galahad2112: That isn't true with creatures with hardness. Read the rules quoted by Imbicatus upthread.
Where are you finding the rule about saves always coming first?
|
Fun Fact: The hardness rule is called out in a recent PFS scenario as being "appropriate" to ignore when energy vulnerabilities are combined with hardness.
Granted, it's PFS but it's still people who have a much more direct perspective on how "things are supposed to work" than the majority of us forumites.
It's a precedent that hardness allows GM discretion not only with physical damage (GM is explicitly allowed to say an adamantine weapon doesn't make sense to damage an object) but also energy damage. It's not as cut and dried as people so often like to oversimplify.
deusvult: Link please?
galahad2112: You could very well be correct, too. It would certainly make logical sense to follow the mathematical order of operations. But then, logic does not dictate Pathfinder rules as many of us have come to know.
This is something that really ought to be spelled out in the rules.
Fun Fact: The hardness rule is called out in a recent PFS scenario as being "appropriate" to ignore when energy vulnerabilities are combined with hardness.
Granted, it's PFS but it's still people who have a much more direct perspective on how "things are supposed to work" than the majority of us forumites.
It's a precedent that hardness allows GM discretion not only with physical damage (GM is explicitly allowed to say an adamantine weapon doesn't make sense to damage an object) but also energy damage. It's not as cut and dried as people so often like to oversimplify.
PFS is more heavily houseruled than most games I've played in. So no, I don't think it's relevant at all.
|
|
deusvult: Link please?
Like I said it's in the .pdf of a PFS scenario, but the sidebar text is as follows:
FIGHTING ENEMIES WITH HARDNESS
Hardness works differently for creatures than for objects.
Unlike an object, a creature with hardness takes full
damage from energy and ranged attacks (as opposed to half
damage), which is then reduced by the creature’s hardness.
If the creature is vulnerable to a certain type of damage, that
damage is increased before being reduced by the creature’s
hardness. At the GM’s discretion, certain attacks may bypass
a creature’s hardness entirely. In the case of XXXXXXX
(who have vulnerability to electricity), it would
be appropriate not only to apply 150% of the electricity
damage dealt by an attack, but to also allow that damage to
bypass the XXXXXX’s hardness.
NPC is redacted by XXXXXs to avoid spoiler. Source is page 16 of
PFS is more heavily houseruled than most games I've played in. So no, I don't think it's relevant at all.
Of course you're free to hold whatever your opinion you like. But they know more about how the game works than either of us do, and I prioritize their opinion over yours.
deusvult: You could have at least tell us which PFS scenario this is from. It sounds remarkably similar to the quote provided earlier by Imbiacatus.
|
|
deusvult: You could have at least tell us which PFS scenario this is from. It sounds remarkably similar to the quote provided earlier by Imbiacatus.
It's pretty obvious which one it is if you follow PFS at all. But since not everyone does, I did indeed add a spoiler. If you're THAT curious to see if I'm making stuff up, you know which $4 download to buy to double check me.
Edit: Having double-checked Imbaiactus' post, I see that he was quoting the FAQ on this subject. The quote I'm referencing is on interpreting that FAQ.. So related, but not exactly the same.
PFS is more heavily houseruled than most games I've played in. So no, I don't think it's relevant at all.Of course you're free to hold whatever your opinion you like. But they know more about how the game works than either of us do, and I prioritize their opinion over yours.
1.) The people who run PFS are not actually developers. They know no more about the game (and probably less) than someone like James Jacobs does...and he specifically states that any rulings he makes are his opinion alone, because he's not a rules guru and does not understand the intricacies of thing like this.
2.) Even if they DID have greater authority on these matters...as I said, PFS is heavily houseruled. That why it comes with its own PFS Houserules document (or whatever it's called).
|
|
PFS is more heavily houseruled than most games I've played in. So no, I don't think it's relevant at all.Of course you're free to hold whatever your opinion you like. But they know more about how the game works than either of us do, and I prioritize their opinion over yours.
1.) The people who run PFS are not actually developers. They know no more about the game (and probably less) than someone like James Jacobs does...and he specifically states that any rulings he makes are his opinion alone, because he's not a rules guru and does not understand the intricacies of thing like this.
2.) Even if they DID have greater authority on these matters...as I said, PFS is heavily houseruled. That why it comes with its own PFS Houserules document (or whatever it's called).
Let's agree to disagree? Because we're not even agreeing on what the argument is about. You say it's a house rule. I don't even agree on that.. I say that it's interpretation of existing rules. I think you and I are done on this particular topic.
Let's agree to disagree? Because we're not even agreeing on what the argument is about. You say it's a house rule. I don't even agree on that.. I say that it's interpretation of existing rules. I think you and I are done on this particular topic.PFS is more heavily houseruled than most games I've played in. So no, I don't think it's relevant at all.Of course you're free to hold whatever your opinion you like. But they know more about how the game works than either of us do, and I prioritize their opinion over yours.
1.) The people who run PFS are not actually developers. They know no more about the game (and probably less) than someone like James Jacobs does...and he specifically states that any rulings he makes are his opinion alone, because he's not a rules guru and does not understand the intricacies of thing like this.
2.) Even if they DID have greater authority on these matters...as I said, PFS is heavily houseruled. That why it comes with its own PFS Houserules document (or whatever it's called).
It's pretty clear what we're arguing about: PFS rulings have no bearing on the actual game.
|
|
It's pretty clear what we're arguing about: PFS rulings have no bearing on the actual game.
As I said, we're not agreeing on what we're arguing about.
It's not a "PFS ruling". It's a sidebar in one scenario; it's not even a PFS FAQ entry. It technically has no applicibility outside that one scenario.
So, does that make it even less relevant? I'd anticipate you'd say "Yes."
You're failing to understand what I'm saying, though.
It's not a campaign house rule; it's the opinion of how hardness rules should be applied. Period. And that opinion has considerable gravitas. Much more than forumites like you or I, and therefore of correspondingly more "worth".
Sure, you'd be right that in the event James or someone like that issues a contrary opinion, that would trump. But he hasn't. And I'd be willing to bet he won't, either. Because the PFS people are on the same page as the designers. In a way that you and I are very much not. In other words, if James didn't agree with that way of thinking, it wouldn't have been printed.
Since this is NOT a PFS rules discussion, you're completely free to stick your head in the sand and ignore clarifications/rulings you don't like. So, go ahead and ignore it. James may or may not ever address it specificially, and you can be right until then. Because like I said, I'm 99.99% sure if he does ever clarify, it'll be exactly what I quoted.
It's pretty clear what we're arguing about: PFS rulings have no bearing on the actual game.
Even if one were to grant that statement, the interpretation by PFS, and material published by Piazo in a module (whether for PFS or not) can add weight to an argument about interpretation of rules in a discussion.
I disagree entirely. Stuff like the Ghoul Barbarian in one scenario benefiting from Rage make it pretty clear that PFS rulings and various modules (usually written by freelancers) show no more (or even less) understanding than we "mere forumites" of the rules.
deusvult: You could have at least tell us which PFS scenario this is from. It sounds remarkably similar to the quote provided earlier by Imbiacatus.It's pretty obvious which one it is if you follow PFS at all. But since not everyone does, I did indeed add a spoiler. If you're THAT curious to see if I'm making stuff up, you know which $4 download to buy to double check me.
Edit: Having double-checked Imbaiactus' post, I see that he was quoting the FAQ on this subject. The quote I'm referencing is on interpreting that FAQ.. So related, but not exactly the same.
I didn't think you were making stuff up. And you are correct that not everyone "follows PFS". I'm not sure what that means, btw. There are a lot of PFS scenarios where you fight robots, constructs and the like. Especially this last season.
You have an awful lot of snark and salt for someone having just asked you a question. I wonder why you are so defensive? I levied no attack against you...
I mean, I think you are alienating your support here, honestly. I was not asking about where you got it from so that I could dismiss it as irrelevant. I was actually asking about it so that I could help build a case for Paizo supporting at least one solid opinion. And, I think they have.
A bit of advice: perhaps back off the knee jerk reaction defensiveness?
Rynjin: I think you might be acting a bit obtuse here. I mean, I typically agree with many of your opinions but basically what you are saying here is "nuh uh, I'm more right than Paizo is about Paizo stuff." And, well... yeah, I just can't get behind that.
That being said, if Paizo published two things that contradicted eachother then I would go with the order you referring to. Devs that are "rules guys" (SKR, etc.) > than Devs that are not (JJ, etc.). And errata > FAQ > Dev post.
The thing is that you have NO supporting evidence that you are bringing forward other than personal opinion. Sorry, but anything officially printed by Paizo carries more weight in a rules discussion than a single player's word.
"Officially printed by Paizo" (i.e. the rulebooks) makes no mention of Hardness not applying to energy attacks. Quite the opposite.
"Something printed as an OPTIONAL RULE in a sidebar for the heavily houseruled 'official play'" does not trump the rulebooks. Ever.
Rynjin:The rulebooks are fairly unclear on whether Hardness applies to Energy Attacks.
"Officially Printed by Paizo" includes anything that is... um... well... officially printed by Paizo. I didn't see mention of it being an "optional rule" anywhere.
And, most importantly, I didn't say that ruling made in the scenario trumps rulebooks. I said that it trumps YOU.
YOU are less official than Paizo. That is my stance.
To be totally fair, that's not an optional rule, but a recommended interpretation of an open-ended rule. The rule it's based on exists in official Pathfinder books. It simply leaves when it applies up to the GM. The PFS scenario simply says "this is a good time to use that rule that exists".
While its use is still up to the GM, this is certainly not a "PFS Houserule".
Show me? I have never seen this "Energy vulnerability trumps Hardness" rule.
Rynjin:The rulebooks are fairly unclear on whether Hardness applies to Energy Attacks.
"Officially Printed by Paizo" includes anything that is... um... well... officially printed by Paizo. I didn't see mention of it being an "optional rule" anywhere.
And, most importantly, I didn't say that ruling made in the scenario trumps rulebooks. I said that it trumps YOU.
YOU are less official than Paizo. That is my stance.
Except I am reading off the rulebooks. My "officialness" doesn't matter.
If I said "Power Attack causes you to take a -1 penalty to hit, and deal 2 extra damage" I would be correct whether or not tomorrow Mike Brock came out and said "Yo, PFS is making Power Attack -1/+4 now".
Now if someone can point out to me a place in the books that says "This is a thing" (which kestral claims he has, and I'd be interested in seeing, because it's not in the damaging objects section), then I'll admit I'm wrong.
My 3rd level Barbarian has an Adamantine Greatsword. *shrug* Does that count as "low level"?
|
|
It actually is in the damage objects section:
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.Now, "subject to GM discretion" is the key point. Fire vs. cloth might not correlate, in a GM's mind, to electricity vs. robot.
I know that personally, as a GM, I wouldn't apply that to electricity vs. robot. The example of fire vs. cloth takes things a step further than what I consider a vulnerability, which is more in line of fire vs. Frost Giant.
But calling it purely a PFS Houserule is inaccurate, because it's coming from the same rulebooks you're reading.
Very much this. Personally, prior to reading that recent PFS scenario I mentioned upthread my understanding of the CRB rule quoted above meant only that a GM could say wood would not have fire energy damage halved before having hardness applied.
I never felt that Paizo meant that hardness could also be ignored entirely when the GM feels it is "appropriate". But, I see now that's a potential option. Granted, I don't have to exercise that option as GM. But in "the eyes of Paizo", it's a legit way to read the rules. After all, "full damage" by the quoted rule could certainly mean "being reduced by neither halving NOR hardness". If X damage is taken off by hardness, then "full damage" was not applied, afterall!
It certainly makes a few acid attacks on some bestiary monsters that explicitly ignore weapon hardness less problematic, metawise, to boot.
@Lune-
Fair enough observation. I did indeed erroneously conflate your tone with at least one other's intractability. For that I do owe you an apology, so: Mea Culpa.
deusvult: Forgiven. We are cool. :)
It actually is in the damage objects section:
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.Now, "subject to GM discretion" is the key point. Fire vs. cloth might not correlate, in a GM's mind, to electricity vs. robot.
I know that personally, as a GM, I wouldn't apply that to electricity vs. robot. The example of fire vs. cloth takes things a step further than what I consider a vulnerability, which is more in line of fire vs. Frost Giant.
But calling it purely a PFS Houserule is inaccurate, because it's coming from the same rulebooks you're reading.
Isn't that just referring to the half damage bit? Considering one of the examples has no Hardness in any case?
I guess I can see how you could read it that way, but it seems like a bit of a stretch.
ALTHOUGH.
"Certain attacks are especially successful against some objects. In such cases, attacks deal double their normal damage and may ignore the object's hardness."
I overlooked that bit before, so I can see how you could apply that to creatures. Even though it DOES specifically says objects.
Some creatures ARE objects. ;)
Low level way to deal with such?
Poison?
Drown? [Create Pit + Create Water]
/cevah
Some creatures ARE objects. ;)
Not sure if you're joking or not, but no, they aren't. Creatures and objects are two different classifications in this game.
Low level way to deal with such?
Poison?
Drown? [Create Pit + Create Water]/cevah
The only creatures with Hardness are immune to both of those (and the second is...impossible in any case unless they can't roll a good Swim check for some odd 20+ consecutive rounds. Even a creature with 5 Con lasts longer than the spell lasts.).
Rynjin: Animate Objects creates which then?...
Rynjin: Animate Objects creates which then?...
Anmated Objects are creatures. Constructs, to be exact.
BBT: Breaker stacks with Liberator. I also suggest throwing in a level of Trapper Ranger to get Favored Enemy: Constructs and Trapfinding. This would define what I did with a PFS character I have.
Rynjin: Yeah... I think you are alone on this one, bud.
Rynjin: Yeah... I think you are alone on this one, bud.
Alone on what?
Animated Objects are Constructs. Hence why when you look up their statblock it says Type: Construct, and they can be made with Craft Construct.
Construct is a Creature type.
I would hope I'm not alone on being able to follow a simple logical sequence.
Animated Objects are Constructs.
Constructs are creatures.
Therefore Animated Objects are creatures.
They are not objects. They are not affected by spells and effects that only affect objects. Prime example: You cannot use Stone Shape to neuter a stone Animated Object by filing off all the sharp edges.
Animated Objects are Constructs.
Constructs are creatures.
Therefore Animated Objects are creatures.
They are not objects. They are not affected by spells and effects that only affect objects. Prime example: You cannot use Stone Shape to neuter a stone Animated Object by filing off all the sharp edges.
He is correct, they stop being objects once they have a wisdom score, and become creatures.
See:
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/monsters/animatedObject.html#animated-ob ject
Rynjin: On your whole argument. But keep up the good fight, man.
Rynjin: On your whole argument. But keep up the good fight, man.
What argument is that?
The only argument I'm currently having is with you, over whether or not Animated Objects (which are specifically stated to be Constructs...which are creatures) are creatures. I already acknowledged the other bit is likely true, at least RAI wise (it says objects, but that could just be generalization) because of a quote I myself posted that I had previously overlooked.
We are arguing? I think you want to be arguing...
Sorry, guess you're right. I'm stating facts and you're acting passive-aggressive, so not technically an argument.
If I were being actual aggressive (or arguing against you) then I think you could see the difference.
...also, I wasn't trying to act passive aggressive either. Maybe it just comes naturally. ;)