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


Rules Questions

151 to 200 of 401 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I'm still of the mind that, despite the math shown previously, an adamantine golem is still primarily made of adamantine. If that is true, then the golem's slams should also be primarily made of adamantine. The golem is not the weapon in this case; its slams are, and because the slams would be made of adamantine, they would bypass DR/adamantine.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:


And I've repeatedly said, it's a good house rule, AND it can be overcome just by sticking adamantine guantlets on the golem.

It's just not in the core rules. And trying to rules lawyer that it IS by inferring things that are not stated is really bad form.

The fact is, I agree with you, I think it is dumb, and it should be errata'd, but that's not what the rules are. And at my table, that's how I'd rule it. At a PFS table, I'd follow the rules.

==Aelryinth

Its not a house rule. The mistake you're making is the assumption of perfection. You're assuming that the rules are perfect in what they say and can only be read one way, and don't contradict.

You have an argument that the rules say that the golem doesn't get through the DR. It does not matter how good that argument is if there are better arguments going the other way. And boy, are there ever better arguments going the other way. The adamantine golem getting through DR is not only an interpretation of existing rules, its a good enough interpretation to be the rule.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Shadowlords wrote:

My fist by itself does not beat DR adamantine, but as soon as i put on a adamantine gauntlet it does beat DR adamantine.

The human fighter by itself does not beat DR adamantine when he is being used as an improvised weapon, but as soon as you put on adamantine armor (to cover the body parts that you are striking the target with) it does beat DR adamantine.

these 2 situations are identical, the only difference is the scale at which it is being applied to.

The materials do not magically lose their properties because of these odd situations.

Wrong example.

When you put a adamantine gauntlet on, your Improved Unarmed Strike (your whole body) does not suddenly gain Adamantine DR punching. IF you use just the one portion of your armor that is designed as a weapon, that WEAPON punches DR. Your fist is wielding the weapon.

As a matter of fact, by the rules, if you're in plate armor and using IUS, what armor you are wearing is completely irrelevant. The adamantine armor doesn't 'lose its properties', as you are trying to argue. It absorbs incoming damage. If you want to do damage with the armor, you have to give up using your whole body and attack with the armor as an improvised weapon, OR use the gauntlets.

When the giant picks you up and beats you against the wall or your friends, your whole body does not suddenly gain Adamantine DR punching, either. The weapon is your body, and what armor you are wearing is completely irrelevant. Mostly because the whole idea of having to adjudicate what body part is actually impacting and how damage works out and would change for different types of armor and blah blah blah complexity is completely beyond the rules set.

==Aelryinth


When the ogre picks up the fighter and uses him as a weapon, you have left the rules and must make a DMs call.

You are making a DMs call (not the rules) that the fighter doesn't count as adamantine to back up your assertion that the golem doesn't count as adamantine, because the fighter doesn't count as adamantine.

Whereas hitting someone with a fist in an adamantine gauntlet, which comes with most med/heavy armors, explicitly IS the rules, and extrapolating from there that if the rest of the fighter were to strike an object it would work the same way as the gauntlet is a pretty reasonable extrapolation. Extrapolations are not only valid but neccesary for rules interpretation.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:


And I've repeatedly said, it's a good house rule, AND it can be overcome just by sticking adamantine guantlets on the golem.

It's just not in the core rules. And trying to rules lawyer that it IS by inferring things that are not stated is really bad form.

The fact is, I agree with you, I think it is dumb, and it should be errata'd, but that's not what the rules are. And at my table, that's how I'd rule it. At a PFS table, I'd follow the rules.

==Aelryinth

Its not a house rule. The mistake you're making is the assumption of perfection. You're assuming that the rules are perfect in what they say and can only be read one way, and don't contradict.

You have an argument that the rules say that the golem doesn't get through the DR. It does not matter how good that argument is if there are better arguments going the other way. And boy, are there ever better arguments going the other way. The adamantine golem getting through DR is not only an interpretation of existing rules, its a good enough interpretation to be the rule.

Unfortunately, it IS a house rule. Because the fact is, the ability should be in its stat block, and is not.

That's the absolute RAW. Everything else you are arguing is conjecture. It is 'common sense'. But it is not a rule.

And none of the rules you've quoted support your position:
Golems are creatures, not objects.
The golem itself is not made primarily of adamantium.
Material punching DR is not a universal monster ability that applies to the Golem, unlike DR/Alignment.

Conjecture like "I think they concentrated the Adamantine in its fists" is conjecture. I think they put the adamantine towards its skeleton, to give it great strength, and its natural armor, to give it defense and DR.
Neither is written, neither applies.

Is there a rule that says if a material is mentioned in a monster's description, that it ignores DR of that material?
No.
Is there a rule that says if a monster is of the golem subtype, and a material is included in its construction, that it ignores that DR type?
No.
If a creature ignores a certain type of DR, is that listed in its statblock, or associated universal monster abilities?
Yes.
Does the adamantine golem have that language?
No. The nitwits.

Your whole argument is "Well, it just MAKES PERFECT SENSE." Which is a GREAT argument, because it does, and would apply at my table, but it's not the rules.

FAQ it. Get it errata'd. It's a DUMB absence of a rule, I freely admit it! But it is the way it is.

==Aelryinth

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

BigNorseWolf wrote:

When the ogre picks up the fighter and uses him as a weapon, you have left the rules and must make a DMs call.

You are making a DMs call (not the rules) that the fighter doesn't count as adamantine to back up your assertion that the golem doesn't count as adamantine, because the fighter doesn't count as adamantine.

Whereas hitting someone with a fist in an adamantine gauntlet, which comes with most med/heavy armors, explicitly IS the rules, and extrapolating from there that if the rest of the fighter were to strike an object it would work the same way as the gauntlet is a pretty reasonable extrapolation. Extrapolations are not only valid but necessary for rules interpretation.

But extrapolations are not rules. They are House Rules.

We are arguing core rules here. You are saying that is a valid House Rule...and you are welcome and free to do whatever you want in your House Rules that you please.

You are trying to argue that your interpretation is the Rule, but that rule exists nowhere. And any argument you make can be countered as efficiently from the other side, because it IS interpolation, and its not a rule.

Without saying that it does apply, it doesn't. And I doubt the language "If the person picked up is wearing full plate of a special material, that material applies for DR purposes when using the person as an improvised weapon" appears in the special abilities ANYWHERE.
Because as soon as you say 'chainmail', well, not rigid, doesn't make sense.
As soon as you say "Breastplate", well, what if you hit with the head, and legs, and arms? Does only the chest and greaves and maybe head suddenly count? what if the fighter is trying NOT to hit things (which he most certainly is, unless he's dead.) What happens when the fighter is dead...is his corpse of 90% flesh and 10% adamant armor suddenly an adamantine weapon, now? Given that if used as a weapon it will probably rip apart?

If you want to make it a rule, get a FAQ on it.

I personally believe it will fail, because the question of "What armor type and what armor part actually hit" are not part of the game, and smacking someone with a fighter in armor is no different then a fighter in armor smacking someone with IUS...the armor is irrelevant, and trying to adjudicate the mess is a PITA.

==Aelryinth


Aelryinth wrote:

The golem itself is not made primarily of adamantium.

This beyond any ability to parody. Its freaking adamantine golem.

Made using one of the hardest and most precious substances, the adamantine golem is a deadly work of art.

What possible "hardest and most precious" substance could the description of an adamantine golem POSSIBLY refer to? It tells you...

The vast amount of adamantine required to build even one of these destructive golems is so significant that most worlds do not have enough resources, forcing the creator to travel to the Plane of Earth or remote Outer Planes simply to gather the raw materials needed to build the golem's body.

The things is made out of adamantine. It goes through DR / adamantine.

What you have is a really bad argument. Your really bad arguments are not good enough to make anything but your position house rules.

Please stop spreading the rumor that PFS is such a persnickety den of rules lawyering villainy that having an adamantine golem act like adamantine is cheating. Its enough of a den of persnickety rules lawyering villainy without needing the exaggeration.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:

If a creature ignores a certain type of DR, is that listed in its statblock, or associated universal monster abilities?

Yes.

No. This claim is simply false.

Indeed, every single monster stat block in the game has DR types that they ignore which are NOT listed in their stat block. ALL of them. You are wrong in 100% of the existing cases.

None of the stat blocks say that the creature's natural weapon attacks bypass any form of DR... even though ALL of them do. None of the stat blocks say that the creature's manufactured weapon attacks bypass any form of DR... even though ALL of them do.

Stat blocks calling out DR bypass is RARE... mostly in cases where it wasn't already obvious. The VAST majority of DR bypass conditions are NOT listed in the stat blocks. If your 'logic' had any validity that would mean monster slam attacks do not bypass bludgeoning DR, monsters with the evil descriptor do not bypass evil DR, monsters wielding mithral weapons do not bypass silver DR, et cetera.

Yet you are completely inconsistent. You accept ALL of those cases, but then pretend that materials DR for monster natural attacks is a special case. It isn't. There is no difference. You are just arbitrarily insisting that this one particular subset must be specifically stated in the stat block while all the others can follow the normal logical rules.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

The golem itself is not made primarily of adamantium.

This beyond any ability to parody. Its freaking adamantine golem.

Made using one of the hardest and most precious substances, the adamantine golem is a deadly work of art.

What possible "hardest and most precious" substance could the description of an adamantine golem POSSIBLY refer to? It tells you...

The vast amount of adamantine required to build even one of these destructive golems is so significant that most worlds do not have enough resources, forcing the creator to travel to the Plane of Earth or remote Outer Planes simply to gather the raw materials needed to build the golem's body.

The things is made out of adamantine. It goes through DR / adamantine.

What you have is a really bad argument. Your really bad arguments are not good enough to make anything but your position house rules.

Please stop spreading the rumor that PFS is such a persnickety den of rules lawyering villainy that having an adamantine golem act like adamantine is cheating. Its enough of a den of persnickety rules lawyering villainy without needing the exaggeration.

You realize your entire argument here is taking fluff as rules, right?

you're trying to rules lawyer fluff as rules. That's not going to fly anywhere.

It's not made out of adamantine. Even your own fluff says its made only partially out of it.
"Worlds" not having enough doesn't apply to any game world out there, where it actually exists. Seriously, it's made out of a maximum amount of adamantium equal to what, 80 suits of adamantine full plate (and that if it was 100% adamantine)? Are you seriously expecting us to believe that an average game world doesn't have that amount of adamantine in it?

So stop trying to set your fluffy beliefs as rules, and 'it just makes sense' as a rule. That's where the Rules Lawyering is coming from, not my side. Rules Lawyering is trying to bend the rules to say what they want for you, which is what you are trying to do.

I'm saying the rules are NOT THERE, and should be. I'm following them to a T, and you don't like it, so you're trying to lawyer other rules in to support your fluff claim.

And none of THEM apply, either. What you want is NOT IN THE RULES.

So, eh, just drop it, and run it the way it should actually be.

==Aelryinth


So you're just going to ignore CB on it then. How convenient for you.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

CBDunkerson wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

If a creature ignores a certain type of DR, is that listed in its statblock, or associated universal monster abilities?

Yes.

No. This claim is simply false.

Indeed, every single monster stat block in the game has DR types that they ignore which are NOT listed in their stat block. ALL of them. You are wrong in 100% of the existing cases.

None of the stat blocks say that the creature's natural weapon attacks bypass any form of DR... even though ALL of them do. None of the stat blocks say that the creature's manufactured weapon attacks bypass any form of DR... even though ALL of them do.

Stat blocks calling out DR bypass is RARE... mostly in cases where it wasn't already obvious. The VAST majority of DR bypass conditions are NOT listed in the stat blocks. If your 'logic' had any validity that would mean monster slam attacks do not bypass bludgeoning DR, monsters with the evil descriptor do not bypass evil DR, monsters wielding mithral weapons do not bypass silver DR, et cetera.

Yet you are completely inconsistent. You accept ALL of those cases, but then pretend that materials DR for monster natural attacks is a special case. It isn't. There is no difference. You are just arbitrarily insisting that this one particular subset must be specifically stated in the stat block while all the others can follow the normal logical rules.

Wow, are you utterly wrong.

You are aware that they define every single type of monster attack, right? I'm going to take a leap and assume that you mean the slashing, piercing, and bludgeoning damage types.

You do know that ALL types of monster attacks have a damage type associated with them in the universal monster rules, right? That slams are bludgeoning, claws are blud/slash, and bites are blud/slash/pierce?

No?

And I did point to those rules in my argument, right? Stat block, or in the universal monster abilities that explain the stat block.

So, what exactly are you arguing here? Because you were wrong from the first paragraph, unless you're referring to a type of DR I don't know about.

And there's nothing in the A Golem's stat block or the universal monster abilities associated with golems that gives it the DR punch.

So, you have a problem. What exactly ARE you arguing, here?
=========================
here's the table from the UMR, for your perusal.

Natural Attacks

Most creatures possess one or more natural attacks (attacks made without a weapon). These attacks fall into one of two categories, primary and secondary attacks. Primary attacks are made using the creature’s full base attack bonus and add the creature’s full Strength bonus on damage rolls. Secondary attacks are made using the creature’s base attack bonus –5 and add only 1/2 the creature’s Strength bonus on damage rolls. If a creature has only one natural attack, it is always made using the creature’s full base attack bonus and adds 1-1/2 times the creature’s Strength bonus on damage rolls. This increase does not apply if the creature has multiple attacks but only takes one. If a creature has only one type of attack, but has multiple attacks per round, that attack is treated as a primary attack, regardless of its type.

Table: Natural Attacks by Size lists some of the most common types of natural attacks and their classifications.

Table: Natural Attacks by Size

Natural Attack Base Damage by Size* Damage Type Attack type
Fine Dim. Tiny Small Medium Large Huge Garg. Col.
Bite 1 1d2 1d3 1d4 1d6 1d8 2d6 2d8 4d6 B, P, and S Primary
Claw - 1 1d2 1d3 1d4 1d6 1d8 2d6 2d8 B and S Primary
Gore 1 1d2 1d3 1d4 1d6 1d8 2d6 2d8 4d6 P Primary
Hoof, Tentacle, Wing - 1 1d2 1d3 1d4 1d6 1d8 2d6 2d8 B Secondary
Pincers, Tail Slap 1 1d2 1d3 1d4 1d6 1d8 2d6 2d8 4d6 B Secondary
Slam - 1 1d2 1d3 1d4 1d6 1d8 2d6 2d8 B Primary
Sting - 1 1d2 1d3 1d4 1d6 1d8 2d6 2d8 P Primary
Talons - 1 1d2 1d3 1d4 1d6 1d8 2d6 2d8 S Primary
Other - 1 1d2 1d3 1d4 1d6 1d8 2d6 2d8 B, P, or S Secondary
FAQ

It's under Natural Attacks in the UMR off the SRD if you want to read more. But damage type is listed for EVERY attack form.

And when was I trying to argue that a slam attack didn't bypass DR/Bludgeoning? Actually, this is the second time I've had to bring this up!

==+Aelryinth

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

captain yesterday wrote:
So you're just going to ignore CB on it then. How convenient for you.

CB?

And you can stop with the petty insults. I'd rule that they bypass DR Adamantine in a heartbeat at my table.

I'm just aware it's not the rules, and it's dumb that it's not.

==Aelryinth


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

The golem itself is not made primarily of adamantium.

This beyond any ability to parody. Its freaking adamantine golem.

...

Blame Paizo for giving us an adamantine golem with barely any adamantine in it.

They gave us an upper limit to the amount of adamantine that could be in the adamantine golem by giving the total value of metal and a minimum mass of metal. Even if it is only made of some arbitrarily cheap metal and adamantine, the adamantine 12% of the creature's mass at most. That is a mathematically undeniable upper limit. If we are more reasonable and factor in the fact that frigging platinum and mithril are used (both nearly double the price of adamantine), and that the 4000 pound number is an absolute minimum, the weight of adamantine is unlikely to be more than around 5%.

It's a bit hard to fault Aelryinth for stating a fact we can prove from the creature's write up.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

which I would conveniently ignore at my own table :0 Rule O ftw on this one!

==Aelryinth


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think what most people are upset with Aelryinth about, is his insistence that the ruling which says that an Adamantine Golem cannot bypass DR/Adamantine is RAW, while the ruling that is does bypass is just a house rule that conflicts with RAW. But there isnt enough actual RAW on the matter to make this claim.The rules on this are just flat out missing.

To make a ruling on this issue requires extrapolation - It required inference - It requires assumptions - It requires you make a house rule -REGARDLESS of which way you rule.

Dark Archive

He cant deny some one else use of fluff and then use a different part of the fluff to back up his own claims. that's bad argumentation, and so far he has been arguing decently even though we disagree on this subject.

im trying to figure out his side of it but im having trouble.

It seems hes arguing from: If it is not stated in the rules and left ambiguous then you cant do it because it doesn't say you can do it. which i disagree with on a fundamental level.

This is a case of extremely hard RaW look and rules lawyering that just doesnt make sense.

As RaW a adamantine breast plate only imparts a DR-2. It does not ignore hardness or bypass DR if used as a weapon because it was not made as a weapon and is not a weapon according to the rules.

This is a strict reading of the rules.
It does not make sense though so we extrapolate that if the enemy has DR adamantine you must use anything made of adamantine to bypass DR, the breastplate is made of adamantine so it must bypass DR, after all its a blunt improvised weapon at this point...

Regardless of the fluff text and materials it said it used and the planet wide resource cost in the fluff. since fluff is not rules.
An adamantine golem from its name we can rightly assume it is made of adamantine it doesnt matter the anatomy or breakdown of how it is made and what makes it work.
adamantine golem = golem made of adamantine

The rules lack the text in both direction and you saying you cant do it is just as wrong as us saying we can do it if your basing your argument soloing on the lack of explicit rules.

this is not going to be FaQed or Errated because this is asinine.

The rules are ambiguous in thousands of areas and that we must come up with logical conclusions based off of other things.


Oddman80 wrote:

I think what most people are upset with Aelryinth about, is his insistence that the ruling which says that an Adamantine Golem cannot bypass DR/Adamantine is RAW, while the ruling that is does bypass is just a house rule that conflicts with RAW. But there isnt enough actual RAW on the matter to make this claim.The rules on this are just flat out missing.

To make a ruling on this issue requires extrapolation - It required inference - It requires assumptions - It requires you make a house rule -REGARDLESS of which way you rule.

James Jacobs wrote:

My favorite one to point out as a way to combat folks who get too wrapped up in applying the rules PRECISELY AS WRITTEN is this:

Being dead does not make you fall prone.

Fortunately the game is run by people who are capable of applying common sense and logic to things, and so when you die you do fall down, and so you CAN see the moon despite its distance.

I do believe James was mistaken.

Around here, Common Sense can be in remarkably short supply when applying RAW.

Dark Archive

Oddman80 wrote:

I think what most people are upset with Aelryinth about, is his insistence that the ruling which says that an Adamantine Golem cannot bypass DR/Adamantine is RAW, while the ruling that is does bypass is just a house rule that conflicts with RAW. But there isnt enough actual RAW on the matter to make this claim.The rules on this are just flat out missing.

To make a ruling on this issue requires extrapolation - It required inference - It requires assumptions - It requires you make a house rule -REGARDLESS of which way you rule.

you beat me to it in a shorter sweeter way. Although i did try to hit on this a page or two ago.


Whether a creature has a head, and can be decapitated by a vorpal weapon, is also "fluff"
One needs to use common sense. If its fluff says it has a head, it can be decapitated. If it says it's made of adamantine, it's made of adamantine, regardless of whether it explicitly says so in the stat block


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Similarly, an iron golem isn't actually made of iron, but named for its stern demeanor.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Renata Maclean wrote:

Whether a creature has a head, and can be decapitated by a vorpal weapon, is also "fluff"

One needs to use common sense. If its fluff says it has a head, it can be decapitated. If it says it's made of adamantine, it's made of adamantine, regardless of whether it explicitly says so in the stat block

Actually, whether a creature has a head is mechanics. Fluff is the shape and style of the head.

A creature has the abilities in its stats block.

And being only partially made of adamantium doesn't give creatures or objects ANYTHING special...which is the case for the golem.

Following the stat block is following the rules.
Giving the golem stuff outside its stat block is rule 0.

and yes, common sense is occasionally missing from the RAW, which is why Rule 0 exists.

==Aelryinth


Aelryinth wrote:
Renata Maclean wrote:

Whether a creature has a head, and can be decapitated by a vorpal weapon, is also "fluff"

One needs to use common sense. If its fluff says it has a head, it can be decapitated. If it says it's made of adamantine, it's made of adamantine, regardless of whether it explicitly says so in the stat block

Actually, whether a creature has a head is mechanics. Fluff is the shape and style of the head.

==Aelryinth

So where in the stat block does it state whether a creature has a head?

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Renata Maclean wrote:


Similarly, an iron golem isn't actually made of iron, but named for its stern demeanor.

Indeed it could be! Just like Hellknights are all made of Hell.

And then you read the description, and find out that, unlike the Adamantine Golem, it is indeed composed of 100% iron by weight, with some extra tinctures added in, and the Hellknights aren't even from Hell, they just admire it profusely and emulate themselves on it.

And the iron golem still doesn't punch any DR, either. Even cold iron.

Names are fluff.

==Aelryinth

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Renata Maclean wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
Renata Maclean wrote:

Whether a creature has a head, and can be decapitated by a vorpal weapon, is also "fluff"

One needs to use common sense. If its fluff says it has a head, it can be decapitated. If it says it's made of adamantine, it's made of adamantine, regardless of whether it explicitly says so in the stat block

Actually, whether a creature has a head is mechanics. Fluff is the shape and style of the head.

==Aelryinth

So where in the stat block does it state whether a creature has a head?

They do have illustrations for a reason, you know.

==Aelryinth


2 people marked this as a favorite.

But that's not the stat block, that's the "fluff".


Yeah....

Frankly, I'm going with an adamantine golem being able to penetrate DR x/adamantine. And I'm doing so for these reasons:

1) It's an adamantine golem. Even if it's not 100% adamantine, it requires a metric profanity-load of adamantine and that going to count for something.

2) It's got DR 15/epic which used to require a +6 weapon, not +6 equivalent, to get through (even if that did get nerfed) at the time the adamantine golem appeared. The golem can punch through DR x/epic in turn and a +6 weapon is good enough to get through DR x/adamantine.

3) Even if it didn't penetrate DR x/adamantine, it's already doing 6d10+13 damage. And you're going to quibble over saving 15 points per hit? Really?


Still not sure on the exact argument here

Is it "adamantine golems are not plated with adamantine for some reason and therefore cannot punch DR/adamantine"
or "Something plated with adamantine cannot by default punch DR/adamantine"
or "Regardless of composition, no creature can penetrate DR unless its statblock says so"

Because I've seen all of these arguments, and most of them make the others redundant


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:

Oh, the picture of and description of the creature aren't part of the stat block?

Silly me.

==Aelryinth

Oh, I'm sorry are we moving over here now. Silly me!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Only the catfolk's appearance as depicted in the bestiary is RAW, folks.


Aelryinth wrote:
Renata Maclean wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
Renata Maclean wrote:

Whether a creature has a head, and can be decapitated by a vorpal weapon, is also "fluff"

One needs to use common sense. If its fluff says it has a head, it can be decapitated. If it says it's made of adamantine, it's made of adamantine, regardless of whether it explicitly says so in the stat block

Actually, whether a creature has a head is mechanics. Fluff is the shape and style of the head.

==Aelryinth

So where in the stat block does it state whether a creature has a head?

They do have illustrations for a reason, you know.

==Aelryinth

So if someone was able to identify adamantine on sight, it would be possible to define whether the golem was made of the stuff or not, presumably? But since that's not technically possible since it doesn't exist, the possibility that it's just dark iron or something means it doesn't count

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

If you assume all catfolk are identical, sure.

If you're going to start arguing they don't have heads, we have a mechanical issue here.

==Aelryinth

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Bill Dunn wrote:

Yeah....

Frankly, I'm going with an adamantine golem being able to penetrate DR x/adamantine. And I'm doing so for these reasons:

1) It's an adamantine golem. Even if it's not 100% adamantine, it requires a metric profanity-load of adamantine and that going to count for something.

2) It's got DR 15/epic which used to require a +6 weapon, not +6 equivalent, to get through (even if that did get nerfed) at the time the adamantine golem appeared. The golem can punch through DR x/epic in turn and a +6 weapon is good enough to get through DR x/adamantine.

3) Even if it didn't penetrate DR x/adamantine, it's already doing 6d10+13 damage. And you're going to quibble over saving 15 points per hit? Really?

Realize the Adamantine Golem is a 3.5 Epic Golem.

In 3.5, +6 Weapons didn't punch ANY material DR, including silver or Cold Iron, or adamantine. That ability was added by Paizo.

So, what you have is edition wars carryover, where 'perfectly valid' 3.5 stuff is interacting with PF stuff.

as a 3.5 monster, the attacks of the Adamantine Golem punch DR EPic and DR Magic...that's it. that's how it was designed.

If you're importing it, you now have to make allowances for the change in how DR is handled. You can either treat it as intended in 3.5, and have it just punch Epic and Magic DR, or you can treat it as a +6 Enhancement bonus Weapon, and punch all of it. Or you can treat it as a +6 equivalent, but with no actual enhancement bonus, allowing it to punch EPic and Magic, but no form of material DR.

In 3.5, it was moot. As designed, it didn't punch adamantine DR in 3.5, either.

==Aelryinth

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Renata Maclean wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
Renata Maclean wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
Renata Maclean wrote:

Whether a creature has a head, and can be decapitated by a vorpal weapon, is also "fluff"

One needs to use common sense. If its fluff says it has a head, it can be decapitated. If it says it's made of adamantine, it's made of adamantine, regardless of whether it explicitly says so in the stat block

Actually, whether a creature has a head is mechanics. Fluff is the shape and style of the head.

==Aelryinth

So where in the stat block does it state whether a creature has a head?

They do have illustrations for a reason, you know.

==Aelryinth

So if someone was able to identify adamantine on sight, it would be possible to define whether the golem was made of the stuff or not, presumably? But since that's not technically possible since it doesn't exist, the possibility that it's just dark iron or something means it doesn't count

I have no idea what this snark means?

Does identifying that something is an Adamantine Golem suddenly make it made 100% out of adamantine? Because, no, it doesn't. And the golem's descript backs that up.

Does something being partially made out of adamantine make it suddenly ignore DR adamantine? Again, no...and that only applies to objects.

Does identifying the golem with all its special abilities suddenly grant it the ability to punch adamantine DR? Nope, not in the stat block.

What exactly are you trying to argue?

==Aelryinth


If it's made of adamantine, it ignores DR/adamantine, like everything else that's made of adamantine
That's what DR/adamantine means
Something doesn't have to be made 100% of adamantine to penetrate DR/adamantine, by the way. Only the striking surface, in this case the fists, do (If that wasn't the case, adamantine gauntlets wouldn't work)
So if one can look at the golem's fists, and confidently say "yup, those are made of adamantine", then we can probably assume the golem can punch adamantine. As long as the appearance of a creature matters, of course.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Renata Maclean wrote:


Still not sure on the exact argument here

Is it "adamantine golems are not plated with adamantine for some reason and therefore cannot punch DR/adamantine"
or "Something plated with adamantine cannot by default punch DR/adamantine"
or "Regardless of composition, no creature can penetrate DR unless its statblock says so"

Because I've seen all of these arguments, and most of them make the others redundant

A) We don't know how the adamantine in the golem is allocated. Plating the golem could just be its natural armor and DR, and grant it its strength. So this isn't a rules statement, it's supposition.

B) Plating something in adamantine does not grant it DR Punch. It actually has to be made of the stuff. Silver-plated longswords, for example, do not punch DR/Silver. You actually need to make them specifically out of Alchemical Silver or Mithral. This IS a rule.

C) These define the creatures, and occasionally something obvious is left out. It's worth noting that the only time other golems punch DR is when it is listed in their stat blocks. Otherwise, they just hit big. This is also rules and precedent both.

==Aelryinth

Liberty's Edge

Aelryinth wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

If a creature ignores a certain type of DR, is that listed in its statblock, or associated universal monster abilities?

Yes.
No. This claim is simply false.
You do know that ALL types of monster attacks have a damage type associated with them in the universal monster rules, right?

Yes, I do know that. However, it is irrelevant.

You quoted the entire 'Natural Attacks' Universal Monster Rule... yet nowhere in the text you quoted does it say that those attacks bypass damage resistance of any kind.

Nor does it say that in the stat block. Indeed, the stat block doesn't even point to the "Natural Attacks" rules in any way. So if those rules are "associated" it is only in the sense that someone might make the 'logical assumption' that the "bite" in a monster entry and the "bite" in the Natural Attacks section are the same thing. You would claim that such a 'leap' is a house rule for adamantine DR bypassing... but not here?

In any case... nothing about bypassing DR in that text. Nothing about bypassing DR in the stat block. Rather, you arrive at those conclusions by making exactly the same kind of 'assumptions' you label house rules in the case of adamantine golems.


Ok, I think there's one thing we can agree on. This argument isn't getting us anywhere, and no-one's going to change their mind at this point without an FAQ or errata being issued

You have been deliberately ignoring common sense in favour of your interpretation of the rules, I think it is fair to say, so any other arguments made from that standpoint are fairly pointless.

(That said, I'm still not sure how equipping an adamantine gauntlet differs from plating your fist in adamantine, so...)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In books where text space is at a premium, the authors save space by omitting text that common sense can easily conclude.

Arguing that an adamantine golem's slams aren't adamantine as about as inane as it gets. You might as well argue that a stone golem's slams aren't stone. It's not a DR type but it's still clear as day.

Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

whew wrote:
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:

That's the beauty of it though--it doesn't matter! The crowbar might still technically be an object, but its attacking as a creature.

The crowbar is not using itself as an improvised weapon, it's making a slam attack, just like the golem. Neither the animate objects spell nor the animated object bestiary entry say that an animated object's natural attacks count as being made of whatever the animated object is made of for the purposes of beating DR. Therefore, they don't.

The rules don't say that special materials lose their special qualities when they're animated. Therefore, they don't.

But that's not the argument. The argument is that a creature's attacks don't count as whatever material the creature is made of unless the creature has a specific ability saying they do.

One might as well argue that the rules don't say adamantine loses its properties when you use it to make a golem.

Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

Aelryinth wrote:

Silver fox = fox made of silver.

I see we are on the same page!

Golden Retriever = retriever made of gold!

Rosy complexion = complexion made of roses!

Bald eagle = eagle with a bald head!

Red Robin = a Robin that is Red!

Yes, because there's nothing at all in the adamantine golem monster entry that describes it being made of adamantine.

...Oh, all that stuff at the beginning about it being made of adamantine, and requiring tremendous amounts of adamantine to make, and the picture where it's clearly made of a metal that fits the description of adamantine? Bah, all that's fluff!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Peachbottom wrote:

In books where text space is at a premium, the authors save space by omitting text that common sense can easily conclude.

Arguing that an adamantine golem's slams aren't adamantine as about as inane as it gets. You might as well argue that a stone golem's slams aren't stone. It's not a DR type but it's still clear as day.

That's really not how things work. Just because space is at a premium doesn't mean that there don't actually have to be written words on a page for there to be an actual rule. It would be simple enough to make a universal rule for constructs that their natural weapons count as being made of their description material for DR purposes (similar to how certain types are proficient with the equipment in their description) but without that rule, they simply aren't.

"Common sense" is not a Pathfinder rule. Which is fine, since there is no such thing as common sense anyways, as its basically just a self-important way of claiming that your judgement is better than someone elses and is a logical fallacy.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Stone actually could be a DR. We already have a creature with DR/wood.


Peachbottom wrote:
Arguing that an adamantine golem's slams aren't adamantine as about as inane as it gets. You might as well argue that a stone golem's slams aren't stone. It's not a DR type but it's still clear as day.

Well, another similar thread concluded that iron golems aren't picked up by detect metal, take no extra damage from rust monsters and are unaffected by the spell rusting grasp because their stat black doesn't mention iron.

So yeah.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:
Peachbottom wrote:
Arguing that an adamantine golem's slams aren't adamantine as about as inane as it gets. You might as well argue that a stone golem's slams aren't stone. It's not a DR type but it's still clear as day.

Well, another similar thread concluded that iron golems aren't picked up by detect metal, take no extra damage from rust monsters and are unaffected by the spell rusting grasp because their stat black doesn't mention iron.

So yeah.

Or, if you actually represent the opposite argument correctly, the argument is that there is a problematic subset of rules that assumes there are rules governing creature composition, when no such rules exist, leading to the necessity of resolving those problematic rules by GM fiat, and that this should be addressed.

That's only if you want an actual statement of the opposing position, not some exaggerated strawman, though, up to you.

151 to 200 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