|
Let's take the particular situation my character was in. I had a half-orc cleric with a (normal, non-magical) morningstar, and there was a stone door I wanted to bash through. The rules (that I consider "broken" or at least "silly") said that my half-orc could bash his morningstar against the door 24 times and destroy it, without blunting a single spike on the morningstar. I thought that was silly, so I declined to do so. Does the fact that I declined to use the rule make it a good rule?
No. The rule is unaffected by your decision to use or ignore it. The fact that you declined to use the rule does, however, make you a good player. One I would wish for at my table.
What rule? The ineffective weapon rule "Certain weapons just can’t effectively deal damage to certain objects"?
Let's take the particular situation my character was in. I had a half-orc cleric with a (normal, non-magical) morningstar, and there was a stone door I wanted to bash through. The rules (that I consider "broken" or at least "silly") said that my half-orc could bash his morningstar against the door 24 times and destroy it, without blunting a single spike on the morningstar. I thought that was silly, so I declined to do so. Does the fact that I declined to use the rule make it a good rule?
Quoted from p.128, the Smashing en Object part in the Description chapter: "Ineffective Weapons: Certain weapons just can’t effectively deal damage to certain objects.", so trying to bash that stone with the morning star in the best case would blunt the morningstar, and in the worst would be like cutting the tallest tree in the forest... with a herring!
What rule? The ineffective weapon rule "Certain weapons just can’t effectively deal damage to certain objects"?
But the snag is that I think you could do damage to a stone door with a morningstar (if you were strong enough) -- I just don't think you could do very much damage before the morningstar is ruined.
I'd hate to see this changed to disallow people bashing down a door or even a wall in order to think outside the box and come up with unorthodox solutions. I understand that it may push logic to assume that someone could do this over and over again through tens of walls, but at the same time, I just don't see it used that way very often.
I'd just hate to see a rule take out a short term option in order to serve long term real world logic. I also don't have any problem with material that doesn't exist in the real world, like mithral or adamantine, being able to do amazing things, especially since those materials would be cost prohibitive for the average worker to have for their tools.
Maybe something simple like saying that an item that is used to damage something with a higher hardness than that item has automatically causes the item to have the broken condition, without going into too much more detail?
What rule? The ineffective weapon rule "Certain weapons just can’t effectively deal damage to certain objects"?But the snag is that I think you could do damage to a stone door with a morningstar (if you were strong enough) -- I just don't think you could do very much damage before the morningstar is ruined.
Right, but the rule itself is very vague, i.e. not connected to any game mechanics:
It's basically saying that you may inject your interpretive solution, irrespective of mechanics.Saying any damage dealt is applied to the morning star equally would qualify as "ineffective", right?
I just don't think it's that big a problem, and the current rules DO GIVE the latitude to deal with it as you see it.
Maybe something simple like saying that an item that is used to damage something with a higher hardness than that item has automatically causes the item to have the broken condition, without going into too much more detail?
My suggestion would be to have a portion of the damage done applied to the damaging instrument (50%? 75%?). This would allow you to bash down a metal door with a heavy wooden battering ram (without damaging the ram very much), but quarterstaff would probably break first.
It's simple, and it seems reasonable to me.
Make it equal to the hardness of what you are attacking.
If you use a wooden quarterstaff to beat on stone this way the staff takes 8 points (I think, AFB) minus 2 hardness so 6 points of damage.
Against a greatsword the damage is less becuase the metal has a higher hardness.
Chuck Norris doesn't take damage, Chuck Norris deals Damage!
Anyways use their Wisdom or Con Modifier whichever is higher.
when chuck norris excersies, he doesnt push up! he pushed the earth down!
The real world does have metals just like adamantite and mithral, namly titanium and chobbam alloy. Chobbam allow can take (resist) the highest concentrated , pinpoint damage know to man at this point (the sabot shell) and titanium is the lightest, strongest metal know to us.
Both can do ALL sorts of crazy "magic" things.
IF I were to have an axe made of titanium, I might be able to chisel away and rock, but would I considering its great value?
D&D has always been full of bashing down doors and bending iron bars or lifting portcullis' (used to be the strong fighters domain)
But TUNNELING is something that is alot differnt than bashing down a door.
Doors have weakpoints, like hinges. Walls, floors,cielings, not so much.
I haven't read the rest of this thread yet, but this is the most awesome thing I've ever had the pleasure of associating with D&D.
That's kind of why I don't want to mess too much with these rules . . . I really don't have a problem with a 20th level monk doing stuff like this.
Some thoughts:
A lot of conversation about Hardness and HP of walls, but what about the Break DC? Are these on target, too low, or too high? Personally, Ive always been kind of irked that the average wall of a peasant's wooden home is actually a fairly effective barrier to an angry ogre.
If you raise the hardness but lower the HP of walls, magic gets a boost again. Lightning Bolt and various other "wall buster" spells become more powerful, as they ignore hardness. This may be good or bad, depends on your game style. Personally, I always account for "collateral AoE damage" in my games; players get a sense of "awesome" when they bust down walls accidentally, and a sense of "uh-oh" when the bad guy does the same.
As a person who has broken many an axe while chopping wood, I can say that you will damage your weapon over time, unless you are very skilled, and that merely lowers the speed at which you damage your weapon.
I recal hacksaws in the Arms and Equipmet Guide; they have a set number of HP they can cut through before dulling. That could be a good jumping point.
Even for weapons like picks, a combat pick is NOT a mining pick. Make actual "tool" devices like mining picks able to withstand 1000 hp of mining damage or even 5k or 10k. Basically, its a non-issue unless the players are doing some extended work.
For the combat versions, give them a much more limited amount: 50 or 100 or such, before the item enters the "broken" category. Still functional, but not optimal. Then another set of 50 or 100, and the item is destroyed.
Keep in mind, a good fumble can right bugger your weapon. Personal experience, I was chopping wood, I overshot my swing, and the head of the axe came down past the peice of pine. Which meant the peice of pine met the haft of my axe with the force of a full "power attacking" swing. My haft lost that fight, explosively.
You could rule that a natural 1 does the swing's damage (including strength, power attack, and such) to the weapon itself. Since magic weapons are stronger, you could ignore the weapon's pluses, althought those pluses also do boost the defenses of the weapon, so that might be double jeapoardy.
Also, consider this. The abstraction of combat is that extra attacks from base attack do not neccessarily represent the fighter swinging faster, merely more precisely, more able to take advantage of small openings. Effectively, he is not acting more in his round, he is acting more efficiently. But is a 20th level fighter with no ranks in mining any more efficient than a 1rst level commoner, in regards to tunneling? Disregard the "attacks per round", make damaging an object a standard or full round action. Give those with 5 ranks in the appropriate skill (mining, woodcutting, etc) the ability to "swing again", either as a separate strike, or adding the weapon's damage again, or whatever. (By adding the weapon's damage again, you create the possibility that a skilled miner could tunnel through substances a less trained miner could not, due to hardness).
Just some thoughts, hope this helps the dialogue.
That's kind of why I don't want to mess too much with these rules . . . I really don't have a problem with a 20th level monk doing stuff like this.
I haven't read the rest of this thread yet, but this is the most awesome thing I've ever had the pleasure of associating with D&D.
I agree -- high-level folks should be able to do stuff like this. But a 20th level monk's unarmed strike is treated as adamantine for purposes of bypassing hardness, so I don't think it would be a problem.
If a hulking 20th level half-orc can't bash through some stone with a morningstar, what chance does a 1st level STR 12 dwarf expert have with a pick (which can also be a weapon)?Read my first comment: I think it should be possible, but I think it should also have a chance of ruining the morningstar. That's why I suggested that sundering should cause some damage to the weapon you're using (probably proportional to the difference in hardness between your weapon and the object you're trying to break).So how many picks would said dwarf have to go through?
I think trying to add this rule is adding another level of complexity to an already complex system that would cover the act of something that seems to rarely ever happen anyways.
you do realise that picks get broken, blunted and worn out by mining stone right?
|
|
I agree -- high-level folks should be able to do stuff like this. But a 20th level monk's unarmed strike is treated as adamantine for purposes of bypassing hardness, so I don't think it would be a problem.That's kind of why I don't want to mess too much with these rules . . . I really don't have a problem with a 20th level monk doing stuff like this.
I haven't read the rest of this thread yet, but this is the most awesome thing I've ever had the pleasure of associating with D&D.
There are maneuvers in Tome of Battle that allow a person to overcome DR....at around 5th level. I have a gnome tunnel through 30' of collapsed stone and petrified wood with his bare hands. Took a while but he had time. I never realized there was a DMs rule that inappropriate objects may be unable to....or I would have invoked that ruling to stop the tunneling.
If you raise the hardness but lower the HP of walls, magic gets a boost again. Lightning Bolt and various other "wall buster" spells become more powerful, as they ignore hardness. This may be good or bad, depends on your game style. Personally, I always account for "collateral AoE damage" in my games; players get a sense of "awesome" when they bust down walls accidentally, and a sense of "uh-oh" when the bad guy does the same.
This is false. Energy spells like lightning bolt do not ignore hardness unless they specifically say so in their descriptions. Few do.
Proof:
Energy Attacks: Acid and sonic attacks deal damage to
most objects just as they do to creatures; roll damage and
apply it normally after a successful hit. Electricity and fire
attacks deal half damage to most objects; divide the damage
dealt by 2 before applying the hardness. Cold attacks
deal one-quarter damage to most objects; divide the damage
dealt by 4 before applying the hardness.
There you have it. Energy attacks aren't that good against objects.
Just to stop any thread derailing caused by my post, I'll have the following dialogue with myself so nobody else has to waste posts on it.
[failgument]-But that quote says nothing about acid and sonic attacks being affected by hardness.
[not-so-failgument]-Yes it does, acid and sonic deal damage to objects normally. Normally hardness blocks damage. Also, that quote above hasn't changed a bit since 3.5e, so we're safe to consult 3.5e FAQ.
Many animated objects have hardness scores. What
affect, if any, will an animated object’s hardness have on
spells used against the animated object? For example, an
animated wooden table would have hardness 5, right? How
would that hardness affect spells such as fireball, lightning
bolt, Melf’s acid arrow, ray of frost, and magic missile?If the spell in question has an energy descriptor, hardness
affects the attack as noted in the rules for damaging inanimate
objects (see page 165 in the PH); here’s a summary:• Hardness applies to acid and sonic attacks. These
attacks deal normal damage both to creatures and to
objects, and thus would deal normal damage to an
animated object (less the effect of the hardness). You
would subtract 5 points for hardness from whatever
damage a Melf’s acid arrow spell deals to the
animated table in your example.• Hardness applies to electricity and fire attacks. These
attacks deal half damage to inanimate objects, but
animated objects are creatures and they take full
damage (less the effect of the hardness). You would
subtract 5 points for hardness from whatever damage
a fireball or lightning bolt spell deals to the animated
table in your example. Reduce the damage for a
successful saving throw before you apply hardness.• Hardness also applies to cold damage. Cold attacks
deal one-quarter damage to inanimate objects, but
again, an animated object takes full damage less the
effect of the hardness. You would subtract 5 points of
damage for hardness from whatever damage a ray of
frost spell deals to the animated table in your
example. Since ray of frost deals only 1d3 points of
damage, it will prove ineffective against the animated
table unless you somehow increase the damage the
spell deals.• Hardness applies to force attacks. These attacks deal
normal damage both to creatures and to objects
(when applicable), and thus would deal normal
damage to an animated object (less the effect of the
hardness). You would subtract 5 points for hardness
from whatever damage a magic missile spell deals to
the animated table in your example. A magic missile
spell normally cannot be aimed at an object. Because
an animated object is a creature, however, it can
affect the animated table in the example.
|
|
So I figure, "Cool. At least I kill the druid off."
Then the darn Cleric says, "Good thing I prepared Resurrection today."
I start cussing. "Wait," I say. "The Druid's body is entombed beneath tons of rubble. You can't get to him."
Cleric says, "Spell says some part of the body must still exist. Not that you have to have access to it."
I decide not to be a jerk and have the Druid resurrect in the rubble and be crushed to death.
Now, AFTER the game I read Earthquake and learn it only does 8d6 damage from falling rubble. Dang PCs slid it past me... but I made them pay... Oh, I made them pay.
Resurrection says "This spell functions like raise dead", and raise dead is a touch range spell. So you were right, they needed access to the remains.
I hope you really made them pay.
Resurrection
Conjuration (Healing)Level: Clr 7
Casting Time: 10 minutes
Components: V, S, M, DF
Casting Time: 1 minute
Range: Touch
Target: Dead creature touched
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: None; see text
Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless)
This spell functions like raise dead, except that you are able to restore life and complete strength to any deceased creature.
The condition of the remains is not a factor. So long as some small portion of the creature’s body still exists, it can be resurrected, but the portion receiving the spell must have been part of the creature’s body at the time of death. (The remains of a creature hit by a disintegrate spell count as a small portion of its body.) The creature can have been dead no longer than 10 years per caster level.
Upon completion of the spell, the creature is immediately restored to full hit points, vigor, and health, with no loss of prepared spells. However, the subject loses one level, or 2 points of Constitution if the subject was 1st level. (If this reduction would bring its Con to 0 or lower, it can’t be resurrected). This level loss or Constitution loss cannot be repaired by any means.
You can resurrect someone killed by a death effect or someone who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed. You cannot resurrect someone who has died of old age. Constructs, elementals, outsiders, and undead creatures can’t be resurrected.
Material Component
A sprinkle of holy water and diamonds worth a total of at least 10,000 gp.
He was under a pile of Rubble, hence he remains under a pile of rubble.
|
|
Earthquake
Evocation [Earth]
Level: Clr 8, Destruction 8, Drd 8, Earth 7
Components: V, S, DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
Area: 80-ft.-radius spread (S)
Duration: 1 round
Saving Throw: See text
Spell Resistance: No
When you cast earthquake, an intense but highly localized tremor rips the ground. The shock knocks creatures down, collapses structures, opens cracks in the ground, and more. The effect lasts for 1 round, during which time creatures on the ground can’t move or attack. A spellcaster on the ground must make a Concentration check (DC 20 + spell level) or lose any spell he or she tries to cast. The earthquake affects all terrain, vegetation, structures, and creatures in the area. The specific effect of an earthquake spell depends on the nature of the terrain where it is cast.
Cave, Cavern, or Tunnel
The spell collapses the roof, dealing 8d6 points of bludgeoning damage to any creature caught under the cave-in (Reflex DC 15 half) and pinning that creature beneath the rubble (see below). An earthquake cast on the roof of a very large cavern could also endanger those outside the actual area but below the falling debris.
Cliffs
Earthquake causes a cliff to crumble, creating a landslide that travels horizontally as far as it fell vertically. Any creature in the path takes 8d6 points of bludgeoning damage (Reflex DC 15 half) and is pinned beneath the rubble (see below).
Open Ground
Each creature standing in the area must make a DC 15 Reflex save or fall down. Fissures open in the earth, and every creature on the ground has a 25% chance to fall into one (Reflex DC 20 to avoid a fissure). At the end of the spell, all fissures grind shut, killing any creatures still trapped within.
Structure
Any structure standing on open ground takes 100 points of damage, enough to collapse a typical wooden or masonry building, but not a structure built of stone or reinforced masonry. Hardness does not reduce this damage, nor is it halved as damage dealt to objects normally is. Any creature caught inside a collapsing structure takes 8d6 points of bludgeoning damage (Reflex DC 15 half) and is pinned beneath the rubble (see below).
River, Lake, or Marsh
Fissures open underneath the water, draining away the water from that area and forming muddy ground. Soggy marsh or swampland becomes quicksand for the duration of the spell, sucking down creatures and structures. Each creature in the area must make a DC 15 Reflex save or sink down in the mud and quicksand. At the end of the spell, the rest of the body of water rushes in to replace the drained water, possibly drowning those caught in the mud.
Pinned beneath Rubble
Any creature pinned beneath rubble takes 1d6 points of nonlethal damage per minute while pinned. If a pinned character falls unconscious, he or she must make a DC 15 Constitution check or take 1d6 points of lethal damage each minute thereafter until freed or dead.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
If you raise the hardness but lower the HP of walls, magic gets a boost again. Lightning Bolt and various other "wall buster" spells become more powerful, as they ignore hardness.
Only Acid and Sonic do full damage, Fire and Electricity do 1/2 damage then apply hardness, and Cold does 1/4 damage then applies hardness.
If you raise the hardness but lower the HP of walls, magic gets a boost again. Lightning Bolt and various other "wall buster" spells become more powerful, as they ignore hardness.Only Acid and Sonic do full damage, Fire and Electricity do 1/2 damage then apply hardness, and Cold does 1/4 damage then applies hardness.
According to the 3.5 FAQ, acid and sonic apply hardness as well. "Full damage" just means "not half or one-quarter damage".
If you've never seen it done, it may depend on how high level your character is. In an epic level campaign I'm in, this is standard operating procedure, between using stone shape and Destructive Rage with super-duper strength and a Maul of the Titans.
Director of Games
|
Careful everyone. This thread is meandering a bit too much.
I do have a question though. Is this really a problem? Have any of you actually had players tunnel through a dungeon? I have not in my experience... but I have heard it discussed hypothetically many times.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Careful everyone. This thread is meandering a bit too much.
I do have a question though. Is this really a problem? Have any of you actually had players tunnel through a dungeon? I have not in my experience... but I have heard it discussed hypothetically many times.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
In the last campaign i played in it was sop to hack through every 3' thick ice door in the groups way, simply because it was faster than figuring out how to open them.
I do have a question though. Is this really a problem? Have any of you actually had players tunnel through a dungeon? I have not in my experience... but I have heard it discussed hypothetically many times.
Like I said, I've had situations with very low level characters where I thought "I'd do this, if it weren't for the fact that it would defy the laws of physics as I know them". I don't mind high-level characters defying the laws of physics, but I think there should be a disincentive for a level 1 character to chop through a stone door (or metal cage or whatever) with a greatsword.
|
Creative Director
|
I do have a question though. Is this really a problem? Have any of you actually had players tunnel through a dungeon? I have not in my experience... but I have heard it discussed hypothetically many times.Like I said, I've had situations with very low level characters where I thought "I'd do this, if it weren't for the fact that it would defy the laws of physics as I know them". I don't mind high-level characters defying the laws of physics, but I think there should be a disincentive for a level 1 character to chop through a stone door (or metal cage or whatever) with a greatsword.
There is. it's just hidden.
Page 165 of the PHB, down by Eberk's shield...
"Ineffective Weapons: The DM may determine that certain weapons just can't effectively deal damage to certain objects. For example, you may have a hard time chopping down a door by shooting arrows at it or cutting a rope with a club."
That more or less covers the problem, I think, but a fair amount of GMs don't read the fine print in this case, I suspect. You can certainly use the same logic to rule that one can't really chop down an iron cage with a sword or stone door.
By the same reasoning, you can argue that a tree, which is made of wood, should have hardness 5. Which means that axes are going to have a hard time chopping down even the smallest tree. Likewise, with hardness 8, many miners are going to be hard pressed to mine stone with picks that do 1d4 or 1d6 damage.
The section I quote above could certainly be expanded, but in the end, common sense should always trump inappropriate rules.
Careful everyone. This thread is meandering a bit too much.
I do have a question though. Is this really a problem? Have any of you actually had players tunnel through a dungeon? I have not in my experience... but I have heard it discussed hypothetically many times.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I've seen an adamantine greataxe written on a character sheet as a 'Master Key' more than once. Mostly used on doors, though, not walls. I think that's mostly a mental block: Players see doors as blocked openings while walls are, well, walls. Even if the stone wall is easier to go through than the adamantine door.
I'm torn on this issue.
On one hand, that's what adamantine weapons are FOR. No one sunders potential loot.
On the other hand, adding some sort of fix, possibly relating to the new Broken condition, might be a good way to discourage that behavior, and keep the barbarian from stealing the rogue's door-opening thunder.
On the gripping hand, rule 0 does deal with this, and the book is already bursting out of it's page count.
Careful everyone. This thread is meandering a bit too much.
I do have a question though. Is this really a problem? Have any of you actually had players tunnel through a dungeon? I have not in my experience... but I have heard it discussed hypothetically many times.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I have, but not with weapons. Stone shape has allowed players bypass entire sections of dungeons via tunneling. Heat metal combined with some well-timed scorching rays has seen some metal barriers being melted (granted, I could have ruled that wouldn't work, but I encourage ingenious thinking in my players).
If my players were to bring pickaxes and shovels, I'd let them tunnel through whatever they want. But if they use their swords and axes, they're not going to have useful weapons on the other side. (Remember, those weapons have hardness and HP too, not just the dungeon walls. They may be harder, but 1 point of damage over and over again wears on even masterwork.)
I do have a question though. Is this really a problem? Have any of you actually had players tunnel through a dungeon? I have not in my experience... but I have heard it discussed hypothetically many times.Like I said, I've had situations with very low level characters where I thought "I'd do this, if it weren't for the fact that it would defy the laws of physics as I know them". I don't mind high-level characters defying the laws of physics, but I think there should be a disincentive for a level 1 character to chop through a stone door (or metal cage or whatever) with a greatsword.There is. it's just hidden.
Page 165 of the PHB, down by Eberk's shield...
"Ineffective Weapons: The DM may determine that certain weapons just can't effectively deal damage to certain objects. For example, you may have a hard time chopping down a door by shooting arrows at it or cutting a rope with a club."
That more or less covers the problem, I think, but a fair amount of GMs don't read the fine print in this case, I suspect.
But the point is that I think it is appropriate for a 20th-level fighter to hack down a stone door with a greatsword (if he can do 60 points of damage in a single swing), but it isn't appropriate for a 1st-level fighter to do so. So it isn't necessarily a case of the weapon being inappropriate so much as the ability to do it quickly enough that you don't wreck your weapon with repeated hacking. YMMV, of course.
I've actually run an adventure where the PCs were tasked to tunnel through from one dungeon (underground ruins) to an adjoining vault underneath a collapsed castle. It was a lot of fun as the PCs only had a vague idea of where the vault lay, and their digging inevitably brought inhabitants of the ruins to investigate, caused cave-ins, and unearthed other hazards. The incident in which they misjudged their depth and managed to dig a tunnel into the castle moat was particularly amusing for me and fun for them.
That said, I've never had PCs attempt to cut their way through dungeon walls without substantial encouragement from me as GM. I think that unless they went to some length to bring appropriate equipment, I'd just rule against their making any substantial progress. If they did bring and use proper equipment, I'd let them go at it but definitely hit them with some of the hazards inherent to such activity.
CR
By the same reasoning, you can argue that a tree, which is made of wood, should have hardness 5. Which means that axes are going to have a hard time chopping down even the smallest tree. Likewise, with hardness 8, many miners are going to be hard pressed to mine stone with picks that do 1d4 or 1d6 damage.
I have to say, James...that's why lumberjacks and miners have high strength scores. They need every bit of extra damage they can get. =)
But in all seriousness...it is difficult to cut down a tree. It's a lot of hard work, and you really are actively overcoming a real world hardness. Lumber harvest and mining are very difficult, take a lot of work, and take a long time.
You *are* hard-pressed to mine stone with a pick.
I'm not sure of the repurcussions of changing the rules, given the existence of golems and elementals MADE from Stone themselves, whom PCs are currently assumed to be able to damage if able to overcome DR, and don't "break" weapons even if ineffective vs. DR. If regular stone tends to break weapons, why wouldn't these creatures?
I don't see the big deal, really.
Like James says, the rules ALREADY say some objects aren't damaged effectively w/o appropriate tools/weapons.
There's no mechanics explicitly stated, but it DOES explicitly justify DM adjudication in this area.
(I would say even if you have an Adamantine Greatsword, it just doesn't work to Tunnel or break down Doors. Even if you have something that's "Effective" that could take a LONG time. "Effective" isn't defined.)
All in all, given there's spells that do the exact same but with none of the repurcussions, it's just doesn't seem that big of a deal. If your PCs want to spend an inordinate amount of time, trap themselves at the end of a tunnel for the duration, somehow remove the debris from the tunnel, suffer cave-ins if they don't have material to shore up the tunnel, give up all surprise advantage, and come out into some room whose unknown inhabitants have had ample time to prepare, then I don't really see any problem.
(BTW, I liked the sound of your ACTUAL Tunneling Aventure, Corrosive Rabbit)
But the point is that I think it is appropriate for a 20th-level fighter to hack down a stone door with a greatsword (if he can do 60 points of damage in a single swing), but it isn't appropriate for a 1st-level fighter to do so.
A 1st-Level Fighter isn't doing 60 points of damage in a single swing.
If you want to hand-wave the "Inappropriate Damage" rule (which BECAUSE it isn't tied to specific mechanical rules, DOESN'T CARE how much abstact damage you are "entitled" to do each round), then your super-magicked-up 20th level Fighter can have at it (and 1st Level Dude can't). Where's the problem?
A 1st-Level Fighter isn't doing 60 points of damage in a single swing.
If you want to ignore the "Inappropriate Damage" rule (which BECAUSE it isn't tied to specific mechanical rules, DOESN'T CARE how much abstact damage you are "entitled" to do each round), then you super-magicked-up 20th...
I'm not following you. What I'm saying is that most weapons are "appropriate" in the sense that someone who's stronger than a hill giant and is one of the greatest fighters of all time can use them to bash through a stone door in one blow. But that doesn't mean that Joe Peasant can use the same weapons to chip away at a stone door in a hundred blows without damaging the weapon.
I can accept "to do it correctly would take too many pages" as a reason not to change the existing rule (although I might dispute that point). But saying "the DM can make whichever judgment calls he wants" is a lame reason for not changing a rule. Even adding a rule of thumb that says "if a weapon can't break through an object in two or three rounds, it's probably not appropriate and the correct tool should be used instead" would be better than nothing.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
Careful everyone. This thread is meandering a bit too much.
I do have a question though. Is this really a problem? Have any of you actually had players tunnel through a dungeon? I have not in my experience... but I have heard it discussed hypothetically many times.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
It's not hypothetical. In my group I've had more than a handful of Barbarians that have bashed, beaten, or broken through doors, walls, houses, floors, ceilings, ship hulls, etc... I mean it's a classic image breaking through walls and doors with your weapons. Look at Thorgrim in Conan the Barbarian busting up that huge pillar (by accident of course) or the Kurgan in Highlander breaking the keep's walls when fighting Ramirez?
In the STAP alone our Goliath Barbarian armed with his trusty Adamantine goliath greathammer (Large) has beaten through almost every door they came upon in Divided's Ire once they learned they were poisoned. After fighting the Nabassus who guarded the bridges they decided to make their own door in the roof above Saureya's throne room. Even when he did nearly 500 points of damage in the first round to the magically treated roof and it didn't break he was unfazed. He merely said, "OK I do another full attack at full power attack."
In The Well of Ahazu the same barbarian fell into the well when it opened landing outside the pool. The Varrangoin Liches flew up out of his reach and trapped him on the bottom with a Wall of Force. He decided to tunnel through the walls to go around the wall. Now here I should have collapsed the wall on him I admit... but it does happen!
--Vrock Solid!
|
If you raise the hardness but lower the HP of walls, magic gets a boost again. Lightning Bolt and various other "wall buster" spells become more powerful, as they ignore hardness.Only Acid and Sonic do full damage, Fire and Electricity do 1/2 damage then apply hardness, and Cold does 1/4 damage then applies hardness.
Acid and sonic DONT do full dmg, this is one of the biggest errors most groups make, if you check the D&D FAQ it clears this up, not to go off topic but SOOO many groups think this its about time to start spreading the word.....
Hm, well that points out an important thing:
It's probably a good idea to check thru ALL the WotC 3.5 FAQ's and make sure to incorporate their clarifications into the rules wording where still applicable (or diverge from them). Not word-for-word reproducing the FAQ, but making sure the Core Rules are written robustly enough to obviate the need for an additional explanation like the FAQ.
|
|
Hm, well that points out an important thing:
It's probably a good idea to check thru ALL the WotC 3.5 FAQ's and make sure to incorporate their clarifications into the rules wording where still applicable (or diverge from them). Not word-for-word reproducing the FAQ, but making sure the Core Rules are written robustly enough to obviate the need for an additional explanation like the FAQ.
Perhaps stick to the saner FAQs.
;-) Probably a good idea, that.
I just meant looking at each issue raised in the FAQs, and making sure that Pathfinder's Core Rules are written well enough so that a FAQ isn't needed... Not necessarily going with WotC's take on it. Many of which... You know.
|
|
I say let them dig through walls. It takes days for a stone cutter to go through a 10' thick wall, and all the while they are banging on rock making a noise that gets the attention of every thing capable of hearing it.
"Smash! Hack! Bang!" Jimbo the Barbarian went to town on the wall with his sword made from a grader blade.
"Oi! Intruders!" A dozen Guards rounded the corner of the tunnel drawn to the noises.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
I say let them dig through walls. It takes days for a stone cutter to go through a 10' thick wall, and all the while they are banging on rock making a noise that gets the attention of every thing capable of hearing it.
"Smash! Hack! Bang!" Jimbo the Barbarian went to town on the wall with his sword made from a grader blade.
"Oi! Intruders!" A dozen Guards rounded the corner of the tunnel drawn to the noises.
At the point where Jimbo the Barbarian is actually able to smash through walls with his maul he doesn't care how much noise he makes. Bring on the guards! When PC's reach high levels a patrol or random encounter in a dungeon are little more than speed bumps. Besides the wiz/sor should be waiting to drop a fireball or the cleric should have a greater command ready.
--If the house is a Vrockin', don't come a knockin'
;-) Probably a good idea, that.
I just meant looking at each issue raised in the FAQs, and making sure that Pathfinder's Core Rules are written well enough so that a FAQ isn't needed... Not necessarily going with WotC's take on it. Many of which... You know.
I actually started doing just that -- going through the FAQ and seeing where Pathfinder has improved in clarity vs. 3.5.
In the excellent Cages of Delirium, my player decided to avoid the door (coated in a wall of metaphysical magical blood) and break into the secret room through the wall, which was made of wood, according to the room description. Worked great, since she was stumped as to what to do, so I was fine with not stopping her tunneling. But I pay careful attention to what materials walls and doors are made of ever since.