Adamantium - What is it good for?

[eilandesq]

Sorry, but I also never said adamantine was not also masterwork. Your response appeared to imply that Masterwork was as good as adamantine in the same way your correction appeared to misinterpret what I didn't say.

I apologise for this post. I'm trying to not to rise to pedantic misrepresentations of my comments. I start out trying to explain and things go downhill. This was not my intent. My intent was to point out one benefit of Adamantine weapons. The point is still valid, even if other items have the same benefit.

Though it raises a question, since the same page indicates that mithral weapons also are always masterwork, but the entry doesn't refer back to the adamantine entry or repeat the description of what the implications of masterwork are--do all mithral weapons also get that +1 enhancement bonus? Nor, for that matter, does it indicate whether the masterwork bonus (lessened penalties with minimum of zero, actually) for armor check rolls is included in the mithral bonuses, or whether they stack instead.

[brian 333]

Inherent bonuses don't stack with enhancements. The higher bonus applies.

[Jasdoif]

Though it raises a question, since the same page indicates that mithral weapons also are always masterwork, but the entry doesn't refer back to the adamantine entry or repeat the description of what the implications of masterwork are--do all mithral weapons also get that +1 enhancement bonus?

All masterwork weapons have a +1 enhancement bonus on attack rolls, yes.

Nor, for that matter, does it indicate whether the masterwork bonus (lessened penalties with minimum of zero, actually) for armor check rolls is included in the mithral bonuses, or whether they stack instead.

That one ended up hiding in the 3.5 FAQ, which says "the –3 armor check reduction for a mithral item already includes the adjustment for a masterwork item."

[eilandesq]

All masterwork weapons have a +1 enhancement bonus on attack rolls, yes.

That one ended up hiding in the 3.5 FAQ, which says "the –3 armor check reduction for a mithral item already includes the adjustment for a masterwork item."

Sounds like a lot of people were moved to ask that question, then--"Frequently Asked Questions" generally are that way for a reason, and that's an awfully obscure point for that many people to be asking that question unless it was clumsily written to begin with.

[eilandesq]

Inherent bonuses don't stack with enhancements. The higher bonus applies.

No, or you couldn't use wishes (inherent bonuses) and magic items (enhancement bonuses) and boost abilities with both. The SRD describes both masterwork and basic "plus" weapon enchantments as enhancement bonuses.

[brian 333]

No, or you couldn't use wishes (inherent bonuses) and magic items (enhancement bonuses) and boost abilities with both. The SRD describes both masterwork and basic "plus" weapon enchantments as enhancement bonuses.

Apples and oranges. You can stack different types of bonuses, but not the same type. Only the highest applies.

A wish is not an item enhancement. We're talking about Masterwork items which are also magically enhanced. A Masterwork (+1) item with a +1 Enhancement added to it is a +1 item. A Masterwork (+1) item with +2 Enhancement is not +3.

And even Wish has a hard time working inside an antimagic field, but that's another issue.

[Chronos]

The point is, you don't have inherent bonuses on items. The +1 to hit on a masterwork weapon is an enhancement bonus, just like on a magic weapon, not an inherent bonus.

[alcoferm]

I've been reading some past strips. I got to the part with the fight with Crystal the golem.

Then it hit me that maybe part of the point was that we saw Haley buy the adamantium weapons and that they might play a part in the future.

So... Let's say that was the case here.

What could adamantium be used against? I thought the vampires but doesn't seem to be it.
I thought Sabine might show up sooner or later, but if she's a succubus they need cold iron.



Any idea what enemy of the party requires adamantium?

no idea :D

[Rogar Demonblud]

Adamantine weapons are top notch for one particular use. Destroying objects, especially those with lots of Hardness you otherwise have to deal with.

Things like Xykon's phylactery.

Just something to think about.

[Doug Lampert]

Adamantine weapons are top notch for one particular use. Destroying objects, especially those with lots of Hardness you otherwise have to deal with.

Things like Xykon's phylactery.

Just something to think about.

They only have an advantage against items of less than 20 hardness.

Anyone think Xykon's phylactery has less than 20 hardness?

19 hardness, adamantine damage goes straight to HP, this is great. 20 hardness, suddenly your first 20 points of damage are ignored just as if you were using a weapon made of any other material.

[Chronos]

That'd be relevant if it were made of adamantium (a good choice for a phylactery, of course), but it was Redcloak's unholy symbol before it was Xykon's phylactery, so it's probably made of a softer metal like silver or lead. There are spells which will increase the hardness of an object, but only to a point, so you're still limited by what the original material was, and I don't think any of those spells will increase the hardness of an object by that much.

[SlashDash]

That'd be relevant if it were made of adamantium (a good choice for a phylactery, of course), but it was Redcloak's unholy symbol before it was Xykon's phylactery, so it's probably made of a softer metal like silver or lead. There are spells which will increase the hardness of an object, but only to a point, so you're still limited by what the original material was, and I don't think any of those spells will increase the hardness of an object by that much.

Based on what Redcloak and Xykon mentioned, they reinforced it with every abjuration they can think of, so anything that boosts its hardiness is already cast on it.

And let's not forget, Xykon researchers some of his spells for his own original version, so I would hardly put it past him to invent something to protect the most precious object he ever had.

[RatElemental]

Based on what Redcloak and Xykon mentioned, they reinforced it with every abjuration they can think of, so anything that boosts its hardiness is already cast on it.

And let's not forget, Xykon researchers some of his spells for his own original version, so I would hardly put it past him to invent something to protect the most precious object he ever had.

Went ahead and came up with a spell that Xykon could easily make and cast on his phylactery. Keep in mind this isn't even a bare minimum, he could have squeezed in a few more things and still been able to do it if he has more spellcraft than the minimum to even epic spellcast at all, and even more if the die roll was favorable.

Spoiler: Xykon's No Touchy Soul Hidey Place

Show

Xykon's No Touchy Soul Hidey Place
Transmutation
DC: 23 (Small enough that Xykon doesn't even need to roll to succeed)
Components: V, S, Exp
Cast Time: 10 minutes
Range: Touch
Target: One creature or object
Duration: 320 hours (about 2 weeks)
Saving throw: Will Negates (Harmless)
Spell Resistance: Yes (Harmless)
To develop: Fortify (17), Able to Target Objects (ad hoc +10), Change dr to epic (+15),increase dr by 49 (+98), increase duration by 300 hours (+30), Ritual: 1 participant 9th level (-17), increase casting time by 10 minutes (-20), burn 20000 exp (-200).
Cost to develop: 207000, 4 days, 8280 exp

This spell grants the affected creature or object damage reduction 50/epic. Good luck even putting a scratch in it.


Exp Component: 20000 exp

[blademan9999]

Went ahead and came up with a spell that Xykon could easily make and cast on his phylactery. Keep in mind this isn't even a bare minimum, he could have squeezed in a few more things and still been able to do it if he has more spellcraft than the minimum to even epic spellcast at all, and even more if the die roll was favorable.

Spoiler: Xykon's No Touchy Soul Hidey Place

Show

Xykon's No Touchy Soul Hidey Place
Transmutation
DC: 23 (Small enough that Xykon doesn't even need to roll to succeed)
Components: V, S, Exp
Cast Time: 10 minutes
Range: Touch
Target: One creature or object
Duration: 320 hours (about 2 weeks)
Saving throw: Will Negates (Harmless)
Spell Resistance: Yes (Harmless)
To develop: Fortify (17), Able to Target Objects (ad hoc +10), Change dr to epic (+15),increase dr by 49 (+98), increase duration by 300 hours (+30), Ritual: 1 participant 9th level (-17), increase casting time by 10 minutes (-20), burn 20000 exp (-200).
Cost to develop: 207000, 4 days, 8280 exp

This spell grants the affected creature or object damage reduction 50/epic. Good luck even putting a scratch in it.


Exp Component: 20000 exp

1st of all you appear to have messed up the maths. You would 17+10+15+98+30-17-20-200=-67
Also even if you reduce to EXP to 10000 or even just 5000 that would still be a very large amount to burn every two weeks.

It would only even approach usability during time periods where he knew the risk of being destroyed was greatly elevated.

[RatElemental]

1st of all you appear to have messed up the maths. You would 17+10+15+98+30-17-20-200=-67
Also even if you reduce to EXP to 10000 or even just 5000 that would still be a very large amount to burn every two weeks.

It would only even approach usability during time periods where he knew the risk of being destroyed was greatly elevated.

That's what happens when you change the factors on the fly while calculating them, I guess, heh... Anyway, yeah, you can drop the exp cost down quite a bit and its usability goes up a bit in that case.

Alternatively, drop the DR down a bit to, say, 20 and make it permanent. Then ramp up the cast time to 50 days. You'd end up with the original DC I proposed and no need to recast it again ever. Xykon wouldn't particularly enjoy casting a spell for a month and a half, but he's a lich so he could totally do it, and it's a pretty important thing for him to do. Of course, in that case, Redcloak probably couldn't help because he's still fleshy (he's the 9th level spell provider in the original spell), in which case you can just add 9 more days to cover his lack of involvement and then some.

I'm really trying to avoid the backlash damage thing, because backlash hits every round for the duration of the spell, and the spell is more or less meant to be permanently in effect so that wouldn't be very good for our errant lich.

[blademan9999]

That's what happens when you change the factors on the fly while calculating them, I guess, heh... Anyway, yeah, you can drop the exp cost down quite a bit and its usability goes up a bit in that case.

Alternatively, drop the DR down a bit to, say, 20 and make it permanent. Then ramp up the cast time to 50 days. You'd end up with the original DC I proposed and no need to recast it again ever. Xykon wouldn't particularly enjoy casting a spell for a month and a half, but he's a lich so he could totally do it, and it's a pretty important thing for him to do. Of course, in that case, Redcloak probably couldn't help because he's still fleshy (he's the 9th level spell provider in the original spell), in which case you can just add 9 more days to cover his lack of involvement and then some.

I'm really trying to avoid the backlash damage thing, because backlash hits every round for the duration of the spell, and the spell is more or less meant to be permanently in effect so that wouldn't be very good for our errant lich.

Making the spell permanent multiples the DC by 5 after all other epic spell factors but before mitigating factors.
so (17+10+38)*5=325 before mitigating factors
For a target DC of no more then 40, you could try -20,000 exp and 33 days or 100 days and -6,500 exp.
The trouble is since he got his plyfactory bat he hasn't exactly had an opportunity to spend that long casting a single spell.

[Emanick]

Making the spell permanent multiples the DC by 5 after all other epic spell factors but before mitigating factors.
so (17+10+38)*5=325 before mitigating factors
For a target DC of no more then 40, you could try -20,000 exp and 33 days or 100 days and -6,500 exp.
The trouble is since he got his plyfactory bat he hasn't exactly had an opportunity to spend that long casting a single spell.

There was that years-long period when he vanished and then showed up with Serini’s diary.

[Rogar Demonblud]

But he didn't have the phylactery, which was still hanging around Redcloak's neck.

[Emanick]

But he didn't have the phylactery, which was still hanging around Redcloak's neck.

Yeah, but he knew exactly where it was, at least until the very end when Redcloak wandered off (and was promptly found anyway). All he would have had to do was demand to borrow it.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Deprive a cleric of his holy symbol for weeks if not months? Yeah, that's not going to fly, even before you factor in the mistrust factor.

[Emanick]

Deprive a cleric of his holy symbol for weeks if not months? Yeah, that's not going to fly, even before you factor in the mistrust factor.

Since Xykon is comfortable threatening Redcloak and his loved ones with murder, I’m pretty sure he doesn’t care what flies with his top goblin employee.

[Doug Lampert]

Since Xykon is comfortable threatening Redcloak and his loved ones with murder, I’m pretty sure he doesn’t care what flies with his top goblin employee.

Nor does it matter to Redcloak. Note the words "Backup Holy Symbol".

Seriously, a wooden one is 1 GP and negligible weight, carry 10, you might need an extra.

[Emanick]

Nor does it matter to Redcloak. Note the words "Backup Holy Symbol".

Seriously, a wooden one is 1 GP and negligible weight, carry 10, you might need an extra.

Oh, I'm pretty sure Redcloak cares. But only because possession of the phylactery is theoretically useful as leverage.

In practice, of course, it's been significantly less so. Still, I expect that to change (however briefly) by the end of the comic.

[georgie_leech]

Oh, I'm pretty sure Redcloak cares. But only because possession of the phylactery is theoretically useful as leverage.

In practice, of course, it's been significantly less so. Still, I expect that to change (however briefly) by the end of the comic.

Spoiler: Start of Darkness

Show

He tried to use it as leverage almost immediately after creating it, and Xykon was not terribly impressed. I find it rather unlikely that Redcloak would be able to prevent Xykon from doing much of anything with his phylactery.

That said, we don't have any hard indicator of what Hardness the phylactery has, just that it is well protected magically. The specifics of theoretical Epic Spells that could have achieved good protection is a bit beside the Point, because we don't have any evidence to properly ground our speculative spells. It could just as well be immune to all weapons as have increased hardness. Epic Spells are kind of broad that way.

[SlashDash]

That said, we don't have any hard indicator of what Hardness the phylactery has, just that it is well protected magically. The specifics of theoretical Epic Spells that could have achieved good protection is a bit beside the Point, because we don't have any evidence to properly ground our speculative spells. It could just as well be immune to all weapons as have increased hardness. Epic Spells are kind of broad that way.

We do actually. Strip 831 shows Red Cloak casting spells on the duplicate which one can only assume were also cast on the original. One of the spells he cast is Hardening.

That gives you 1 more hardiness for every 2 levels, Redcloak is 17+

So either he is trying to bluff Xykon that it's the same item hoping Xykon won't notice a weaker spell, or only Redcloak buffed it which means no epic hardiness beyond that.