Netopalis RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32 |
35 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
During GenCon, with the prevalence of hardness in Season 6 scenarios, a lot of rules questions came up. Specifically, the question is how energy damage is applied to constructs with hardness. I received the following answers, each from GMs with at least 4 stars and 3 different ones from Venture Officers:
*Energy damage is reduced by the amount of hardness before affecting HP.
*Energy damage is halved, then reduced by the amount of hardness before affecting HP.
*Energy damage is halved, but not reduced by the amount of hardness before affecting HP.
*Energy damage is halved if the construct is an animated object, but is not halved if the construct is not an animated object.
*Energy damage is halved and damage is reduced by hardness if the construct is an animated object, but it is only reduced by hardness and not halved if the construct is just a construct.
What is the answer? I'm having a great deal of difficulty finding one. The relevant portion of the CRB mentions hardness only in relation to objects, not in relation to constructs or other creatures. It states:
Hardness: Each object has hardness—a number that
represents how well it resists damage. When an object is
damaged, subtract its hardness from the damage. Only
damage in excess of its hardness is deducted from the
object’s hit points.
and, later:
Energy Attacks: Energy attacks deal half damage to
most objects. Divide the damage by 2 before applying the
object’s hardness. Some energy types might be particularly
effective against certain objects, subject to GM discretion.
So, what rules do we apply in PFS? I feel as if, given the importance of hardness to our current season, we need some sort of a FAQ or ruling on how hardness works in relation to energy damage. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.
To me, I would phrase the specific question to be answered as followed: "Are all constructs objects for the purposes of determining an energy attack's effect on hardness?"
Dragnmoon |
So the rules for hardness and energy attacks are actually as you quoted in the core book, you divide the damage by 2 then apply hardness as you quoted.
The problem I think you are trying to point out is the part that states that some energy types may be particularly effective against certain objects, subject to GM discretion.
Do you want a clarification on the GM discretion part?
Do you want to remove the DM discretion part and make all energy attacks the same no matter the material? Or do you want Mike to make the cal for every possible type of material vs all the energy attacks?
Netopalis RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32 |
Andrew Christian |
If a construct has hardness, use the hardness rules. If it does not, don't.
As far as I'm aware, until Robots, there wasn't a construct that had hardness that was not an animated object. Thus the confusion. It became easy to differentiate how constructs dealt with energy damage based simply on whether it was animated or not.
But that is immaterial to the rules.
If a creature has hardness, regardless of type, you apply the hardness rules.
Da Wander |
No, I would like clarification on whether a construct counts as "most objects", since the energy attack rule does not appear under hardness, but rather under damaging objects.
Yes, Netopalis, I think I see many problems ahead...
I recall so many spells that can't be cast on creatures because the target is defined as "object" and not "creature".
I am now going to have to go back to look at them with a new light...
Can I shrink item on a robot to reduce it's size 4 catagories? And "...change its now shrunken coposition to a clothlike one"?
Jeff Merola |
If a construct has hardness, use the hardness rules. If it does not, don't.
As far as I'm aware, until Robots, there wasn't a construct that had hardness that was not an animated object. Thus the confusion. It became easy to differentiate how constructs dealt with energy damage based simply on whether it was animated or not.
Foo Creatures (which aren't even constructs) and Clockwork Creatures had hardness before robots, and both have shown up previously in PFS scenarios.
If a creature has hardness, regardless of type, you apply the hardness rules.
That's how I've always done it. I've always taken the rules only referencing objects as "We forgot that things other than objects can have hardness" rather than "Non-objects with hardness ignore these rules".
Netopalis RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32 |
Netopalis RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32 |
Acedio |
Hardness: Each object has hardness—a number that represents how well it resists damage. When an object is damaged, subtract its hardness from the damage. Only damage in excess of its hardness is deducted from the object's hit points (see Table: Common Armor, Weapon, and Shield Hardness and Hit Points, Table: Substance Hardness and Hit Points, and Table: Object Hardness and Hit Points).
Energy Attacks: Energy attacks deal half damage to most objects. Divide the damage by 2 before applying the object's hardness. Some energy types might be particularly effective against certain objects, subject to GM discretion. For example, fire might do full damage against parchment, cloth, and other objects that burn easily. Sonic might do full damage against glass and crystal objects.
This is under the Smashing an Object section of the Additional Rules chapter.
EDIT: Hm, it seems they changed up the PRD and the bookmarks aren't working. Lovely.
EDIT: I stole your thunder. ;)
BigNorseWolf |
BigNorseWolf wrote:Can I see a citation for that?The hardness rules don't halve the damage before subtracting hardness. The object rules do.
hmmm.. Lil wall of texty to show a negative but I'll try.
Hardness: Each object has hardness—a number that represents how well it resists damage. When an object is damaged, subtract its hardness from the damage. Only damage in excess of its hardness is deducted from the object's hit points
Energy Attacks: Energy attacks deal half damage to most objects. Divide the damage by 2 before applying the object's hardness. Some energy types might be particularly effective against certain objects, subject to GM discretion. For example, fire might do full damage against parchment, cloth, and other objects that burn easily. Sonic might do full damage against glass and crystal objects.
____
See that it says most objects, not things with hardness (even though most objects have hardness)
Of course that brings up the question of whether contructs/animated items/ the ceiling trying to kill you is a creature or an object.
Acedio |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |
As it turns out, robots are not objects—they're creatures. And as such, energy damage is not halved when applied to them. That bit about halving energy damage is a quality of an object, not a quality of Hardness. (And in my opinion... it's a kind of silly rule anyway—the idea that fire deals half-damage to paper is ridiculous.)
A plasma weapon used against a robot subtracts 10 points from the total damage done for its hardness 10. For sake of ease, it's best to say it subtracts 5 from the fire and 5 from the electricity, with any leftover (in a case where something does less than 5 fire or 5 electricity) applying to the other damage type.
And in fact, anything that deals electricity damage (including plasma) is a pretty solid choice against robots, due to their electricity weakness.
Based on this, it sounds like you still subtract the hardness from the electricity damage even though it is vulnerable. But that's ok, because it does 150% damage, right?
EDIT: Summary: Robots are creatures, not objects. You do not half the energy damage, but you still subtract the hardness from the energy damage as normal.
Andrew Christian |
James Jacobs wrote:As it turns out, robots are not objects—they're creatures. And as such, energy damage is not halved when applied to them. That bit about halving energy damage is a quality of an object, not a quality of Hardness. (And in my opinion... it's a kind of silly rule anyway—the idea that fire deals half-damage to paper is ridiculous.)
A plasma weapon used against a robot subtracts 10 points from the total damage done for its hardness 10. For sake of ease, it's best to say it subtracts 5 from the fire and 5 from the electricity, with any leftover (in a case where something does less than 5 fire or 5 electricity) applying to the other damage type.
And in fact, anything that deals electricity damage (including plasma) is a pretty solid choice against robots, due to their electricity weakness.
Based on this, it sounds like you still subtract the hardness from the electricity damage even though it is vulnerable. But that's ok, because it does 150% damage, right?
EDIT: Summary: Robots are creatures, not objects. You do not half the energy damage, but you still subtract the hardness from the energy damage as normal.
James Jacobs is not a rules guy, and this does not follow common understanding of the rules.
Acedio |
Could you elaborate on what part of the rules this contradicts? As far as I can tell, this post is only valuable for answering the question "is a robot an object" for the purposes of halving energy damage.
I'm well aware that James is not a rules guy, but at the very least it's relatively clear per the text quoted directly from the rule book that energy damage is halved on objects, not for things with hardness.
Andrew Christian |
Could you elaborate on what part of the rules this contradicts? As far as I can tell, this post is only valuable for answering the question "is a robot an object" for the purposes of halving energy damage.
I'm well aware that James is not a rules guy, but at the very least it's relatively clear per the text quoted directly from the rule book that energy damage is halved on objects, not for things with hardness.
The reason animated objects have hardness, is because they are objects.
Its a crossover creature, that is both an object and a creature.
That's why they have hardness. It is also why the rules on hardness specifies objects, because except for two very rare exceptions (foo creatures and clockwork creatures) that didn't exist in the original bestiary when the rules for hardness were written, the only creature that has hardness is the animated object.
So the common rule is that hardness applies like hardness is supposed to apply, regardless of where you find that hardness.
To indicate that hardness suddenly works differently because the creature is suddenly not an "object" doesn't make any sense.
The Fox |
Hardness and Energy Attacks are separate subsections under Smashing an Object in the Core Rulebook. Just because one applies does not mean that the other applies also.
If you are going to apply everything in that section, then robots also:
Acedio |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The reason animated objects have hardness, is because they are objects.
Its a crossover creature, that is both an object and a creature.
That's why they have hardness. It is also why the rules on hardness specifies objects, because except for two very rare exceptions (foo creatures and clockwork creatures) that didn't exist in the original bestiary when the rules for hardness were written, the only creature that has hardness is the animated object.
So the common rule is that hardness applies like hardness is supposed to apply, regardless of where you find that hardness.
To indicate that hardness suddenly works differently because the creature is suddenly not an "object" doesn't make any sense.
I politely disagree, Andrew. It's pretty clear (at least to me) that based on how the rules are written, the rule for halving energy damage applies when the target is an object. Otherwise it would be described under the hardness rules. I'd say the opposite: that it makes very little sense to label a creature an object just because it has hardness.
Energy Attacks: Energy attacks deal half damage to most objects. Divide the damage by 2 before applying the object's hardness. Some energy types might be particularly effective against certain objects, subject to GM discretion. For example, fire might do full damage against parchment, cloth, and other objects that burn easily. Sonic might do full damage against glass and crystal objects.
The question at hand is "are robots animated objects?"
The Robot Subtype
"Robot" is a special subtype that can be applied to any construct without changing its CR. Robots share some features with clockwork constructs, and as with clockworks, you can simply remove the robot subtype and its traits to transform it into a typical construct animated by magic. A construct cannot possess both the robot and the clockwork subtypes. All robots gain the following traits, unless noted otherwise.
Intelligent: Robots are intelligent, and thus have skills and feats as appropriate for their Hit Dice. Unless otherwise indicated for a specific robot, all robots have Intelligence scores of 10. The following are class skills for robots: Climb, Disable Device, Fly, Knowledge (all), Linguistics, Perception, and Sense Motive.
Vulnerable to Critical Hits: Whenever a robot takes extra damage from a critical hit, it must make a DC 15 Fortitude save to avoid being stunned for 1 round. If it makes a successful saving throw, it is staggered for 1 round. The robot remains immune to other sources of the stunned condition.
Vulnerable to Electricity: Robots take 150% as much damage as normal from electricity attacks, unless they are immune to electricity via other special defenses.
Difficult to Create: Robots are crafted via complex methods hidden and well guarded in ruins or other technological bastions.
We see that the robot subtype basically replaces the clockwork subtype. Nothing in the clock work subtype, or construct subtype suggests that these creatures are objects. In fact there's a specific Animated Object subtype to represent that.
Interestingly enough, robots are vulnerable to crits whereas objects are immune.
I'm pretty sure robots are not considered objects, as there's nothing that suggests that's the case in the subtype description.
GreySector RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8 |
Da Wander |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Netopalis wrote:No, I would like clarification on whether a construct counts as "most objects", since the energy attack rule does not appear under hardness, but rather under damaging objects.Yes, Netopalis, I think I see many problems ahead...
I recall so many spells that can't be cast on creatures because the target is defined as "object" and not "creature".
I am now going to have to go back to look at them with a new light...
Can I shrink item on a robot to reduce it's size 4 catagories? And "...change its now shrunken composition to a clothlike one"?
I'm still wondering - For those people that think a robot is an object,
Can I cast shrink item on a robot to reduce it's size 4 catagories? And "...change its now shrunken composition to a clothlike one"?
and now I need to know, can a Dimuative clothlike compostion robot still function as a robot? (I have visions of being attacked by diminutive robotic rag dolls. any chance we will see these things as swarms?)
Da Wander |
Michael Eshleman wrote:Just jumping in to say that I agree with Andrew Christian. And yes, that means ranged weapons do half damage before applying hardness. I recommend the purchase of some durable adamantine ammunition.Just to be clear, ranged energy weapons do 1/4 damage?
vs. what? Animated Objects? Robot Subtypes? Foo Dogs? Walls?
diminutive robotic rag doll swarms?
David Haller |
Michael Eshleman wrote:Just jumping in to say that I agree with Andrew Christian. And yes, that means ranged weapons do half damage before applying hardness. I recommend the purchase of some durable adamantine ammunition.Just to be clear, ranged energy weapons do 1/4 damage?
If so, malfunction becomes a far less useful spell.
"Okay, the robots are confused, and locked on each other! Everyone stand down, and let them duke it out."
*10 rounds later, as the spell winds down*
"Okay, the robots, after 10 rounds of pitched laser duel, and done... 8 damage to each other? Huh."
David Haller |
5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll throw in with Acedio.
Robots:
- are constructs
- are not animated objects
- are not objects
- remove hardness from incoming damage
- take full energy damage, which is then mitigated by hardness or other applicable resistances
- are not subject to shrink item or other spells or effects which apply to objects
- are not subject to sundering (to call out a specific effect above), though they may be in possession of things which are (though not integral weapons, which are their "natural" weapons - this may be arguable, though.)
I'm sure this can be added to, but I think it covers the basics.
The Fox |
The Fox wrote:Michael Eshleman wrote:Just jumping in to say that I agree with Andrew Christian. And yes, that means ranged weapons do half damage before applying hardness. I recommend the purchase of some durable adamantine ammunition.Just to be clear, ranged energy weapons do 1/4 damage?If so, malfunction becomes a far less useful spell.
"Okay, the robots are confused, and locked on each other! Everyone stand down, and let them duke it out."
*10 rounds later, as the spell winds down*
"Okay, the robots, after 10 rounds of pitched laser duel, and done... 8 damage to each other? Huh."
I assume that robot energy weapons are 1d8, and robots have hardness 5. In which case they are immune to each other's attacks?
Arkos RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm confused here. As quick examples, Robots, Animated Objects, Golems, and Clockwork Creatures are all subtype construct. Nowhere in the construct rules does it say to treat any of these creatures as objects.
Some of these constructs have DR and others have hardness. Nowhere in the hardness rules does it say that having hardness implies being an object. Similarly, I see no rule that says that a construct with DR should be considered to be an object either.
Why are we applying object rules to constructs?
I understand. A chair is hard to break with an arrow, but animate it so that it's dancing around and suddenly those arrows are doing significantly more damage? That doesn't make sense. However, I happen to agree with James Jacobs, and I think think the "damaging an object" section is silly and arbitrarily changes how damage works for no great reason. Hardness does the exact same thing in a much simpler way. I have zero intention of applying those silly rules to creatures simply because I think animated chairs are still just chairs. The bestiary entries claim otherwise.
I plan to run both 6-01 and 6-02 this weekend, and I'll treat hardness just like DR/- but with different methods to break through it. I'll also reduce energy damage and arrow damage and all other types of damage by the hardness amount.
BigNorseWolf |
As hard as it can be to justify rules silliness when you have no problem with a dancing chair...
A chair doesn't need to move. A dancing one does. You put a small hole in it with an arrow and it sits there, nothing happens. You put a small hole in it with an arrow when it needs to stretch, bend and flex it does more damage to itself.
Arkos RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16 |
As hard as it can be to justify rules silliness when you have no problem with a dancing chair...
Zing!
A chair doesn't need to move. A dancing one does. You put a small hole in it with an arrow and it sits there, nothing happens. You put a small hole in it with an arrow when it needs to stretch, bend and flex it does more damage to itself.
That sounds fine to me. We also don't need to pound the chair into splinters in order to stop it from attacking us, so I guess "smashing the object" and "defeating the enemy" are different enough that we could still have the two rule systems. We clearly need some way to keep the distinction!
thaX |
When chairs are animated, they gain joints and places that are more vulernable than when they are not animated. They no longer count as an object, in my interpretation, nor would they use the object rules until such time that they are no longer animated. (Such as a spell that animated them ending)
The only way I can see a Construct being counted as an "object" is when it is specified in the monster entry in the Besteriary or the stat block.
Acedio |
I'm confused here. As quick examples, Robots, Animated Objects, Golems, and Clockwork Creatures are all subtype construct. Nowhere in the construct rules does it say to treat any of these creatures as objects.
It's implied for animated objects here:
Animated Objects: Animated objects count as creatures for purposes of determining their Armor Class (do not treat them as inanimate objects).
So at least Animated Objects are considered objects other than having AC. But yeah, as far as I can tell, if you're dealing with an animated object, everything under the Smashing an Object section applies.
Nothing is said about Clockworks, Robots, or other constructs (save for the Animated Objects) being objects.
Arkos RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16 |
It's implied for animated objects here:
prd wrote:Animated Objects: Animated objects count as creatures for purposes of determining their Armor Class (do not treat them as inanimate objects).So at least Animated Objects are considered objects other than having AC. But yeah, as far as I can tell, if you're dealing with an animated object, everything under the Smashing an Object section applies.
I was doing some research and found the older version of the Breaking an Object rules on d20srd.org, which states that:
Immunities
Objects are immune to nonlethal damage and to critical hits.Even animated objects, which are otherwise considered creatures, have these immunities because they are constructs.
Which at least lends itself to the interpretation that the breaking rules are supposed to be applied to Animated Objects. But of the two mentions of Animated Objects in the section, this one was left out of Pathfinder. Intentionally...? Did they just miss the second one? Oooooh.
Either way, neither section talks about Robots.
The Fox |
But of the two mentions of Animated Objects in the section, this one was left out of Pathfinder. Intentionally...? Did they just miss the second one? Oooooh.
In 3.5, constructs, elementals, plants, and undead were immune to critical hits. This immunity was removed in Pathfinder. Intentionally.
Jeff Merola |
I was doing some research and found the older version of the Breaking an Object rules on d20srd.org, which states that:Totally-not-the-Pathfinder-rules wrote:Immunities
Objects are immune to nonlethal damage and to critical hits.Even animated objects, which are otherwise considered creatures, have these immunities because they are constructs.
Which at least lends itself to the interpretation that the breaking rules are supposed to be applied to Animated Objects. But of the two mentions of Animated Objects in the section, this one was left out of Pathfinder. Intentionally...? Did they just miss the second one? Oooooh.
Either way, neither section talks about Robots.
I'm pretty sure that the line was removed because in Pathfinder constructs aren't immune to critical hits.
Arkos RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16 |
In 3.5, constructs, elementals, plants, and undead were immune to critical hits. This immunity was removed in Pathfinder. Intentionally.
I'm pretty sure that the line was removed because in Pathfinder constructs aren't immune to critical hits.
Duh, right. Clearly time to shut my mouth and finish my coffee.
The Fox |
The Fox wrote:In 3.5, constructs, elementals, plants, and undead were immune to critical hits. This immunity was removed in Pathfinder. Intentionally.Jeff Merola wrote:I'm pretty sure that the line was removed because in Pathfinder constructs aren't immune to critical hits.Duh, right. Clearly time to shut my mouth and finish my coffee.
First, I hope you did not take my post as a "SHUT UP!" post. That was not as it was intended. Discussion boards are better when people are discussing.
Second, if you shut your mouth, it will be much harder and more unpleasant to finish your coffee. :)
Arkos RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16 |
First, no. Discussion boards are better when people are discussing. I hope you did not take my post as a "SHUT UP!" post. That was not as it was intended.
Second, if you shut your mouth, it will be much harder and more unpleasant to finish your coffee. :)
No, not at all! I think my brain had blocked out a time when all those creatures we're immune to sneak attacks and crits, so now it's making all kinds of crazy leaps and assumptions. That was more of a personal pep talk/slap in the face than anything else!
Arkos RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16 |
two rogues fighting an animated chair..
One time, we saw a chair move and thought someone invisible must be sitting in it. So we sprinkled some dust on the person. Turns out there wasn't a person, and the dust was disappearance and not the other kind. Fighting an invisible animated chair is a total pain.
NEW QUESTION: Robots also have vulnerability to electricity damage. Do you apply the 150% damage before or after you deal with the hardness?
Fromper |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
two rogues fighting an animated chair...
1st rogue: "hay, can you get sneak dice on an animated object?'
2nd rogue: "only if you stab it in the back!"
Been there, done that. GMed a couple playing sibling rogues through an adventure that actually had an animated chair, so they flanked it together. The back stab puns ran wild.
Of course, this also reminds me of Gamers: Dorkness Rising: "You can't backstab a book!" "It's got a spine, doesn't it?"
deusvult |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just jumping in to say that I agree with Andrew Christian. And yes, that means ranged weapons do half damage before applying hardness. I recommend the purchase of some durable adamantine ammunition.
Personally, I'd agree 100%. However, in whatever passes for wisdom on behalf of the rules team, they've clarified ruled that Animated Objects do not take 1/2 damage from ranged weapons before hardness is applied.
It's not in the FAQ yet, but I've talked to James Jacob and in his eyes that's The Law.
It's unfortunate, because the bestiaries don't define what the defensive ability "hardness" is. Apparently it's not the same thing as object hardness in the CRB, since ranged weapon damage isn't halved.
Since creature hardness != the rules as described in the CRB, I don't know why energy damages are halved to creatures with hardness. I'm not saying they shouldn't be.. I'm just saying the rules team made a big mistake by not making the ALL the object hardness rules apply to creatures with hardness.
deusvult |
Something having hardness does not make it an object.
OTOH there's nothing saying creatures can't be creatures and objects at the same time. But despite that, at least one person with a golem next to his name disagrees.
So my point is, if you don't use the object hardness rules for creatures with hardness, then what rules DO you use for creature hardness? It's not defined in the bestiary at all, or anywhere else as a creature defensive ability. The only rules (that I know of) that cover hardness are those rules for damaging objects in the CRB.
The developers cherry pick object hardness rules to apply to creatures with as far as I can tell, no rhyme or reason. So it's impossible to answer spinoff questions that haven't already been explicitly answered.
Acedio |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think anybody here is saying to not use object hardness rules for robots. Rather, what we're saying is that the halving energy and ranged attack damage rules do not apply because the robot is not an object, it is a creature.
For clarity, THIS is the hardness rule:
Hardness: Each object has hardness—a number that represents how well it resists damage. When an object is damaged, subtract its hardness from the damage. Only damage in excess of its hardness is deducted from the object's hit points (see Table: Common Armor, Weapon, and Shield Hardness and Hit Points, Table: Substance Hardness and Hit Points, and Table: Object Hardness and Hit Points).
This and halving ranged attack damage are OBJECT rules
Energy Attacks: Energy attacks deal half damage to most objects. Divide the damage by 2 before applying the object's hardness. Some energy types might be particularly effective against certain objects, subject to GM discretion. For example, fire might do full damage against parchment, cloth, and other objects that burn easily. Sonic might do full damage against glass and crystal objects.
Packaging those rules as "the hardness rules" is incorrect, they are part of the "object rules" and the hardness rule is a subset of the object rules.
A creature with hardness is not an object, in the same way that a rectangle is not a square. A robot doesn't inherit all of the properties of being an object just because it has hardness, so the ranged and energy damage are not halved, and robots can't be sundered or broken.
The hardness rules are subtly different from DR in that hardness also includes energy resistance.
Also, an Animated Object is a good example of something that is a creature and an object at the same time (mostly), but robots do not fall under such a category because there's nothing saying that they, as a type of construct, are objects.