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

[Squiggit]

Quote:

I was taking the bad argument to its extreme, and showing how bad it really was. There's a difference, y'see?

Taking an argument to an illogical extreme and arguing that point is called a straw man. It's generally considered a poor argumentative tactic (as it is an informal fallacy) and most people would advise against using it in any sort of honest debate.

[Aelryinth]

taking an argument to its LOGICAL extreme and illustrating how inappropriate it is is NOT a straw man, and IS good debate tactics. It's basically called "Where does it stop?" and has been one of the huge bones of contention in all sorts of laws and legal manuverings over the centuries.

==Aelryinth

[CBDunkerson]

Aelryinth wrote:

I have NO idea why the 3.5 AGolem doesn't bypass adamantine, just like I have no idea why the Paizo one doesn't. Seems dumb to me!

Dumb? Yes.

Paizo? No.

[BigNorseWolf]

Rub-Eta wrote:

Could an Epic Golem punch through DR/Epic?

Yes, because its made of win

[Benchak the Nightstalker]

Aelryinth wrote:

taking an argument to its LOGICAL extreme and illustrating how inappropriate it is is NOT a straw man, and IS good debate tactics. It's basically called "Where does it stop?" and has been one of the huge bones of contention in all sorts of laws and legal manuverings over the centuries.

==Aelryinth

You were not taking the argument to it's logical extreme, because (and I repeat!) "all monster names are literal" does not follow logically from "golem monster names are usually literal."

To point out that not all monster names are literal refutes an argument that no one made, and that does not logically follow from an argument someone made. That's textbook straw man.

[Pink Dragon]

Aelryinth wrote:

GM Rednal wrote:

Will this suffice? (It's slightly down the page)

Quote:

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 if the total bonus value of all of their abilities (including the enhancement bonus) is +6 or greater.

Exactly. Not +6 enhanced weapons anymore, just magically powerful enough to overcome DR/Epic. Which doesn't bypass any other form of DR.

==Aelryinth

So you are saying that the "DR/Epic" entry in the Mythic Adventures Glossary completely replaces the "Damage Reduction (Ex or Su)" entry in the Bestiary?

There is nothing in the Mythic Adventures Glossary that contradicts the statement on page 299 of the Bestiary that the natural weapons of an Epic creature are equivalent to a +6 enhanced weapon unless you believe that the Mythic Adventures Glossary completely replaces the Bestiary entry.

[Calth]

Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:

Aelryinth wrote:

taking an argument to its LOGICAL extreme and illustrating how inappropriate it is is NOT a straw man, and IS good debate tactics. It's basically called "Where does it stop?" and has been one of the huge bones of contention in all sorts of laws and legal manuverings over the centuries.

==Aelryinth

You were not taking the argument to it's logical extreme, because (and I repeat!) "all monster names are literal" does not follow logically from "golem monster names are usually literal."

To point out that not all monster names are literal refutes an argument that no one made, and that does not logically follow from an argument someone made. That's textbook straw man.

Except you would then need a means of differentiating literal and non-literal names then, which doesn't exist for Pathfinder rules. In fact, the general precedent is that the names of rules elements are meaningless (see archetype FAQ).

[Calth]

Squiggit wrote:

Quote:

I was taking the bad argument to its extreme, and showing how bad it really was. There's a difference, y'see?

Taking an argument to an illogical extreme and arguing that point is called a straw man. It's generally considered a poor argumentative tactic (as it is an informal fallacy) and most people would advise against using it in any sort of honest debate.

Uh, no, reductio ad absurdum is a very valid form of argument, which is what Aelryinth is doing. He is taking your actual argument, that a creatures name confers special abilities, and applying it generally, and showing how ridiculous it is. In order for it to be illogical and a strawman, you would need a rules basis (as in an actual written pathfinder rule) that tells you when to give creatures special abilities from their names.

This is a general statement not addressed to any individual:

The fact that you don't like what the rules state, and that the rules are probably bad (as is pretty much the case for golems and bypassing material dr) doesn't change what the rules are.

Change the rules in your home game. Ask Paizo to fix the inconsistency. But don't make specious arguments and twist the actual rules of the game to somehow try and make your desired outcome the right answer when it is not.

[Create Mr. Pitt]

Taking arguments to their logical extreme is a common, but not particularly apt, form of argument. It doesn't matter where we draw a line or if an absurd conclusion can be reached with different examples.

It's clear golems are often named after the material they are made of. Counterexamples about "golden retrievers" is arguing in bad faith and making absurd assumptions that lead to absurd conclusions.

[Calth]

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

Taking arguments to their logical extreme is a common, but not particularly apt, form of argument. It doesn't matter where we draw a line or if an absurd conclusion can be reached with different examples.

It's clear golems are often named after the material they are made of. Counterexamples about "golden retrievers" is arguing in bad faith and making absurd assumptions that lead to absurd conclusions.

How is it bad faith? Please show a means, in the context of Pathfinder rules, of distinguishing when a name is meaningful or not.

[Create Mr. Pitt]

Comparing it to golden retrievers is a bad argument because the category was clearly "golem naming conventions" under which they are often named after the material they are composed by. It doesn't necessarily mean the argument that the adamantine golem's slame does not bypass DR is not correct; but the point that golden retrievers are not made of gold has absolutely nothing to do with evaluating the correctness of that statement or general observation that golems tend to be named after the material of their composition.

In fact, that's not even in question here. Just, for some insane reason, the proportions of the golem composed of the adamantine.

[Calth]

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

Comparing it to golden retrievers is a bad argument because the category was clearly "golem naming conventions" under which they are often named after the material they are composed by. It doesn't necessarily mean the argument that the adamantine golem's slame does not bypass DR is not correct; but the point that golden retrievers are not made of gold has absolutely nothing to do with evaluating the correctness of that statement or general observation that golems tend to be named after the material of their composition.

In fact, that's not even in question here. Just, for some insane reason, the proportions of the golem composed of the adamantine.

And everything you said is irrelevant to the argument. If you want to claim a name is actually mechanically meaningful, then it is meaningful in all cases, unless there is a rule that distinguishes between two cases. Please show the rule that golem names are meaningful and others are not.

[Aelryinth]

Calth wrote:

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

Comparing it to golden retrievers is a bad argument because the category was clearly "golem naming conventions" under which they are often named after the material they are composed by. It doesn't necessarily mean the argument that the adamantine golem's slame does not bypass DR is not correct; but the point that golden retrievers are not made of gold has absolutely nothing to do with evaluating the correctness of that statement or general observation that golems tend to be named after the material of their composition.

In fact, that's not even in question here. Just, for some insane reason, the proportions of the golem composed of the adamantine.

And everything you said is irrelevant to the argument. If you want to claim a name is actually mechanically meaningful, then it is meaningful in all cases, unless there is a rule that distinguishes between two cases. Please show the rule that golem names are meaningful and others are not.

Ah, thank you. someone(s) did indeed understand what I was pointing out.

You can't make the argument for the golem names without applying it to all creatures, and when applied to all creatures it is absurd. The name is a descriptive marker, nothing more - the rules are in the stat block. If we change the name of the Golems to Pink Twinkie Eater #'s 1-10, it doesn't change their stat block otherwise.

As for whether the new definition for DR Epic in Mythic replaces the one in the bestiary...I don't know, do updated and reprinted rules replace older ones where you come from? If they don't, use the old one from 3.5. Or, you could use the new Paizo one. It's your call. Sometimes things are real inconsistent. It's like trying to figure the CR of character classes.

==Aelryinth

[Benchak the Nightstalker]

Calth wrote:

Except you would then need a means of differentiating literal and non-literal names then, which doesn't exist for Pathfinder rules. In fact, the general precedent is that the names of rules elements are meaningless (see archetype FAQ).

Differentiating literal and non-literal names is pretty easy, at least in the sense that I'm using the term--look at the name, compare it to the creature. If it's called an X golem, and it's described as being made of X, bingo-bongo, you got a literal name.

As to the precedent for names, that's irrelevant. No one is saying that a creature named a clay golem must be made of clay, because "rules!"

The argument is rather that whoever writes golems tends to assign them names that correspond to their primary constituent. We can observe this trend. Aelryinth concede that this trend exists.

[Aelryinth]

Aaaaand what exactly does that literal name have on the creature itself?

Not a bloody thing. Sooooooo...why was it ever brought up?

===Aelryinth

[whew]

Calth wrote:

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

Comparing it to golden retrievers is a bad argument because the category was clearly "golem naming conventions" under which they are often named after the material they are composed by. It doesn't necessarily mean the argument that the adamantine golem's slame does not bypass DR is not correct; but the point that golden retrievers are not made of gold has absolutely nothing to do with evaluating the correctness of that statement or general observation that golems tend to be named after the material of their composition.

In fact, that's not even in question here. Just, for some insane reason, the proportions of the golem composed of the adamantine.

And everything you said is irrelevant to the argument. If you want to claim a name is actually mechanically meaningful, then it is meaningful in all cases, unless there is a rule that distinguishes between two cases. Please show the rule that golem names are meaningful and others are not.

And you ignored the last line of Mr. Pitt's post, which means that what you just wrote is irrelevant.

edit: changed "shows" to "means"

[Benchak the Nightstalker]

Aelryinth wrote:

Calth wrote:

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

Comparing it to golden retrievers is a bad argument because the category was clearly "golem naming conventions" under which they are often named after the material they are composed by. It doesn't necessarily mean the argument that the adamantine golem's slame does not bypass DR is not correct; but the point that golden retrievers are not made of gold has absolutely nothing to do with evaluating the correctness of that statement or general observation that golems tend to be named after the material of their composition.

In fact, that's not even in question here. Just, for some insane reason, the proportions of the golem composed of the adamantine.

And everything you said is irrelevant to the argument. If you want to claim a name is actually mechanically meaningful, then it is meaningful in all cases, unless there is a rule that distinguishes between two cases. Please show the rule that golem names are meaningful and others are not.

Ah, thank you. someone(s) did indeed understand what I was pointing out.

You can't make the argument for the golem names without applying it to all creatures, and when applied to all creatures it is absurd. The name is a descriptive marker, nothing more - the rules are in the stat block. If we change the name of the Golems to Pink Twinkie Eater #'s 1-10, it doesn't change their stat block otherwise.

As for whether the new definition for DR Epic in Mythic replaces the one in the bestiary...I don't know, do updated and reprinted rules replace older ones where you come from? If they don't, use the old one from 3.5. Or, you could use the new Paizo one. It's your call. Sometimes things are real inconsistent. It's like trying to figure the CR of character classes.

==Aelryinth

Incorrect. We can't appeal to the golem naming convention as a rule, for the reasons you and Calth point out.

But again, no one was doing that. Refuting that argument (by pointing out places where the rule no one is arguing exists doesn't hold true) is attacking a straw man.

[Benchak the Nightstalker]

Aelryinth wrote:

Aaaaand what exactly does that literal name have on the creature itself?

Not a bloody thing. Sooooooo...why was it ever brought up?

===Aelryinth

People were discussing whether the adamantine golem was primarily made of adamantine.

They listed several things they think suggest it is made of adamantine (or at least that's RAI). Among them:
The read-aloud text.
The picture.
The description.
The bit about needing huge amounts of adamantine.
and the name.

For some reason, y'all fixated on the name, and made weird arguments about silver foxes.

(Whether being predominantly composed of adamantine allows one to bypass DR without having an explicitly state special ability that says so is an entirely different matter)

[Dyspeptic]

I really wanted to avoid this thread, but the silver fox is not reductio ad absurdum, it's clearly a Straw Man. Or maybe False Equivalence:

Original argument: Class {Golem} normally has the attribute (literal name)

Counter argument: Class {Golem} is a subclass of Class {Creatures}
{Silver Fox} is a subset of class {Creature}
{Silver Fox} does not have attribute (literal name)
Therefore, Class {Golem} cannot have attribute (literal name)

Straw Man. Functionally equivalent to:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Argument: Class {Mammal} has the attribute (hair)

Counter argument: Class {Mammal} is a subclass of Class {Animals}
{Fish} is a subset of class {Animals}
{Fish} does not have attribute (hair)
Therefore, Class {Mammal} cannot have attribute (hair)

Provably false.

[Lorewalker]

Here is the distilled argument...

You either believe Paizo finds its player base incapable of deducing the obvious and reading rules from two separate sections that it has to explicitly tell its players that the adamantine golem, made of adamantine, would follow the rules for being adamantine... and thus by not saying it explicitly they mean the adamantine golem does not follow the rules for adamantine.

Or you believe Paizo does not believe its player base is incapable of deducing the obvious and reading rules from two separate sections and thus left the fact that the adamantine golem is adamantine and thus follows the rules for bein adamantine as something so obvious it didn't need an explicit statement.

Or you believe Paizo does not believe being made of adamantine gives an adamantine golem the properties of being made of adamantine. That anything being described as being made of adamantine must repeat the rules for being made of adamantine.

[Calth]

Citations on any of your claims, many of which are blatantly wrong?

(For example adamantine armor doesn't give dr/adamantine you know, adamantine golems don't even have dr/adamantine, they are also, even if you accept fluff descriptions, not considered adamantine according to the object rules, being made of adamantine doesn't confer dr/adamantine, and so on)

In a game system, absence of a rule means there is no rule. "Common sense", "obvious", and such are not valid arguments. Cause guess what, its a game system.

[Calth]

Dyspeptic wrote:

I really wanted to avoid this thread, but the silver fox is not reductio ad absurdum, it's clearly a Straw Man. Or maybe False Equivalence:

Original argument: Class {Golem} normally has the attribute (literal name)

Counter argument: Class {Golem} is a subclass of Class {Creatures}
{Silver Fox} is a subset of class {Creature}
{Silver Fox} does not have attribute (literal name)
Therefore, Class {Golem} cannot have attribute (literal name)

Straw Man. Functionally equivalent to:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Argument: Class {Mammal} has the attribute (hair)

Counter argument: Class {Mammal} is a subclass of Class {Animals}
{Fish} is a subset of class {Animals}
{Fish} does not have attribute (hair)
Therefore, Class {Mammal} cannot have attribute (hair)

Provably false.

Again that's wrong, because we know having a literal name cant be a rule for golems, as its not an actual rule for their type. You cant create an exception out of thin air. All creatures follow the same rules barring specific exceptions. If you want golems to have literal names, without citing an exception, all creatures must have literal names.

So to phrase it in your format:

Silver fox is a creature
Silver fox is not a literal name
Creatures therefore do not have literal names as an attribute
Class Golem is a subclass of creature
Class Golem has no exception listing literal name as a benefit
Therefore golems do not have literal name as a benefit.

Also, you chose a really bad counter example as fish scales and hair are effectively genetic parallels for each other (the genes that make scales in fish make hair in mammals), so nice job failing even there.

[Lorewalker]

Calth wrote:

Citations on any of your claims, many of which are blatantly wrong?

(For example adamantine armor doesn't give dr/adamantine you know, adamantine golems don't even have dr/adamantine, they are also, even if you accept fluff descriptions, not considered adamantine according to the object rules, being made of adamantine doesn't confer dr/adamantine, and so on)

In a game system, absence of a rule means there is no rule. "Common sense", "obvious", and such are not valid arguments. Cause guess what, its a game system.

My whole point is that obvious is part of the rules. As in, if I have a dagger that is made of adamantine... does the dagger need a rule attached that specifically says when a dagger is adamantine it pierces adamantine? And lacking that excplict statement, the adamantine dagger doesn't pierce DR / adamantine? No. Because since it is made of adamantine, obviously you look up the rule for what it means to be made of adamantine.

They are made of adamantine. A planet's worth, actually. Having other materials in the construction does not negate the fact that it is made of adamantine.

An adamantine hammer has a wooden shaft too. Does that mean it does not pierce? Or, does it not pierce because hammers don't have a special rule saying if it is made of adamantine then it counts as being made of adamantine?

And they DO have DR / adamantine. It is obsucured by their DR / EPIC. Transmute metal to wood strips the golem of its DR / epic and then it has DR / adamantine.

[Benchak the Nightstalker]

Calth wrote:

In a game system, absence of a rule means there is no rule. "Common sense", "obvious", and such are not valid arguments. Cause guess what, its a game system.

...and that's why being dead doesn't make you fall prone.

OR, it's a game system, not a computer program. It's written for a casual readership, and so assumes a certain level of interpretation on the part of the reader.

Things that are obvious, or things for which the common definition is sufficient (like what happens when a character dies), are omitted or glossed over.

[Lorewalker]

Calth wrote:

Dyspeptic wrote:

I really wanted to avoid this thread, but the silver fox is not reductio ad absurdum, it's clearly a Straw Man. Or maybe False Equivalence:

Original argument: Class {Golem} normally has the attribute (literal name)

Counter argument: Class {Golem} is a subclass of Class {Creatures}
{Silver Fox} is a subset of class {Creature}
{Silver Fox} does not have attribute (literal name)
Therefore, Class {Golem} cannot have attribute (literal name)

Straw Man. Functionally equivalent to:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Argument: Class {Mammal} has the attribute (hair)

Counter argument: Class {Mammal} is a subclass of Class {Animals}
{Fish} is a subset of class {Animals}
{Fish} does not have attribute (hair)
Therefore, Class {Mammal} cannot have attribute (hair)

Provably false.

Again that's wrong, because we know having a literal name cant be a rule for golems, as its not an actual rule for their type. You cant create an exception out of thin air. All creatures follow the same rules barring specific exceptions. If you want golems to have literal names, without citing an exception, all creatures must have literal names.

So to phrase it in your format:

Silver fox is a creature
Silver fox is not a literal name
Creatures therefore do not have literal names as an attribute
Class Golem is a subclass of creature
Class Golem has no exception listing literal name as a benefit
Therefore golems do not have literal name as a benefit.

Also, you chose a really bad counter example as fish scales and hair are effectively genetic parallels for each other (the genes that make scales in fish make hair in mammals), so nice job failing even there.

Similarity is similarity. It does not equate. So nice job failing even there.

Also, the NAME doesn't mean it is made of adamantine. But combine that with other information...
The book says it is a golem made of adamantine and then says it is name 'adamantine golem'... well damn, it is literally a golem and literally made of adamantine... so then it is a literal name.

See what happens when you look at different parts and then combine them logically?
That is the argument. Additional supporting information.
Not a proof that names = crunch.

[Snowblind]

Scythia wrote:

...

I wouldn't have thought it possible to last even this many pages, but it found a way.

Life, ah, finds a way.

[Benchak the Nightstalker]

Calth wrote:

Dyspeptic wrote:

I really wanted to avoid this thread, but the silver fox is not reductio ad absurdum, it's clearly a Straw Man. Or maybe False Equivalence:

Original argument: Class {Golem} normally has the attribute (literal name)

Counter argument: Class {Golem} is a subclass of Class {Creatures}
{Silver Fox} is a subset of class {Creature}
{Silver Fox} does not have attribute (literal name)
Therefore, Class {Golem} cannot have attribute (literal name)

Straw Man. Functionally equivalent to:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Argument: Class {Mammal} has the attribute (hair)

Counter argument: Class {Mammal} is a subclass of Class {Animals}
{Fish} is a subset of class {Animals}
{Fish} does not have attribute (hair)
Therefore, Class {Mammal} cannot have attribute (hair)

Provably false.

Again that's wrong, because we know having a literal name cant be a rule for golems, as its not an actual rule for their type. You cant create an exception out of thin air. All creatures follow the same rules barring specific exceptions. If you want golems to have literal names, without citing an exception, all creatures must have literal names.

So to phrase it in your format:

Silver fox is a creature
Silver fox is not a literal name
Creatures therefore do not have literal names as an attribute
Class Golem is a subclass of creature
Class Golem has no exception listing literal name as a benefit
Therefore golems do not have literal name as a benefit.

Also, you chose a really bad counter example as fish scales and hair are effectively genetic parallels for each other (the genes that make scales in fish make hair in mammals), so nice job failing even there.

Your error (again) is in assuming the "Golems have literal names" is prescriptive, not descriptive.

It is observed that (most) golems have literal names. No one (NO ONE) is saying there is a rule saying golem's names must be literal.

Also, scales and hair being genetic parallels does not make hair=scales. In fact, hair/fur is one of the defining characteristics of mammals.

[Lorewalker]

Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:

Calth wrote:

In a game system, absence of a rule means there is no rule. "Common sense", "obvious", and such are not valid arguments. Cause guess what, its a game system.

...and that's why being dead doesn't make you fall prone.

OR, it's a game system, not a computer program. It's written for a casual readership, and so assumes a certain level of interpretation on the part of the reader.

Things that are obvious, or things for which the common definition is sufficient (like what happens when a character dies), are omitted or glossed over.

It's worse than that. The rules for being dead assume the one dying is a besouled being. Not everything in the game has a soul. Some things ARE souls, or are soul/body melds. So they can not have their 'soul' leave their 'body'.

[Calth]

Lorewalker wrote:

Calth wrote:

Citations on any of your claims, many of which are blatantly wrong?

(For example adamantine armor doesn't give dr/adamantine you know, adamantine golems don't even have dr/adamantine, they are also, even if you accept fluff descriptions, not considered adamantine according to the object rules, being made of adamantine doesn't confer dr/adamantine, and so on)

In a game system, absence of a rule means there is no rule. "Common sense", "obvious", and such are not valid arguments. Cause guess what, its a game system.

My whole point is that obvious is part of the rules. As in, if I have a dagger that is made of adamantine... does the dagger need a rule attached that specifically says when a dagger is adamantine it pierces adamantine? And lacking that excplict statement, the adamantine dagger doesn't pierce DR / adamantine? No. Because since it is made of adamantine, obviously you look up the rule for what it means to be made of adamantine.

They are made of adamantine. A planet's worth, actually. Having other materials in the construction does not negate the fact that it is made of adamantine.

An adamantine hammer has a wooden shaft too. Does that mean it does not pierce? Or, does it not pierce because hammers don't have a special rule saying if it is made of adamantine then it counts as being made of adamantine?

And they DO have DR / adamantine. It is obsucured by their DR / EPIC. Transmute metal to wood strips the golem of its DR / epic and then it has DR / adamantine.

There is a difference between golems and equipment though. Objects have a set of rules governing their material make up. Creatures do not. SO yes, those daggers and hammers have specific governing rules which don't exist for the golem which let you determine if they bypass DR/adamantine. You cannot apply those rules to creatures.

And your argument is that an adamantine golem has dr/adamantine because once it gets affected by a spell that makes it made of wood, and not adamantine (or other metal), it has dr/adamantine? That's a pretty horrible reasoning process there.

[Calth]

Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:

Calth wrote:

In a game system, absence of a rule means there is no rule. "Common sense", "obvious", and such are not valid arguments. Cause guess what, its a game system.

...and that's why being dead doesn't make you fall prone.

OR, it's a game system, not a computer program. It's written for a casual readership, and so assumes a certain level of interpretation on the part of the reader.

Things that are obvious, or things for which the common definition is sufficient (like what happens when a character dies), are omitted or glossed over.

And the death rules should be fixed. Pointing out broken portions of the rules system to support making up additional rules is meaningless, as with that argument there is no reason to have any rules. Its also incredibly tiresome to see it come up in every single one of these types of rules debates. A group wants something to be a rule even when its not, another group points out that theres no rule allowing it, and then the original group brings up the death rules to somehow support their side. And when it happens, I hide the thread and move on, as its pointless to continue.

[B.O.B.Johnson]

Aelryinth wrote:

As for whether the new definition for DR Epic in Mythic replaces the one in the bestiary...I don't know, do updated and reprinted rules replace older ones where you come from? If they don't, use the old one from 3.5. Or, you could use the new Paizo one. It's your call. Sometimes things are real inconsistent. It's like trying to figure the CR of character classes.

==Aelryinth

I own Mythic Adventures and all the Bestiaries. I read the DR/Epic entry in Mythic Adventures on page 7. It seems pretty clear to me that the entry is an addition, not a replacement, and meant to give a way for players (not monsters) to overcome DR/Epic without having to rely on the GM being nice giving them a +6 weapon as loot (cause as far as I know, a player can't craft - or have crafted - a +6 weapon) - carrying a ridiculous variety of +4 bane X weapons to overcome DR/Epic.

Here's my personal take on how it works: So the golem, since it has DR/Epic can overcome DR/Epic with its slam attacks. This means that its slam attacks count as having a straight +6 enhancement for overcoming DR/Epic.

Now the reason I qualified that as straight is because the golem's slam attack doesn't have any energy or or other weapon enchantment going on. IE, it's damage entry isn't "6d10+13 and 1d6 fire". You could argue that it is a +4 or +5 because it has a crit range (keen = +1 enchantment), but I don't know of any particular weapon enchantment that also gives you a free sunder anytime you crit (course I don't own all of the rulebooks, so there might be one).

Course that is all just my personal take on it. In the end, does it matter all that much if it has DR/addy? If it rolled all ones, that's still a base damage of 19. It's going to beat most DR/hardness out just with poor rolls - and based on 'average die results (5.5 for a d10)', it should be averaging 46 damage per slam.

[Benchak the Nightstalker]

Calth wrote:

Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:

Calth wrote:

In a game system, absence of a rule means there is no rule. "Common sense", "obvious", and such are not valid arguments. Cause guess what, its a game system.

...and that's why being dead doesn't make you fall prone.

OR, it's a game system, not a computer program. It's written for a casual readership, and so assumes a certain level of interpretation on the part of the reader.

Things that are obvious, or things for which the common definition is sufficient (like what happens when a character dies), are omitted or glossed over.

And the death rules should be fixed. Pointing out broken portions of the rules system to support making up additional rules is meaningless, as with that argument there is no reason to have any rules.

I see now there is a deep philosophical divide between us. :D

I don't see the lack of explicit rules on death as being broken, or a weakness in the system. I see that as the authors respecting their audience and assuming we don't need our hands held when it comes to obvious stuff, like "dead people fall down."

A game that bothered to spell out every. single. thing. would not only be countless volumes longer than the already massive PFRPG Core Rulebook, it would also be tedious to read and (maybe just in my opinion) a little bit patronizing.

[Calth]

Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:

Calth wrote:

Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:

Calth wrote:

In a game system, absence of a rule means there is no rule. "Common sense", "obvious", and such are not valid arguments. Cause guess what, its a game system.

...and that's why being dead doesn't make you fall prone.

OR, it's a game system, not a computer program. It's written for a casual readership, and so assumes a certain level of interpretation on the part of the reader.

Things that are obvious, or things for which the common definition is sufficient (like what happens when a character dies), are omitted or glossed over.

And the death rules should be fixed. Pointing out broken portions of the rules system to support making up additional rules is meaningless, as with that argument there is no reason to have any rules.

I see now there is a deep philosophical divide between us. :D

I don't see the lack of explicit rules on death as being broken, or a weakness in the system. I see that as the authors respecting their audience and assuming we don't need our hands held when it comes to obvious stuff, like "dead people fall down."

A game that bothered to spell out every. single. thing. would not only be countless volumes longer than the already massive PFRPG Core Rulebook, it would also be tedious to read and (maybe just in my opinion) a little bit patronizing.

And I consider it sloppy writing and a major issue as it encourages the very argument that you made that you cant use the actual rules of the games as the rules of game. A rule set should be complete for the scope you wish to cover and consistent, and when it isn't it should be fixed. "Oh you can just house rule it" and "we expect our readers to understand our intent" are extremely poor form, cop outs, and a somewhat lazy excuse for bad output.

[Benchak the Nightstalker]

Calth wrote:

Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:

Calth wrote:

Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:

Calth wrote:

In a game system, absence of a rule means there is no rule. "Common sense", "obvious", and such are not valid arguments. Cause guess what, its a game system.

...and that's why being dead doesn't make you fall prone.

OR, it's a game system, not a computer program. It's written for a casual readership, and so assumes a certain level of interpretation on the part of the reader.

Things that are obvious, or things for which the common definition is sufficient (like what happens when a character dies), are omitted or glossed over.

And the death rules should be fixed. Pointing out broken portions of the rules system to support making up additional rules is meaningless, as with that argument there is no reason to have any rules.

I see now there is a deep philosophical divide between us. :D

I don't see the lack of explicit rules on death as being broken, or a weakness in the system. I see that as the authors respecting their audience and assuming we don't need our hands held when it comes to obvious stuff, like "dead people fall down."

A game that bothered to spell out every. single. thing. would not only be countless volumes longer than the already massive PFRPG Core Rulebook, it would also be tedious to read and (maybe just in my opinion) a little bit patronizing.

And I consider it sloppy writing and a major issue as it encourages the very argument that you made that you cant use the actual rules of the games as the rules of game. A rule set should be complete for the scope you wish to cover and consistent, and when it isn't it should be fixed. "Oh you can just house rule it" and "we expect our readers to understand our intent" are extremely poor form, cop outs, and a somewhat lazy excuse for bad output.

"For the scope you wish it to cover" seems like the point where we disagree.

Spelling out obvious things pushes the scope a lot closer to "universal" than I'd really want in a game.

I suspect this is simply a matter of taste.

[Lorewalker]

Calth wrote:

Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:

Calth wrote:

Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:

Calth wrote:

In a game system, absence of a rule means there is no rule. "Common sense", "obvious", and such are not valid arguments. Cause guess what, its a game system.

...and that's why being dead doesn't make you fall prone.

OR, it's a game system, not a computer program. It's written for a casual readership, and so assumes a certain level of interpretation on the part of the reader.

Things that are obvious, or things for which the common definition is sufficient (like what happens when a character dies), are omitted or glossed over.

And the death rules should be fixed. Pointing out broken portions of the rules system to support making up additional rules is meaningless, as with that argument there is no reason to have any rules.

I see now there is a deep philosophical divide between us. :D

I don't see the lack of explicit rules on death as being broken, or a weakness in the system. I see that as the authors respecting their audience and assuming we don't need our hands held when it comes to obvious stuff, like "dead people fall down."

A game that bothered to spell out every. single. thing. would not only be countless volumes longer than the already massive PFRPG Core Rulebook, it would also be tedious to read and (maybe just in my opinion) a little bit patronizing.

And I consider it sloppy writing and a major issue as it encourages the very argument that you made that you cant use the actual rules of the games as the rules of game. A rule set should be complete for the scope you wish to cover and consistent, and when it isn't it should be fixed. "Oh you can just house rule it" and "we expect our readers to understand our intent" are extremely poor form, cop outs, and a somewhat lazy excuse for bad output.

Okay. Go ahead, write a complete and perfect description of what it means to be dead in Golarion. Make sure it is short(as it has to fit the book's format) and to the point for every necessary point to be complete as you say it must be.

Then post it here.
We'll see how much your criticism is worth.

[Dyspeptic]

Calth wrote:

Dyspeptic wrote:

I really wanted to avoid this thread, but the silver fox is not reductio ad absurdum, it's clearly a Straw Man. Or maybe False Equivalence:

Original argument: Class {Golem} normally has the attribute (literal name)

Counter argument: Class {Golem} is a subclass of Class {Creatures}
{Silver Fox} is a subset of class {Creature}
{Silver Fox} does not have attribute (literal name)
Therefore, Class {Golem} cannot have attribute (literal name)

Straw Man. Functionally equivalent to:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Argument: Class {Mammal} has the attribute (hair)

Counter argument: Class {Mammal} is a subclass of Class {Animals}
{Fish} is a subset of class {Animals}
{Fish} does not have attribute (hair)
Therefore, Class {Mammal} cannot have attribute (hair)

Provably false.

Again that's wrong, because we know having a literal name cant be a rule for golems, as its not an actual rule for their type. You cant create an exception out of thin air. All creatures follow the same rules barring specific exceptions. If you want golems to have literal names, without citing an exception, all creatures must have literal names.

So to phrase it in your format:

Silver fox is a creature
Silver fox is not a literal name
Creatures therefore do not have literal names as an attribute
Class Golem is a subclass of creature
Class Golem has no exception listing literal name as a benefit
Therefore golems do not have literal name as a benefit.

Also, you chose a really bad counter example as fish scales and hair are effectively genetic parallels for each other (the genes that make scales in fish make hair in mammals), so nice job failing even there.

And arms and legs are genetically parallel to fins. Does that make arms and legs fins? No, no it does not.

In logic, all members of a class will share some attributes. That's what allows you to group them. Members of a particular subclass will have additional attributes that they WILL NOT share with the remainder of the class. You cannot generalize rules for one subclass from an instance of another.

Also, literally NO consistent system can be completely defined. There must, at some level, ALWAYS be underlying assumptions. The goal is to minimize this number, but they are always there.

And to parallel your attempted logic:
Silver Foxes are creatures.
Silver Foxes don't have opposable thumbs.
Class Humanoid is a subclass of creature
Class Animal has no exception listing opposable thumb as a benefit
Therefore humanoids do not have opposable thumbs as a benefit.

Oh wait,

Humans are creatures.
Humans have opposable thumbs.
Class Humanoid is a subclass of creature
Silver Foxes has no exception listing that they don't have opposable thumb as a benefit.
Therefore Silver Foxes have opposable thumbs as a benefit.

Hmmm... how is that possible? Hasty generalization, perhaps?

[Calth]

Dyspeptic wrote:

And arms and legs are genetically parallel to fins. Does that make arms and legs fins? No, no it does not.

In logic, all members of a class will share some attributes. That's what allows you to group them. Members of a particular subclass will have additional attributes that they WILL NOT share with the remainder of the class. You cannot generalize rules for one subclass from an instance of another.

Also, literally NO consistent system can be completely defined. There must, at some level, ALWAYS be underlying assumptions. The goal is to minimize this number, but they are always there.

And to parallel your attempted logic:
Silver Foxes are creatures.
Silver Foxes don't have opposable thumbs.
Class Humanoid is a subclass of creature
Class Animal has no exception listing opposable thumb as a benefit
Therefore humanoids do not have opposable thumbs as a benefit.

Oh wait,

Humans are creatures.
Humans have opposable thumbs.
Class Humanoid is a subclass of creature
Silver Foxes has no exception listing that they don't have opposable thumb as a benefit.
Therefore Silver Foxes have opposable thumbs as a benefit.

Hmmm... how is that possible? Hasty generalization, perhaps?

Please show in pathfinder where it says humans have opposable thumbs and what mechanical benefit they provide?

But you can't because they don't. "Human" rules elements instead have "hands" rules elements that allow them to interact with other rules elements that are defined to interact with "hands" rules elements.

So yes, the first statement is true in Pathfinder, humans don't have mechanically relevant thumbs.

[Lorewalker]

Calth wrote:

Dyspeptic wrote:

And arms and legs are genetically parallel to fins. Does that make arms and legs fins? No, no it does not.

In logic, all members of a class will share some attributes. That's what allows you to group them. Members of a particular subclass will have additional attributes that they WILL NOT share with the remainder of the class. You cannot generalize rules for one subclass from an instance of another.

Also, literally NO consistent system can be completely defined. There must, at some level, ALWAYS be underlying assumptions. The goal is to minimize this number, but they are always there.

And to parallel your attempted logic:
Silver Foxes are creatures.
Silver Foxes don't have opposable thumbs.
Class Humanoid is a subclass of creature
Class Animal has no exception listing opposable thumb as a benefit
Therefore humanoids do not have opposable thumbs as a benefit.

Oh wait,

Humans are creatures.
Humans have opposable thumbs.
Class Humanoid is a subclass of creature
Silver Foxes has no exception listing that they don't have opposable thumb as a benefit.
Therefore Silver Foxes have opposable thumbs as a benefit.

Hmmm... how is that possible? Hasty generalization, perhaps?

Please show in pathfinder where it says humans have opposable thumbs and what mechanical benefit they provide?

But you can't because they don't. "Human" rules elements instead have "hands" rules elements that allow them to interact with other rules elements that are defined to interact with "hands" rules elements.

So yes, the first statement is true in Pathfinder, humans don't have mechanically relevant thumbs.

<sarcasm>Yes, because the 'has hands'/'has graspers' rule is 100% defined.</sarcasm>

Instead of saying 'has opposable thumb' he should have said 'has hands with the capability to wield items'. Which is a similar concept, one that has a direct parallel in Pathfinder. And almost certainly what he is talking about.

So how about instead of being too literal and arguing against what he isn't apparently arguing... give an honest response argument that acknowledges what he said AND what he most likely meant.

[Calth]

Lorewalker wrote:

Calth wrote:

Please show in pathfinder where it says humans have opposable thumbs and what mechanical benefit they provide?

But you can't because they don't. "Human" rules elements instead have "hands" rules elements that allow them to interact with other rules elements that are defined to interact with "hands" rules elements.

So yes, the first statement is true in Pathfinder, humans don't have mechanically relevant thumbs.

<sarcasm>Yes, because the 'has hands'/'has graspers' rule is 100% defined.</sarcasm>

Instead of saying 'has opposable thumb' he should have said 'has hands with the capability to wield items'. Which is a similar concept, one that has a direct parallel in Pathfinder. And almost certainly what he is talking about.

So how about instead of being too literal and arguing against what he isn't apparently arguing... give an honest response argument that acknowledges what he said AND what he most likely meant.

Except if you make the alterations you suggest, then the point he is trying to make disappears because the rules exceptions he claims don't exist for humans does exist (i.e. all humanoids in pathfinder have hands barring specific exception because there is a rule that says they do).

So either way his argument, both literal and your alterative, is wrong based on the rules of Pathfinder.

[Rysky]

Wait, being dead is a game breaker?

Paizo errata plz.