselves in the foot and we are right back to where we started with the other interpenetration. it would infact just be easier to bypass DR and you wouldn't need a special weapon for DRs.

Ah. Okay, let me explain why they wanted innate enhancement bonuses to punch DR.

In 3.5, to bypass DR, you actually needed a weapon that was silver, cold iron or adamantine, an infamous 'golf bag of weapons'. You can still see this rule in DR/ bludgeoning, piercing, slashing.
It really hurt melee fighters, as you could never have just one weapon to deal with all monsters.
In addition, Greater Magic Weapon bypassed DR x/+1, +2, +3, etc. So, you didn't need a weapon that was +3 if you could cast Greater Magic Weapon at +3 (9th level back then).

The upshot of this was that melee characters had to have multiple weapons JUST to overcome material DR, which raised costs.
Clerics and GMW casters got to have BETTER weapons then melee characters...because they would make a +1 weapon, load it up with special abilities, and then cast GMW on it, getting their TH/DMG bonus for nothing...and it bypassed +x DR, so they were great with their +5/+9 weapons, while melees had their golfbags and +5/+5 main weapons.

Paizo nerfed Greater Magic Weapon, so the only DR it bypasses is magic. It doesn't matter if you cast GMW and get +5, it doesn't bypass any other DR. YOu actually need a magic weapon +5 to do bypass alignment, adamantine, silver and cold iron.
If the cleric wants a +14 weapon, he can still do it...but he'll still need a golf bag of them to deal with Material DR.
The melee character can take his +5 weapon and not worry about DR. IT's a tradeoff, there's equality.

If you make 'equivalents' satisfy the DR, why would a cleric EVER need a +5 Enhanced weapon?
he'd make a +1/+x weapon, and once it is +1/+4 he beats all DR, and he casts GMW on it to make it a +3/+4 weapon, while his fighter buddy next to him has a plain +5 weapon.
Equivalence is lost. They may as well not have nerfed Greater Magic Weapon at all, since the 'equivalent' argument completely trumps the reason they nerfed it in the first place.

The rule is there for fairness and equivalence.

Even if you restrict the weapon to +10 total, the cleric can choose what bonuses to 'get rid of' for today, giving him a more versatile weapon then the fighter has.

So, that's why I say if your interpretation is correct, Paizo shot themselves in the foot. They nerfed Greater Magic weapon to encourage enhancment bonuses and remove the advantage, but if all they need is the 'equivalent' to bypass DR, they'll use GMW for the TH/DMG bonuses, and secondary abilities for both additional damage and bypassing DR, getting the best of all worlds once again.

==Aelryinth

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

MeanMutton wrote:


So, for DR/Epic you can overcome it with a total equivalent bonus.

For...

YOu need +6 total enhancements, as opposed to enhancement bonus, to overcome Paizo DR Epic now, since the Mythic rules came out.

Note Mythic is not part of core, but Epic IS a part of the OGL.
-------------------------
Compare this rule in Mythic Rules:

DR/Epic: A type of damage reduction, DR/epic can be overcome only by a weapon with an enhancement bonus of +6 or greater. Weapons with special abilities also count as epic for the purposes of overcoming damage reduction [b]if the total bonus value of all of their abilities (including the enhancement bonus) is +6 or greater.[b]

To this rule from the PFSRD 'damage reduction':

Weapons with an enhancement bonus of +3 or greater can ignore some types of damage reduction, regardless of their actual material or alignment. The following table shows what type of enhancement bonus is needed to overcome some common types of damage reduction.

to this from the Core PFSRD Universal Monster Rules:

A few very powerful monsters are vulnerable only to epic weapons—that is, magic weapons with at least a +6 enhancement bonus. Such creatures' natural weapons are also treated as epic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.
-----------

They VERY SPECIFICALLY revised the language in Mythic to include weapon with special abilities for EPic DR. that language is NOT in the core definitions above for other kinds of DR.

==Aelryinth

Dark Archive

Ah ok cool, was not aware of the Greater magic weapon nerf.

Back to golem counting as Adamantine.

So if a colossus creature picked up an Adamantine golem and started using it as a weapon like the halfling slinger barbarian archtype or what ever it was called. the golem wouldnt count as Adamantine for DR and hardness purposes?

I just don't see how because the material is now a creature somehow makes the properties of the material no longer relevant.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Shadowlords wrote:

Ah ok cool, was not aware of the Greater magic weapon nerf.

Back to golem counting as Adamantine.

So if a colossus creature picked up an Adamantine golem and started using it as a weapon like the halfling slinger barbarian archetype or what ever it was called. the golem wouldn't count as Adamantine for DR and hardness purposes?

I just don't see how because the material is now a creature somehow makes the properties of the material no longer relevant.

Let me turn the question back on you.

If I attack you with a weapon made of mithril, adamantine, gold, and steel, does it overcome your DR/Adamantine? Your DR/Silver?

The answer is...no, it does not. YOu need a weapon made of adamantine to bypass DR/Adamantine. An adamantine golem is NOT made up of only adamantine ...it's right there in the monster description. Even if you make it into an improvised weapon with a skill or feat, it's still not an adamantine weapon.

So the colossal creature is hitting you with an adamantine golem, NOT an adamantine weapon, doesn't satisfy the conditions, and you're fine.

Remember: The golem is NOT a weapon, it's a creature. it has the abilities of a creature, not a weapon. You're trying to conflate one with the other.

For instance, another counter-example: A giant picks up the fighter in adamantine armor and starts clubbing you with your friend. Should HE get to bypass DR/Adamantine, as well? The armor is ALL adamantine, after all!!

The answer is no, he's hitting you with a fighter in armor, and fighters in adamantine armor are not adamantine weapons, and do not bypass DR/Adamantine (probably because their bones break).

==Aelryinth

51 to 100 of 401 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Does an adamantine golem's slam bypass DR / Adamantine? All Messageboards