adamantine rule discrepancy


Rules Questions

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

Except, if we reference the faq on epic dr, a weapon with +6 equivalent enhancement, or a weapon with +6 enhancement can both overcome epic dr. So not all things that can overcome epic dr have the required +5 enhancement to overcome adamantine dr. How do we know which the golem is?


"Hey, Mr Golem... "

I think 20 is the magic number, not 21.

Hardening (spell) is the other tricky part, as you could give adamantine a higher Hardness using the spell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Heh heh heh, look at the adamantine golem debate sneaking in here.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
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.

+2 mithral weapon. 15 base, +4 for the magic bonus.

On the same vein +5 wood weapon.

Plenty of magic items can have a hardness of less than 20 but more than 15.


wraithstrike wrote:
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 way I am reading this it looks almost like you are trying to argue 'exact written rules' and 'intent' at the same time,


As written what I am getting is that the golem natural weapons are treated as basically as epic weapon which is basically a weapon that ADDs up to 6 (1+1+1+1+1+1 lvl enchants etc) whereas to overcome all the DRs except epic has to be a straight number (1-5) weapon.
Epic weapons cheaper than a +5 weapon.
If makes sense, early morning


Redneckdevil wrote:

As written what I am getting is that the golem natural weapons are treated as basically as epic weapon which is basically a weapon that ADDs up to 6 (1+1+1+1+1+1 lvl enchants etc) whereas to overcome all the DRs except epic has to be a straight number (1-5) weapon.

Epic weapons cheaper than a +5 weapon.
If makes sense, early morning

That is how I read it at first two, but what it actually says is that the natural strikes are treated as a +6 weapon for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. <

I mistakenly read it as the natural strikes are treated as a +6 weapon for the purpose of overcoming epic damage reduction.

For the purpose of damage reduction a +6 weapon overcomes everything in the chart. Since we are talking about epic monsters, and unlike outsiders or monks, it actually calls out an enhancement bonus, vs calling out only a specific damage reduction type it makes sense that it works as a +6 weapon for the purpose of overcoming DR, and that is what it says it does.


And to add, as Wraithstrike points out here, there are two ways that a weapon can be epic. The first way, which is the one referenced in the Bestiary, is for the weapon to have a straight +6 enhancement bonus. The second way, which is the subject of the FAQ, allows for class and magical abilities to factor in to get a total "plus-equivalent" of +6.

The passage on page 299 of the Bestiary talking about the natural weapons of creatures having DR/epic relates to the first way of overcoming damage resistance. The natural weapons of creatures having DR/epic therefore have a straight +6 enhancement bonus, but only for the purpose of overcoming damage resistance.


Pink Dragon wrote:

And to add, as Wraithstrike points out here, there are two ways that a weapon can be epic. The first way, which is the one referenced in the Bestiary, is for the weapon to have a straight +6 enhancement bonus. The second way, which is the subject of the FAQ, allows for class and magical abilities to factor in to get a total "plus-equivalent" of +6.

The passage on page 299 of the Bestiary talking about the natural weapons of creatures having DR/epic relates to the first way of overcoming damage resistance. The natural weapons of creatures having DR/epic therefore have a straight +6 enhancement bonus, but only for the purpose of overcoming damage resistance.

You are getting the impact of the FAQ slightly off. It does not cover only class and magic abilities, it also covers magic weapons enchanted with special abilities beyond flat enhancement. Meaning that a + 4 flaming burst weapon (+6 equivalent enhancement, actual +4 nchancement) can pierce epic DR. With only a +4 actual enhancement, it cannot pierce adamantine dr. No coniditional or class abilities involved.

So, does the Golem in question count as +6 actual or +6 equivalent? I don't see how we know which, and hence I don't see if it can overcome admantine DR.


The FAQ seems pretty clear to me. Here are the relevant quotes:

"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.

The second way is presented in Mythic Adventures: You can use a weapon that has a total "plus-equivalent" of +6 or higher."

The +4 flaming burst weapon is covered by the second way.

The golem is covered by the first way because page 299 says in relation to the natural weapons of DR/epic creatures: "epic weapons — that is, magic weapons with at least a +6 enhancement bonus". A +6 enhancement bonus is not a total "plus-equivalent" of +6 or higher - it is a straight enhancement bonus.

Before the FAQ came out to provide us with the second way, there was only the first way, so before the FAQ the natural weapons of the golem in question (and other DR/epic creatures) would have had a straight +6 enhancement bonus for the purpose of overcoming DR. Why would the introduction of a second way, which is an alternative way and in no way changed the first way, all of a sudden change how the natural weapons of a DR/epic creature work?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Okay, I see how you are reasoning this out. I'm in an annoying condition of not finding fault with your position, but not being able to completely support it with regards to my own table. My own interests of understanding the written content are as satisfied as they will get, I suspect.
Thanks for your patience in this discussion.


Thank you for raising the point, as this was a point that I did not clarify as well in previous posts.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I don't believe it was intended that the adamantine golem overcomes all DR save piercing/slashing, but by my reading of the rules that is what it does. Some minor quibbles about whether or not being treated as epic for overcoming DR means being treated as having a +6 enhancement bonus, but not enough that I would argue the point. Now we just need to figure out if it overcomes hardness, since enhancement bonuses don't do that. :)


I see nothing to indicate that an adamantine golem overcomes hardness.

Shadow Lodge

That was the joke.


Ugh, clearly my coffee level is insufficient for humor at this time.


Adamantine Golems are scary.


From the UMR: "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."

Where it says "...are also treated as epic weapons..." — I take that to mean that they overcome DR/epic, even though it says "...for the purposes of overcoming damage reduction."

If the intent was that their weapons are treated as if they have at least a +6 enhancement bonus, then that raises the issue of why there are many instances on the PRD of "epic and ___ ." Why would a creature's DR list "epic and magic" if magic is subsumed by epic? Against a creature with DRx/epic and magic, I can see a creature with DR/epic (itself) overcoming the epic part, but not the magic part.

To me, even if this holds:
A) Epic weapons are weapons with at least a +6 enhancement bonus (as the DR rule notes)

and this holds:
B) The natural weapons of a creature with DR/epic are treated as epic weapons

It doesn't necessarily hold that:
C) The natural weapons of a creature with DR/epic are treated as weapons with at least a +6 enhancement bonus

I know, it does seem that C follows from A and B, but that interpretation indicates that all of those entries with "DR/epic and ___" should simply be DR/epic. Some of you might say, "Yes, those entries are mistaken in a sense." Whereas I might say, "Those entries contradict C, meaning that C must not be what's intended."

Just thinking this through out loud — I don't feel too strongly about it either way. Thoughts?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Ignotus Advenium wrote:

From the UMR: "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."

Where it says "...are also treated as epic weapons..." — I take that to mean that they overcome DR/epic, even though it says "...for the purposes of overcoming damage reduction."

If the intent was that their weapons are treated as if they have at least a +6 enhancement bonus, then that raises the issue of why there are many instances on the PRD of "epic and ___ ." Why would a creature's DR list "epic and magic" if magic is subsumed by epic? Against a creature with DRx/epic and magic, I can see a creature with DR/epic (itself) overcoming the epic part, but not the magic part.

To me, even if this holds:
A) Epic weapons are weapons with at least a +6 enhancement bonus (as the DR rule notes)

and this holds:
B) The natural weapons of a creature with DR/epic are treated as epic weapons

It doesn't necessarily hold that:
C) The natural weapons of a creature with DR/epic are treated as weapons with at least a +6 enhancement bonus

I know, it does seem that C follows from A and B, but that interpretation indicates that all of those entries with "DR/epic and ___" should simply be DR/epic. Some of you might say, "Yes, those entries are mistaken in a sense." Whereas I might say, "Those entries contradict C, meaning that C must not be what's intended."

Just thinking this through out loud — I don't feel too strongly about it either way. Thoughts?

I guess I would read it in the order of:

"Such creature's natural weapons are also treated as epic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction."
"epic weapons—that is, magic weapons with at least a +6 enhancement bonus."

So, a creature with DR/epic would have natural weapons that, for the purpose of overcoming DR, are treated as having at least a +6 enhancement bonus.


thewastedwalrus wrote:
Ignotus Advenium wrote:

Stuff

...So, a creature with DR/epic would have natural weapons that, for the purpose of overcoming DR, are treated as having at least a +6 enhancement bonus....

So, for instances where a creature's DR is listed as "epic and magic" or "epic and evil" (and other similar instances) — do you think the parts after the and are technically extraneous?

I ask because it seems like there's no reason to have "DR 10/epic and magic" (using Julunggali as an example) or "DR 10/epic and evil," if epic = +6, and +6 overcomes the thing after the and due to material equivalency. Why are there existing instances of DR X/epic and material-or-alignment-goes-here?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Ignotus Advenium wrote:
Why are there existing instances of DR X/epic and material-or-alignment-goes-here?

The rules are written non-technically and the intent does not match the wording and vice versa.


Ignotus Advenium wrote:
thewastedwalrus wrote:
Ignotus Advenium wrote:

Stuff

...So, a creature with DR/epic would have natural weapons that, for the purpose of overcoming DR, are treated as having at least a +6 enhancement bonus....

So, for instances where a creature's DR is listed as "epic and magic" or "epic and evil" (and other similar instances) — do you think the parts after the and are technically extraneous?

I ask because it seems like there's no reason to have "DR 10/epic and magic" (using Julunggali as an example) or "DR 10/epic and evil," if epic = +6, and +6 overcomes the thing after the and due to material equivalency. Why are there existing instances of DR X/epic and material-or-alignment-goes-here?

I can see your point for DR/epic and magic because any weapon that overcomes DR/epic by its nature also overcomes DR/magic.

For DR/epic and alignment (or other instances like silver or cold iron), there are plenty of weapons like the +1 vorpal sword that would overcome the DR/epic but not the other DR.

My belief is that the natural attacks of epic creatures are intended to overcome many sorts of DR, because these creatures are, well - epic - and beyond normal ken.

In addition, in a rules system as involved as Pathfinder, there is no avoiding inconsistencies in the rules. It is quite possible that the designers who develop monsters with DR/epic and magic simply didn't realize that such DR is redundant.


Finlanderboy wrote:

If you look at the rules for adamantine they contradict each other... 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... 20 or more adamantine has no special advantage...

Actually it doesn't have to mean that, but it is a natural conclusion, in the absence of other information.

Quote:

Adamantine weapons bypass hardness of 20 or less....

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

So, these only conflict if you make assumptions based on the first quote. Those assumptions are proven false by the second quote. So, Adamantine overcomes DR 20 or less, because the first quote never specifies that it doesn't.


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.

Wait, you're honestly suggesting that someone saying "a creature is black so therefore it is made of adamantine" is NOT the one being silly in this exchange? REALLY?


MeanMutton wrote:
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.

Wait, you're honestly suggesting that someone saying "a creature is black so therefore it is made of adamantine" is NOT the one being silly in this exchange? REALLY?

Black paint will become the most sought-after commodity in Golarion, so I suggest you invest in it now.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MeanMutton wrote:
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.

Wait, you're honestly suggesting that someone saying "a creature is black so therefore it is made of adamantine" is NOT the one being silly in this exchange? REALLY?

When the creature is an adamantine golem, thinking that the black metal is adamantine is a logical and obvious conclusion.


This reminds me of the "Iron golems are unaffected by rust monsters" fiasco.


Adamantine is black?


Knight who says Meh wrote:
Adamantine is black?

This post by James Jacobs has it as flat black. I can find no Pathfinder book source for the color.


James Jacob's post linked in the above post references the picture of the Adamantine Golem for the color of adamantine, reinforcing the idea that the outside of said golem is adamantine.


Pink Dragon wrote:
James Jacob's post linked in the above post references the picture of the Adamantine Golem for the color of adamantine, reinforcing the idea that the outside of said golem is adamantine.

Shame that the text for the Adamantine Golem puts an upper bound of (IIRC) around 6% adamantine due to the metal's extreme cost (and this is an absolute maximum, it could easily be closer to 1%). That puts a bit of a damper on the Golem being made primarily of Adamantine, and is one of the prime reasons many people think it shouldn't count as Adamantine for the purpose of things like attacks.


Snowblind wrote:
Pink Dragon wrote:
James Jacob's post linked in the above post references the picture of the Adamantine Golem for the color of adamantine, reinforcing the idea that the outside of said golem is adamantine.
Shame that the text for the Adamantine Golem puts an upper bound of (IIRC) around 6% adamantine due to the metal's extreme cost (and this is an absolute maximum, it could easily be closer to 1%). That puts a bit of a damper on the Golem being made primarily of Adamantine, and is one of the prime reasons many people think it shouldn't count as Adamantine for the purpose of things like attacks.

I don't see where this calculation comes from, or whether it is even relevant.


Java Man wrote:
I see nothing to indicate that an adamantine golem overcomes hardness.

Considering that you generally sock them on the wizard first, it's not a problem.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pink Dragon wrote:
Snowblind wrote:
Pink Dragon wrote:
James Jacob's post linked in the above post references the picture of the Adamantine Golem for the color of adamantine, reinforcing the idea that the outside of said golem is adamantine.
Shame that the text for the Adamantine Golem puts an upper bound of (IIRC) around 6% adamantine due to the metal's extreme cost (and this is an absolute maximum, it could easily be closer to 1%). That puts a bit of a damper on the Golem being made primarily of Adamantine, and is one of the prime reasons many people think it shouldn't count as Adamantine for the purpose of things like attacks.
I don't see where this calculation comes from, or whether it is even relevant.
Adamantine Golem wrote:
A adamantine golem’s body is made of more than 4,000 pounds of adamantine, mithral, gold, platinum, and other metals worth a total of 100,000 gp.

Even if we assume that the Golem weighs exactly 4,000lb and that its entire materials fund goes into Adamantine (at 300gp/lb) with the rest of the metal being free (i.e. no mithral, gold, platinum or anything else that sucks up Adamantine funds), the Golem can have at most 8.33% adamantine by weight.

If we assume something a little less generous and use 8000lb total weight, along with equal parts mithral, gold, platinum and adamantine, the number comes out to be just short of 1% adamantine by weight.


Snowblind wrote:
Pink Dragon wrote:
Snowblind wrote:
Pink Dragon wrote:
James Jacob's post linked in the above post references the picture of the Adamantine Golem for the color of adamantine, reinforcing the idea that the outside of said golem is adamantine.
Shame that the text for the Adamantine Golem puts an upper bound of (IIRC) around 6% adamantine due to the metal's extreme cost (and this is an absolute maximum, it could easily be closer to 1%). That puts a bit of a damper on the Golem being made primarily of Adamantine, and is one of the prime reasons many people think it shouldn't count as Adamantine for the purpose of things like attacks.
I don't see where this calculation comes from, or whether it is even relevant.
Adamantine Golem wrote:
A adamantine golem’s body is made of more than 4,000 pounds of adamantine, mithral, gold, platinum, and other metals worth a total of 100,000 gp.

Even if we assume that the Golem weighs exactly 4,000lb and that its entire materials fund goes into Adamantine (at 300gp/lb) with the rest of the metal being free (i.e. no mithral, gold, platinum or anything else that sucks up Adamantine funds), the Golem can have at most 8.33% adamantine by weight.

If we assume something a little less generous and use 8000lb total weight, along with equal parts mithral, gold, platinum and adamantine, the number comes out to be just short of 1% adamantine by weight.

Thanks for the calculation. Do you have a rules cite for the 300 gp/lb for adamantine?

Even so, whether it makes any rules difference on the effect of an adamantine golem is another story.

Running with this calculation, the 8.33% adamantine could be assumed to be mostly outer shell, which is probably significantly more compositional mass than an adamantine weapon blanche on a weapon, and is furthermore integrated as part of the body of he golem rather than as a patina overlaid afterwards. If we make this assumption, then the adamantine golem could overcome at least 19 hardness, if not 20 hardness depending on the way you want to rule on the OP's question.

Many will say that none of this based on the "RAW", but anyone who wants to make a case for their particular game can follow the logic based on the descriptive text, provided they are willing to accept the assumptions.


Pink Dragon wrote:
Snowblind wrote:
Pink Dragon wrote:
James Jacob's post linked in the above post references the picture of the Adamantine Golem for the color of adamantine, reinforcing the idea that the outside of said golem is adamantine.
Shame that the text for the Adamantine Golem puts an upper bound of (IIRC) around 6% adamantine due to the metal's extreme cost (and this is an absolute maximum, it could easily be closer to 1%). That puts a bit of a damper on the Golem being made primarily of Adamantine, and is one of the prime reasons many people think it shouldn't count as Adamantine for the purpose of things like attacks.
I don't see where this calculation comes from, or whether it is even relevant.

It matters because names alone, much like flavor dont mean much when it comes to the rules.

There is not a lot of adamantine in that golem going by percentages, despite the name.

The numbers are likely from the creation line where it tells you the materials that are needed to make it. You can get the weight range of a creature from the rules.

Not official numbers-->So if a creature weighs 50K pounds at a minimum, and it only has 1000 pounds of ____ at most then at best it is 5% of _____.

It is akin to me selling you a "gold watch" that is largely "not gold".

PS: I still agree with you from a rules perspective. I am just explaining why it matters.


The 300gp per pound for adamantine comes from the trade goods listing imultimate equipment. Odd to me that platinum is costs more by the pound.

And on the original discussion, the adamantine bullet in u combat is described as bypassimg hardness of 20 or less, more weight for the inclusive ruling.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Java Man wrote:

The 300gp per pound for adamantine comes from the trade goods listing imultimate equipment. Odd to me that platinum is costs more by the pound.

And on the original discussion, the adamantine bullet in u combat is described as bypassimg hardness of 20 or less, more weight for the inclusive ruling.

IIRC, the expense of Adamantine gear is because of how difficult it is to work into a useful shape. Mithril is actually quite a bit rarer, and Platinum probably is too given that they both cost the same per pound.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Snowblind wrote:
That puts a bit of a damper on the Golem being made primarily of Adamantine, and is one of the prime reasons many people think it shouldn't count as Adamantine for the purpose of things like attacks.

Are there really "many" people who don't believe Adamantine Golems count as adamantine? If so, how depressing.


It poses the same problem as taking home the doors to Moria and living happily off the profits.

But rest assured, if you ever have the misfortune to meet the adamantine golem in one of my campaigns, it will be made of pure adamantium. And overcome your puny DR, whatever type it may be ;)


CBDunkerson wrote:
Snowblind wrote:
That puts a bit of a damper on the Golem being made primarily of Adamantine, and is one of the prime reasons many people think it shouldn't count as Adamantine for the purpose of things like attacks.
Are there really "many" people who don't believe Adamantine Golems count as adamantine? If so, how depressing.

Before I read the actual writeup I assumed it could It could have been an oversight on Paizo's part for not spelling it out so RAI could say it does, but the actual words don't support it.

In my games it will overcome hardness less than 20, but I can't say for sure that Paizo didn't just create it and never thought how it affected objects, because creatures don't normally attack objects. They normally attack PC's.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Just another case of Paizo inheriting something from 3.5 and not everything crossing over well.

Edit: Even worse, a change that brought more ambiguity.

3.5 Adamantine Golem wrote:

Construction

An adamantine golem’s body is sculpted from 45,000 pounds of pure iron and is then polymorphed into adamantine (using wish).

Scarab Sages

Sake of arguement. When making a tank in the modern era, we layer the metals. The Hull of a tank isn't just one metal in a thick slab. This is because, like in pathfinder, the hardness of the metal doesn't increase beyond a certain thickness. So they layer the metals to take advantage of each metal's properties.

Given the spell immunity of golems, I've always assumed a fair amount of lead goes into each golem.


TriOmegaZero wrote:

Just another case of Paizo inheriting something from 3.5 and not everything crossing over well.

Edit: Even worse, a change that brought more ambiguity.

3.5 Adamantine Golem wrote:

Construction

An adamantine golem’s body is sculpted from 45,000 pounds of pure iron and is then polymorphed into adamantine (using wish).

I like the 3.5 construction rule description better. It was an adamantine golem that was more than 5% adamantine. It also would have gotten rid of Paizo's flavor text that tried to limit how much adamantine was on the planet before someone had to travel to another planet or plane to get the rest of it.

Paizo Employee Official Rules Response

12 people marked this as a favorite.

Answered in FAQ.

FAQ wrote:

Adamantine: Adamantine says it bypasses hardness less than 20, but hardness says adamantine bypasses hardness of 20 or less. Which one should I use?

Use “less than 20” from the adamantine entry. Adamantine, which has 20 hardness, is strong enough to stand against adamantine (this is also why adamantine armor provides DR/— rather than DR/adamantine).

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Huzzah!


yay!
except you might want to use this link to the CRB FAQ

I wonder if this means there are adamantine golems in our future? ack! runaway! runaway!

Scarab Sages

Really wish it subtracted... but eh. Glad to have this one answered!

51 to 98 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.