Just how easily does adamantine slice?

[Coredump]

It is just one badly designed rule. The designers must have been drunk and this rule will not survive the next revision.

C'mon people... if I want to play Magic, I will get out my cards.

Maybe...just maybe... the designers jumped to the insane conclusion that this game was meant to be run with a *DM* that can take into account certain things that would otherwise not make sense.

(Somewhere) In the DMG it talks about doing damage to objects, and that the *DM* (there it is again) is to determine when certain weapons/attacks would be less effective dealing damage to certain objects. That Greatsword sure does more damage than a battle axe... guess which will chop down a tree better? Hmmm the warmace and longspear do thesame damage as the battleaxe, they should be good for hitting a tree...

Plus, the rules are aimed towards 'objects'; not really laying seige to a castle. The RAW *include* room for DM interpretation and action... this is one such place.

 

[Pax]

That's how Take 20 works. "You don't find a trap" isn't a negative consequence; it's a non-consequence. There's no Retry limit on Searching, so there's nothing stopping me from Searching again.

-Hyp.

Indeed. In fact, success on a Search check could still result in "you don't find a trap" - there might not be a trap.

I agree 100% with the take 20 issue, in fact.

 

[eryndel]

<threadjack>

There's no Retry limit on Searching, so there's nothing stopping me from Searching again.

-Hyp.

I think this says it most succinctly. The criteria implied in the rules as to whether a roll has a negative consequence is if a failure of one roll would cause that negative consequence to occur before you have a chance to reroll. Strictly speaking, taking 20 is just spending enough time to get an actual die roll of 20 (which, on average, should take 20 times as long.) If a character so chose to instead of taking 20, just sit there and roll until he got a 20 and have no negative ramification until he got that 20, he should be allowed to just take 20.

You can't take 20 while jumping over a chasm because if you fail the roll, down you go and you have to deal with the ramifications therein. You can't take 20 if you try to disable a trap because the trap goes off if you fail. You can't take 20 on diplomacy check because rerolls don't improve your results. You can take 20 to jump up to a high branch of a tree assuming that there is no body present who wants to attack you. You can take 20 on a seach roll as long as there is nothing hostile nearby because, if your give enough time, you can look as long as you want in a place.

Real world example. I've gone and lost my keys. I take a round to take a quick look over my desk, table, what have you. Don't spot them. Well, I didn't really go through all the folders on my desk so I spend another round going through there. No luck. Hmmm, maybe they slipped behind the desk, I make another search roll but still don't find it. Well, I'm running late already, so I decide to do a thorough search of my office (10x10 room). Taking 20 on this should take 12 minutes. 15 minutes and a thorough search later I give up, and go elsewhere. Sure enough, their sitting in the key box.

Now, if there was an orc looking to kill me, all bets are off.

</threadjack>

Werner

 

[Kilamar]

Maybe...just maybe... the designers jumped to the insane conclusion that this game was meant to be run with a *DM* that can take into account certain things that would otherwise not make sense.

I doubt that considering the age of the targeted customers.

(Somewhere) In the DMG it talks about doing damage to objects, and that the *DM* (there it is again) is to determine when certain weapons/attacks would be less effective dealing damage to certain objects. That Greatsword sure does more damage than a battle axe... guess which will chop down a tree better? Hmmm the warmace and longspear do thesame damage as the battleaxe, they should be good for hitting a tree...

Plus, the rules are aimed towards 'objects'; not really laying seige to a castle. The RAW *include* room for DM interpretation and action... this is one such place.

That is true, but unfortunately not everyone sees it that way. I think the designers should have emphasized that a bit more.

Kilamar

 

[James McMurray]

Emphasized it more than by putting it in the DMG and PHB's approriate sections? What, like it should have been bolded and italicized?

 

[DarkMaster]

Not that I ever posted on that one, but rogues shouldnt be able to take 20 on a search because there is a bad side to failing.. ie you dont spot the trap.
And if your about to tell me that not spotting the trap is not bad, you may now roll you fort save VS my disintigrate trap that you didnt find when you failed your search roll. DC 40 , and your 3rd level..

Just because you look at something for a lont time doesnt mean you spot every detail, ever tried those where's wally books ? Just because you look for a long time doesnt mean you will see everything. Even if you are looking for something as specific as that stupid dogs tail

Disable device my friend, disable device

 

[DarkMaster]

If you fail your disable device check but make your save you dont suffer any bad effects.. does that mean that you should be able to take 20 on the roll because the bad effects are from failing your save and not your skill ?

Its a rules interpretation.
And consequentionalism isnt exactly my strong point.

If you search the chest and walk away, thats no different from not spotting the trap and walking past the trip wire by luck. The rules dont say that the result HAS to be bad, it merely states that there must be the possibility of a bad result. I would argue the trap went off because you didnt even try to disable it. and that was a reasult of failing your search.
Personnaly I would never allow people to take 20 on a search, but I would also play in house rules like the rogue being able to tell me "Im checking the corridor as I go" and letting me make rolls for him as required. Taking 20 is in no way "required" if your traps are balanced to the parties level. and average rogue gets two attempts to avoid a trap, search and a save. If you rogue needs say 8 or more on either to be ok then he will only be hit by 1 in 8 traps. And even if he does get hit most traps wont instantly kill you, they just burn up a few of the clerics heal spells.

Ive played in a game when you could take 20 for search and it destroyed the suspense, where is the excitement of trying to unlock that last door to get the party to freedom if you knwow there is no chance the rouge might take a poisoned dart to the neck and your fighter will have to whip out his one rank in lock picking. (I joke not BTW )

Wow, 8 or more to find a trap did you ever played at lower level than 15. also what is your logic to allow two roll, why not one, 3, 6, or 20...

Destroyed the suspense?? lock pick has nothing to do with search or disable device. Trust me if the rogue search and find a trap and try to lock pick the door without disabling the device he will get the poisoned dart in the neck. Also in my group the rogue will usually say how much time he wants to search each zone.
About suspense and that last door, Imagine the following you got a few minutes to get out, the rogue has to decide if he will take 20 or not, let's say he decide to take 20, find the trap, Ok we have a few minutes to leave and the door is trapped with a very complicated trap, what do we do. Instead of having the suspense at search I switch it to disable device. Also don't forget that only rogue can find traps above 20 and removing them this strenght actually weaken the rogue.

About the fighter using his 1 rank of lock pick. most decent lock have a DC above 25 (don't forget that this is the last door), so it is useless suspense, and he will still get the dart if the trap is not disabled.

I am fed up of those I don't take 20 for nothing. I understand that you don't and don't want to understand the logic behind the rule,then house rule it, but don't post them in the rule section again and again.

 

[TracerBullet42]

I am fed up of those I don't take 20 for nothing. I understand that you don't and don't want to understand the logic behind the rule,then house rule it, but don't post them in the rule section again and again.

Woah...down boy. Settle. This thread is about adamantine (-ium). There's another thread about the search/take 20 issue. Take it over there...

I'm thinking a fun way to deal with PC's plowing through stone walls with their adamantine weapons would be to have the ceiling cave in...

I mean, those walls are holding them up, right?

Just a thought...

 

[DarkMaster]

Absolutely. Adamantine shields are great for tunnelling through walls.

-Hyp.

Well If I want to destroy a wall in my house I would use a mace not sword. Agree that the shield example might be problematic .

 

[DarkMaster]

Woah...down boy. Settle. This thread is about adamantine (-ium). There's another thread about the search/take 20 issue. Take it over there...

I'm thinking a fun way to deal with PC's plowing through stone walls with their adamantine weapons would be to have the ceiling cave in...

I mean, those walls are holding them up, right?

Just a thought...

Sorry just can't stand this I don't take 20 threads. Concerning the adamantine weapon I don't see why I could not destroy the wall of the dungeon with my Adamantine maul +2, or any other kind of big adamantine two handed mace. I guess doing the same with a dagger puzzle me. I guess I would still be able to tear down a wall at my house with a dagger. With a metal mace I could even tear down a stone wall. So I don't see any problem other than what are the repercussion of the structural damage, dust and noise.