What I am saying is that not all elemental damage should be separated. It is a case by case basis, and while there is no rule for it common sense should apply.
PS:I can see a case for acid bypassing DR for metal objects.
Sure, I think it`s reasonable to make an adjustment like that (I would hazard that ´Slick´ property items with a coating of grease wouldn`t be affected). Or instead of negating Hardness, one can just implement a ´vulnerability´ to acid for objects, i.e. any Acid damage that gets thru Hardness is more potent (or at least, isn`t halved like other elemental damage - that`s exactly what the rules suggest, after all). The rules don`t give specific examples, but they DO say that specific damage types can be specially effective (not halved before Hardness), which just leaves it to the GM to consider ´what elements/tools would be specially effective vs this item?´.
Incidentally, elemental damage not being separated is exactly my point: when Sundering/Smashing, the damage is not separated for purposes of Hardness, which is in CONTRAST to how elemental damage works with NORMAL DR (where physical damage has to overcome DR before elemental riders kick in).
Acid already does normal damage to objects, it doesn't need to bypass hardness. Elemental damage should be resolved and then added to normal damage to see if hardness is bypassed.
Do you have a quote for that? I don't see it in the relevant section of the Core Rulebook (Chapter 7, Additional Rules, Smashing an object).
Acid already does normal damage to objects, it doesn't need to bypass hardness. Elemental damage should be resolved and then added to normal damage to see if hardness is bypassed.Do you have a quote for that? I don't see it in the relevant section of the Core Rulebook (Chapter 7, Additional Rules, Smashing an object).
He doesn't, because that's not what core says. Also on his second part, +1d6 fire damage would be applied seperately since it is seperate damage -- it's a rider effect, just like with DR -- if you were to hit a creature and not deal enough damage to get past its DR but had an extra 1d6 fire damage on the weapon the fire damage would still carry through since it is seperate from the weapon damage.
Please note that you can critical on objects now also (it could matter in a game where you want to sunder and thing it's going to take a couple of rounds only to get the almighty natural twenty with a great axe).
Also on his second part, +1d6 fire damage would be applied seperately since it is seperate damage -- it's a rider effect, just like with DR -- if you were to hit a creature and not deal enough damage to get past its DR but had an extra 1d6 fire damage on the weapon the fire damage would still carry through since it is seperate from the weapon damage.
Uhuh.
If you want to penetrate significant DR, get a big hit weapon that does a single type hit of significant damage - lets call that 'armour piercing'. If I just want to do a lot of damage to a soft skinned target, lets add a mushrooming effect... lets call that 'hollow point'.
He doesn't, because that's not what core says.
Thanks .. that's what I thought.
Acid already does normal damage to objects, it doesn't need to bypass hardness. Elemental damage should be resolved and then added to normal damage to see if hardness is bypassed.Do you have a quote for that? I don't see it in the relevant section of the Core Rulebook (Chapter 7, Additional Rules, Smashing an object).
Hopefully this time I get it right...
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.
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.
Technically, a GM could allow acid to work against most things in Pathfinder rules, if he wanted, so there's not much change there.
The really big change is to cold damage, which was boosted to only half damage instead of one quarter.
Also on his second part, +1d6 fire damage would be applied seperately since it is seperate damage -- it's a rider effect, just like with DR -- if you were to hit a creature and not deal enough damage to get past its DR but had an extra 1d6 fire damage on the weapon the fire damage would still carry through since it is seperate from the weapon damage.
Uhuh.
If you want to penetrate significant DR, get a big hit weapon that does a single type hit of significant damage - lets call that 'armour piercing'. If I just want to do a lot of damage to a soft skinned target, lets add a mushrooming effect... lets call that 'hollow point'.
DR doesn't affect energy damage. Fire damage is energy damage. Since you hit you roll damage. DR stops the physical damage -- but not the energy damage. You do 1d6 energy damage, with nothing to stop the energy damage (i.e. energy resistance or immunity) you still take that damage (since DR doesn't stop it).
SO...
IF you hit with a weapon the energy damage is applied independently of the weapon damage itself.
SO...
IF you hit with a weapon the energy damage is applied independently of the weapon damage itself.
Fair enough, but in the notion of sundering an object as opposed to DR, energy attacks are less effective - divide the damage by 2 before applying the object's hardness.
So fair enough about DR as opposed to a 'Hardness' feature.
Energy damage doesn`t overcome DR for creatures (rider effects only trigger when DR is surpassed normally, non-rider effects bypass DR completely), but it DOES overcome Hardness for objects, the rules seem pretty clear on that:
Divide the damage by 2 before applying the object's hardness.
Hardness applies to objects, DR applies to creatures. Very similar, but not quite the same. Non-rider energy effects (e.g. fireball) ARE effected by object Hardness when determining their effect on objects but are not effected by DR when determining their effect on creatures.
I would rule that Acid is not going to be halved vs. almost any type of material normally Sundered/Smashed... Not being given as explicit examples any more doesn`t indicate there is any change in it`s treatment under PRPG, IMHO.
SO...
IF you hit with a weapon the energy damage is applied independently of the weapon damage itself.
Fair enough, but in the notion of sundering an object as opposed to DR, energy attacks are less effective - divide the damage by 2 before applying the object's hardness.
So fair enough about DR as opposed to a 'Hardness' feature.
However that doesn't change the fact that the energy damage is not the weapon's damage. It's still just a rider effect.
So if you were sundering a weapon with a flaming weapon you would deal weapon damage, subtract hardness then deal energy damage (actually simultaniously but it's not part of the weapon damage) reduce the energy damage by half (unless GM says other wise) and apply hardness (again unless GM says otherwise) to the energy damage.
This is actually a net gain for most players -- if the GM allows your specific energy type to damage the target without hardness or halving the damage (say acid against wood or metal) then you might get the energy damage when the regular weapon damage normally wouldn't be enough.
Consider a wizard str 7 with an acidic quarterstaff +1. Now he comes to a locked stone door and for whatever reason doesn't have a knock spell prepared. However he must get through this door so he starts whacking at it with his staff. Now the staff itself isn't going to do jack to the door -- but if the GM rules that acid deals full damage to stone (which makes sense imo) then the wizard could still be doing 1d6 acid damage to the door each round dispite the fact the staff itself can't do any damage to the door thanks to the acid.
But a stone door still has a hardness of 8, so not only will the staff bounce, the Acid can only max out at 6, doing insufficient penetrative damage to burn the HP.
What I think some of these guys are claiming is that assuming it wasnt a staff, but instead something usefull, like a pick... the guy would be doing (Weapon + Acid - 8 = Damage) which is not the case.
But a stone door still has a hardness of 8, so not only will the staff bounce, the Acid can only max out at 6, doing insufficient penetrative damage to burn the HP.
What I think some of these guys are claiming is that assuming it wasnt a staff, but instead something usefull, like a pick... the guy would be doing (Weapon + Acid - 8 = Damage) which is not the case.
Would it not be (weapon + 1/2 acid - 8 = damage) ?
The only interpretation I disagree with is (weapon - 8) + (1/2 acid - 8) = damage.
Hardness applies once per attack. That much is clear.
I would rule that Acid is not going to be halved vs. almost any type of material normally Sundered/Smashed... Not being given as explicit examples any more doesn`t indicate there is any change in it`s treatment under PRPG, IMHO.
I would disagree. As quoted by Kaisoku, above, the wording changed. Much of the material in the Pathfinder rules carried over verbatim from 3.5. This is something that the developers found it worth the time to change the wording. That, to me, implies a deliberate change.
Under 3.5, Acid and Sonic applied full damage to objects (no 1/2 or 1/4, no hardness applied "as creatures").
Under the wording in Pathfinder, all energy attacks reduce damage by 1/2 and subtract hardness unless the GM rules that the object is especially vulnerable to that attack.
I am aware that there were many arguments as to whether the 3.5 wording meant that hardness did not apply. I take the "as they do to creatures" portion to mean hardness is not applied (since creatures do not have hardness, and the other energy types specifically mention it in their examples).
I am increasingly convinced that a thread of examples, showing how to derive and apply the RAI from the RAW for some of the ambiguous rules (charging and ride-by attack, weapons with energy effects on objects, weapon attacks on objects, etc.) would be useful. Some enterprising 3rd party publisher could probably make a useful PDF out of it all, once the "official" stances were understood.
The only interpretation I disagree with is (weapon - 8) + (1/2 acid - 8) = damage.
Hardness applies once per attack. That much is clear.
The 'Acid', along with any other Energy damage is not contributing to the kinetic force of the attack; they are separate effects that need to be resolved separately. If I set someone in an asbestos suit on fire and run them over with my car, the flames aren't helping break their bones.
Similarly if I fire a flaming arrow at a stone wall, neither the flame nor the arrow packs enough force to individually do much/anything to it - why would setting my arrow on fire now make it easier to penetrate the stone?
The only interpretation I disagree with is (weapon - 8) + (1/2 acid - 8) = damage.
Hardness applies once per attack. That much is clear.
The 'Acid', along with any other Energy damage is not contributing to the kinetic force of the attack; they are separate effects that need to be resolved separately. If I set someone in an asbestos suit on fire and run them over with my car, the flames aren't helping break their bones.
Similarly if I fire a flaming arrow at a stone wall, neither the flame nor the arrow packs enough force to individually do much/anything to it - why would setting my arrow on fire now make it easier to penetrate the stone?
First, setting a man on fire and hitting them with your car would count as two attacks, so damage reducing abilities would come in to play twice.
Second, I'm merely conveying what the rules say, I never claimed it made sense. Though for your wall/arrow example, I don't picture a flaming arrow so much as a red hot bolt that melts slightly into the wall along with the depth caused by the punch from its kinetic energy.
Rider elemental effects don`t help overcome DR because they trigger when you hit the target, which is ´behind´ the DR. DR is an auxiallary to HP -and- AC in effect (you need to overcome it before certain effects trigger which require a succesful attack).
Rider elemental effects DO help overcome Hardness, because the object itself is the target of the attack... You don´t care about ´getting thru´ to the squishy stuff underneath, the shield/armor/etc IS the target. Hardness is an auxilliary to HP only.
...That`s how the RAW makes sense to me, anyways.
I would rule that Acid is not going to be halved vs. almost any type of material normally Sundered/Smashed... Not being given as explicit examples any more doesn`t indicate there is any change in it`s treatment under PRPG, IMHO.I would disagree. As quoted by Kaisoku, above, the wording changed. Much of the material in the Pathfinder rules carried over verbatim from 3.5. This is something that the developers found it worth the time to change the wording. That, to me, implies a deliberate change.
Uh... How do you disagree? That is how I rule. The RAW clearly leaves this up to GM ruling.
I`m not claiming the rules INSTRUCT that Acid isn`t halved vs. all targets, I`m saying that the open ended wording that ´some energy types... do full damage... against some objects´ is completely COMPATABLE with any GM allowing Acid to qualify for that. I don´t know of anything in PRPG which has redefined the properties of Acid vs. other materials, there just is no longer an explicit allowance of full Acid damage vs. ALL materials (which now allows for exceptions, like Slick quality Armor coated with grease, which I gave as an example of Acid NOT applying full damage). If you don´t think it applies to a certain case, fine, the RAW certainly isn`t forcing you.
...I can see how you interpreted the second sentence you quoted in the way you did, though - I probably didn´t phrase that line ideally to convey my intent... If you read my previous quotes, I think you´d see we probably don´t have much disagreement here. I was just trying to say that nothing in the RAW would conflict with a GM who wants to continue Acid´s 3.5 properties, whereby it`s damage isn`t halved vs objects.
But a stone door still has a hardness of 8, so not only will the staff bounce, the Acid can only max out at 6, doing insufficient penetrative damage to burn the HP.
What I think some of these guys are claiming is that assuming it wasnt a staff, but instead something usefull, like a pick... the guy would be doing (Weapon + Acid - 8 = Damage) which is not the case.
You completely ignored the part where I said "If the Gm rules that acid deals full damage to stone" didn't you?
Rider elemental effects don`t help overcome DR because they trigger when you hit the target, which is ´behind´ the DR. DR is an auxiallary to HP -and- AC in effect (you need to overcome it before certain effects trigger which require a succesful attack).
Rider elemental effects DO help overcome Hardness, because the object itself is the target of the attack... You don´t care about ´getting thru´ to the squishy stuff underneath, the shield/armor/etc IS the target. Hardness is an auxilliary to HP only.
...That`s how the RAW makes sense to me, anyways.
I must respectfully disagree with you on that interpretation as well.
The RAW says nothing about energy properties NOT dealing damage if the damage does not bypass DR. A "hit" is when your Attack Bonus meets or beats the target's Armor Class - nothing to do with Damage Reduction. Damage Reduction simply reduces the amount of damage that is dealt (it sort of says it on the tin...)
An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.
(Emphasis mine.)
As you can see by the RAW, "hit" and "deal damage" are two separate conditions.
A creature with this special quality ignores damage from most weapons and natural attacks. Wounds heal immediately, or the weapon bounces off harmlessly (in either case, the opponent knows the attack was ineffective). The creature takes normal damage from energy attacks (even non-magical ones), spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities. A certain kind of weapon can sometimes damage the creature normally, as noted below.
Again - nothing about Damage Reduction turning what otherwise would be a "hit" into a "miss". (The rest of the DR definition is, in my reading, useless to this discussion.)
Similarly, none of the energy weapon descriptors say anything about not dealing damage if the weapon does not bypass Damage Reduction.
Now what you may be thinking of is the following, a rule from 3.5 that was not included in Pathfinder:
Whenever damage reduction completely negates the damage from an attack, it also negates most special effects that accompany the attack, such as injury type poison, a monk’s stunning, and injury type disease. Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks, energy damage dealt along with an attack, or energy drains. Nor does it affect poisons or diseases delivered by inhalation, ingestion, or contact.
Which means two things - Number One: Pathfinder specifically got rid of the rule that said that sneak attacks don't deal damage if you don't bypass DR (which I will honestly say I had no idea they had changed this), and, more importantly, number two: You're still wrong in your recollection of the rules, as the 3.5 SRD says, specifically, that energy damage dealt with the attack are not reduced by Damage Reduction.
You completely ignored the part where I said "If the Gm rules that acid deals full damage to stone" didn't you?
No, the I took what you said and applied that the Acid does D6, which is what I took it as... not as 1d6/2 which it arguably would be.
D6 worth of acid, even at full strength cannot overcome a hardness of 8.
A D6 worth or Acid, or even Fire, does not represent some kind of crazy Aliens type stuff, nor a raging inferno of white heat.
Guys - Inanimate objects have Hardness. DR and Hardness are two different things. So in the case of a Sunder, you aren't overcoming DR, you are overcoming a different mechanic altogether.
You completely ignored the part where I said "If the Gm rules that acid deals full damage to stone" didn't you?No, the I took what you said and applied that the Acid does D6, which is what I took it as... not as 1d6/2 which it arguably would be.
D6 worth of acid, even at full strength cannot overcome a hardness of 8.
A D6 worth or Acid, or even Fire, does not represent some kind of crazy Aliens type stuff, nor a raging inferno of white heat.
However the GM can rule that the acid overcomes the hardness as well -- that choice is within his power without referring to rule 0 in this case.
Beyond that consider the following:
Now I have a question for you: Say that you are right and it is all included in one damage total. Lets also say that the GM has ruled that Acid eats stone and therefore isn't reduced and doesn't apply hardness from normal stone. The acid bypasses the hardness -- so you have acid 1d6 + physical damage -- what if the physical damage isn't enough to bypass the hardness with the acid? Does the acid now not get through at all since it's just part of the total damage package?
Or do we seperate it out and keep it dealing damage even though the physical damage doesn't do so?
I rule them as being seprate issues to be resolved.
Lets take the case of a mining pick of flame (1d6) vs the stone door.
The mining pick would and should deliver a hit that is made up of a few key factors, namely its size (as a determinant of damage) and the force with which the blow was applied - ie Str of the wielder. Both of these factors add to the capacity of the blow to penetrate and do damage to the stone on impact, hence not only cracking the surface (penetrating hardness) but then also gouging out a pile of rock.
A D6 flame (really just D3), which is equivalent to a mundane flame being held against the item, even for the next 50 years will NOT burn away the stone, nor damage it in any way other than build up a lot of carbon.
Now if I hit the stone with the pick, and then immediately put the flame on the gouge, the flame STILL wouldn't do *anything* whatsoever.
So why would the flame being added at the time of the blow now be treated differently?
I can see where the argument might stand up in DR, because there you are notionally penetrating armour etc and then applying damage to living tissue underneath, but then you hit the stone with the pick and 'penetrate it', all you are then hitting is....more stone.
Acid does D6 damage to a lot of things, particularly soft tissue, but something like stone and glass would likely be able to withstand it indefinitely... if I cover the surface of a marble bench in acid and chip away at the immersed surface, the acid wont really be adding anything.
If people want to penetrate Hardness, and to a point DR, then use one big significant blow, not a stream of minor effects.
The Acid and the kinetic blows are seperate.
On the flipside, if the kinetic force couldn't do squat, ie I am hitting a rope with a stick, but its a FLAMING stick, then sure the blow may well bounce, but the fire DOES apply... in the case of hardness there is no contradiction in RAW.
Made my point for me.
So what you are saying is that I'm right and it should be separate damage applied to hardness not added together as one damage total and applied to hardness?
Example:
My position:
Weapon Damage - Hardness = damage to stone
.5Energy Damage - Hardness = damage to stone
Instead of what some people are suggesting:
(Weapon damage + .5Energy Damage) - Hardness = damage to stone
With appropriate energy types ignoring hardness of some specific materials (honestly marble is not that great of a material for resisting Acid and other stones -- such has the very common limestone are even worse at it).
I don´t really think trying to rationalize things from a simulationist perspective is the most relevant to how the RAW functions. It`s pretty clear that Energy Damage when Sundering/Smashing is subject to the same Hardness step that all damage is, as it`s only adding a step before the Hardness step which it presumes is already happening (not directing one to initiate an independent Hardness step).
Obviously, the rules leave it open to the GM to negate 1/2´íng of Energy Damage, Double Damage, or bypass Hardness when appropriate (which leaves plenty of lee-way for achieving better simulation-ism). If one damage type is subject to those effects, it may bypass Hardness while other damage portions must overcome Hardness before affecting object HPs.
...I DO think the entire section is misleadingly named ´Breaking and Entering/Smashing an Object´ when it would seem to apply to ALL damage to objects, e.g. including Fireballs which wouldn´t normally be considered ´Smashing´ anything (unless especally impressive... ¨Smashing fireball, mate!¨). Something more boring like ´Damaging Objects´ would have been more useful, IMHO. And the entire topic should really belong in Equipment to begin with (which could have resulted with Object HPs/Hardness being better integrated with all Equipment/Material entries), given that is the natural place to look to in the first place (if not Combat), and the rest of ´Additional Rules´ is focused on Character stats, movement, etc. But that might have been an improvement on 3.5...
My position:
Weapon Damage - Hardness = damage to stone
.5Energy Damage - Hardness = damage to stoneInstead of what some people are suggesting:
(Weapon damage + .5Energy Damage) - Hardness = damage to stone
...which is what I have been saying all along :)
...which is what I have been saying all along :)
My position:
Weapon Damage - Hardness = damage to stone
.5Energy Damage - Hardness = damage to stoneInstead of what some people are suggesting:
(Weapon damage + .5Energy Damage) - Hardness = damage to stone
So if I understand you two correctly, you both believe hardness should be applied twice to the same attack?
So if I understand you two correctly, you both believe hardness should be applied twice to the same attack?...which is what I have been saying all along :)
My position:
Weapon Damage - Hardness = damage to stone
.5Energy Damage - Hardness = damage to stoneInstead of what some people are suggesting:
(Weapon damage + .5Energy Damage) - Hardness = damage to stone
What I'm saying is it should be applied to each effect.
Made my point for me.So what you are saying is that I'm right and it should be separate damage applied to hardness not added together as one damage total and applied to hardness?
Example:
My position:
Weapon Damage - Hardness = damage to stone
.5Energy Damage - Hardness = damage to stoneInstead of what some people are suggesting:
(Weapon damage + .5Energy Damage) - Hardness = damage to stoneWith appropriate energy types ignoring hardness of some specific materials (honestly marble is not that great of a material for resisting Acid and other stones -- such has the very common limestone are even worse at it).
Nah, I go with B.
Weapon Damage + Energy vs hardness.
What I'm saying is it should be applied to each effect.Just to clarify, is this ´should´´ as in ´what the game should be like ideally´ or as in ´(how you read) the RAW´? I´m just asking because I personally don´t remotely get the idea the the RAW is suggesting two Hardness steps when the ´Smashing an Object´(Damaging Objects) sections says:
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.
(...)
Energy Attacks: Energy attacks deal half damage to most objects. Divide the damage by 2 before applying the object's hardness. (...)
The Hardness section itself doesn`t exclude non-physical damage. The Energy Attack section doesn`t positively instruct the application of a distinct/unique Hardness stage, but seemingly refers to the already explained Hardness stage. If one was to assume that the Energy Attack section referred to an independent/unique Hardness stage, the fact that the original Hardness stage doesn`t distinguish between damage types and thus also ´blocks´ Energy Damage would mean that Energy Damage is resisted by 2x the given Hardness rating (which is an interpretation earlier brought up and which I tried to address). I`m not sure at which point you differ with that assessment, and how you interpret the ´original´ Hardness stage to NOT apply to Energy Damage (which seems necessary if one isn´t to arrive at: , i.e. 1 Hardness vs. Physical, 2 Hardness vs. Energy.
Whatever your opinion on that, how do feel the distinction between DR/Hardness comes into play here? I`m asking because you seemed to bring DR in to the subject, when DR and Hardness aren´t exactly the same, especially regards to energy damage.
@Archmage Atrus: Thanks for the response, that seems all in line... I`m sure my posts have been swayed by the fact that I normally play with the admitted house-rule that elemental rider effects trigger on Touch AC (so discussing this within the context of RAW is somewhat strange). But given the apparent contention on this topic, I think it`s most productive to focus on the thread topic, the functioning of Hardness and not DR. I`m not sure why DR per se was brought up in the first place, but it hasn`t seemed to clarify the thread very much, rather than adding a whole new fork of confusion (whereas the thread previuosly seemed focus on whether Hardness applied once or twice to Energy).
So if I understand you two correctly, you both believe hardness should be applied twice to the same attack?
With hardness you are applying essentially two attacks that need to be separated as they are treated very differently. Fire may not be hot enough to damage stone, so why would the fire now be any different because it was applied with an axe hit?
So no, It's not twice on the same attack, its applied to each attack - one being the physical kinetic effect, and the other for the elemental/energy damage. It may well be that the physical attack damages the object, but fire does squat to stone, or it might be that the staff does squat to a rope, but the fire burns it wonderfully.
The fire is not adding to your kinetic impact and chipping away additional stone.
If I dig a hole, the hole will not get dug faster because I set the shovel on fire or chilled the thing to -5000f
If one wants to bring simulationism into things, it seems reasonable to me that elemental damage may indeed assist in cases where the elemental portion alone would not exceed a damage threshold, by temporarily affecting the substance enough to reduce it`s threshold against the physical damage (which mechanically in this case = all damage combining to overcome Hardness). The phrase ´hot knife thru butter´ would apply here, and for harder subsances, I don´t see why other effects couldn´t weaken stronger materials... melting, making brittle, etc. substances don´t have the same properties at all temperatures.
but that´s simulationism. as i quoted the relevant bits in my last post, i fail to see that the rules are actually suggesting the same elemental damage pool be run thru Hardness twice. such a mechanic, besides seeming very strange, clearly is distinct enough to be specifically described, but it isn´t. there is absolutely no reference to energy damage being reduced twice. the phrasing of energy damage is in reference to the already existing single Hardness stage, not an invocation of a secondary/duplicate stage. the Hardness section clearly applies vs. energy damage because it doesn`t discriminate vs. type, i.e. the purpose of the Energy Damage section is the HALVING BEFORE HARDNESS, not the Hardness per se (which is already dealt with). if one wanted to invoke double Hardness vs. energy, that is a simple thing to say, but the RAW doesn`t say anything like that.
even if one stubbornly insists that energy is run thru it´s own Hardness before the normal Hardness stage, that leaves a major problem with RAW: if ` Energy attacks deal half damage to most objects. Divide the damage by 2 before applying the object's hardness.` is supposed to refer to an independent Hardness step, then ´before applying Hardness´ no longer functions to describe the order-of-operations relationship between Energy Hardness and regular Hardness. 0.5x-H-H or (0.5x-2H) is not the same as (x-H)·(0.5)-H or 0.5x-1.5H, therefore the order of operations matters yet that is missing from the RAW if you want to go with that interpretation.
The phrase ´hot knife thru butter´ would apply here, and for harder subsances, I don´t see why other effects couldn´t weaken stronger materials... melting, making brittle, etc. substances don´t have the same properties at all temperatures.
EXACTLY! Which is reflected in their HARDNESS, and suceptibility (taking FULL DAMAGE) from certain energy types. The knife itself would be penetrating hardness, and the heat is ALSO adding its own damage.
If I simply lay the hot knife on the butter, the heat alone would be enough to penetrate the hardness and eat away at the hp.
If I smack a knife into butter the force is enough to cut through hardness and damage the butter.
But using a frozen knife?
Well the frost alone wouldn't do squat.
And the frost wouldn;t assist the force of the blow. A frozen knife and a room temperature knife? negligible difference.
Thanks for your agreement.
If you want to penetrate stone and other hard materials, you need to hit HARD and with something BIG. Hitting rock with a flaming dagger just wont be as effeicient at chipping away as a pick... and a flaming pick would make little to no difference.
The phrase ´hot knife thru butter´ would apply here, and for harder subsances, I don´t see why other effects couldn´t weaken stronger materials... melting, making brittle, etc. substances don´t have the same properties at all temperatures.EXACTLY! Which is reflected in their HARDNESS, and suceptibility (taking FULL DAMAGE) from certain energy types. The knife itself would be penetrating hardness, and the heat is ALSO adding its own damage.
If I simply lay the hot knife on the butter, the heat alone would be enough to penetrate the hardness and eat away at the hp.
If I smack a knife into butter the force is enough to cut through hardness and damage the butter.
But using a frozen knife?
Well the frost alone wouldn't do squat.
And the frost wouldn;t assist the force of the blow. A frozen knife and a room temperature knife? negligible difference.
Thanks for your agreement.
If you want to penetrate stone and other hard materials, you need to hit HARD and with something BIG. Hitting rock with a flaming dagger just wont be as effeicient at chipping away as a pick... and a flaming pick would make little to no difference.
That and butter has no hardness.
Unless you freeze it.
Yes I do think about these sort of things.
What I'm saying is it should be applied to each effect.Just to clarify, is this ´should´´ as in ´what the game should be like ideally´ or as in ´(how you read) the RAW´?
I feel that the energy damage off of the weapon is a seperate instance of damage than the weapon attack that simply rides off of the weapon connecting. It's an "energy attack" that hits at the same time the weapon hits, and as such isn't actually weapon damage -- hence why it cuts through things that the weapon doesn't, and why it's stymied by things that don't stop the weapon (also a part of why it isn't increased with a critical hit -- which is not the same reason a sneak attack isn't increased on a critical hit -- sneak attack is an augment of the weapon damage and hence would apply with the weapon damage to the object against hardness).
I brought up DR simply to illustrate how weapon damage and carrier effects like frost (or whatever) don't necessarily "add" to the weapon damage instead "adding" damage of a new sort to the attack itself.
I see Hardness as a combined DR and Energy Resistance(universal) in *most* aspects -- with certain objects (as defined by the GM) having weaknesses against specific energy and weapon types while having complete resistance to other specific energy and weapon types (again as defined by the GM).
For example I could easily see a GM saying that no matter how much damage the arrow does it isn't really going to have an impact on the stone wall, while I could understand the same GM saying that using a heavy pick on the same stone wall will bypass most if not all the hardness.
Energy Attacks are mostly the same way -- I can understand a stone wall not going down to flaming damage while the same stone might easily (relatively speaking) fall to the acid damage of a dagger even while the dagger itself can't do anything to the stone.
That is the key part to all of this for me, and I'll try and explain this point a bit more clearly:
Basically it boils down to the mathmatical order of operations. Since the hardness is applied to part of the equation and not the whole equation we can't factor the hardness out -- it has to be applied to each part that it applies to but not the others.
We must check for the following:
1. Does the weapon ignore the hardness?
2. Does the energy damage ignore the hardness?
Which gives us 4 outcomes:
1. Weapon does not ignore hardness energy damage does not ignore hardness
2. Weapon damage ignores hardness energy damage does not ignore hardness
3. Weapon damage does not ignore hardness energy damage does ignore hardness
4. Weapon damage ignores hardness energy damage ignores hardness
At no point can we actually factor out hardness and apply it to all effects at the end of the adding mathmatically speaking.
Please note that if an energy damage ignores hardness it would ignore all effects of hardness (namely that the damage is reduce by 1/2) since hardness is treated like it isn't there (since that is what ignore means).
While I'm of the camp that believes that hardness should be applied separately to both physical damage and to energy damage, I'm also a down to earth realist. The number of situations where those extra 1 - 3 points of damage (since elemental rider damage will rarely be greater than that) will actually matter in terms of bypassing hardness/dealing damage are pretty minuscule, given the number of random variables that have to fall in line, namely:
1) An individual damaging an object and/or attempting to sunder, with
2) A weapon that deals energy damage, and
3) The amount of damage dealt has to be 2 or lower than the hardness of the object.
I state this because it's been my experience that most sundering attempts with adamantine weaponry will succeed within a single blow (the logic of this is attenuated, but basically, I've never run into a situation where a player chooses to Sunder but doesn't have the Improved Sunder feat and/or isn't a Strength based meleeist, which means they'll deal quite a bit of damage anyway). Thus, the situations where hardness actually matters as a "defensive" precaution are fairly rare.
Thus, we're talking about a very niche situation - one I will readily admit I have never been privy to since the advent of 3rd edition. So, in practice, any interpretation is honestly going to be the correct one - at least in my group(s).
Of course, others may have a different experience.
|
Just checked. You are correct, sir, it is the Archer.But you can do so only at a -4 to your CMB. So if you want to take an ADDITIONAL penalty to use Vital Strike, you may.
And, again, each time you apply damage, you apply hardness...
The real power in Trick Shot is not when the sunder is used on a weapon but when used against an enemy wand carried or worn. (Though this might be cool and relatively easy to do in order to suppress enemy archers as bows are just as vulnerable to sundering as wands).
Both projectile weapons and wands have a Hardness of 5 with Hit Points of 5. With a decent archer, you will be able to take out either wands or bows at range against enemies relatively easy. And BAB and strength are both important parts of CMD. Wizards' generally have a poor CMD.
Of course, a wand is almost always a charged item; if you destroy it - its magical properties can't be repaired with Make Whole.
Still - it's a great option for an archer to keep in mind. Trick Shot is powerful whether used to disarm or sunder.
If your party's Wizard has got you down with his Wand of Lightning? Try a NPC foe with Trick Shot to make things interesting. Wand of Cure Light Wounds making things too easy? Trick Shot has the "cure" for that wand, too. :)
I wouldn't make a habit of it though; players are NOT happy when their gear is irretrievably destroyed.