Can you break walls with melee weapons given enough time? Walls have hardness and HP for a reason, though presumably (primarily) for sieges and the like. Is it unreasonable though for AM BARBARIAN to ragelancepounce his way through a stone wall? What if he just smashed it in with his greataxe?
I'm going over the rules here, specifically [url"http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/environment/dungeons#TOC-Walls"]table 13-1 on page 411 of the CRB (presented via d20pfsrd.com)[/url], and I gotta say, there's not much evidence to the contrary.
Now before I go any further, let me say that I'm not going to cheese the hell out of this; I am not making the claim that you can go around tearing down castles in mere minutes with a melee weapon. What I am saying is that, as I understand these rules, a PC could theoretically carve a pathway through solid stone with melee weapons.
Also, I don't see this working with anything but adamantine. The reasoning hinges on this: "Weapons fashioned from adamantine have a natural ability to bypass hardness when sundering weapons or attacking objects, ignoring hardness less than 20." (Emphasis mine, of course)
While I would normally agree with most people who balk at the idea of hitting a stone wall with bladed implement such as an axe, in the case of adamantine, it doesn't seem to be an issue. The rules say that it ignores any hardness less than 20. This means that any object it strikes takes full damage from the weapon. Objects do not deal damage in return when they are being smashed, and if they did, I doubt they could get through the 20 hardness of an adamantine weapon.
This is all, of course, stemming from the unfortunately named "Adamantine Katana" thread.
Now... I think I made an error in calculating the walls hit points in my example in that thread, though. The things throwing me off are the column labeled "Typical Thickness" and the note attached to the Hit Points column that says the HP given represents a 10'x10' area. I take this to mean a 10'x10'x1' wall, like a panel. This would actually change my stance from "Yeah, but it would take a while; do you have the time?" to "smash away" because 1 foot is much less than the length of a longsword. Granted not all walls will only be one foot thick, but if that's the basis for HP, then this calculation gets easier.
NOTE: I am aware of of this clause...
Ineffective Weapons
Certain weapons just can't effectively deal damage to certain objects. For example, a bludgeoning weapon cannot be used to damage a rope. Likewise, most melee weapons have little effect on stone walls and doors, unless they are designed for breaking up stone, such as a pick or hammer.
... but I think that the difference between a steel axe head's effectiveness and the effectiveness of an adamantine axe head is in the special material.
Weigh in on this, forumites. I would like to hear your number crunching and rationale on this.
Can you break walls with melee weapons given enough time?
Sure, as long as the weapon is effective. That's a DM call, though.
My take: An adamantine pick, no problem. An adamantine dagger? Maybe eventually. Depends on the wall, too. If you're trying to tunnel through solid rock, it's going to take a very long time. If you're trying to bust through a thin partition, then it's totally doable.
Reward the players for creative thinking. If they abuse it, then it stops working so well, or has tragic consequences. It's easy enough to balance, given the highly variable time/effort/noise of breaking through rock, especially in an inhabited dungeon/fort/crypt.
Maybe with a gnome hooked hammer or something similar as a standard weapon, as it is a mining instrument which was trained with and modified to be effective in battle. Other than that adamantine (or at least the +5 for it's equivalence) would be required due to the inappropriateness of the tool.
Realize that your weapons have hardness and hit points too, and those can be sundered (essentially what you are trying to do to the wall). If it's an ineffective form to accomplish the task, however, it just won't work without a LOT of help and time.
Also note that you cannot sunder a weapon with an enhancement value greater than your own. I think this is a hardness issue as the hardness of a weapon or armor increases by 2 for every +1 enhancement (thus why a +5 steel weapon acts like adamantine, I think, as both have a hardness of 20).
And as for the object not dealing damage to the weapon, that's presumably because of the hardness of the weapon as well. But even at that, a tool specifically designed to damage a substance still wears out, so if the damage dealt exceeds the sum of the hardnesses of both the weapon and the object and the weapon wasn't designed for the task, I'd say the weapon would take some of that extra damage, just not enough to break it in most cases.
Granted the last two paragraphs are entirely my own speculation, but it seems to make sense and it it how I might adjudicate the situation if it ever came up. It is not actually written anywhere in PFSRD.
But to sum up, you might be able to take out a wooden wall with an axe or a thin brick and mortar wall with a sledge or warhammer, given the time, but not with a scythe. But if it's made of large granite blocks and reinforced with an internal infrastructure you probably won't even scratch it with any of those tools. However that mining pick might get the job done if you can avoid the hail of flaming arrows and burning pitch long enough, and if it's adamantine your job just got that much easier.
Just do what sounds right and have fun with it.
Other than that adamantine (or at least the +5 for it's equivalence) would be required due to the inappropriateness of the tool.
A +4 weapon can bypass DR/Adamantine, but does not have the ability to ignore hardness, like an actual adamantine weapon does.
Also note that you cannot sunder a weapon with an enhancement value greater than your own.
This was removed in errata.
Page 468—In the Weapons Section, delete the Damaging Magic Weapons paragraph. Add the following paragraph in its place:
Hardness and Hit Points: Each +1 of a magic weapon’s enhancement bonus adds +2 to its hardness and +10 to its hit points. See also Table 7–12 on page 175.
Oh, and looking at the table you referenced, I believe that the HP stated are for a section 10ft x 10ft x the typical thickness stated in the wall's entry, and you will be losing damage/hit equal to the hardness of that material unless you have some way of overcoming it (adamantine/smasher rage power/etc).
So while you might be able to dig a 3ft wide tunnel 10ft through hewn stone after dealing 540 dmg (not accounting for any damage loss from hardness), it will be a bit tight if you want to fight through that hole, maybe costing you your Dex mod to AC or something similar, according to the DM.
And even then the highest DPR I've seen so far was about 70, so even ignoring hardness you are looking at about 8 rounds, or just under one minute, assuming you have either an adamantine weapon or an appropriate tool. And no crits against objects, so trying the max dmg on one hit tactic (as per coup-de-gras, but on an object) probably won't get you any better. Not to mention that is based on a 20th lvl build, I believe.
DR and Hardness are virtual equivalents, but yes, you are correct, Grick, they are technically different and the rules only specify DR/adamantine. In any case, adamantine is cheaper.
I was not aware of the errata issue, however. I'm guessing it was in one of the later printings, because it was not in the printing or errata I had.
Please note that I recognize the need for slashing weapons to be made of adamantine for this to be a viable tactic. Optimal choice for getting through a stone wall? Probably not. Stealthy, definitely not, nor is it efficient as far as a use of time goes.
Some of the replies already have given me the impression that I did not touch on the adamantine issue, but I am certain that I laid it out in my original post, long as it may have been. Without the special property of ignoring hardness, a longsword (1d8+Str vs 8 hardness) would have great difficulty even scratching stone, but when you remove the hardness of the stone as a factor, the stone loses hit points at a far greater pace per swing.
I also challenge the notion that attempting to strike stone with a slashing weapon deals damage to the weapon. As a DM, I would probably make something up, but RAW provides no clues that I can find to how to adjudicate damage to a weapon beyond it being actively sundered. I do not disagree that the weapons SHOULD take damage (unless it's adamantine), but RAW does not support this.
I think the real question is how "real" you want your game to be. By RAW, the only thing stopping you from destroying walls with your adamantine weapons that I know of is the ineffective weapons clause you quoted. If slicing a new portal in a stone wall with your sword is too over the top for your game, then don't allow it. If slicing said portal with your sword forged out of sci-fi/fantasy metal from another world seems to be on par with gnomish sorcerers accomplishing the same thing via dimension door, or is an appropriate level of cool, then allow it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Who cares what RAW supports? RAW can't accommodate every idiot thing a player might try. And for crying out loud, being a slave to RAW is for Rules lawyers and fools of GMs. You may hate the idea, but without Rule Zero, a game is a sterile box, devoid of possibility.
I have already made my ruling. I want feedback. I make extensive use of rule zero, and I happen to think that without RAW, there would be no need for the product to exist. I believe it's best to understand RAW so as to make better judgment calls when using rule zero. You may hate the idea but I believe the two can coexist.
People, I just want a discussion. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything; I have already made up my mind. I want someone to try and change it. I want alternative viewpoints to consider, different rulings, other ways of interpreting RAW.
Just because I have already used rule zero to make my determination does not mean I have come to the most favorable conclusion already.
|
Who cares what RAW supports? RAW can't accommodate every idiot thing a player might try. And for crying out loud, being a slave to RAW is for Rules lawyers and fools of GMs. You may hate the idea, but without Rule Zero, a game is a sterile box, devoid of possibility.I have already made my ruling. I want feedback. I make extensive use of rule zero, and I happen to think that without RAW, there would be no need for the product to exist. I believe it's best to understand RAW so as to make better judgment calls when using rule zero. You may hate the idea but I believe the two can coexist.
*slowclap* I love this approach to DMing and its one I use (even if I do get labeled rules lawyer, despite my willingness to go against RAW).
People, I just want a discussion. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything; I have already made up my mind. I want someone to try and change it. I want alternative viewpoints to consider, different rulings, other ways of interpreting RAW.Just because I have already used rule zero to make my determination does not mean I have come to the most favorable conclusion already.
I would probably offer a compromise. With a suitable knowledge (engineering) check they can do reasonable damage with normally ineffective weapons (say half damage). Without, they can do pitiful damage (1/10th).
If the wall is relatively thin (such as 1ft thick walls), the blade is longer than the wall is thick, and that blade is adamantine, I would probably allow them to just cut their way through by carving an outline of a doorway (though this will still take a few rounds). Otherwise, I would say that as they cut they have to stop to shift rubble for a few rounds so that they can access the deeper parts of the area they're cutting through (in other words, they're mining with an inappropriate tool).
If they really do start mining, a knowledge (engineering) check may be necessary to recognize cave-in risks.
In other words: Go with rule of cool when the rules don't contradict you.
Mebbe merge with this thread.
Or this one, from just recently
Basically, the rules on sundering and breaking objects aren't very robust, and heavily weighted in favor of letting PCs be like John Henry.
If you want to really make a wall a barrier, you need to modify the rules, elaborate on them, or handwave it with 'awesome magic wards' or somesuch. A big part of it, imo, is how there's no risk of the weapon being used itself being at risk of being damaged in a sunder/attack object attempt - you can smack a sword against a stone wall for a week, and by raw it won't ever dull or break even if it can't harm the wall. But also big is how hardness isn't much of an obstical in any event - even if you only get a few points damage in every few rounds, since you can try every 6 sencond round, it'll still only take a matter of a few minutes to destroy a great depth of material.
If someone in a game really truly tried to do this, I'd point out that the rules for damaging objects go in both directions.
After all, if you bang together two objects really hard, they *both* get damaged if they're of roughtly the same hardness.
Now, tools designed for something (like an axe for chopping wood) are made to avoid this issue. But a sword against a stone wall? Good luck with that sword lasting more than a few minutes. Even if it is adamantine - after all, an adamantine sword is not a lightsaber.
If someone in a game really truly tried to do this, I'd point out that the rules for damaging objects go in both directions.
After all, if you bang together two objects really hard, they *both* get damaged if they're of roughtly the same hardness.
Now, tools designed for something (like an axe for chopping wood) are made to avoid this issue. But a sword against a stone wall? Good luck with that sword lasting more than a few minutes. Even if it is adamantine - after all, an adamantine sword is not a lightsaber.
That's the way the rule probably should work, but that's not how it's written. I think that's part of the problem. According to the rules, beating your sword against a stone wall doesn't risk damaging it. A wall with a 8 hardness is no different than a creature with a DR 8/- as far as the weapon's concerned. Likewise if you sunder a weapon you don't risk your own weapon being sundered in the process, despite the fact that the other weapon can do the same thing right back next turn. The attacking object is immune to physics, only the defending thing has to worry. The only thing the rule say is just that some weapons might be ineffective against some types of objects, DM discretion.
I can see why they did it that way, trying to keep it simple, but simple over here causes problems over there.
... The only thing the rule says is just that some weapons might be ineffective against some types of objects, DM discretion.
I can see why they did it that way, trying to keep it simple, but simple over here causes problems over there.
That's exactly the source of the problem in most of these discussions. The entire system is intended to be refereed by an actual person who will do things that make sense, yet many people want to treat the rules as some sort of absolute universal law regardless of whether it makes any sense at all.
The thing that makes "common sense rules use" complicated is when they (the Paizo design team) create rules that codify things that make no sense. For example, we have always played that characters could strike at creatures with reach (though they'd have to ready an action to do so) because that made sense. When Paizo added the Strike Back feat, they created a rule that makes no sense - that something can physically strike you yet somehow you have absolutely no way of hitting it no matter what you do.
Thus, it's harder to argue for things to make sense when there's other things that are rules that not only don't make sense, but go against common sense.
I have no problem with PCs trying to bust down a wall. If it is thick stone that they are hacking at with a sword I might damage their weapons. Still there are plenty of drawbacks to this kind of method (as noted above). More importantly, if noone makes an appropriate knowledge (engineering) check to figure out where to hit...
I do not think the RAW is designed to accommodate this situation. If so, no attempt to accurately simulate the physics of knocking down a wall was exercised.
I find that hard to believe as game designers are generally intelligent analytic people. Simply, if the situation calls for a character with the adamantine sword trying to cut through a wall of stone, common sense needs to dictate. If a particular GM is interested in a world where only cool unbeleivable things can happen then sure let the character cut through. If however some plausibility for the world is required, the character should quit relying on the sword as a sapping tool.
I find it odd that its ok for a spell caster to use a spell to get through a wall in one round, but if a melee character wanted to get through the wall that's badwrongnofun. Why the double standards here? Is it cool and fun? Yes. Does it ruin the game? No. Just allow it and move on.
I find it odd that its ok for a spell caster to use a spell to get through a wall in one round, but if a melee character wanted to get through the wall that's badwrongnofun. Why the double standards here? Is it cool and fun? Yes. Does it ruin the game? No. Just allow it and move on.
Yea, ultimatly I see the potential problem as really on the other end, on the wall side.
Sometimes, John Henry tunneling through the mountain with his sledge hammer in each hand is epic fun. Mythology is full of that stuff, so it's totally appropriate to a fantasy game. But other times you want the dungeon door that needs the special key or riddle to solve. Or a maze of passages they need to follow to find their way though. Fantasy also has a lot of that, so you'd also want it in a fantasy game.
The rules pretty strong on the John Henry side, but are pretty weak on the door/wall side. For example, stuff like how locks have hardness 15 while the iron door they lock would only have a hardness 10, or that there are no provisions for possibly damaging your weapon if you use it to tunnel. There are provisions for reinforced walls, but they just increase the hit points, not the hardness, and since damage is dealt in 6 second incriments, that doesn't really do the trick. Likewise, same goes for the Magic side - lots of ways magic your way past something, not as many countermeasures when you need them that don't involve deus ex ad hoc.
Basically, the rules are kind of weak in this area, and like a lot have said, it's something GMs need to be aware of and should have some house rules in place, I think, *before* players use the RAW they have the right to think is available to them to bust in somewhere the GM may have mistakenly planned they woudn't be able to just like that.
|
I find it odd that its ok for a spell caster to use a spell to get through a wall in one round, but if a melee character wanted to get through the wall that's badwrongnofun. Why the double standards here? Is it cool and fun? Yes. Does it ruin the game? No. Just allow it and move on.
I also don't see casters trying to tunnel through a wall with a lightning bolt spell.
Right tools for the right job. I am okay with the sword doing some damage to the wall (like lightning bolt should also do some damage to the wall), but it will not be as effective as a pick-axe or hammer. I may rule that the sword, when doing slash damage, only does 1/2 damage to the wall.
edit to add:
don't short the pick-axe user their coolness for having the right tool to do the job by having the sword wielder to the same damage amounts.
@asphestos The sad part is though the wizard can just avoid your super special riddle door or what ever because he isn't Gandalf he has spells to tunnel through stone or teleport or whatever the party needs.
