Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

RPG Superstar 2015

Is any level of point of origin spell precision unreasonable?


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

101 to 150 of 208 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

I think the OP just dislikes the idea that a person can judge distance that well, but the ability to lead a target with a rifle while accounting for windage while the target is moving can't be too much easier.

Just to be clear "leading the target" is when you fire ahead of the target, but you time it so that the bullet gets to the location at the same time the target does.


Diego Rossi wrote:
I can assure you that having a degree in Physics and being a university professor don't help you in any way in ball parking the distance between you and a target.

It would if the time you spend conducting research, attending conferences, and writing papers were instead spent trying to toss physics equipment specific distances to hit targets. You know, like Evoker wizards do.


Roberta Yang wrote:
It would if the time you spend conducting research, attending conferences, and writing papers were instead spent trying to toss physics equipment specific distances to hit targets. You know, like Evoker wizards do.

Clearly, you've never been to the conferences that I have!


Ashiel wrote:

Because martials aren't allowed to do things. We clearly have a weapon that deals bludgeoning damage (for smashing objects, you can sunder a sword or break an adamantine shield but not a stone wall!?), that can clearly overcome its hardness, allowing you to damage the object, but you say no due to GM fiat and because fighters can't have nice things. (ಠ_ಠ)

I guess for everything else their is mastercard and wizards.

No way. I'm not allowing it because the rules explicitly say so. And I'll happily allow it for any fighter that has a warhammer, so the point is moot.

And yes, you can sunder a sword with another sword, but you can't cut a stone wall with a wall. Both in real life, and in Pathfinder rules.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
Ashiel wrote:

Because martials aren't allowed to do things. We clearly have a weapon that deals bludgeoning damage (for smashing objects, you can sunder a sword or break an adamantine shield but not a stone wall!?), that can clearly overcome its hardness, allowing you to damage the object, but you say no due to GM fiat and because fighters can't have nice things. (ಠ_ಠ)

I guess for everything else their is mastercard and wizards.

No way. I'm not allowing it because the rules explicitly say so. And I'll happily allow it for any fighter that has a warhammer, so the point is moot.

And yes, you can sunder a sword with another sword, but you can't cut a stone wall with a wall. Both in real life, and in Pathfinder rules.

I'm assuming you meant cut a wall with a sword not with another wall, lol.

Depends on the sword, such as adamantine. In real life, you would ruin your sword. That's probably a better way to rule in the game for mundane weapons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Sauce987654321 wrote:

I didn't realize that a tiger can technically rip through steel if it's played RAW. It's bite does more than an average person can do with a great sword.

I guess I can just say little claws and daggers and the like wouldn't work against many objects. I have a far easier time picturing someone smash a television with a big sword rather than a big cat ripping it to pieces.

The beauty of open ended rules like Ineffective Weapons, is that you can adapt it on the fly. Yes, I'd also allow a character to smash a television with a great sword. A door too. Maybe a car? But I won't let him to demolish a castle with it. The rule say some weapons are ineffective against some objects, it does not say which weapons against which objects, so it's up to the GM.

A rapier vs a stone wall? No way.
A longsword vs a stone wall? Not in my opinion.
A greatsword vs a stone wall? I'm closer to no, but it might be, if the user has unnatural stregth (like a belt of incredible strength)
A great axe vs a stone wall? Dunno, maybe do normal damage.
A pick vs a stone wall? Vulnerable rules, double damage.

Because martials aren't allowed to do things. We clearly have a weapon that deals bludgeoning damage (for smashing objects, you can sunder a sword or break an adamantine shield but not a stone wall!?), that can clearly overcome its hardness, allowing you to damage the object, but you say no due to GM fiat and because fighters can't have nice things. (ಠ_ಠ)

I guess for everything else their is mastercard and wizards.

Many bludgeoning weapons would deal damage to a stone wall just fine, as they are all mostly categorized under the hammers group. If the game really intended for other weapons to be unusable against stone (which was poorly worded to begin with, as the sentence before it says that only for rope and a club) and hammers and a pick don't get double damage, then a pick would still be pretty useless. A weapon that only deals a d6 against a hardness of 8 couldn't be useful against stone for average people unless they have 14 strength. They should have just left that entry out, because it's a little confusing and misleading to begin with. I don't think that little paragraph even existed in 3.5

I would allow unarmed damage to work, if you can get it that high. My reason is because you still have the ability to smash stone doors with a strength check.


gustavo is right, in the RAW. According to the rules, most weapons are completly ineffective against stone walls, except for hammers and picks. They just don't work.

If you want to house rule it to let monks punch through walls or fighters attack walls with their swords and have the walls break, you certainly can, but just understand that that is a house rule and that you are going against the RAW. And it doesn't make much sense either; if you attack a wall with a sword, you might break the sword, but you're not going to do any real damage to the wall, no matter how strong you are.

Sauce987654321 wrote:
I would allow unarmed damage to work, if you can get it that high. My reason is because you still have the ability to smash stone doors with a strength check.

I always assumed that was "rip the door off the hinges" or "slam into the door so hard you knock the door down", not actually punch through the stone itself. In real life, a strong person can just rip the door off of your house if they really want to.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Yosarian wrote:

gustavo is right, in the RAW. According to the rules, most weapons are completly ineffective against stone walls, except for hammers and picks. They just don't work.

If you want to house rule it to let monks punch through walls or fighters attack walls with their swords and have the walls break, you certainly can, but just understand that that is a house rule and that you are going against the RAW. And it doesn't make much sense either; if you attack a wall with a sword, you might break the sword, but you're not going to do any real damage to the wall, no matter how strong you are.

Sauce987654321 wrote:
I would allow unarmed damage to work, if you can get it that high. My reason is because you still have the ability to smash stone doors with a strength check.
I always assumed that was "rip the door off the hinges" or "slam into the door so hard you knock the door down", not actually punch through the stone itself. In real life, a strong person can just rip the door off of your house if they really want to.

I was going based off the fact that they choose to word it as "little effect" as opposed to how they worded the club to rope scenerio, which had me thinking about the fact that they chose to have hardness for a reason and figured that picks would work better against the hardness. I didn't care that they had the paragrapgh titled ineffective weapons anymore when they chose to word it like that. If they had said "most melee weapons have no effect on stone walls and doors, unless they are designed for breaking up stone, such as a pick or hammer," then I wouldn't think otherwise. If it was really intended to have zero effect, then they should have wrote that better.

Not all swords being used are mundane. They tend to have magical enhancements which even render them immune to sundering from lesser weapons.

Maybe you can say that about the door, but what if I make the break DC on a stone wall? So it's not always about knocking the hinges off, but not necessarly always shattering the door in to dust either. It should be up to the GM at that point.


Sauce987654321 wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Ashiel wrote:

Because martials aren't allowed to do things. We clearly have a weapon that deals bludgeoning damage (for smashing objects, you can sunder a sword or break an adamantine shield but not a stone wall!?), that can clearly overcome its hardness, allowing you to damage the object, but you say no due to GM fiat and because fighters can't have nice things. (ಠ_ಠ)

I guess for everything else their is mastercard and wizards.

No way. I'm not allowing it because the rules explicitly say so. And I'll happily allow it for any fighter that has a warhammer, so the point is moot.

And yes, you can sunder a sword with another sword, but you can't cut a stone wall with a wall. Both in real life, and in Pathfinder rules.

I'm assuming you meant cut a wall with a sword not with another wall, lol.

Lol yes
Quote:


Depends on the sword, such as adamantine. In real life, you would ruin your sword. That's probably a better way to rule in the game for mundane weapons.

Sure, I'd let it with an adamantine weapon, or a vorpal weapon. Also with oversized weapons, hammers, picks, probably maces... I wouldn't let it with a scorpion whip, for example, which technically you could, if you allow non-hammers weapons to do damage.

The rule is there, and is there for a reason. Yes, it is intentionally vague. Because stating a hard rule, such as "swords can't damage walls", would mean that a Titan, who is 100' tall and weights 160 tons, can't use his massive colosal sword weigting 10 tons to break a simple masonry wall from a tiny goblin hut. It let the GM to take decisions about GMing (you know... what GMs ussually do). But if you use the rule as per your suggestion (ie: it means nothing, it's just fluff, and a weapon against a wall use the same rules than a weapon against a piece of paper, except the hardiness is slightly better), you get stupid results. Such as Indiana Jones demolishing the Temple of Doom using his (scorpion) whip. Or a bunch of weapon specialist pigmies using blowgun darts to destroy the castle's tower during night, in silence (yes, even with the half damage from missile weapons this is easy enough.). Or dawnflower dervishes with str 10 shredding the wall into pieces using a scimitar. Or a pair of halfling guys with str 8 and piranha strike downing a wall with small knives. Or the fact that Zoos couldn't exist, because tigers could break the walls of their cells.


Well to be fair, a blow gun that uses darts does deal piercing damage. It says that piercing damage is usually not a method of destroying objects.

But also what you're saying is kinda where I'm getting at. A lot of people would just see it as a hard rule and not let you do it at all. Which then they might decide to apply that to any sword of any material, enhancement, or size.

As far as the scimitar goes, I would just make it take damage so they couldn't do that anymore. IDK about magical scimitars, but eh.


I don't know why you say that stone has a slightly better hardness than paper in this game, because that would pretty much apply to metal as well. That's a big difference to common people who don't have several feats that are usually possessed by heroes of some sort.

I also don't know why you keep saying that my interpretation of that rule means that it has no meaning. I'm saying that it's most likely putting emphasis on the fact that picks (or hammers) can do more damage than normal to stone, unlike most weapons that aren't as effective. If it didn't, a pick would be worthless to most common people because of it's low damage. Other than stone, it gives an example of a weapon that has NO effect at all. Like if I had a character with 65 strength that used an empty beer bottle to stike a boulder.

Those daggers and scimitars your mentioning, in real life context, would probably be ruined. Hence is why you should take action as a GM and say they get damaged.

The game isn't perfect, and damaging stone isn't close to the only thing that has issues. Like how you can't use enemy hammer on undeads, how you can't sunder stronger magical weapons than your own but can with armor, how you can grapple and pin colossal vehicles with ease because of the lack of size limitations coupled with their low CMD,how you can make your colossal ship dodge ranged touch attacks like disintegrate because of your pilot skill, and how even if you do get your ship hit by a spell that requires a fortitude save you use your own, lol. The game can get very wonky.

Lantern Lodge

The way I think it should be,

Regarding walls, a pick pierces the wall gouging large chunks out while hammers add pressure till cracks appear, and swords make little chips fall off.

So I see it as picks and hammers should ignore at least some DR (depending on material) though hammers do non-lethal damage, and swords do the most actual damage. (this applying to everything not just objects)

Thus the walls high DR protects from the sword but the picks peirces it to do dmg and hammer seems useless at first until stress builds up and starts to cause stress fractures (aka when the non-lethal damage equals HP and thus starts taking lethal damage). Which I wouldn't do this in 5' sections, I would do it in 1' cubes.

Yes I think piercing should bypass some DR on objects, but they should do less damage. An arrow will damage a wooden door but in a very limited area thus despite bypassing DR will do less damage then a sword which does high damage and with wood's low DR results in total higher damage output.

Axes should have second best damage and minor DR bypass, to fall somewhere between swords and picks.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Sauce987654321 wrote:

Well to be fair, a blow gun that uses darts does deal piercing damage. It says that piercing damage is usually not a method of destroying objects.

But also what you're saying is kinda where I'm getting at. A lot of people would just see it as a hard rule and not let you do it at all. Which then they might decide to apply that to any sword of any material, enhancement, or size.

As far as the scimitar goes, I would just make it take damage so they couldn't do that anymore. IDK about magical scimitars, but eh.

Piercing not being able to *sunder* items (per sunder rule) is different that piercing not being able to destroy objects. That's pretty much obvious, when one of the weapons that are explicitly mentioned as able to destroy a wall is piercing (the pick).

Quote:
I also don't know why you keep saying that my interpretation of that rule means that it has no meaning. I'm saying that it's most likely putting emphasis on the fact that picks (or hammers) can do more damage than normal to stone, unlike most weapons that aren't as effective. If it didn't, a pick would be worthless to most common people because of it's low damage. Other than stone, it gives an example of a weapon that has NO effect at all. Like if I had a character with 65 strength that used an empty beer bottle to stike a boulder.

Because it has no meaning for *the sword*. Your interpretation means the pick has extra stuff against the wall, but your interpretation also means the sword treat the stone exactly the same it treat any other material: do damage and bypass hardiness. It does nothing different, so hence the rule "inneffective weapon" is not a rule at all. Sword vs wood, roll damage, substract hardiness. Sword vs stone, roll damage, substract hardiness. It's exactly the same mechanism, hence the rule "inneffective weapon" has no meaning at all for the sword.

By the way, a hammer used by a str 10 person (like my mother), is largely useless against a stone wall in real life,if measured in combat rounds. My mother *might* end destroying the wall, after 6-8 hours of trying (with a profession check, not attack and damage), but sure she'll not take the wall down in one minute and a half (which is what you get if she does 2d6 and ignore hardiness). My father, on the other hand, can (and does for a living) destroy a wall with a sledge hammer in a couple minutes.

And it's not only daggers and scimitars. It's also scorpion whips, kerambits, nunchakus, a wooden mere club, or the bite of a tiger. The way damage works in this game, it's not related to brute force, or destructive force. A group of level 12 fighters, with *a sling*, can do more than enough damage to take down a castle. Point blank shot, Deadly Aim, weapon specialization, greater weapon specialization, and a decent 14 in strength, is enough to shatter walls, even without magical slings. Just because a character can do 50 damage, it doesn't mean he is a massive force of the nature breaking everything in his path. He can be doing that damage through precision (such as specialization, deadly aim, piranha strike...)

What does matter, in order to destroy a wall, is NOT the damage the PC can do. What does matter is if he has "a weapon specially prepared to destroy stone". If he has not that, it's irrelevant that he can do 50 damage per hit with his bladed scarf.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
Piercing not being able to *sunder* items (per sunder rule) is different that piercing not being able to destroy objects. That's pretty much obvious, when one of the weapons that are explicitly mentioned as able to destroy a wall is piercing (the pick).

It says "Generally, you can smash an object only with a bludgeoning or slashing weapon." It says generally. Which the pick is an exception or what ever the DM deems okay. Not all weapons that deal piercing damage. It doesn't just apply to sundering weapons.

Quote:
Because it has no meaning for *the sword*. Your interpretation means the pick has extra stuff against the wall, but your interpretation also means the sword treat the stone exactly the same it treat any other material: do damage and bypass hardiness. It does nothing different, so hence the rule "inneffective weapon" is not a rule at all. Sword vs wood, roll damage, substract hardiness. Sword vs stone, roll damage, substract hardiness. It's exactly the same mechanism, hence the rule "inneffective weapon" has no meaning at all for the sword.

That depends on the GM. The GM can easily just say that their sword has a 50% change to gain the broken condition for swinging at stone too hard, because the "little effect" entry can mean more than just simple damage potential. You might inflict a point of damage or two on the stone if you aren't exactly a fighter (chipping it very lightly) then ruining your sword. If you just take the game at face value, you can just keep power attacking an iron wall until it collapses, and nothing in the rules suggests anything else otherwise, unlike stone.

Quote:
By the way, a hammer used by a str 10 person (like my mother), is largely useless against a stone wall in real life,if measured in combat rounds. My mother *might* end destroying the wall, after 6-8 hours of trying (with a profession check, not attack and damage), but sure she'll not take the wall down in one minute and a half (which is what you get if she does 2d6 and ignore hardiness). My father, on the other hand, can (and does for a living) destroy a wall with a sledge hammer in a couple minutes

"in such cases, attacks deal double their normal damage and may ignore the object's hardness." It may, MAY, as in it's a possibility to ignore hardness. It doesn't always ignore hardness for every vulnerability, that's up to the GM.

Quote:
And it's not only daggers and scimitars. It's also scorpion whips, kerambits, nunchakus, a wooden mere club, or the bite of a tiger. The way damage works in this game, it's not related to brute force, or destructive force. A group of level 12 fighters, with *a sling*, can do more than enough damage to take down a castle. Point blank shot, Deadly Aim, weapon specialization, greater weapon specialization, and a decent 14 in strength, is enough to shatter walls, even without magical slings. Just because a character can do 50 damage, it doesn't mean he is a massive force of the nature breaking everything in his path. He can be doing that damage through precision (such as specialization, deadly aim, piranha strike...)

How could you get 50 damage in the first place? Even if you did, that's 10 times the average damage of a rifle round in this game. Maybe he isn't using all massive force, but what's saying that there isn't loads of force going into those attacks? Just because it's not coming from strength?

How about an army that all wields picks. They all have power attack with weapon specialization and surround the castle and chip at it until it's rubble with in minutes. I might as well make up crazy situations, too.


Sauce987654321 wrote:


I was going based off the fact that they choose to word it as "little effect" as opposed to how they worded the club to rope scenerio, which had me thinking about the fact that they chose to have hardness for a reason and figured that picks would work better against the hardness.

The way the paragraph is worded, it sounds like "little effect" means "you barely scratch the stone and don't do any real damage." Otherwise it wouldn't make any sense.

Perhaps they should have worded it better, but the intent is clear. And, as others have pointed out, the whole paragraph, the whole "ineffective weapon" rule, is meaningless if it means what you seem to think it means. Basically, that rule is there because they don't want a character "attacking" his way out through the stone wall of his prison with a sword, because that would be stupid.

I mean, in reality, you can't even use a sword to cut down a tree without ruining the sword. Banging a sword against a stone wall is just a bad idea.

Now, if you have an invulnerable magical weapon, you might be able to eventually scrape your way through a stone wall or something, or at least scrape your way through the cement holding the stones together, but it would probably take you days or weeks. You're still not going to get anywhere by "attacking" it in 6 second combat rounds.


Yosarian wrote:
Sauce987654321 wrote:


I was going based off the fact that they choose to word it as "little effect" as opposed to how they worded the club to rope scenerio, which had me thinking about the fact that they chose to have hardness for a reason and figured that picks would work better against the hardness.

The way the paragraph is worded, it sounds like "little effect" means "you barely scratch the stone and don't do any real damage." Otherwise it wouldn't make any sense.

Perhaps they should have worded it better, but the intent is clear. And, as others have pointed out, the whole paragraph, the whole "ineffective weapon" rule, is meaningless if it means what you seem to think it means. Basically, that rule is there because they don't want a character "attacking" his way out through the stone wall of his prison with a sword, because that would be stupid.

I mean, in reality, you can't even use a sword to cut down a tree without ruining the sword. Banging a sword against a stone wall is just a bad idea.

Now, if you have an invulnerable magical weapon, you might be able to eventually scrape your way through a stone wall or something, or at least scrape your way through the cement holding the stones together, but it would probably take you days or weeks. You're still not going to get anywhere by "attacking" it in 6 second combat rounds.

An important thing to note is that all instances of "You" should be replaced with "1st level average statistics commoner", where quite literally damaging a stone wall is nigh impossible (particularly because you cannot critically hit an object). Where "little effect" would be around 1 point of damage, maximum, if you had a good Strength, and likely 0 damage otherwise.

Whereas, objects may have certain vulnerabilities. A pick or hammer might ignore a portion of the object's hardness. If this is not the case, then neither picks nor hammers can actually damage a wall either, since the picks and hammers presented in the PHB actually do not deal enough damage to penetrate the hardness of the object anyway.


Quote:
An important thing to note is that all instances of "You" should be replaced with "1st level average statistics commoner", where quite literally damaging a stone wall is nigh impossible (particularly because you cannot critically hit an object). Where "little effect" would be around 1 point of damage, maximum, if you had a good Strength, and likely 0 damage otherwise.

I don't think most rules are designed to only apply to first level commoners. Most rules in the book are designed to apply to adventurers, specifically to players. Unless it says otherwise, you should assume that.


Ashiel wrote:
An important thing to note is that all instances of "You" should be replaced with "1st level average statistics commoner", where quite literally damaging a stone wall is nigh impossible (particularly because you cannot critically hit an object). Where "little effect" would be around 1 point of damage, maximum, if you had a good Strength, and likely 0 damage otherwise

This is the core rulebook for players. "you" means "you the player who is reading this and is playing a PC character". The rest of the book is talking about adventurers when they talk about hit points, fortitude saves vs poisons, surviving falls, or breaking long jump records in full plate. I don't see why this (and only this) paragraph is talking about first level commoners only.

That said: a first level commoner with the regular array has 13 in his highest stat. Being a labor worker, it's going to be Str, quite probably. With +2 for being human, using a large piece of wood two handed (a great club), they can demolish walls with relative ease. Unless you go to page 174, read the "inneffective weapon" rule, and tell your players "well, your weapon is not specially constructed to destroy stone, so you do little effect". If your players ask what does that mean, you can say it again: "it means your effect is little. Exactly that, no more, no less".


Sauce987654321 wrote:


That depends on the GM. The GM can easily just say that their sword has a 50% change to gain the broken condition for swinging at stone too hard, because the "little effect" entry can mean more than just simple damage potential. You might inflict a point of damage or two on the stone if you aren't exactly a fighter (chipping it very lightly) then ruining your sword. If you just take the game at face value, you can just keep power attacking an iron wall until it collapses, and nothing in the rules suggests anything else otherwise, unlike stone.

Sure, the effect is largely to the GM. Some GM might say it's half damage, others might say it's capped to 1 damage per hit, others might say it's no damage at all. It depends on how you describe "little effect". In my opinion, a guy powera attacking with his rapier doing 1d6+31 and substracting 8 from hardiness, taking down the wall in a single full round, is not what I'd describe as "little effect". That's what you get if you leave the sentence "little effect" as "this has no meaning at all, and you follow regular ruling about hardiness and damage".

Quote:
"in such cases, attacks deal double their normal damage and may ignore the object's hardness." It may, MAY, as in it's a possibility to ignore hardness. It doesn't always ignore hardness for every vulnerability, that's up to the GM.

But if the hammer does not gain any adventage against the wall, and the longsword does not gain any disventage against the wall... why there's a paragraph about it in the book? Then the rule has no meaning at all.

However, if the thing is the GM should be able to tell a player "no, in *your* case, this does not work", I agree with that. I'm up to say a character "no, you can't cut a wall with a sword, even if you do 35 damage per hit. That cloud giant over there can, though, even if he does only 30, because of the mass of his sword". That's actually better, in my book, that using "vulnerable" rule for hammers as a excuse to allow people to use longswords, then finding that my old grandma with a hammer can destroy walls easily with that rule.

Quote:
How about an army that all wields picks. They all have power attack with weapon specialization and surround the castle and chip at it until it's rubble with in minutes. I might as well make up crazy situations, too.

An army of people destroying a castle with picks(using hardiness as I suggest) is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay less crazy than said army of people destroying such castle with short swords (using hardiness as you suggest). By a faaaaaaaaaar margin.


Sauce987654321 wrote:
Maybe you can say that about the door, but what if I make the break DC on a stone wall? So it's not always about knocking the hinges off, but...

The STR DC to break a Wall through pure str is 35. That means that to have a *Slight chance* to break it from pure str, you need STR score of 40. Sure, I'll let any character with STR 40 (which is more than any giant in the game) to break through a wall if they roll 20 in they attempt. That's however, several orders of magnitude different than allowing a fourth level fighter with the Brawler archetype and 18 str to break through walls with bare punches because of weapon training and weapon specialization.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
Sure, the effect is largely to the GM. Some GM might say it's half damage, others might say it's capped to 1 damage per hit, others might say it's no damage at all. It depends on how you describe "little effect". In my opinion, a guy powera attacking with his rapier doing 1d6+31 and substracting 8 from hardiness, taking down the wall in a single full round, is not what I'd describe as "little effect". That's what you get if you leave the sentence "little effect" as "this has no meaning at all, and you follow regular ruling about hardiness and damage".

You can't take a wall down with a rapier even if it's made of wood. It's a piercing attack. Most don't work.

Quote:


But if the hammer does not gain any adventage against the wall, and the longsword does not gain any disventage against the wall... why there's a paragraph about it in the book? Then the rule has no meaning at all.
However, if the thing is the GM should be able to tell a player "no, in *your* case, this does not work", I agree with that. I'm up to say a character "no, you can't cut a wall with a sword, even if you do 35 damage per hit. That cloud giant over there can, though, even if he does only 30, because of the mass of his sword". That's actually better, in my book, that using "vulnerable" rule for hammers as a excuse to allow people to use longswords, then finding that my old grandma with a hammer can destroy walls easily with that rule.

How is having double damage not an advantage?

The Cloud Giant's damage is mainly comming from the fact that his weapon is so big (base weapon damage) and his strength and feats. If you have a player hitting even harder than that and not accomplishing anything (with at least a magical weapon), I feel that your robbing your player a little, to be honest.

Maybe in the game, with all of its imperfections, your old grandma might deal a few points of damage from the fact she is getting double damage from the hammer (NOT ignoring hardness). The same way your old grandma will score points of damage on metal structures with a great sword.

Quote:
An army of people destroying a castle with picks(using hardiness as I suggest) is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay less crazy than said army of people destroying such castle with short swords (using hardiness as you suggest). By a faaaaaaaaaar margin.

A short sword is piercing.

I don't think people would have that in mind if they saw an army leveling a giant castle with picks in a movie. It's still pretty silly.

Quote:


The STR DC to break a Wall through pure str is 35. That means that to have a *Slight chance* to break it from pure str, you need STR score of 40. Sure, I'll let any character with STR 40 (which is more than any giant in the game) to break through a wall if they roll 20 in they attempt. That's however, several orders of magnitude different than allowing a fourth level fighter with the Brawler archetype and 18 str to break through walls with bare punches because of weapon training and weapon specialization.

You don't need a strength of 40 depending on what you are. Barbarians and orcs can get bonuses to strength checks to make it much easier.

Are you talking about walls in general or just stone walls? Because wood and metal walls can still be punched down even if the rules were saying that it couldn't work on stone, because it isn't stated.

It's a fantasy game. GM's shouldn't be too caught up on punching objects down when you can destroy stone golems with your fists.


Sauce987654321 wrote:
You can't take a wall down with a rapier even if it's made of wood. It's a piercing attack. Most don't work.

Fine, make it a sabre. It's identical to a rapier, but slashing.

Or a bladed scarf, for that matter.

Quote:


The Cloud Giant's damage is mainly comming from the fact that his weapon is so big (base weapon damage) and his strength and feats. If you have a player hitting even harder than that and not accomplishing anything (with at least a magical weapon), I feel that your robbing your player a little, to be honest.

Again, a player can do more damage than the giant, using a kerambit, or bladed scarf, or wooden club, or scorpion whip. It only takes levels, weapon training, piranha strike, a bard dancing near you, and greater weapon specialization. That a fighter can do more damage with a sling than a giant can do with a boulder (or a siege engine can do with a boulder for that matter) does not mean the fighter sling has more *force*. I'm not robbing my players a little when I enforce a RAW rule: the sword is not designed to destroy walls, and hence has "little effect". I'm not even defining what does it mean, I'll just read and state what I've read "you sword has little effect. Which it means it effect, is little. The wall is there, littly effected."

Quote:
A short sword is piercing.

Once again, then make it a gladius (double edged slashing short sword). Or a wooden mere club, for that matter.

Quote:

I don't think people would have that in mind if they saw an army leveling a giant castle with picks in a movie. It's still pretty silly.

A "Giant castle" has thousands of hit points, so leveling it will take quite a little. And castles have been leveled to zero in the past, so while an army of people leveling it to ground using picks and mattocks and sledge hammers might be stressing it a bit, it's still under what you expect from holiwood. It's not much weirder than a guy firing a bow while sliding in a shield downstairs. HOWEVER, if you make an army of people wearing bladed scarf, wooden clubs, scimitars and scorpion whips to level that same castle, the laugh in the theater would be epic.

A single portion of wall has Hardiness 8 and 90 hp. A str 14 guy with a sledge hammer can take it down in a couple of minutes. I've seen my father doing that. I can believe Conan, with said sledge hammer, can do it probably in a full round. I can't believe my father take down a wall with a scimitar, no matter how long he tries (well, maybe in a couple of months). I can't see how Conan can do it any faster.

Quote:
You don't need a strength of 40 depending on what you are. Barbarians and orcs can get bonuses to strength checks to make it much easier.

You need an effective STR of 40. I'd be happy to let anyone with an effective STR of 40 for the purpose of breaking items, to break a masonry wall with a 20 in a 1d20 roll. That's orders of magnitude below allowing a str 16 guy with weapon training and specialization in brass knuckles to break the *same* wall.

Quote:
Are you talking about walls in general or just stone walls? Because wood and metal walls can still be punched down even if the rules were saying that it couldn't work on stone, because it isn't stated.

Already talked about it. Just because it isn't stated it doesn't mean you can break metal walls. It says "as an example", and then provide you two examples. You can't punch a metal wall (unless you are using a weapon that can break metal), for the same reasons you can't use a club to break a cord, even if only "rope" (and not cord) is mentioned in the example. There's not a list of every single item in existence, crossed with every single weapon in existence, and a "yes/no" table. If the GM judge the weapon falls under "inneffective weapons" (which a punch against a iron wall should), then it's ineffective. Just because the example says you can't use a club vs a rope, it doesn't mean you can use a greatclub vs a rope, or a hammer vs a piece of cloth, or a brass knuckle vs a cord. Same goes for longswords vs metal walls.

Quote:


It's a fantasy game. GM's shouldn't be too caught up on punching objects down when you can destroy stone golems with your fists.

It's a fantasy game, with rules. One of those rules is called "inneffective weapons", and it's there for a reason.

You don't "destroy" golems with your fists. You kill them. A golem is an statue magically animated. When you hit them, you kill the "magic" animating them (maybe you scratch and damage the runes that animate them). Unless you are using a pick, or a giant maul, you don't "destroy" the stone golem into dust. When you kill it, it's there, just it's no longer animated. In the same way, you don't transform a flesh golem into a pulp shake of blood and blended meat when you kill it. It's simply dead, not desintegrated. On the other hand, when you destroy a wall, it's *destroyed*. You create a 5' hole, and the wall is no longer there, but a heap of rubble instead.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
Again, a player can do more damage than the giant, using a kerambit, or bladed scarf, or wooden club, or scorpion whip. It only takes levels, weapon training, piranha strike, a bard dancing near you, and greater weapon specialization. That a fighter can do more damage with a sling than a giant can do with a boulder (or a siege engine can do with a boulder for that matter) does not mean the fighter sling has more *force*. I'm not robbing my players a little when I enforce a RAW rule: the sword is not designed to destroy walls, and hence has "little effect". I'm not even defining what does it mean, I'll just read and state what I've read "you sword has little effect. Which it means it effect, is little. The wall is there, littly effected."

If you have gotten to the point when your sling bullet can do more damage than a thrown boulder, then that must be a very very powerful and accurate attack. It just sounds like damage doesn't have much of a meaning to you, just what the attack form is.

Quote:
A single portion of wall has Hardiness 8 and 90 hp. A str 14 guy with a sledge hammer can take it down in a couple of minutes. I've seen my father doing that. I can believe Conan, with said sledge hammer, can do it probably in a full round. I can't believe my father take down a wall with a scimitar, no matter how long he tries (well, maybe in a couple of months). I can't see how Conan can do it any faster.

Whether conan can destroy anyway in a round is just subjective. Your dad couldn't be able to destroy a masonry wall with a scimitar if he had 14 strength because it would do a total of 1d6+2 and it's hardness is 8. Even if it were a longsword, it might just break anyway, hence the "little effect".

I did run some numbers on a dice roller since I didn't have anything better to do. Your dad has 14 strength, I gave him a two handed warhammer (d8) and doubled the warhammers damage for vulernability which comes out to be 2d8+3. It took 23 rounds to bring the wall to 0.
Maybe it was just coincidence, but there you go.

Quote:
Already talked about it. Just because it isn't stated it doesn't mean you can break metal walls. It says "as an example", and then provide you two examples. You can't punch a metal wall (unless you are using a weapon that can break metal), for the same reasons you can't use a club to break a cord, even if only "rope" (and not cord) is mentioned in the example. There's not a list of every single item in existence, crossed with every single weapon in existence, and a "yes/no" table. If the GM judge the weapon falls under "inneffective weapons" (which a punch against a iron wall should), then it's ineffective. Just because the example says you can't use a club vs a rope, it doesn't mean you can use a greatclub vs a rope, or a hammer vs a piece of cloth, or a brass knuckle vs a cord. Same goes for longswords vs metal walls.

Actually, it says nothing about a club and a rope now reading it again. It just says bludgeoning weapons, so It's pretty clear on that part, unlike the stone wall part.

Quote:
You don't "destroy" golems with your fists. You kill them. A golem is an statue magically animated. When you hit them, you kill the "magic" animating them (maybe you scratch and damage the runes that animate them). Unless you are using a pick, or a giant maul, you don't "destroy" the stone golem into dust. When you kill it, it's there, just it's no longer animated. In the same way, you don't transform a flesh golem into a pulp shake of blood and blended meat when you kill it. It's simply dead, not desintegrated. On the other hand, when you destroy a wall, it's *destroyed*. You create a 5' hole, and the wall is no longer there, but a heap of rubble instead.

If you had said ruining it's body as opposed to breaking it into rubble, that would be a lot more understandable.

But destroying it's magical essences? Lol. That sounds like a really big stretch in an attempt to not let your players feel powerful.

"•Not at risk of death from massive damage. Immediately destroyed when reduced to 0 hit points or less"

Even the game says that constructs are destroyed when reaching 0. Golems are constructs, too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Through discipline and training, an ironskin monk hardens his body to withstand punishing blows. Though slow on his feet, his calloused hands and feet can shatter stone and stagger foes."

I don't know if they would add in flavor text like that for something if breaking stone should never be an option for unarmed attacks. Either that or they don't know their own rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'll put this as simply as I can. The d20 system, including D&D 3.x/PF demonstrates the norms, and is built around exceptions. The rules for breaking stuff do not change whether it is a more or less mundane 1st level individual with a high stat of 15 as was expected for PCs (no joke, the original system this comes from was built around 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, and 8; and the elite PB for PF is 15 points) right up to colossal dragons. The hardness and breaking object rules apply across the board.

There is another simple fact. You cannot effectively tell us what the rule means, because the rule itself is vague and doesn't adequately declare how it works. It gives an example of a weapon that is not effective, and a weapon that is marginally effective. Looking at how this interacts with the whole of the attacking objects rules, it would appear that your interpretation is "GM fiat", whereas our interpretation of the same rule meshes very nicely with the rest of the rules concerning breaking objects (and this is why we still share this view despite your protestation).

Our positions can be mapped as the following.

  • We see that the breaking objects rules say that certain types of weapons are incapable of dealing damage to a certain type of object (such as in the case of a bludgeoning weapon vs a rope), and that against certain materials certain weapons have little effect on them unless they are specifically made for breaking them up.
  • We look and see that most materials softer than stone (including wood, glass, and paper) have hardness 5 or less, which means your average weapon (most weapons deal 1d8 or less damage) can be effective at damaging these objects. Meanwhile stone has a hardness of 8 and is thus impossible to damage by virtue of most weapons. It's not impossible, but it will have little effect.
  • We see that certain objects may be declared to have vulnerabilities against certain weapons or attacks above and beyond the normal rules for breaking objects, which explains why picks and hammers specifically made for breaking up objects may help with stone (if a hammer or pick deals 1d8 damage but deals x2 damage vs the object then suddenly it can deal up to 8 points of damage to the stone by virtue of the weapon).
  • Having concluded this, we can see there is no problems that this creates within the system, within reasoning, or within verisimilitude.

Your position reads more like.
  • You think someone of superhuman strength and prowess breaking walls with their hands -- or most anything else -- is stupid, and I won't allow it.
  • Your interpretation does not mesh very well within the breaking objects rules that clearly state that smashing an object is sundering. You create many strange inconsistencies. Why is something perfectly fine for breaking weapons or armors made out of a material but not an object such as a door made out of the same material? When we have weapons made of wood, stone, iron, and more, why is it that they are not specifically immune to weapons as well? It is inconsistent, doesn't mesh well with everything else that is said, and basically comes down to "because I don't like it".

At least, that's how I'm seeing this conversation thus far. Could be a matter of perspective. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your position, but this is pretty much as I'm seeing it. This is why you have no changed my mind; because I seeing the first example as having quite literally everything accounted for and working within the system to create a smooth and seamless model. The second is basically clunky and filled with GM fiat. I find #1 to be the one more appropriate to assume is the correct one.

Incidentally, because adventurers can indeed break stuff (either via sword or sorcery), the core environment rules specifically note magical methods of increasing the durability of walls and doors specifically to make them harder to break.

PRD wrote:

Masonry walls—stones piled on top of each other, usually but not always held in place with mortar—often divide dungeons into corridors and chambers. Dungeon walls can also be hewn from solid rock, leaving them with a rough, chiseled look. Still other dungeon walls can be the smooth, unblemished stone of a naturally occurring cave. Dungeon walls are difficult to break down or through, but they're generally easy to climb.

Masonry Walls: The most common kind of dungeon wall, masonry walls are usually at least 1 foot thick. Often, these ancient walls sport cracks and crevices, and sometimes dangerous slimes or small monsters live in these areas and wait for prey. Masonry walls stop all but the loudest noises. It takes a DC 20 Climb check to travel along a masonry wall.

Superior Masonry Walls: Sometimes masonry walls are better built (smoother, with tighter-fitting stones and less cracking), and occasionally these superior walls are covered with plaster or stucco. Covered walls often bear paintings, carved reliefs, or other decoration. Superior masonry walls are no more difficult to destroy than regular masonry walls but are more difficult to climb (DC 25).

Reinforced Masonry Walls: These are masonry walls with iron bars on one or both sides of the wall, or placed within the wall to strengthen it. The hardness of a reinforced wall remains the same, but its hit points are doubled and the Strength check DC to break through it is increased by 10.

Hewn Stone Walls: Such walls usually result when a chamber or passage is tunneled out from solid rock. The rough surface of a hewn wall frequently provides minuscule ledges where fungus grows and fissures where vermin, bats, and subterranean snakes live. When such a wall has an “other side” (meaning it separates two chambers in the dungeon), the wall is usually at least 3 feet thick; anything thinner risks collapsing from the weight of all the stone overhead. It takes a DC 25 Climb check to climb a hewn stone wall.

Unworked Stone Walls: These surfaces are uneven and rarely flat. They are smooth to the touch but filled with tiny holes, hidden alcoves, and ledges at various heights. They're also usually wet or at least damp, since it's water that most frequently creates natural caves. When such a wall has an “other side,” the wall is usually at least 5 feet thick. It takes a DC 15 Climb check to move along an unworked stone wall.

Iron Walls: These walls are placed within dungeons around important places, such as vaults.

Paper Walls: Paper walls are placed as screens to block line of sight, but nothing more.

Wooden Walls: Wooden walls often exist as recent additions to older dungeons, used to create animal pens, storage bins, and temporary structures, or just to make a number of smaller rooms out of a larger one.

Magically Treated Walls: These walls are stronger than average, with a greater hardness, more hit points, and a higher break DC. Magic can usually double the hardness and hit points of a wall and add up to 20 to the break DC. A magically treated wall also gains a saving throw against spells that could affect it, with the save bonus equaling 2 + 1/2 the caster level of the magic reinforcing the wall. Creating a magic wall requires the Craft Wondrous Item feat and the expenditure of 1,500 gp for each 10-foot-by-10-foot wall section.

Walls with Arrow Slits: Walls with arrow slits can be made of any durable material but are most commonly masonry, hewn stone, or wood. Such a wall allows defenders to fire arrows or crossbow bolts at intruders from behind the safety of the wall. Archers behind arrow slits have improved cover that gives them a +8 bonus to Armor Class, a +4 bonus on Reflex saves, and the benefits of the improved evasion class feature.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8 , Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Re: Aiming

Most spells are targeted when 'fired' IMHO. You don't start your turn picking where fireball goes off, and then deal with everyone moving.

I suppose for full round castings (sleep, summon monster) you could say "Pick where you want it to go off" and deal with everyone's movement, but it would make them much less attractive. (And hose metamgic sorcerers even more)

(DA:Origins aside. Because of the long casting time for Storm of the Century, I'd often cast grease first, then blizzard, then lightning storm, to make sure my targets stayed put long enough for the combo. I'd also put my party in the hold position mode and give them bows)

Re "Brick wall" Isn't a ram technically a melee weapon? So are we saying rams can't break down walls?

Realism be damned, if my 5th level wizard can blow something up, my 5th level fighter can (eventually) get through the brick wall with a parring knife.


Matthew Morris wrote:

Re: Aiming

Most spells are targeted when 'fired' IMHO. You don't start your turn picking where fireball goes off, and then deal with everyone moving.

I suppose for full round castings (sleep, summon monster) you could say "Pick where you want it to go off" and deal with everyone's movement, but it would make them much less attractive. (And hose metamgic sorcerers even more)

(DA:Origins aside. Because of the long casting time for Storm of the Century, I'd often cast grease first, then blizzard, then lightning storm, to make sure my targets stayed put long enough for the combo. I'd also put my party in the hold position mode and give them bows)

Re "Brick wall" Isn't a ram technically a melee weapon? So are we saying rams can't break down walls?

Realism be damned, if my 5th level wizard can blow something up, my 5th level fighter can (eventually) get through the brick wall with a parring knife.

+1 to this all the way.

On a side note, a 20th level fighter with the appropriate enhancements, inherent modifiers, and magic items, as well as the appropriate weapon training and full specialization can damage adamantine with his fists.

1d3 + 10 (Strength) + 6 (weapon training + gloves of dueling) + 4 (greater specialization) + 6 (power attack) plus 5 attacks per round (without haste) equates to an average of 40 damage per round to an adamantine slab with his fists. To put that into perspective, that is a fighter destroying a 1 inch thick section of adamantine every round, or nearly a foot of solid adamantine in 1 minute (1 inch per round equates to 10 inches per minute). EDIT: If the fighter also has full two-weapon fighting and double slice, then the damage per round increases to 56, allowing him to tear through a foot thick adamantine wall in 1 minute (netting an extra inch's worth of damage every 3 rounds, effectively).


Sauce987654321 wrote:

"Through discipline and training, an ironskin monk hardens his body to withstand punishing blows. Though slow on his feet, his calloused hands and feet can shatter stone and stagger foes."

I don't know if they would add in flavor text like that for something if breaking stone should never be an option for unarmed attacks. Either that or they don't know their own rules.

I'd allow an ironskin monk to break walls, as it's clearly stated that he is "a weapon specially made to break stone", such as required by the rule. That does not mean the regular run'o'mill fighter with brass knuckles, str 16 and lvl 4 can do the same.

Quote:
If you have gotten to the point when your sling bullet can do more damage than a thrown boulder, then that must be a very very powerful and accurate attack. It just sounds like damage doesn't have much of a meaning to you, just what the attack form is.

Not "for me", but "for the inneffective weapon rule". Which clearly say that some kind of damage can't break some kind of objects, no matter of what. And also say some other weapons have "little effect" on objects, not mentioning how much amount of damage it does, only which kind of weapon it is. So a wooden club can't break a stone wall, no matter how much you are specialized in it.

Quote:

Whether conan can destroy anyway in a round is just subjective. Your dad couldn't be able to destroy a masonry wall with a scimitar if he had 14 strength because it would do a total of 1d6+2 and it's hardness is 8. Even if it were a longsword, it might just break anyway, hence the "little effect".

hold that scimitar two handed, and there you go.

Quote:
Actually, it says nothing about a club and a rope now reading it again. It just says bludgeoning weapons, so It's pretty clear on that part, unlike the stone wall part.

Moot point. Your argument was that Metal Walls could be destroyed by longsword, because they aren't mentioned, like stone walls. Well, "cords" aren't mentioned, and that does not mean you can break "cords" with bludgeoning weapons just because the example was "ropes" and not "cords". My point is that an example is exactly that, an example. A wall of metal can fall under the same rule, because the rule just make a few examples.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
I'd allow an ironskin monk to break walls, as it's clearly stated that he is "a weapon specially made to break stone", such as required by the rule. That does not mean the regular run'o'mill fighter with brass knuckles, str 16 and lvl 4 can do the same.

No, there is no rule declaring the monk different. There is a descriptive narrative. It is fluff. However it is fluff that is outright wrong if your interpretation is taken over the alternative (which lacks internal inconsistencies that your interpretation creates).

The ironskin monk does not have an ability declaring his unarmed strikes to be weapons intended for such things, anymore than a monk's fluff mean his mechanics work as they are described.


Ashiel wrote:
There is another simple fact. You cannot effectively tell us what the rule means, because the rule itself is vague and doesn't adequately declare how it works. It gives an example of a weapon that is not effective, and a weapon that is marginally effective. Looking at how this interacts with the whole of the attacking objects rules, it would appear that your interpretation is "GM fiat", whereas our interpretation of the same rule meshes very nicely with the rest of the rules concerning breaking objects (and this is why we still share this view despite your protestation).

I agree with you, the rule is vague and states that some weapons have "little effect".

however, your interpretation is that the rule of "innefective weapons[/i] is not an exception rule at all, but a mere description of
maths. Your view means that, in fact, the rule is not a rule at all. Take your core book, open it at page 174. Play a few examples of innefective weapons against walls. Now scratch that page. Throw the rule to the trash bin, and make again those examples. What's the difference? NONE. Your longsword vs stone wall does *the same* damage with a rule that declare it is an inneffective weapon, or without it. So it's not a rule at all.

Quote:


Our positions can be mapped as the following.
[list]
  • We see that the breaking objects rules say that certain types of weapons are incapable of dealing damage to a certain type of object (such as in the case of a bludgeoning weapon vs a rope), and that against certain materials certain weapons have little effect on them unless they are specifically made for breaking them up.
  • that's my position too. If we were playing, and you try to break a wall with your longsword, I'd say "your longsword has little effect. So it has an effect, but it is little.". I think if we both speak the same language, you understand what I've just said. And If you would had used your two handed sword with power attack, and I'd have said "your longsword has little effect. The wall is destroyed", you probably would ask me if I speak english correctly, because there's a dissonance there.

    Quote:

  • We look and see that most materials softer than stone (including wood, glass, and paper) have hardness 5 or less, which means your average weapon (most weapons deal 1d8 or less damage) can be effective at damaging these objects. Meanwhile stone has a hardness of 8 and is thus impossible to damage by virtue of most weapons. It's not impossible, but it will have little effect.
  • So it's not a rule, it's a description. It has no effect.

    Quote:


    Having concluded this, we can see there is no problems that this creates within the system, within reasoning, or within verisimilitude.

    The problem with the system is that it means there's a rule that is not a rule (innefective weapon is not a rule under your definition. Vulnerable might be one, but innefective weapon is not a rule at all, it does nothing), it has a problem within reason (dissonance when you describe "your longsword does little effect on the wall, the wall is therefore destroyed"), and with verosimilitude (a group of orcs destroying a castle using wooden greatclubs)


    Matthew Morris wrote:
    Re "Brick wall" Isn't a ram technically a melee weapon? So are we saying rams can't break down walls?

    of course it can. It's a weapon designed to destroy stones and walls. The list is not closed, that's why it's called "example"

    Quote:
    Realism be damned, if my 5th level wizard can blow something up, my 5th level fighter can (eventually) get through the brick wall with a parring knife.

    Nothing at all forbids your 5th level fighter to destroy the brick wall. My 5th level dwarf with a warhammer, does, easily. But just like my 5th level enchanter can't destroy the wall, because it does not has the proper tools (ie: spells that can affect the wall), my 5th level dancing dervish can't either, because he doesn't have the proper tools. That has nothing to do with me wanting to "depower" fighters, I let them to swim in full plate just fine, as long as they have enough ranks/armor training/whatever to have a net positive in swiming, and realism be damned.

    It's me reading the rule as written, not having a desire to depower fighters. Saying that a fighter with a longsword can't destroy a wall is not different than saying a fighter with a warhammer can't destroy a rope. Do you let your fighters to destroy ropes with warhammers, only because wizards can destroy ropes with fireballs? Why then you punish fighters with warhammers (who can't destroy ropes), while you reward fighters with longswords (who can destroy walls with "little effects")


    Ashiel wrote:
    gustavo iglesias wrote:
    I'd allow an ironskin monk to break walls, as it's clearly stated that he is "a weapon specially made to break stone", such as required by the rule. That does not mean the regular run'o'mill fighter with brass knuckles, str 16 and lvl 4 can do the same.

    No, there is no rule declaring the monk different. There is a descriptive narrative. It is fluff. However it is fluff that is outright wrong if your interpretation is taken over the alternative (which lacks internal inconsistencies that your interpretation creates).

    The ironskin monk does not have an ability declaring his unarmed strikes to be weapons intended for such things, anymore than a monk's fluff mean his mechanics work as they are described.

    The warhammer, or the ram, or the sledge hammer also don't have any rule that make it different, however, their *description* show them as able to destroy stone. As the "inneffective weapon" rule ask not for an in-game term (such as bludgeoning, or two handed), but for a description (being specially designed to destroy stone), the ironskin monk description makes him to qualify.

    For the same reason, a pebble thrown by a sling does not qualify, but a boulder thrown by a giant does (even if the halfling sling specialist with deadly aim, weapon training, and a bard singing by his side, does more damage when used against a living target, than the boulder thrown by the giant)


    gustavo iglesias wrote:
    I'd allow an ironskin monk to break walls, as it's clearly stated that he is "a weapon specially made to break stone", such as required by the rule. That does not mean the regular run'o'mill fighter with brass knuckles, str 16 and lvl 4 can do the same.

    That's just flavor text, but it does have abilities to have greater damage output against objects and constructs. That's most likey what they meant.

    Quote:
    Not "for me", but "for the inneffective weapon rule". Which clearly say that some kind of damage can't break some kind of objects, no matter of what. And also say some other weapons have "little effect" on objects, not mentioning how much amount of damage it does, only which kind of weapon it is. So a wooden club can't break a stone wall, no matter how much you are specialized in it.

    It doesn't state what kind of weapons other than the ones that are more suited for the job against stone, specifically. Not just walls.

    Anyway, for fun, I ran some more numbers with out the warhammer vulerability (1d8+3) It came out to be 143 rounds. A lot longer than what you told me originally (couple of minutes) 143 rounds just to deal up to 90 damage. No DM in the right mind would let you take that long with a mundane longsword without some consequence. That sounds like little effect to me compared to what I rolled earlier (23 rounds).

    Quote:
    Moot point. Your argument was that Metal Walls could be destroyed by longsword, because they aren't mentioned, like stone walls. Well, "cords" aren't mentioned, and that does not mean you can break "cords" with bludgeoning weapons just because the example was "ropes" and not "cords". My point is that an example is exactly that, an example. A wall of metal can fall under the same rule, because the rule just make a few examples.

    So weapons designed for breaking up stone are equally as good for breaking metal and wooden walls, like a pick?


    gustavo iglesias wrote:
    I agree with you, the rule is vague and states that some weapons have "little effect".

    Which has no actual game mechanic, other than as a descriptive application. It is a mechanic which does nothing, or is merely demonstrating that sometimes no matter how much you hit something with a particularly type of weapon if it cannot damage it then it cannot damage it (such as in the case of repeatedly striking a stone wall with a club; as it will never damage it unless there is something above and beyond the weapon).

    Quote:

    however, your interpretation is that the rule of "innefective weapons[/i] is not an exception rule at all, but a mere description of

    maths. Your view means that, in fact, the rule is not a rule at all. Take your core book, open it at page 174. Play a few examples of innefective weapons against walls. Now scratch that page. Throw the rule to the trash bin, and make again those examples. What's the difference? NONE. Your longsword vs stone wall does *the same* damage with a rule that declare it is an inneffective weapon, or without it. So it's not a rule at all.

    It's not declaring it an ineffective weapon. In fact, it doesn't declare a longsword and an ineffective weapon at all. It says "most melee weapons have little effect" on something. It is similar but different to having no effect at all.

    Quote:


    that's my position too. If we were playing, and you try to break a wall with your longsword, I'd say "your longsword has little effect. So it has an effect, but it is little.". I think if we both speak the same language, you understand what I've just said. And If you would had used your two handed sword with power attack, and I'd have said "your longsword has little effect. The wall is destroyed", you probably would ask me if I speak english correctly, because there's a dissonance there.

    No there really isn't. The problem is you are not looking at what is occurring here. Try exercising your english a little more and don't be lazy. "Your weapon would have little effect, if swung by a lesser man, but by virtue of your mighty swing and perfect strike, the wall crumbles before your prowess."

    Quote:
    The problem with the system is that it means there's a rule that is not a rule (innefective weapon is not a rule under your definition. Vulnerable might be one, but innefective weapon is not a rule at all, it does nothing), it has a problem within reason (dissonance when you describe "your longsword does little effect on the wall, the wall is therefore destroyed"), and with verosimilitude (a group of orcs destroying a castle using wooden greatclubs)

    Yes, I'm saying that the mechanic in which you are describing notes an instance where an object has no effect, and an instance where an object has little effect. There is a great epic difference between the two. It is as the difference between immunity and resistance. I can shoot a fireball at a fire elemental all day and it have no effect. I can shoot a fireball at a creature with fire resistance and it have little effect.

    It draws an example of how some things are completely ineffective, marginally effective, and super effective. However, it does not create any specific situation that the standard rules are somehow not followed when determining if items capable of "little effect" insomuch as it just notes that the effect is little. Little is relative, no effect is not. Since you are so vehement about the English language I'm sure you can see this.

    On a side note yes, a group of orcs with great big clubs could indeed come crashing into the side of a wall pounding with all their might to try and bring it down. Your average castle walls are several feet thick, and the orcs average damage with the club is only 9.5 two-handing it. That means every six seconds of relentless pounding the orc only deals about 1.5 damage to the wall. It would take that same orc of excessively greater than normal human strength, wielding a massive blunt object with both hands, about 45 minutes of relentless pounding to break a small section of the masonry stone wall down (that is, stone bricks laid out upon each other). If it was solid stone, it would take the orc about 5 hours of relentless pounding to chip off enough stone to break through a narrow passage.

    That's an orc with inhuman strength. A human on the other hand would deal less than 0 damage on an average hit, meaning that he would only deal about .65 damage per round beating on the wall with the large blunt object. It would take nearly an hour and a half for a human to break into a brick wall, and about 7 strait hours of pounding on it, with a warrior's build, to chip off enough to make a 5 ft. deep passage. Assuming no fatigue or exhaustion sets in (as in we're talking about hitting it at every six seconds of every minute of every hour for 7 whole hours with no breaks for food, rest, or drink).

    I don't see an issue here. Seems like something that makes lots of sense to me (a wooden sledgehammer is effectively what we're describing here), and would be viewed as entirely useless even in our fantasy D&D world because you and everyone involved would be dead before you did more than chip off a few pieces of brick before you were killed by archers, crossbowmen, hot oil, falling debris, spells, explosives, and so forth. It would be suicidal, stupid, and ineffective.


    Sauce987654321 wrote:

    So weapons designed for breaking up stone are equally as good for breaking metal and wooden walls, like a pick?

    Not necesarelly, each object can be affected by some weapons, and not by others. For example, a warhammer wouldn't be effective to break down a tree, while an axe would. Just because a weapon is declared to be effective against a wall of stone, it does not mean it's effective against every kind of wall. Against a wall of rubber, axes are effective, while sledge hammers aren't, for example.

    Just for reference, this was the wording of that rule in D&D SRD:

    Ineffective Weapons

    The DM may determine that certain weapons just can't deal damage effectively to certain objects. For example, a combatant will have a hard time chopping down a door by shooting arrows at it or cutting a rope with a club.


    I've made a question in the Rules section about this, this thread is already completelly threadjacked anyways :P

    I'd like to see an answer from a dev, about the RAI of "little effect" meaning.


    Quote:

    Ineffective Weapons

    The DM may determine that certain weapons just can't deal damage effectively to certain objects. For example, a combatant will have a hard time chopping down a door by shooting arrows at it or cutting a rope with a club.

    Funny that arrows (being piercing) suck at chopping and clubs (being bludgeoning) suck at cutting.


    Quote:
    The problem with the system is that it means there's a rule that is not a rule (innefective weapon is not a rule under your definition. Vulnerable might be one, but innefective weapon is not a rule at all, it does nothing), it has a problem within reason (dissonance when you describe "your longsword does little effect on the wall, the wall is therefore destroyed"), and with verosimilitude (a group of orcs destroying a castle using wooden greatclubs)

    Okay, you're right. That whole entry really does mean nothing. So let's just drag that into the recycling bin, and let's see how it plays out

    Bludgeoning can cut rope now (or cords, strings, wires, or anything of the like.)

    Now hammers and pickaxes take forever for people with 15 strengths to destroy masonry walls since it doesn't encourage you to use the vulnerability rule.

    Just to throw this in

    *An army of 16 strength, weapon spec, two weapon fighting halflings with light picks surround a giant castle. They all use piranha strike with double slice while attacking the castle and bring it to rubble in minutes*


    gustavo iglesias wrote:

    I've made a question in the Rules section about this, this thread is already completelly threadjacked anyways :P

    I'd like to see an answer from a dev, about the RAI of "little effect" meaning.

    Eh okay, lol. It was fun, anyway,


    Quote:
    Try exercising your english a little more and don't be lazy.

    Good advice!

    I've done such, and I've looked to an English word definition. To be precise, I searched for "likewise", and I found this

    So, in the sentence "Ineffective Weapons: Certain weapons just can’t effectively deal damage to certain objects. For example, a bludgeoning
    weapon cannot be used to damage a rope. Likewise, most melee weapons have little effect on stone walls and doors"

    It seems to me that if A has an effect, and B is likewise, then B has a similar effect, not a totally unrelated one. So, for example, if a bludgeoning weapon can't effectivelly damage a rope and that means it can't damage it at all, and likewise, a hammer has little effect on a rubber wall, it seems to indicate that a hammer can't effectively damage a rubber wall and therefore has a similar effect. Then, likewise a hammer does with a rope, a falchion can't effectively damage a stone wall.

    Is this proper use of the English word "likewise"? :)


    Sauce987654321 wrote:
    Quote:

    The problem with the system is that it means there's a rule that is not a rule (innefective weapon is not a rule under your definition. Vulnerable might be one, but innefective weapon is not a rule at all, it does nothing), it has a problem within reason (dissonance when you describe "your longsword does little effect on the wall, the wall is therefore destroyed"), and with verosimilitude (a group of orcs destroying a castle using wooden greatclubs)

    Bludgeoning can cut rope now (or cords, strings, wires, or anything of the like.)

    Okay, you're right. That whole entry really does mean nothing. So let's just drag that into the recycling bin, and let's see how it plays out

    That's a strawman. I didn't say the whole entry means nothing, I said it means nothing *for the longsword*. Sure, it does something for bludgeoning and ropes, it does nothing for longswords and walls, though.

    Quote:


    Now hammers and pickaxes take forever for people with 15 strengths to destroy masonry walls since it doesn't encourage you to use the vulnerability rule.

    20 minutes to destroy a wall isn´t "forever", and longswords being ineffective (by my definition) does not preclude walls being vulnerable to some weapons (such as picks). It creates three degrees:

    A bladed scarf, by my definition, can't damage a wall at all (no matter if the wielder has piranha strike, weapon training, and a bard singing for him)
    The wielder of, say, a mace or hammer, or throwing dynamite, does regular damage (ie: his weapon is effective)
    while the wielder of some weapons (such as a pick, or a demolition charge instead of a thrown dynamite) can find that walls are vulnerable to it.

    Quote:

    Just to throw this in

    *An army of 16 strength, weapon spec, two weapon fighting halflings with light picks surround a giant castle. They all use piranha strike with double slice while attacking the castle and bring it to rubble in minutes*

    Light picks are ineffective weapons because they aren`t "especially designed to destroy stone" :). Make it halflings with regular picks, and all is right ;)

    RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8 , Star Voter 2013

    gustavo iglesias wrote:
    Sauce987654321 wrote:

    So weapons designed for breaking up stone are equally as good for breaking metal and wooden walls, like a pick?

    Ineffective Weapons

    The DM may determine that certain weapons just can't deal damage effectively to certain objects. For example, a combatant will have a hard time chopping down a door by shooting arrows at it or cutting a rope with a club.

    SO using this quote you're fine with rams being unable to damage walls, but long swords can? Cool.


    Matthew Morris wrote:
    gustavo iglesias wrote:
    Sauce987654321 wrote:

    So weapons designed for breaking up stone are equally as good for breaking metal and wooden walls, like a pick?

    Ineffective Weapons

    The DM may determine that certain weapons just can't deal damage effectively to certain objects. For example, a combatant will have a hard time chopping down a door by shooting arrows at it or cutting a rope with a club.

    SO using this quote you're fine with rams being unable to damage walls, but long swords can? Cool.

    Err... no. Quite the other way around. I'd say that the long sword can't break the wall, but the ram can.

    Sure, if your GM is trying to be obtuse on purpose, and trying to mook the rule, he might rule that you can break a cord with a hammer (which is not a club), but not with a longsword. Or even funnier, that you can cut the cord with a dagger, but not with a scimitar, and you can cut it with an axe, but not with a greatsword. Hey, if he goes nut, he can rule that you can cut it with a greatsword with a green handle, but not with a greatsword with a blue handle. He can also say that your fireball does double damage to water and half damage to lantern oil, or that the iron wall count as "combustible" and the cloth courtain does not. The rule assumes common sense from the GM, like every other rule that use GM fiat.


    gustavo iglesias wrote:
    Quote:
    Try exercising your english a little more and don't be lazy.

    Good advice!

    I've done such, and I've looked to an English word definition. To be precise, I searched for "likewise", and I found this

    So, in the sentence "Ineffective Weapons: Certain weapons just can’t effectively deal damage to certain objects. For example, a bludgeoning
    weapon cannot be used to damage a rope. Likewise, most melee weapons have little effect on stone walls and doors"

    It seems to me that if A has an effect, and B is likewise, then B has a similar effect, not a totally unrelated one. So, for example, if a bludgeoning weapon can't effectivelly damage a rope and that means it can't damage it at all, and likewise, a hammer has little effect on a rubber wall, it seems to indicate that a hammer can't effectively damage a rubber wall and therefore has a similar effect. Then, likewise a hammer does with a rope, a falchion can't effectively damage a stone wall.

    Is this proper use of the English word "likewise"? :)

    Actually, yes. And no.

    Dictionary.com wrote:

    like·wise

       [lahyk-wahyz] Show IPA
    adverb
    1. moreover; in addition; also; too: She is likewise a fine lawyer.
    2. in like manner; in the same way; similarly: I'm tempted to do likewise.

    Moreover, in addition, also, too. In a like manner, in the same way, or similarly. Synonymous with "similarly", "furthermore", and "additionally".

    Quote:

    sim·i·lar

       [sim-uh-ler] Show IPA
    adjective
    1. having a likeness or resemblance, especially in a general way: two similar houses.
    2. Geometry . (of figures) having the same shape; having corresponding sides proportional and corresponding angles equal: similar triangles.
    3. Mathematics . (of two square matrices) related by means of a similarity transformation.

    When discussing something that is not effective, likewise is a perfectly acceptable word to lead into a description of something that is not wholly ineffectual as its predecessor but contains similar characteristics of ineffectiveness; whereas the actual paragraph details no less than three stages of contrast. A completely ineffectual weapon, a mostly ineffectual weapon, and a very effectual weapon; which not only makes sense but also functions and works within the rules for breaking objects which declare cases of exceptions that are either A) entirely ineffectual, or B) exceptionally ineffectual, versus the standard terms.

    Otherwise you end up in a situation where everything breaks down to every instance having to decide if a weapon is usable for something based on GM fiat, rather than a simple and streamlined understanding of "You'll need a bludgeoning/piercing/slashing". There is little to no difference between a light hammer (1d6 bludgeoning) and a club (1d6 bludgeoning), but being as they do not deal slashing damage would make them pretty sucky at cutting a rope and dropping a chandelier on an enemy, but might be more effective at snapping the hook holding the rope, whereas a rapier might be more useful for puncturing something than a club would be, and so forth.

    In such cases, the weapon may (as per effectual weapons) deal bonus damage or ignore a certain portion of hardness. But what you describe for the most part sounds like GM fiat in a great degree rather than actually trying to find a basis within the rules that is sensible. While a sword would not be particularly effective at slashing stone, it's not wholly useless, but it's definitely not going to be getting any benefits vs it either. Nor is it going to be especially effective against things like glass, or metal, but it could still function.

    EDIT: You are also ignoring the disconnect that it creates between standard sundering rules vs the object breaking rules. Why can a sword break up another sword, or a hammer, or a suit of armor, only to be completely ineffectual against the same material if the material is stationary and easier to hit? It wouldn't be. It still suffers the same difficulty at destroying it. If you strike a stone weapon or iron armor with your sword, you must still overcome hardness and deal damage from there. In the same way if you can slash your way through an iron plate, there is no reason to assume you cannot cut through a stone door.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    gustavo iglesias wrote:
    20 minutes to destroy a wall isn´t "forever",

    That is way, way longer than what you told me, especially from one rocking a 15 strength (or 14, whatever). I got a more accurate time using the vulnerability from what you told me.

    Quote:

    A bladed scarf, by my definition, can't damage a wall at all (no matter if the wielder has piranha strike, weapon training, and a bard singing for him)

    The wielder of, say, a mace or hammer, or throwing dynamite, does regular damage (ie: his weapon is effective)
    while the wielder of some weapons (such as a pick, or a demolition charge instead of a thrown dynamite) can find that walls are vulnerable to it.

    If your concerned about people using bladed scarfs on stone objects, than just say it gets broken so it can't damage it. As a GM, it's their job to say what works and what doesn't in their game or whatever. Realistically mundane bladed weapons would get ruined for doing this, so might as well do this in game, too. I keep saying that the little effect meaning can easily extend beyond just simple damage potential. Some GMs might say "well it's magical, so I'll let you do it since it invulnerable to it and sharp enough" and might not let the same thing happen to his sword unlike mundane versions. Maybe let flails do regular damage while hammers still get their double effect. Their not going to give a concrete penalty to swords specifically because of their wide variety of different types of swords, whether material, enhancement, or a combination of.

    Quote:
    Light picks are ineffective weapons because they aren`t "especially designed to destroy stone" :). Make it halflings with regular picks, and all is right ;)

    Well hey, if it says pick it's fair game :p


    Sauce987654321 wrote:
    If your concerned about people using bladed scarfs on stone objects, than just say it gets broken so it can't damage it. As a GM, it's their job to say what works and what doesn't in their game or whatever

    So a GM can say the longsword is ineffective and can't damage the wall? How convenient :P

    Quote:
    Maybe let flails do regular damage while hammers still get their double effect. Their not going to give a concrete penalty to swords specifically because of their wide variety of different types of swords, whether material, enhancement, or a combination of.

    That's exactly my position...

    Some weapons are completelly ineffective (such as a bladed scarf, or a pellet bow, or a longsword. Or a tiger's bite, for that matter)
    Some others are effective (a morningstar, or thrown dynamite)
    Some others even use the vulnerable rule (such as maybe a pick, or dynamite used as a demolition charge instead of thrown)

    However, that does not seem to be the position you have been defending so far. I understood your position as "everything that does not fall under vulnerable, does regular damage and checks for hardiness". That's why we discuss about a longsword, or a sling, destroying the wall if the wielder does enough damage.


    Quote:
    In such cases, the weapon may (as per effectual weapons) deal bonus damage or ignore a certain portion of hardness. But what you describe for the most part sounds like GM fiat in a great degree rather than actually trying to find a basis within the rules that is sensible. While a sword would not be particularly effective at slashing stone, it's not wholly useless, but it's definitely not going to be getting any benefits vs it either. Nor is it going to be especially effective against things like glass, or metal, but it could still function.

    The problem is that "not being especially effective" is not the same as "being ineeffective". A silver bullet is specially effective against a werewolf, but a regular bullet is effective too. A pillow, on the other hand, it's ineffective. Sure, it has "little effect" on him (like making him angry". And, if you have enough time, or whatever, it might have *Some* efficiency (such as if you drown him under six tons of pillows).

    The rule, as written, does not say "the longsword is not especially effective against the wall". The rule as written says "the longsword is ineffective against the wall". That's why it's in the "ineffective weapons" paragraph.

    Quote:


    EDIT: You are also ignoring the disconnect that it creates between standard sundering rules vs the object breaking rules. Why can a sword break up another sword, or a hammer, or a suit of armor, only to be completely ineffectual against the same material if the material is stationary and easier to hit? It wouldn't be. It still suffers the same difficulty at destroying it. If you strike a stone weapon or iron armor with your sword, you must still overcome hardness and deal damage from there. In the same way if you can slash your way through an iron plate, there is no reason to assume you cannot cut through a stone door.

    That's not a disconect, because the rule does not talk about ^materials* but about *objects*. So, while a longsword can be effective to break, say, another sword, it might not be effective against other items made of metal. Such as a tank, or an asteroid made of metal. That you can break a small marble figurine does not mean you can break a huge wall of marble.


    I'm not really defending just a mundane longsword. I don't care about that. In real life, if you can swing hard enough to ruin your sword, I might let them damage it a little bit and ruin their sword if they swing THAT hard. This wasn't really the first time I've mentioned that, though, maybe I wasn't clear enough. If it's magical I would let them.

    I would let unarmed damage work because you can break stone already with strength checks. Maybe you hit way harder than you are as strong.

    Sling bullets already get the half damage penalty unlike thrown boulders. If you can throw it that hard and percise that it can match the damage of a thrown boulder, I'm going to let them damage it.


    Sauce987654321 wrote:

    I'm not really defending just a mundane longsword. I don't care about that. In real life, if you can swing hard enough to ruin your sword, I might let them damage it a little bit and ruin their sword if they swing THAT hard. This wasn't really the first time I've mentioned that, though, maybe I wasn't clear enough. If it's magical I would let them.

    I would let unarmed damage work because you can break stone already with strength checks. Maybe you hit way harder than you are as strong.

    This is a different position that I've thought so far you had. This is quite similar to mine: you let *some* attacks to do regular damage against the hardiness, but not *All* of them, and you decide which ones work fine, and which ones don't (such as mundane weapons vs magical weapons, for example, or unarmed is ok, but tigers biting the wall is not ok). This is exactly my position, the only difference is which weapons we accept as effective and which weapons we do not. Which is perfectly fine with the rule (who already say it's up to each GM decision, and some GM might rule that you need a colosal sword, while others might think you need a large one, or a magical one, or whatever).

    That's different than reading the rule as "every single weapon should do damage vs hardiness, and some of them get a bonus". The first option allow you to say a bladed scarf weapon specialist can't damage the wall. The second reading of the rule does not allow you to do so.

    RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8 , Star Voter 2013

    gustavo iglesias wrote:
    The rule assumes common sense from the GM, like every other rule that use GM fiat.

    Which is my point exactly. There's nothing wrong with saying "It's a GM's call." But if you're going to argue common sense, then it's common sense that some GMs are going to rule that a longsword can cut a pillar (Robin Hood, Men in Tights or several samurai type movies.) or a punch can break a chain (Cap vs punching bag in Avengers).

    It's the same 'common sense' that says a DM can look at the player who wants to use his nerf hammer to pound in a nail and laugh, but let a metal hammer do the job.

    101 to 150 of 208 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
    Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / Is any level of point of origin spell precision unreasonable? All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.

    ©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.