adamantine rule discrepancy


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 98 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

60 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you look at the rules for adamantine they contradict each other

This is from the core rule equipment section.

Adamantine: Mined from rocks that fell from the heavens, this ultrahard metal adds to the quality of a weapon or suit of armor. Weapons fashioned from adamantine have a natural ability to bypass hardness when sundering weapons or attacking objects, ignoring hardness less than 20 (see Additional Rules).

so less that 20 it ignores. 20 or more adamantine has no special advantage

No, from the PRD Universal Monster Rules section

Hardness (Ex) When a creature with hardness takes damage, subtract its hardness from the damage. Only damage in excess of its hardness is subtracted from its hit points. A creature with hardness doesn't further reduce damage from energy attacks, ranged attacks, or other types of attacks as objects typically do. Adamantine weapons bypass hardness of 20 or less.

This says 20 or less. So 21 or more adamantine has no special advantage.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I pressed the FAQ button, but I think the monster entry is the one that is incorrect.


are there any items with 19 hardness?


vhok wrote:
are there any items with 19 hardness?

None that I know of. Mithral has a 15. That is the highest number in the core rule book for substance hardness.


vhok wrote:
are there any items with 19 hardness?

No, but there are items of 20 hardness that would be effected.


what items have 20?


vhok wrote:
what items have 20?

Adamantine itself, for one.


vhok wrote:
what items have 20?

emergency force dome

adamantine
i am sure there are more magical items and such
+2 mithrial items have 19


I would go by the one listed under Adamantine. it makes sense that Adamantine can't slice through other Adamantine like butter. and since Adamantine is 20 its less than 20 that is correct.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
vhok wrote:
are there any items with 19 hardness?

+2 Mithral armor and weapons have a hardness of 19.


The BBEG in Iron Gods has Hardness 20 in one of his incarnations, so it makes a big difference for melee PCs in that campaign. 20/- vs 20/LOL.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Never noticed the difference. FAQ'd

Sovereign Court

I'll be the devil's advocate:

Does it actually matter if the creature ability interacts with adamantine differently than do objects? There already are cases where the same rule treats creatures and objects differently.

For example, objects take half damage from ranged weapons. But the exact same object, subject to the Animate Objects spell and resultingly turned into a creature, no longer suffers half damage from ranged attacks...

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
deusvult wrote:

I'll be the devil's advocate:

Does it actually matter if the creature ability interacts with adamantine differently than do objects? There already are cases where the same rule treats creatures and objects differently.

For example, objects take half damage from ranged weapons. But the exact same object, subject to the Animate Objects spell and resultingly turned into a creature, no longer suffers half damage from ranged attacks...

It's pretty clear it's supposed to be Less Than 20 for objects, like it's always been. The most straightforward defence against adamantine is adamantine (hardness 20).

As for creatures, it would also matter because creatures tend to gain hardness and DR in increments of 5. It's quite important to a DR 20 creature; either his ability is negated entirely or not at all.

Also, do we really need "different by 1 point" rule differences just to make everything more complicated?

Scarab Sages

wraithstrike wrote:
vhok wrote:
are there any items with 19 hardness?
None that I know of. Mithral has a 15. That is the highest number in the core rule book for substance hardness.

Remember that each +1 enhancement bonuse adds +2 hardness and +10 HP to a magic weapon or armor. So a +2 mithral weapon has hardness 19.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:
deusvult wrote:

I'll be the devil's advocate:

Does it actually matter if the creature ability interacts with adamantine differently than do objects? There already are cases where the same rule treats creatures and objects differently.

For example, objects take half damage from ranged weapons. But the exact same object, subject to the Animate Objects spell and resultingly turned into a creature, no longer suffers half damage from ranged attacks...

It's pretty clear it's supposed to be Less Than 20 for objects, like it's always been. The most straightforward defence against adamantine is adamantine (hardness 20).

As for creatures, it would also matter because creatures tend to gain hardness and DR in increments of 5. It's quite important to a DR 20 creature; either his ability is negated entirely or not at all.

Also, do we really need "different by 1 point" rule differences just to make everything more complicated?

This.

They should be the same or they should be very different.


I've long personally held that adamantine was supposed to beat a hardness of 20 (other adamantine) but due to the way it's written doesn't do so, and no one was ever bothered enough to actually change it.

The subsequent monster rule was probably based off that misunderstanding with the same assumption that adamantine should be adamantine, but it doesn't actually do so.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

But can an adamantine golem overcome DR/adamantine?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

By the rules no, but it is not primarily constructed of adamantine either, despite the name and the flavor.


Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
But can an adamantine golem overcome DR/adamantine?

By the rules, yes.

Bestiary page 299:
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.

d20 SRD:
An adamantine golem’s natural weapons are treated as epic for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.

CRB page 562:
Weapon Enhancement - DR Type 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

Conclusion:
An adamantine golem's slams are treated as epic weapons, which are considered to have at least a +6 enhancement bonus so they overcome DR/adamantine, which only requires a +4 enhancement bonus to overcome.


Pink Dragon wrote:
Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
But can an adamantine golem overcome DR/adamantine?

By the rules, yes.

Bestiary page 299:
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.

d20 SRD:
An adamantine golem’s natural weapons are treated as epic for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.

CRB page 562:
Weapon Enhancement - DR Type 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

Conclusion:
An adamantine golem's slams are treated as epic weapons, which are considered to have at least a +6 enhancement bonus so they overcome DR/adamantine, which only requires a +4 enhancement bonus to overcome.

Overcoming Epic DR is not the same as overcoming adamantine. That is because it does not automatically equate them to a +6 weapon, just like monks can overcome adamantine DR, but their attacks are not a +4 weapon.

Adamantine golem page does not have the "An adamantine golem’s natural weapons are treated as epic for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction" line. Maybe you went to the d20pfsrd which sometimes takes liberties with how things are worded, and is not always accurate.


Im thinking its less than 20, aka 19 or less, because otherwise adamant weapons cut through each other like butter, and that makes no sense


wraithstrike wrote:
Pink Dragon wrote:
Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
But can an adamantine golem overcome DR/adamantine?

By the rules, yes.

Bestiary page 299:
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.

d20 SRD:
An adamantine golem’s natural weapons are treated as epic for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.

CRB page 562:
Weapon Enhancement - DR Type 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

Conclusion:
An adamantine golem's slams are treated as epic weapons, which are considered to have at least a +6 enhancement bonus so they overcome DR/adamantine, which only requires a +4 enhancement bonus to overcome.

Overcoming Epic DR is not the same as overcoming adamantine. That is because it does not automatically equate them to a +6 weapon, just like monks can overcome adamantine DR, but their attacks are not a +4 weapon.

Adamantine golem page does not have the "An adamantine golem’s natural weapons are treated as epic for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction" line. Maybe you went to the d20pfsrd which sometimes takes liberties with how things are worded, and is not always accurate.

Even the SRD aside, the PFSRD you linked describes the adamantine golem as:

"This huge construct of black metal is all spikes and armor, save for several forge-like stacks that burn atop its crown and back."

The exterior of the adamantine golem is clearly adamantine (black metal) so if an adamantine blanche can overcome DR/adamantine, there is no reason that an adamantine golem who slams with its black metal "spikes and armor" should not be able to overcome DR/adamantine.


Pink Dragon wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Pink Dragon wrote:
Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
But can an adamantine golem overcome DR/adamantine?

By the rules, yes.

Bestiary page 299:
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.

d20 SRD:
An adamantine golem’s natural weapons are treated as epic for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.

CRB page 562:
Weapon Enhancement - DR Type 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

Conclusion:
An adamantine golem's slams are treated as epic weapons, which are considered to have at least a +6 enhancement bonus so they overcome DR/adamantine, which only requires a +4 enhancement bonus to overcome.

Overcoming Epic DR is not the same as overcoming adamantine. That is because it does not automatically equate them to a +6 weapon, just like monks can overcome adamantine DR, but their attacks are not a +4 weapon.

Adamantine golem page does not have the "An adamantine golem’s natural weapons are treated as epic for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction" line. Maybe you went to the d20pfsrd which sometimes takes liberties with how things are worded, and is not always accurate.

Even the SRD aside, the PFSRD you linked describes the adamantine golem as:

"This huge construct of black metal is all spikes and armor, save for several forge-like stacks that burn atop its crown and back."

The exterior of the adamantine golem is clearly adamantine (black metal) so if an adamantine blanche can overcome DR/adamantine, there is no reason that an adamantine golem who slams with its black metal "spikes and armor"...

"black metal is all spikes and armor" does nothing to provide rules context. It is descriptive text.

All of that text in that area for any monster is always descriptive text.
Even if that was an area for rules the metal being black just means the creature is all black. It says nothing that has an impact on the rules.

You are assuming the exterior is adamantine. We know the exterior is black.

We also know "A adamantine golem's body is made of more than 4,000 pounds of adamantine, mithral, gold, platinum, and other metals"

There is nothing to state that by the rules it overcomes adamantine DR.

PS: I would allow it to overcome adamantine DR, but that is different than me saying there is a rule that actually allows it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

We had a thread about whether adamantine golems were made of a realistic amount of adamantine already. I recall making two very large detailed posts for it. I don't think it reached any conclusion other than "it should, but the rules say it doesn't, so... *shrug*".

I think adamantine shouldn't be able to cut adamantine, and that the hardness ignored is less than 20, not 20 or less.


"Even if that was an area for rules the metal being black just means the creature is all black. It says nothing that has an impact on the rules."

Any one actually arguing this is just being silly. Clearly the black metal is adamantine.


Saethori wrote:

We had a thread about whether adamantine golems were made of a realistic amount of adamantine already. I recall making two very large detailed posts for it. I don't think it reached any conclusion other than "it should, but the rules say it doesn't, so... *shrug*".

I think adamantine shouldn't be able to cut adamantine, and that the hardness ignored is less than 20, not 20 or less.

Hardness is different that DR/adamantine.


Pink Dragon wrote:

"Even if that was an area for rules the metal being black just means the creature is all black. It says nothing that has an impact on the rules."

Any one actually arguing this is just being silly. Clearly the black metal is adamantine.

Like I said, that quote is still not a rule. Even if the middle is gold and mithral, and the outside is coated with Adamantine, that does not mean it can bypass DR/Adamantine. It can only do it, if the book says it can, and the book doesn't say it can.

I see you missed the important part of my quote which is the second sentence. It says nothing that has an impact on the rules.

What makes sense, what is the actual rule are not the same thing.

edited: for clarity

Silver Crusade

As already noted, the adamantine golem question as discussed in another thread, perhaps there would be a more appropriate place to bring this conversation, as it is not about whether adamatine bypasses 20 or just less than 20.

Edit: Here is said thread.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:

Like I said, that quote is still not a rule. Even if the middle is gold and mithral, and the outside is coated with Adamantine, that does not mean it can bypass DR/Adamantine. It can only do it, if the book says it can, and the book doesn't say it can.

I see you missed the important part of my quote which is the second sentence. It says nothing that has an impact on the rules.

What makes sense, what is the actual rule are not the same thing.

edited: for clarity

I didn't miss the quote in your second sentence.

But if people want to play the literal reading of the rules game, then even under a literal reading of the rules, an adamantine golem's slams bypass DR/adamantine, without reference to the SRD. Only PFSRD and Paizo sources are required for the analysis.

Page 299 of Bestiary 1.
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.

(Note that the above quote from Bestiary 1 does not say that the natural weapons are treated as epic weapons for the purpose of overcoming only epic damage reduction, but instead states overcoming damage reduction - without qualification.)

The PFSRD you linked describes the adamantine golem as having DR 15/epic.

Because the adamantine golem has DR/epic (i.e. vulnerable only to epic weapons), the adamantine golem's natural weapons are also treated as epic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction as per Bestiary 1, page 299. Page 299 of the Bestiary equates epic weapons to magic weapons with at least a +6 enhancement bonus. Therefore, the adamantine golem's slams are equivalent to magic weapons with a +6 enhancement bonus, thereby bypassing DR adamantine as DR adamantine only requires a magic weapon with a +4 enhancement bonus to be bypassed.


Pink Dragon wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

Like I said, that quote is still not a rule. Even if the middle is gold and mithral, and the outside is coated with Adamantine, that does not mean it can bypass DR/Adamantine. It can only do it, if the book says it can, and the book doesn't say it can.

I see you missed the important part of my quote which is the second sentence. It says nothing that has an impact on the rules.

What makes sense, what is the actual rule are not the same thing.

edited: for clarity

I didn't miss the quote in your second sentence.

But if people want to play the literal reading of the rules game, then even under a literal reading of the rules, an adamantine golem's slams bypass DR/adamantine, without reference to the SRD. Only PFSRD and Paizo sources are required for the analysis.

Page 299 of Bestiary 1.
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.

(Note that the above quote from Bestiary 1 does not say that the natural weapons are treated as epic weapons for the purpose of overcoming only epic damage reduction, but instead states overcoming damage reduction - without qualification.)

The PFSRD you linked describes the adamantine golem as having DR 15/epic.

Because the adamantine golem has DR/epic (i.e. vulnerable only to epic weapons), the adamantine golem's natural weapons are also treated as epic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction as per Bestiary 1, page 299. Page 299 of the Bestiary equates epic weapons to magic weapons with at least a +6 enhancement bonus. Therefore, the adamantine golem's slams are equivalent to magic weapons with a +6 enhancement bonus, thereby bypassing DR adamantine as DR adamantine only requires a magic weapon with a +4 enhancement bonus to be bypassed.

You are misreading the intent. The golem's attack's overcomes that specific DR, not every DR under it. The ability to overcome epic DR does not mean you get to overcome the others. That is not how it works. Read my monk example below, which I am repeating.

You need to check the prd, not the PFSRD. Like I said before they add words that are not always part of the official rules.

They are trying to explain who they think the rule works, but like I said before just like the monk can overcomes adamantine DR, that does not mean he can overcome the other DR's just because adamantine requires a +4 manufactured weapon.

I can overcome DR/<fill in the blank> does not equal to "I can use the weapon chart to decide what I can overcome".

If you have that general rule on the PRD not PFSRD then quote it or link it.

Those people who made the pfsrd have no more authority to make up rules than I do.


Just to be clear this is the site I am using. Official(not 3rd party) Pathfinder Reference Document


And just to muddle things further, we have the FAQ on DR/epic stating that a weapon with +6 equivalent enhancement bypasses, you could easily have a weapon that bypasses epic without the +5 necessary to bypass DR/ adamantine, if the aboce logic on the golem is sound, does it count as +6 or +6 equivalent?


Java Man wrote:
And just to muddle things further, we have the FAQ on DR/epic stating that a weapon with +6 equivalent enhancement bypasses, you could easily have a weapon that bypasses epic without the +5 necessary to bypass DR/ adamantine, if the aboce logic on the golem is sound, does it count as +6 or +6 equivalent?

It only counts as being able to bypass epic DR. You need the actual enhancements to bypass the other DR's.

In early Pathfinder you needed an actual +6 enhancement to bypass Epic DR.

Quote:
A few very powerful monsters are vulnerable only to epic weapons—that is, magic weapons with at least a +6 enhancement bonus.

Later on they made the rule of having a +6 equivalent once the mythic rules came out, assuming you are using the mythic rules.

The FAQ you referenced from the mythic adventures book explains this.

Quote:

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).


Java Man wrote:
And just to muddle things further, we have the FAQ on DR/epic stating that a weapon with +6 equivalent enhancement bypasses, you could easily have a weapon that bypasses epic without the +5 necessary to bypass DR/ adamantine, if the aboce logic on the golem is sound, does it count as +6 or +6 equivalent?

To answer the question about the golem it does not count as +6 in either case. The quotes given by the other poster are not rules quotes. They are someone's opinion who has a 3rd party SRD site. The official site does not support what he is saying. If they do he has yet to provide a link or quote.

As an example the monk overcomes DR/Admantine, but his unarmed strikes never count as a +4 for overcoming DR or for adding a bonus to his attack and damage rolls.

Another example are outsiders(with alignment subtypes. They can overcome their own alignment subtype with regard to DR, but that is all they get. They don't get to overcome other types of DR that are called out on the DR/enchancement table.


isn't hardness increased by thickness? nope. its hp is increased by thickness. you could cut through a thin steel shield but you would have a harder time cutting through a two foot thick steel wall.

Table: Substance Hardness and Hit Points
Substance Hardness Hit Points
Glass 1 1/in. of thickness
Paper 0 2/in. of thickness
or cloth
Rope 0 2/in. of thickness
Ice 0 3/in. of thickness
Leather 2 5/in. of thickness
or hide
Wood 5 10/in. of thickness
Stone 8 15/in. of thickness
Iron 10 30/in. of thickness
or steel
Mithral 15 30/in. of thickness
Adamantine 20 40/in. of thickness

but by that thought it would be smarter to block a swipe of an admantine weapon on your blade where its thicker then along the flat where its thinner.

normally you don't want to block blade to blade you will gouge the blade and ruin the sharpness of the blade. you want to block with the flat of the blade where you won't ruin the sharpness of the blade.

but when blocking an adamantine sword you would want to block blade to blade where adamantine sword would have to cut through more of the thickness of the blade.

an adamantine sword would do 5 points of damage to a mithral sword and depending on how you block the adamantine sword with the mithral sword it will be destroyed (blade to flat) or broken (blade to blade) if you want to argue semantics.

>.> there is just to much math in figuring out how many hit points the thickness of a sword would have.


Pathfinder doesn't go into all that detail, luckily enough. If it did I would either houserule sunder or ban it. :)


tried to fix the table >.<


well if the hit points where figured out. it would only take one or two attempts with sunder to ruin any weapon or item.


zainale wrote:

well if the hit points where figured out. it would only take one or two attempts with sunder to ruin any weapon or item.

I was referring to you talking about where to apply the adamantine and where to hit the sword in order to break it. :)


wraithstrike wrote:
Java Man wrote:
And just to muddle things further, we have the FAQ on DR/epic stating that a weapon with +6 equivalent enhancement bypasses, you could easily have a weapon that bypasses epic without the +5 necessary to bypass DR/ adamantine, if the aboce logic on the golem is sound, does it count as +6 or +6 equivalent?

It only counts as being able to bypass epic DR. You need the actual enhancements to bypass the other DR's.

In early Pathfinder you needed an actual +6 enhancement to bypass Epic DR.

Quote:
A few very powerful monsters are vulnerable only to epic weapons—that is, magic weapons with at least a +6 enhancement bonus.

Later on they made the rule of having a +6 equivalent once the mythic rules came out, assuming you are using the mythic rules.

The FAQ you referenced from the mythic adventures book explains this.

Quote:

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

...

I was using the PRD, I just misnamed it in my previous post. My apologies. The PRD clearly indicates that the adamantine golem has DR 15/epic.

As I posted before, the Bestiary 1 on page 299 indicates that 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.

Your quote on DR/epic indicates that "there are now two ways to overcome DR/epic with magic weapons", the first way being "presented in the Universal Monster Rules in the Bestiary: You can use a weapon that has an actual enhancement bonus of +6 or higher". This is the way that the quote on page 299 of Bestiary 1 is referencing when talking about the natural weapons of creatures having DR/epic.

The second way of overcoming epic DR as shown in your quote is with a weapon having a combination of actual enhancement bonuses and magical effects or class abilities that add up to a "plus-equivalent" of +6 or higher. This way does not apply to the natural weapons of creatures having DR/epic, since the Bestiary 1 quote is covered by the first way.

The Core Rule Book on page 562 indicates the minimum weapon enhancement bonus needed to overcome various kinds of DR.
Weapon Enhancement - DR Type Bonus Equivalent
Cold iron/silver +3
Adamantine* +4
Alignment-based +5

All of my rules quotes come from actual Pathfinder rules sources. The logic is laid out here and in my previous post.

I have yet to see a rules quote that says natural weapons of creatures having DR/epic count only as being able to bypass epic DR. Please provide rules sources for the opinion that the ability of a creature having DR/epic to overcome epic DR does not mean the creature gets to overcome other types of DR.

As for monks, monks are not are not creatures with DR/epic so the argument does not apply to monks.

The same with outsiders. Unless the outsider has DR/epic, the outsiders natural weapons to not gain the benefit of the rule on page 299 of Bestiary 1.


Natural attacks are not enhanced. You need to show quotes that says they are.

What you are doing is inferring. You have not show me one quote that directly says if you can bypass DR/Epic your natural attacks are treated as +6 weapons for the purpose of bypassing DR.

The reason is because the way the rules work is that +6 weapons overcome DR/Epic. You are assuming it goes both ways, but nothing supports that.

In order for the natural attacks to do anything more than what the book specifically says there must be rules for it. So show where it says that a creature that can bypass Epic/DR can bypass other DR's.

You can't use the "it doesn't say they can argument monks", and then use the "it doesn't say they can't" for something else.

Be consistent.

If we go by the "but the rules don't say they can't logic" then I can say they allow you to fly and always roll nat 20's since there is no rule that says they can't do that.


I see what you are saying now. I had to get past your "wanting to use flavor as a rule" argument earlier. I assumed you were "reaching" and honestly it made me already see you as wrong for almost everything else you said.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:

I see what you are saying now. I had to get past your "wanting to use flavor as a rule" argument earlier. I assumed you were "reaching" and honestly it made me already see you as wrong for almost everything else you said.

I did change tacks abruptly so I can see where things may have gone astray.


wraithstrike wrote:

Natural attacks are not enhanced. You need to show quotes that says they are.

What you are doing is inferring. You have not show me one quote that directly says if you can bypass DR/Epic your natural attacks are treated as +6 weapons for the purpose of bypassing DR.

The reason is because the way the rules work is that +6 weapons overcome DR/Epic. You are assuming it goes both ways, but nothing supports that.

In order for the natural attacks to do anything more than what the book specifically says there must be rules for it. So show where it says that a creature that can bypass Epic/DR can bypass other DR's.

You can't use the "it doesn't say they can argument monks", and then use the "it doesn't say they can't" for something else.

Be consistent.

If we go by the "but the rules don't say they can't logic" then I can say they allow you to fly and always roll nat 20's since there is no rule that says they can't do that.

The rule I am quoting is:

Page 299 of Bestiary 1.
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.

Here the "creatures’ natural weapons are also treated as epic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction". Epic weapons are "magic weapons with at least a +6 enhancement bonus". I don't see this as unclear.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pink Dragon wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

Natural attacks are not enhanced. You need to show quotes that says they are.

What you are doing is inferring. You have not show me one quote that directly says if you can bypass DR/Epic your natural attacks are treated as +6 weapons for the purpose of bypassing DR.

The reason is because the way the rules work is that +6 weapons overcome DR/Epic. You are assuming it goes both ways, but nothing supports that.

In order for the natural attacks to do anything more than what the book specifically says there must be rules for it. So show where it says that a creature that can bypass Epic/DR can bypass other DR's.

You can't use the "it doesn't say they can argument monks", and then use the "it doesn't say they can't" for something else.

Be consistent.

If we go by the "but the rules don't say they can't logic" then I can say they allow you to fly and always roll nat 20's since there is no rule that says they can't do that.

The rule I am quoting is:

Page 299 of Bestiary 1.
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.

Here the "creatures’ natural weapons are also treated as epic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction". Epic weapons are "magic weapons with at least a +6 enhancement bonus". I don't see this as unclear.

I know that. I was saying in my last post that I agree with you now after rereading your comments.

We are on the same page. <thumbs up>


Saethori wrote:

We had a thread about whether adamantine golems were made of a realistic amount of adamantine already. I recall making two very large detailed posts for it. I don't think it reached any conclusion other than "it should, but the rules say it doesn't, so... *shrug*".

Yeah, that's the joke I was making, I was horrified and amused to see people take it up again like that.

Dark Archive

Never noticed the discrepancy before, i always treated adamantine as being able to bypass 20 or less. but it doesn't make sense really that adamantine can ignore its own hardness. the weapon or items both being made of adamantine would practically destroy each other in the process of hitting one another.

Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
But can an adamantine golem overcome DR/adamantine?

trying to stir the pot i see. Good job. i like you.

Phylotus wrote:

As already noted, the adamantine golem question as discussed in another thread, perhaps there would be a more appropriate place to bring this conversation, as it is not about whether adamatine bypasses 20 or just less than 20.

Edit: Here is said thread.

lol i thoroughly enjoyed that thread. Thank you for the reminiscing.

Its threads like the golem one that let me see who is sensible or not.


Pink Dragon wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

Natural attacks are not enhanced. You need to show quotes that says they are.

What you are doing is inferring. You have not show me one quote that directly says if you can bypass DR/Epic your natural attacks are treated as +6 weapons for the purpose of bypassing DR.

The reason is because the way the rules work is that +6 weapons overcome DR/Epic. You are assuming it goes both ways, but nothing supports that.

In order for the natural attacks to do anything more than what the book specifically says there must be rules for it. So show where it says that a creature that can bypass Epic/DR can bypass other DR's.

You can't use the "it doesn't say they can argument monks", and then use the "it doesn't say they can't" for something else.

Be consistent.

If we go by the "but the rules don't say they can't logic" then I can say they allow you to fly and always roll nat 20's since there is no rule that says they can't do that.

The rule I am quoting is:

Page 299 of Bestiary 1.
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.

Here the "creatures’ natural weapons are also treated as epic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction". Epic weapons are "magic weapons with at least a +6 enhancement bonus". I don't see this as unclear.

That is not how overcoming DR with magic weapons works. A weapon actually needs to have an enhancement bonus to hit and damage of +4 or greater.

DR/Epic can be overcome with a +1 vorpal weapon. DR/Adamantine can't
They are not transferable concepts.


dragonhunterq wrote:


That is not how overcoming DR with magic weapons works. A weapon actually needs to have an enhancement bonus to hit and damage of +4 or greater.

DR/Epic can be overcome with a +1 vorpal weapon. DR/Adamantine can't
They are not transferable concepts.

We are talking about overcoming DR/adamantine with the natural weapons of a creature having DR/epic. Whether a +1 vorpal weapon can overcome DR/epic but not DR/adamantine is irrelevant to an analysis of whether the natural weapons of a creature having DR/epic can overcome DR/adamantine.

Page 299 of the Bestiary explains how the natural weapons of a creature having DR/epic are treated as having a +6 enhancement bonus for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. Page 562 of the Core Rule Book explains that a +6 enhancement bonus overcome DR/adamantine. Therefore, the natural weapons of a creature having DR/epic overcome DR/adamantine.

1 to 50 of 98 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / adamantine rule discrepancy All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.