Last session my PCs made it down to the architect's foyer and the large stone block that mostly covers the entrance to the "passage of honour". Two of the smaller ones (elf and halfing) struggled through the opening to check out the passage (but didn't go far enough to encounter the Lurking Strangler) and then returned to their friends.
While searching around the room I mentioned to those who looked at the stone block that it did not appear to be attached to the floor. The party rouge did not search for traps. After some discussion, it was decided that they would use a miner's pick (purchased in town before heading out) to create an opening large enough for them to pass the stone easily.
The miner's pick is listed on table 7-8 on pg 128 of the PHB, but there is no description for how exactly it is used. Neitehr could I find rules for it in the DMG or Arms & Equipment guide. The only rules for breaking stone, of course, are by doing damage (after subtracting Hardness) or using the Break DC. The players offered that a miner's pick probably does about the same damage as a Heavy Pick (1d6).
The hardness for stone is 8, which would make it impossible for the pick to damage the stone. Further, a hewn stone wall of 3 feet thick has 540hp, so this 2' thick stone block would have about 360hp. Of course the HP totals listed in the DMG for stone walls are for a 10' x 10' section. Since the stone slab is only 10' x 8', the entire block would have slightly less than 360hp. The players also decided they only had to chip away enough to get through (about a 5' x 5' section).
The problem still remains, however, how do they overcome the hardness? One player quoted a rule from pg 165 of the PHB:
"Vulnerability to certain attacks: The DM may rule that certain attacks are especially successful against certain objects. For example... chop down a tree with an axe... In such cases attacks deal double their normal damage and may... ignore the object's hardness."
It stands to reason that a miner's pick, like an axe for cutting wood, is specifically designed to get through rock, so using this rule seems reasonable. Since I wasn't able to find any other rules regarding miner's picks and stone, I accepted their argument and allowed it. Really, it was a good idea they had, and not impossible.
So, my question to you, was it alright to accept this argument and allow them to easily bypass the stone block? Obviously they made lots of noise, alerting the lurking strangler to their presence.
Are there rule somewhere for mining, using a miner's pick on stone, etc? I assume that at the very least a miner's pick should be able to ignore some or all of the stone's hardness, but still, given that they had lots of time, and no big monsters to alert on the other side, it was an eventuality that they got through.
Thanks,
M.
|
So, my question to you, was it alright to accept this argument and allow them to easily bypass the stone block?
Your players and you found a rule that facilitated the advancement of the story that also satisfied everyone's sense of logic. You couldn't ask for more. This is one of those situations where the "real-world" logic of physics, biology and chemistry are fine to ignore because the reality really puts a damper on overall story.
The reality? Sounds like an opportunity to use that BS in Geology I invested all that money in all those years ago...
A solid block of rock is as hard as the dominant mineral within it. For the sake of example, let's assume the block is a "typical" granite, made of predominantly quartz, feldspars, hornblende and mica. Quartz is fairly hard, Mohs Scale of 7. Most steel items have a hardness of 5 (Mohs Scale). Based on that alone, the pick shouldn't do much against a solid block of granite other than give the pick-user blisters and sore arms. But picks are specialized tools. Mining is as old as the oldest civilizations and with enough manpower (read: conquered foes for slave labour) any rock can be pulverized eventually. The PCs don't fall into this category of labour so the block ought to withstand their immediate attempts but given enough time (~1 hr per 10 hit points of rock), they'd get past the obstacle.
So let's throw a little D&D metagaming into the logic. A miner's pick should make earth/stone/rock "vulnerable to certain attacks". A standard pick's critical multiplier is 20/x4. Against rock, using the vulnerability rule, 19-20/x4 should be the pick's ability against the stone block.
At this point, it's fun with math. The strongest PC wields the pick. Let's assume an 18 STR, 16 CON. Pick does average damage of 3.5, plus the +4 for strength for a total damage of 7 on average. Thus a 5 or higher for damage is needed to overcome the stone block's hardness. So, one-third of the blows do 1 or 2 points of damage. Every 10th blow does critical damage (3.5 x 4 + 16 = 30), chipping away at 22 points of the block's hit point total. So, every 10 pick blows does 26.5 points of damage. Now you'd have to find a logical time frame 10 maximum strength pick blows can be dealt based on the user's CON score. I'd say two minutes per 10 blows initially. We'll use 360 hp for the block, so 27 minutes later the block should be overcome sufficiently to be a non-issue (aside for making difficult terrain where its rubble lies).
An adamantine pick ignores hardness and would make the whole process a lot quicker. I'm sure some of those must be in some of the mines in Diamond Lake and could be located with a good Knowledge-Local check.
If the mathematical way equates to your solution, huzzah! If your solution took more/less time, who cares, right? Your players and you found a rule that facilitated the advancement of the story that also satisfied everyone's sense of logic.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
It stands to reason that a miner's pick, like an axe for cutting wood, is specifically designed to get through rock, so using this rule seems reasonable. Since I wasn't able to find any other rules regarding miner's picks and stone, I accepted their argument and allowed it. Really, it was a good idea they had, and not impossible.
So, my question to you, was it alright to accept this argument and allow them to easily bypass the stone block? Obviously they made lots of noise, alerting the lurking strangler to their presence.
Are there rule somewhere for mining, using a miner's pick on stone, etc? I assume that at the very least a miner's pick should be able to ignore some or all of the stone's hardness, but still, given that they had lots of time, and no big monsters to alert on the other side, it was an eventuality that they got through.
I'd probably steer away from the mechanics of inflicting hit point damage and just rule that they can use the miner's pick to dig through the stone and assign an arbitrary number of hours to the task. Something like 10-20 hours should do it.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
So let's throw a little D&D metagaming into the logic. A miner's pick should make earth/stone/rock "vulnerable to certain attacks". A standard pick's critical multiplier is 20/x4. Against rock, using the vulnerability rule, 19-20/x4 should be the pick's ability against the stone block.
While I like the analysis presented, I don't like the idea of critical hits on blocks of stone. One of the fundamental rules of the game is that you can't get a critical hit against constructs, inanimate objects, etc. I wouldn't bend that rule for the sake of this corner case, lest you have to confront the issue again in the context of a golem or an animated object ("What do you mean we can't crit the golem? We can crit a block of stone, but not a man made of stone?")
The reality? Sounds like an opportunity to use that BS in Geology I invested all that money in all those years ago...A solid block of rock is as hard as the dominant mineral within it. For the sake of example, let's assume the block is a "typical" granite, made of predominantly quartz, feldspars, hornblende and mica. Quartz is fairly hard, Mohs Scale of 7. Most steel items have a hardness of 5 (Mohs Scale). Based on that alone, the pick shouldn't do much against a solid block of granite other than give the pick-user blisters and sore arms.
From a fellow geologist, you've rolled low on your Knowledge (minerals) check. Hardness is resistance to scratching only, not to fracture (in the case of quartz) or cleavage (for the feldspars). Hard materials can be brittle (which is why it's silly when people talk about "diamond weapons" for their characters). I like your math breakdown, though... but can you crit against objects? Where's that cursed rulebook (leafs through pages...)
|
|
From a fellow geologist, you've rolled low on your Knowledge (minerals) check. Hardness is resistance to scratching only, not to fracture (in the case of quartz) or cleavage (for the feldspars). Hard materials can be brittle (which is why it's silly when people talk about "diamond weapons" for their characters). I like your math breakdown, though... but can you crit against objects? Where's that cursed rulebook (leafs through pages...)
Generally speaking, a "typical" granite does not have feldspars, hermatite, or biotite large enough to have their cleavage affect the structural integrity of a block of stone. I over simplified the conditions to expedite the example. Change the mineral size, allow for existing micro-fractures in the stone, or change the type of rock will certainly adjust the example. The existing 3.xE mechanics of damage to objects reflects the "fracturing" aspect of materials and how objects of various D&D hardnesses are acted upon by objects of suitable hardness to damage them. Wow, that's wordy.
The suggested criticals against a block of stone reflects upon:
The problem still remains, however, how do they overcome the hardness? One player quoted a rule from pg 165 of the PHB:
"Vulnerability to certain attacks: The DM may rule that certain attacks are especially successful against certain objects. For example... chop down a tree with an axe... In such cases attacks deal double their normal damage and may... ignore the object's hardness."
What I suggest would be my interpretation of "vulnerabilities to certain attacks". Rather than dealing double damage and ignoring hardness, I cranked some math that works in a logical framework of "vulnerabilities" of a mining pick versus earth/stone/rock.
A construct, animated object, cloud castle, or Spire of Long Shadows are things that have been infused with something beyond the realm of standard Earth physics, chemistry, or biology. Thus, the "normal" pick would have "normal" affects against such things as they are not "vulnerable to certain attacks".
From a fellow geologist, you've rolled low on your Knowledge (minerals) check. Hardness is resistance to scratching only, not to fracture (in the case of quartz) or cleavage (for the feldspars).
Must...resist urge...to make... feat related joke...
Still, adding in strength bonus as noted above allows a pick to defeat hardness 8 some of the time, so it is entirely within RAW to demolish the stone block without any tweaking. How fast do they break through? Use JM Straczynski's concept of 'speed of plot': If it takes x time to achieve something to coincide with the dramatic climax, that's how long it takes.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
"Vulnerability to certain attacks: The DM may rule that certain attacks are especially successful against certain objects. For example... chop down a tree with an axe... In such cases attacks deal double their normal damage and may... ignore the object's hardness."
What I suggest would be my interpretation of "vulnerabilities to certain attacks". Rather than dealing double damage and ignoring hardness, I cranked some math that works in a logical framework of "vulnerabilities" of a mining pick versus earth/stone/rock.
A construct, animated object, cloud castle, or Spire of Long Shadows are things that have been infused with something beyond the realm of standard Earth physics, chemistry, or biology. Thus, the "normal" pick would have "normal"...
*shrug* Like I said, it's an odd interpretation. There isn't any other instance in which vulernability means that a creature normally immune to critical hits suddenly becomes vulerable to them (e.g., fire elementals and ice weapons, undead and holy weapons, etc.) And, the rule quoted above even says that in this instance the weapon deals additional damage and/or ignores hardness. Seems like the easiest way to resolve the dilemna is just apply that rule of thumb rather than fiddling with critical hits. It's not going to make a difference in the final analysis, but consistency is one of the charms of 3e and allowing criticals in this one case (and improved criticals at that) seems out of place with the rules as a whole.
Edit: Plus, the rules you've outlined above make it very difficult for a common laborer without an 18 strength to do significant damage to a rock. The only way such a person could inflict damage would be to score a critical hit. Doubling damage and/or bypassing hardness makes much more sense when presented with that situation. Again, interesting analysis, but I don't think it holds up as well as what the rules recommend.
Edit Again: One last comment is that the critical hit method doesn't "feel" right. I know that's vague so I'll do my best to explain. Requiring a critical hit in order to inflict substantial damage on the block puts the emphasis on the wielder's skill with weapons rather than the weapon itself. It's not all that noticeable that the pick is more effective because it only occurs once every 20 tries. Compare with doubling damage and bypassing hardness. Every single swing with the pick has a greater effect than another weapon, it feels like it's the right tool for the job.
The critical hit mechanic strikes me as a good ad hoc ruling, but not the type of thing I'd use as a benchmark rule.
Generally speaking, a "typical" granite does not have feldspars, hematite, or biotite large enough to have their cleavage affect the structural integrity of a block of stone. I oversimplified the conditions to expedite the example. Change the mineral size, allow for existing micro-fractures in the stone, or change the type of rock will certainly adjust the example. The existing 3.xE mechanics of damage to objects reflects the "fracturing" aspect of materials and how objects of various D&D hardnesses are acted upon by objects of suitable hardness to damage them. Wow, that's wordy.
But likely correct. Nice one, Rexx.
The strongest PC wields the pick. Let's assume an 18 STR, 16 CON. Pick does average damage of 3.5, plus the +4 for strength for a total damage of 7 on average.
He's probably using the pick with both hands, so multiplies the Str modifier by 1.5 when adding to damage. So even a moderately strong laborer (14 Str) can slowly chip through the stone block.