|
And I thought I was the only one to read This essay
In truth some things don't add up but that's mostly things the creators couldn't get good info on for lack of experience or statistics, like to hit DCs.
But in general PF upped the power level of everyone, and in 3.0 Einstien was a level 5 (which is rated at being a once or twice in a lifetime thing to occur on the planet), which is why I prefer bell curve rolls instead (3d6 vs d20) a d20 seems to evenly broad to me compared to reality.
Of course back to the OP, First I wouldn't worry about it to much but if you still want to you could a d6, 1-4 lands on desired square 5-6 then rolls a d10 for which square is hit (1-2 for one square closer to caster, continue clockwise with 6-7 for one square further away) adds a little bit of varience to it without being ridiculous and you can easily say the variance represents everyone moving rather then the wizard missing target.
@Banjax I like your idea but it would a metamagic feat I think (unless this occurs because of enclosed spaces, which should spread to fill the same number of squares but deals more damage to the original area because of increased pressure while dealing normal damage to the extended area)
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
[and a 6th level Fighter can tear his way through a stone wall with his bare hands (1d3 unarmed, +4 strength, +2 weapon specialization, +1 weapon training, +2 power attack, 2 attacks per round, -8 damage per hit due to hardness = 6 damage per round of beating a stone object, stone has 15 hp/inch of thickness, so in 1 minute a Fighter can destroy a 5 ft. space of stone wall 4 inches thick)
This is not true, unless your GM wants it to be true for some reason. Fist against a stone wall are going to fall into "Ineffective weapons" cathegory.
PAge 174 of core rulebook:
"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."
A 6th level fighter has no chance to break a stone wall with his fist. Or with his longsword, for that matter. In the same way, he can't cut a rope with a club either.
If you use lifting to determine someone's strength, people would have much higher strength scores than you would expect. I sit behind a desk all day and would still land at 16-18 strength based on the chart. I had an uncle who would have been a 24 STR based on carrying and about a 34 STR based on lifting. That's a rough guess since I don't know how much the car weighed.
Your uncle can't lift 1400lb off the ground (which is the maximum dead lift for 24 strength), unless he is superman. The world's record deadlift raw (that means without help from suits) is 1050 pounds, by Benedict Magnusson. This is big Benni
And somewhat I doubt you can power clean 300lb over your head (which is STR 18). If you can, you could compete in the olimpic games.
But what's the point of that? Are you trying to discourage blasting? If you do that, you might as well have all ranged attacks roll to hit someone else if they miss. They're similar principals.I'm thinking about doing that also.
I'm kind of a simulationist.
This game sucks for simulation.
As an example you use shields to block attacks in the game, but if a giant or dragon swung at you and you tried to use a shield to block it, your arm and possibly the shield would both be broken.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
[and a 6th level Fighter can tear his way through a stone wall with his bare hands (1d3 unarmed, +4 strength, +2 weapon specialization, +1 weapon training, +2 power attack, 2 attacks per round, -8 damage per hit due to hardness = 6 damage per round of beating a stone object, stone has 15 hp/inch of thickness, so in 1 minute a Fighter can destroy a 5 ft. space of stone wall 4 inches thick)This is not true, unless your GM wants it to be true for some reason. Fist against a stone wall are going to fall into "Ineffective weapons" cathegory.
PAge 174 of core rulebook:
"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."A 6th level fighter has no chance to break a stone wall with his fist. Or with his longsword, for that matter. In the same way, he can't cut a rope with a club either.
A fighter's unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage (and can do so lethally) with power that exceeds that not only dwarfs a warhammer (which cannot deal damage to a stone wall without its owner possessing at least a 12 Strength normally), but even moreso than that of a 2d6 sledgehammer.
And the rules would be right as well. Most melee weapons do have little effect on a stone wall or door. Hardness 8 is a lot of hardness. That makes a stone wall or door virtually immune to anything except 2 handed weapons. Longswords, warhammers, spears, scythes, and so forth simply cannot hurt them. Best case scenario, even 2 handed weapons cannot effectively damage them, and even then it is only on a lucky strike unless the wielder is able to put an exceptional amount of force behind the strikes.
However, the fighter can punch his way through a stone wall, because the stone wall has hardness, HP, and no special immunities to weapons (and the weapons it describes as being useful for breaking them down are two-handed and have no special abilities that make them suitable for this otherwise) and the Fighter is just that powerful. He is strong enough, trained in making and sustaining exceptionally powerful punches that defy the human norm. He can punch a wall down. That's why he's a 6th level badass who can wrestle and punch hydras to death.
EDIT: Likewise, shooting a door down with a bow is near impossible. Ranged weapons suffer a 1/2 damage before applying hardness. Which means even if you can shoot a bow with a 1d8+8 damage bonus, the maximum damage you could roll would be 16, divided by 2 = 8 vs Hardness 8. No damage.
|
|
two things
@Glendwyr Einstien was a level 5 expert by 3.0 standards. Level 5s come around about once a century. You are lucky if you know a 3rd level person. Pathfinder is way more powerful then 3.0 so not likely to have had anyone reach level 5 in reality by Pathfinder standards.
Item 2, I have seen monks repeatedly punch a brick wall(granted with some sheets of newspaper) and leave a hole full of brick dust. So punching a rock and damaging it would be possible though would require extensive training to accomplish.
I agree with the general notion that characters above about 5th-6th level would be staggeringly rare in a mock up of Earth as we know it. I think trying to assign levels to actual historical figures is an exercise in lunacy. We can't make such precise declarations as "Einstein was a level 5 expert" simply because real people aren't actually D&D/Pathfinder characters.
So while I'd agree that modeling Einstein as a level 20 character is idiotic, I'm quite comfortable saying "6th level, +/- 2." Or "5th level, +/- 1." But not "5th level, the end." That's taking the numbers that enter into your simulation entirely too seriously.
I think the Alexandrian article is being generous calling Einstein 5th level.
Item 2, I have seen monks repeatedly punch a brick wall(granted with some sheets of newspaper) and leave a hole full of brick dust. So punching a rock and damaging it would be possible though would require extensive training to accomplish.
Indeed. Hence, a 6th level Fighter. A 6th level Fighter is a superhuman. He is both a PC heroic class, using heroic point buy, and is above the human norm in level. His class features such as weapon training, weapon specialization, incredible strength, and ability to maximize his damage with power attack all allow him the ability to punch through a stone wall.
You have to remember, this is not your typical man punching a stone wall. A human only deals 1d3 damage with their unarmed strike. Maybe 1d3+1 if they are of above average strength. Even the mightiest a man can get at 1st level (18 base, +2 racial for 20 strength) means that your maximum unarmed strike damage is 8. Can't break a wall. Nope. Pretty hopeless. Back to the drawing board to design a hammer.
BUT YOU ARE A 6TH LEVEL FIGHTER! You punch with the destructive force of a jackhammer. You can beat a troll into unconsciousness with your fists. Want proof? A troll has an AC 16 and around 60 hp. Our 6th level Fighter has around +12/+7 to hit easily enough (+6 BAB, +4 Strength, +1 weapon focus, +1 weapon training) with his bare hands. His damage per round with each punch is around 10.8 damage. Even with the troll's regeneration 5, the fighter is making 5 points of headway each round beating the troll senseless. The fighter could slay the troll with a torch in 1 hand to negate the troll's regeneration and punching him to death with the other.
However, the fighter can punch his way through a stone wall, because the stone wall has hardness, HP, and no special immunities to weapons (and the weapons it describes as being useful for breaking them down are two-handed and have no special abilities that make them suitable for this otherwise) and the Fighter is just that powerful. He is strong enough, trained in making and sustaining exceptionally powerful punches that defy the human norm. He can punch a wall down. That's why he's a 6th level badass who can wrestle and punch hydras to death.
Of course it does have special inmunities to weapons. They are described in page 174, under "ineffective weapons", which clearly states that to be able to damage a stone masonry wall, you need weapons *specially designed to damage stone*, such as picks or hammers. No, you cant destroy a wall with a rapier just because you have STR 18 and greater specialization rapier. It's *impossible*, because the rules say so. It's exactly like trying to cut a rope with a club.
EDIT: Likewise, shooting a door down with a bow is near impossible. Ranged weapons suffer a 1/2 damage before applying hardness. Which means even if you can shoot a bow with a 1d8+8 damage bonus, the maximum damage you could roll would be 16, divided by 2 = 8 vs Hardness 8. No damage.
Even if you have lvl 15, a +4 composite bow, str 18, and deadly aim to add another +10 dmg, you can't shoot a door down with a bow. Because the Developers, in their infinite wisdom, gave us a rule in page 174, "ineffective weapons", that say some weapons are ineffective against some objects. They didn't make an exhaustive list (which would be hundreds of pages long, given the amount of possible items in the world), but they gave us a few examples (like the stone walls needing hammers or picks, or the rope needing a slashing weapon). Any DM worth his salt, would rule that you can't shoot down doors (or a stone wall, for that matter) with normal sized arrows.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[and a 6th level Fighter can tear his way through a stone wall with his bare hands (1d3 unarmed, +4 strength, +2 weapon specialization, +1 weapon training, +2 power attack, 2 attacks per round, -8 damage per hit due to hardness = 6 damage per round of beating a stone object, stone has 15 hp/inch of thickness, so in 1 minute a Fighter can destroy a 5 ft. space of stone wall 4 inches thick)This is not true, unless your GM wants it to be true for some reason. Fist against a stone wall are going to fall into "Ineffective weapons" cathegory.
PAge 174 of core rulebook:
"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."A 6th level fighter has no chance to break a stone wall with his fist. Or with his longsword, for that matter. In the same way, he can't cut a rope with a club either.
It doesn't say that it is ineffective, it just says that it has little effect. Why? Because you still have to deal with it's hardness when the average weapon does a d8. It says hammers and pickaxes are more effective, because they are under "Vulnerability to Certain Attacks" category as they are going to do double damage to it with that weapon.
Oh and as for that rapier against stone walls comment. It already says that piercing weapons can't destroy objects. The same doesn't apply to every other weapon type.
BUT YOU ARE A 6TH LEVEL FIGHTER! You punch with the destructive force of a jackhammer. You can beat a troll into unconsciousness with your fists. Want proof? A troll has an AC 16 and around 60 hp. Our 6th level Fighter has around...
That's not relevant. Sure, the 6th level is a mighty hero. He could beat trolls into unconsciousness, and grapple hydras. But he is still, RAW, an ineffective weapon against wall of stones, because he is not "a weapon specially constructed to damage stone"
That same 6th level fighter with a rapier +1, weapon training, weapon specialization, and piranha strike, can do 1d6+8, shredding trolls, even with STR 10. It's enough damage to destroy a wall too. But he can't, because rapiers can't damage walls of stone. Attacking creatures and attacking objects have different rules, and objects have a special inmunity to weapon damage that is not efficient against them.
[and a 6th level Fighter can tear his way through a stone wall with his bare hands (1d3 unarmed, +4 strength, +2 weapon specialization, +1 weapon training, +2 power attack, 2 attacks per round, -8 damage per hit due to hardness = 6 damage per round of beating a stone object, stone has 15 hp/inch of thickness, so in 1 minute a Fighter can destroy a 5 ft. space of stone wall 4 inches thick)This is not true, unless your GM wants it to be true for some reason. Fist against a stone wall are going to fall into "Ineffective weapons" cathegory.
PAge 174 of core rulebook:
"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."A 6th level fighter has no chance to break a stone wall with his fist. Or with his longsword, for that matter. In the same way, he can't cut a rope with a club either.
It doesn't say that it isn't ineffective, it just says that it has little effect. Why? Because you still have to deal with it's hardness when the average weapon does a d8. It says hammers and pickaxes are more effective, because they are under "Vulnerability to Certain Attacks" category as they are going to do double damage to it with that weapon.
Oh and as for that rapier against stone walls comment. It already says that piercing weapons can't destroy objects. The same doesn't apply to every other weapon type.
Thank you Sauce. (^-^)
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
It doesn't say that it isn't ineffective, it just says that it has little effect. Why? Because you still have to deal with it's hardness when the average weapon does a d8. It says hammers and pickaxes are more effective, because they are under "Vulnerability to Certain Attacks" category as they are going to do double damage to it with that weapon.
No it doesn't. It's in the "ineffective weapons" paragraph, were it says a club cannot be used to damage a rope. Then it says likewise most melee weapons have little effect on stone walls.
Oh and as for that rapier against stone walls comment. It already says that piercing weapons can't destroy objects. The same doesn't apply to every other weapon type.
So a sabre, or scimitar, or scorpion whip can destroy a wall? What about kukris? Or war razors? what about a chakram, or combat scabbard, or 9 sections whips? And kerambits? Can you shred a wall of stone with a kerambit at level 4? Musket fire is Bludgeoning as well as piercing. Can you shoot down a wall of stone with *pistols* if you have point blank shot, Deadly Aim, weapon specialization, weapon training, and lvl 6 or so?
Or thrown hand axes? Can a war band of vikings, which are 4th level fighters, with weapon training axes, speceialization axe, and str 16 (15+1 from level 4) throw a volley of axes to a *castle* and *demolish* it? If so... what's the point of siege weapons?
No, you can't. Because there's a rule about ineffective weapons. And innefective weapons (such as a volley of hand axes) can't destroy walls
BUT YOU ARE A 6TH LEVEL FIGHTER! You punch with the destructive force of a jackhammer. You can beat a troll into unconsciousness with your fists. Want proof? A troll has an AC 16 and around 60 hp. Our 6th level Fighter has around...That's not relevant. Sure, the 6th level is a mighty hero. He could beat trolls into unconsciousness, and grapple hydras. But he is still, RAW, an ineffective weapon against wall of stones, because he is not "a weapon specially constructed to damage stone"
You have a RAW quote for that?
edit:You have a RAW quote saying someone can not punch through a wall, or are you extrapolating?
It doesn't say that it isn't ineffective, it just says that it has little effect. Why? Because you still have to deal with it's hardness when the average weapon does a d8. It says hammers and pickaxes are more effective, because they are under "Vulnerability to Certain Attacks" category as they are going to do double damage to it with that weapon.No it doesn't. It's in the "ineffective weapons" paragraph, were it says a club cannot be used to damage a rope. Then it says likewise most melee weapons have little effect on stone walls.
Oh and as for that rapier against stone walls comment. It already says that piercing weapons can't destroy objects. The same doesn't apply to every other weapon type.So a sabre, or scimitar, or scorpion whip can destroy a wall? What about kukris? Or war razors? what about a chakram, or combat scabbard, or 9 sections whips? And kerambits? Can you shred a wall of stone with a kerambit at level 4? Musket fire is Bludgeoning as well as piercing. Can you shoot down a wall of stone with *pistols* if you have point blank shot, Deadly Aim, weapon specialization, weapon training, and lvl 6 or so?
Or thrown hand axes? Can a war band of vikings, which are 4th level fighters, with weapon training axes, speceialization axe, and str 16 (15+1 from level 4) throw a volley of axes to a *castle* and *demolish* it? If so... what's the point of siege weapons?
No, you can't. Because there's a rule about ineffective weapons. And innefective weapons (such as a volley of hand axes) can't destroy walls
Little effect is not the same as no effect.
I agree it may ruin immersion to allows someone to use a longsword to punch a hole in a wall, but the rules don't say it can't be done.
All I am saying is that one should not try to use real life logic, and pass it off as a rule.
It doesn't say that it isn't ineffective, it just says that it has little effect. Why? Because you still have to deal with it's hardness when the average weapon does a d8. It says hammers and pickaxes are more effective, because they are under "Vulnerability to Certain Attacks" category as they are going to do double damage to it with that weapon.No it doesn't. It's in the "ineffective weapons" paragraph, were it says a club cannot be used to damage a rope. Then it says likewise most melee weapons have little effect on stone walls.
Oh and as for that rapier against stone walls comment. It already says that piercing weapons can't destroy objects. The same doesn't apply to every other weapon type.So a sabre, or scimitar, or scorpion whip can destroy a wall? What about kukris? Or war razors? what about a chakram, or combat scabbard, or 9 sections whips? And kerambits? Can you shred a wall of stone with a kerambit at level 4? Musket fire is Bludgeoning as well as piercing. Can you shoot down a wall of stone with *pistols* if you have point blank shot, Deadly Aim, weapon specialization, weapon training, and lvl 6 or so?
Or thrown hand axes? Can a war band of vikings, which are 4th level fighters, with weapon training axes, speceialization axe, and str 16 (15+1 from level 4) throw a volley of axes to a *castle* and *demolish* it? If so... what's the point of siege weapons?
No, you can't. Because there's a rule about ineffective weapons. And innefective weapons (such as a volley of hand axes) can't destroy walls
I'm reading that entry word for word. It says you can't use a club to damage rope, but most melee weapons have little effect on stone. It has little effect because you can barely damage it with a longsword if, say, you had 12 strength. A volley of hand axes probably won't damage it because non-siege weapon ranged attacks deal half damage to objects on top of already having to deal with it's hardness.
I'm reading that entry word for word. It says you can't use a club to damage rope, but most melee weapons have little effect on stone. It has little effect because you can barely damage it with a longsword if, say, you had 12 strength.
So, in your opinion, it says "most melee weapons have little effect on stone" it means "it follows the regular rules about hardiness, just like every other weapon against every other item". Why, then, do they make a paragraph about it? What's the point of the *rule* named ineffective weapons, if the effect of that rule is that there's no effect in that rule? If a longsword, used against, say, a wooden table, use regular hardiness and hit point damage, and when used against a wall, also use regular hardiness and hit point damage.... why there is a rule that says longswords are "inneffective" against walls?
I mean...
If the rule "ineffective weapon" does not exist, you do regular damage to the wall. They make a specific rule about it, and now... you do regular damage to the wall. What's the point of that rule then???
BTW, about the "6th level fighters are superheroes", it's not about level. You do 1d8+10 damage with your longsword to the wall, destroying it, if you are a level 1 barbarian with str 15, rage, power attack, and use the longsword two handed. That's a first level barbarian, with *common* array stats (13 in str), +2 racial bonus to str, power attack, and a regular, non magical longsword. IE: the lowest viking in the world.
A volley of hand axes probably won't damage it because non-siege weapon ranged attacks deal half damage to objects on top of already having to deal with it's hardness.
Cool. So the vikings cant demolish a castle *throwing* their hand axes, but they can demolish a castle *attacking it in melee*. ¿?¿?¿?
Little effect is not the same as no effect.I agree it may ruin immersion to allows someone to use a longsword to punch a hole in a wall, but the rules don't say it can't be done.
All I am saying is that one should not try to use real life logic, and pass it off as a rule.
I'm not using real life logic, I'm using a RAW reading of a rule in page 174 of the rulebook. "little effect" might not be the same as "no effect", but "little effect" is not the same as "regular effect. Completelly ignore this sentence and this paragraph, as it never existed, and keep doing regular damage with your longsword to stone walls, just like you do to, say, wooden chairs or rope scales".
I understand "little effect" as "you can scratch the wall, and leave marks, and maybe if you have a few *months* to carve it, you'll finally make a hole in it". So there is an effect (the scratch), but it's little, and inneffective (hence it's under "ineffective weapons", and not under "completelly effective weapons with a fluff sentence that has no meaning") If "little effect" does not mean "no effect" for you, what does it mean? What effect does this rule have in your world longswords (or kerambits, for that matter) against walls?
I'm reading that entry word for word. It says you can't use a club to damage rope, but most melee weapons have little effect on stone. It has little effect because you can barely damage it with a longsword if, say, you had 12 strength.So, in your opinion, it says "most melee weapons have little effect on stone" it means "it follows the regular rules about hardiness, just like every other weapon". Why, then, do they make a paragraph about it? What's the point of the *rule* named ineffective weapons, if the effect of that rule is that there's no effect in that rule?
I mean...
If the rule "ineffective weapon" does not exist, you do regular damage to the wall. They make a specific rule about it, and now... you do regular damage to the wall. What's the point of that rule then???
BTW, about the "6th level fighters are superheroes", it's not about level. You do 1d8+10 damage with your longsword to the wall, destroying it, if you are a level 1 barbarian with str 15, rage, power attack, and use the longsword two handed. That's a first level barbarian, with *common* array stats (13 in str), +2 racial bonus to str, power attack, and a regular, non magical longsword. IE: the lowest viking in the world.
A volley of hand axes probably won't damage it because non-siege weapon ranged attacks deal half damage to objects on top of already having to deal with it's hardness.Cool. So the vikings cant demolish a castle *throwing* their hand axes, but they can demolish a castle *attacking it in melee*. ¿?¿?¿?
They have a paragraph about it because they mention that there are better options for breaking stone, like a hammer that deals double damage to it. While metal has a higher hardness, a hammer or a pickaxe, or any other weapon for that matter doesn't get that benefit.
So what if the entire castle that you keep talking about was made out of thick, solid steel? Would that make more sense to you, then? The game isn't exactly perfect.
Even in a real world context, those 1d8+10 damaging vikings are some really, really hard hitting dudes.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
They have a paragraph about it because they mention that there are better options for breaking stone, like a hammer that deals double damage to it. While metal has a higher hardness, a hammer or a pickaxe, or any other weapon for that matter doesn't get that benefit.
So the *rule* about inneffective weapons is an inneffective rule. How ironic.
There's already a differnet rule in a different section for objects specially vulnerable to an attack (like paper to fire). That's different to the rule who talk about *inneffective weapons* against some objects.What does the rule *inneffective weapons* do? Nothing at all? Then why it's a rule? If a battle axe has the same ruling when trying to cut down a tree, than when trying to cut down a wall, why is it an "inneffective weapon" against a wall, with "little effect" on it?
So what if the entire castle that you keep talking about was made out of thick, solid steel?
But it's not. It's made of stone. It's, actually, the Chinise Great Wall. Being attacked by a group of mongol barbarians. Who can *demolish* it with their scimitars, by your rules. Unless you go to page 174 and read the "inneffective weapons" rule. They they need hammers, picks, and other similar items.
Sure, the game isn't perfect. But it becomes less perfect if people insist to ignore the rules that developers put in the book. Like, you know, the "inneffective weapons" paragraph.
So, a pair of 5th level fighters, with the close combat archetype, using kerambits, having str 10, weapon specialization, the special weapon training, and using piranha strike, do 1d3+10. With two weapon fighting, two of them can shred a wall of stone in a matter of seconds. ????
No, they don't. Hit points are an abstract. Those fighters aren't hitting like trucks, they aren't the equivalent of Wolverine with adamantium claws. They just attack very fast, know where and how to hit, and thus do *hit point damage* to other characters. That means other characters have do dodge a lot, get tired soon, and become weakened by the slashes and blood loss. It's *abstract* damage. When you translate that abstract damage to *objects*, that can't dodge, turn lethal blows into less dangerous blows, and all that things hit point mean, you go into a *different* issue. To represent this, there's a rule, Inneffective Weapons, which is there to tell you that, no matter how flashy your fighter moves his incredibly tiny and sharpened claw-shaped knife, you *can't* destroy a wall with it. Or with a scorpion Whip, or a combat scabbard, or a nunchaku, or a wooden club. Or your fists.
Little effect is not the same as no effect.I agree it may ruin immersion to allows someone to use a longsword to punch a hole in a wall, but the rules don't say it can't be done.
All I am saying is that one should not try to use real life logic, and pass it off as a rule.
I'm not using real life logic, I'm using a RAW reading of a rule in page 174 of the rulebook. "little effect" might not be the same as "no effect", but "little effect" is not the same as "regular effect. Completelly ignore this sentence and this paragraph, as it never existed, and keep doing regular damage with your longsword to stone walls, just like you do to, say, wooden chairs or rope scales".
I understand "little effect" as "you can scratch the wall, and leave marks, and maybe if you have a few *months* to carve it, you'll finally make a hole in it". So there is an effect (the scratch), but it's little, and inneffective (hence it's under "ineffective weapons", and not under "completelly effective weapons with a fluff sentence that has no meaning") If "little effect" does not mean "no effect" for you, what does it mean? What effect does this rule have in your world longswords (or kerambits, for that matter) against walls?
"Little effect" means the device being used is not the best tool for the job. The wall aleady has a high hardness, and most likely hundreds of HP. You can use a long sword, but it is a terrible idea. That does not mean that the longsword won't eventually make it through the wall in fanatasy land. No effect means literally on effect. It would be like trying to use rope to break the wall down.
Adamantine weapons ignore hardness up to 20. So if your weapon is not adamantine it just means you have to swing harder.
You could also just be an Ironskin Monk / Brother of the Seal, ignore some of the wall's Hardness and keep punching till it breaks.
Was this thread originally about breaking walls?
They have a paragraph about it because they mention that there are better options for breaking stone, like a hammer that deals double damage to it. While metal has a higher hardness, a hammer or a pickaxe, or any other weapon for that matter doesn't get that benefit.So the *rule* about inneffective weapons is an inneffective rule. How ironic.
There's already a differnet rule in a different section for objects specially vulnerable to an attack (like paper to fire). That's different to the rule who talk about *inneffective weapons* against some objects.What does the rule *inneffective weapons* do? Nothing at all? Then why it's a rule? If a battle axe has the same ruling when trying to cut down a tree, than when trying to cut down a wall, why is it an "inneffective weapon" against a wall, with "little effect" on it?
So what if the entire castle that you keep talking about was made out of thick, solid steel?But it's not. It's made of stone. It's, actually, the Chinise Great Wall. Being attacked by a group of mongol barbarians. Who can *demolish* it with their scimitars, by your rules. Unless you go to page 174 and read the "inneffective weapons" rule. They they need hammers, picks, and other similar items.
Sure, the game isn't perfect. But it becomes less perfect if people insist to ignore the rules that developers put in the book. Like, you know, the "inneffective weapons" paragraph.
So, a pair of 5th level fighters, with the close combat archetype, using kerambits, having str 10, weapon specialization, the special weapon training, and using piranha strike, do 1d3+10. With two weapon fighting, two of them can shred a wall of stone in a matter of seconds. ????
No, they don't. Hit points are an abstract. Those fighters aren't hitting like trucks, they aren't the equivalent of Wolverine with adamantium claws. They just attack very fast, know where and how to hit, and thus do *hit point damage* to other characters. That means other characters have do...
The rule isn't ineffective. It just flat out says you can't damage rope with a club. It does say other weapons have little effect against stone walls, which leads me to believe that it can still be used, but barely. It should have just read that weapons can't be used against stone walls or doors if that's where they wanted to go with that. As far as the fire to paper comment. That's covered in the energy damage against objects section, not in the vulnerability section.
I don't know if those people are going to be rocking a +10 damage modifier against that wall, because real world people don't deal damage like that. Even if they did, even one section of that wall would have probably a few thousand hit points. Again, what if it were made out of metal? It still wouldn't make too much sense in any case.
Again, no one is ignoring rules. If something says it has little effect to it, it probably means the damage is going to be minimal.
Yeah, your right. The damage is an abstraction. I can just say "oh, well those guys are hitting that object are very quick and hitting it with such force that they can slightly damage it" and so what if they can damage it? They're not going to just destroy it in seconds, it has 8 hardness with loads of hit points.
What if they were wolverine? His claws would deal slashing damage, but the game wouldn't allow him to deal any damage no matter what his claws are made out of and how much damage he deals, right?
"Little effect" means the device being used is not the best tool for the job. The wall aleady has a high hardness, and most likely hundreds of HP. You can use a long sword, but it is a terrible idea. That does not mean that the longsword won't eventually make it through the wall in fanatasy land. No effect means literally on effect. It would be like trying to use rope to break the wall down.
So Little effect means nothing at all?
Let's say you have a longsword. You attack a wooden statue. You roll damage, substract hardiness, and do damage. Now you attack a stone statue. You do the same. What is the effect of the rule Inneffective weapons? Why is it a rule at all? What's the difference then between using a longsword, and using a pick (other than the pick does less damage)?
By the way, walls don't have "hundreds of hp", much less "thousands" as some people have said. The standard 1 feet masonry wall has 90 hp.
"Little effect" means the device being used is not the best tool for the job. The wall aleady has a high hardness, and most likely hundreds of HP. You can use a long sword, but it is a terrible idea. That does not mean that the longsword won't eventually make it through the wall in fanatasy land. No effect means literally on effect. It would be like trying to use rope to break the wall down.So Little effect means nothing at all?
Let's say you have a longsword. You attack a wooden statue. You roll damage, substract hardiness, and do damage. Now you attack a stone statue. You do the same. What is the effect of the rule Inneffective weapons? Why is it a rule at all? What's the difference then between using a longsword, and using a pick (other than the pick does less damage)?
By the way, walls don't have "hundreds of hp", much less "thousands" as some people have said. The standard 1 feet masonry wall has 90 hp.
It can't effectively deal damage to that stone statue like a hammer would. That wooden one would still be a bit hard, but it's easier due to it's lower hitpoints and hardness. It's not like that hammer is going to help any better.
It depends on how thick it is. Masonry is like bricks or something, much weaker than solid rock. Unworked stone thats 5 ft thick has 900 hit points.
The rule isn't ineffective. It just flat out says you can't damage rope with a club. It does say other weapons have little effect against stone walls, which leads me to believe that it can still be used, but barely. It should have just read that weapons can't be used against stone walls or doors if that's where they wanted to go with that. As far as the fire to paper comment. That's covered in the energy damage against objects section, not in the vulnerability section.
So it's only ineffective in the part about weapons against stone walls, then. Because you say the weapons can be used, but "barely". However, you let them roll damage normally. What's the difference, then? If Pathfinder 2.0 goes out, and they delete that rule, what's the difference in your example? In pathfinder 1.0, your longsword has "little effect" on stone walls. IT rolls damage, normally. In pathfinder 2.0, they delete the little effect sentence. Your longsword nows roll damage, normally. So, again... what does the rule do?
I don't know if those people are going to be rocking a +10 damage modifier against that wall, because real world people don't deal damage like that. Even if they did, even one section of that wall would have probably a few thousand hit points.
A section of a regular wall has 90 hp, per table 7-14 in page 175 of the core rulebook.
Against the Great Wall, it's just a matter of time. Half an hour or so, and the wall is down.And 1d8+10 damage is just enough to kill someone in one hit (kill, not leave him in the floor dying and bleeding to death). That happens in real life too.
Again, what if it were made out of metal? It still wouldn't make too much sense in any case.
I don't get it. What if the walls are made of metal? Then the GM decides which objects are subject to each attack. The Inneffective Weapons don't give you an exaustive list of objects that have innefective weapons against it, or what weapons are inneffective against what objects. It just say some weapons are inneffective to some objects, and let the game master to... you know... master the game. Just because the rule talks about "walls of stone" and "picks and warhammers" it doesn't mean you can use a scimitar against a wall of marble, or you can't use a sledge hammer against a wall of stone. Just like when it says you can't use a club against a rope, it doesn't mean you can use a club against a cord, just because it's not specified in the text.
Again, no one is ignoring rules. If something says it has little effect to it, it probably means the damage is going to be minimal.
So what's the effect then? I mean, other than fluff text. A sword hits a wooden chair. Then it hits a stone wall. It's effective against the wooden chair, but it's inneffective against the stone wall, it has little effect against it. What is this little effect? What's the difference between using a longsword, and using a warhammer?
Yeah, your right. The damage is an abstraction. I can just say "oh, well those guys are hitting that object are very quick and hitting it with such force that they can slightly damage it" and so what if they can damage it? They're not going to just destroy it in seconds, it has 8 hardness with loads of hit points.
It has hardiness 8 and 94 hitpoints. With 2 attacks each, doing 1d3+10 damage vs hardiness 8, two weapon fighting, they tear the wall in 5 rounds or so. At level 6, it goes down much faster, thanks to extra attacks.
What if they were wolverine? His claws would deal slashing damage, but the game wouldn't allow him to deal any damage no matter what his claws are made out of and how much damage he deals, right?
Being "slashing" or "bludgeoning" has nothing to do with this, it's decided weapon by weapon and object by object by the GM, using common sense. Not all bludgeoning weapons are effective against a wall (for example, shield bashing it is inneffective), and not all slashing weapons would be inneffective against a wall. For example, a six ton axe from a Titan would be effective against a wall. Wolverine claws are adamantium, which ignore hardness, and thus can be declared effective against the wall too.
It can't effectively deal damage to that stone statue like a hammer would. That wooden one would still be a bit hard, but it's easier due to it's lower hitpoints and hardness. It's not like that hammer is going to help any better.
so, again, it does nothing. Go to the page 174. Cut that paragraph. Leave the rest of the page (including vulnerability to certain attacks -which do not have an example about hammers and walls, but whatever-).
What's the difference, again? What's the difference between longsword being "inneffective" against the wall, or that rule being completelly removed from the book?
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh and as for that rapier against stone walls comment. It already says that piercing weapons can't destroy objects. The same doesn't apply to every other weapon type.
Btw, were does it says so? It would be hilarious that Picks can't destroy objects.
It can't effectively deal damage to that stone statue like a hammer would. That wooden one would still be a bit hard, but it's easier due to it's lower hitpoints and hardness. It's not like that hammer is going to help any better.
so, again, it does nothing. Go to the page 174. Cut that paragraph. Leave the rest of the page (including vulnerability to certain attacks -which do not have an example about hammers and walls, but whatever-).
What's the difference, again? What's the difference between longsword being "inneffective" against the wall, or that rule being completelly removed from the book?
I've said this already. It's mentioning weapons being ineffective against stone because you can use a hammer more effectively with double damage as an alternative. Every weapon is pretty ineffective against metal, but there isn't an option to deal double damage against it, that I'm aware of at least. If for some reason there were, metal would probably be mentioned, too. That's probably why they even have a section speaking about how to handle vulnerabilities, and that doesn't mean fire against paper. Energy damage has it's own section.
Oh and as for that rapier against stone walls comment. It already says that piercing weapons can't destroy objects. The same doesn't apply to every other weapon type.Btw, were does it says so? It would be hilarious that Picks can't destroy objects.
I can't find it. I coulda swore I've seen this somewhere. Oh well.
I've said this already. It's mentioning weapons being ineffective against stone because you can use a hammer more effectively with double damage as an alternative. Every weapon is pretty ineffective against metal, but there isn't an option to deal double damage against it, that I'm aware of at least. If for some reason there were, metal would probably be mentioned, too. That's probably why they even have a section speaking about how to handle vulnerabilities, and that doesn't mean fire against paper. Energy damage has it's own section.
So the rule about Inneffective Weapons does ... nothing. The rule about "Vulnerability to Damage" does double damage (although hammers and walls aren't mentioned, and I somewhat doubt a hammer does double damage and ignore hardness against a wall, but whatever). But what does the Inneffective Weapon rule do. I'm not asking what Vulnerability Damage rule would do to picks, but what does Inneffective weapons rule does to longswords. It does... nothing? If I go to the book, and delete the Inneffective weapon rule, but leave Vulnerability Weapon rule there... what's the change, for a longsword? Nothing at all? So, what's the rule doing to the Longsword (or a rapier, for that matter)? Why there is a rule called "inneffective weapons", when it does nothing at all? To reach a word count?
By the way, I don't think the vulnerability rule is for that. Although we don't have any example in this rule, I find it is for things that are really vulnerable.
For example: fire does half damage against most items. It does normal damage against partchment. But it does double damage and ignore hardness against dynamite.
I can't find it. I coulda swore I've seen this somewhere. Oh well.Oh and as for that rapier against stone walls comment. It already says that piercing weapons can't destroy objects. The same doesn't apply to every other weapon type.Btw, were does it says so? It would be hilarious that Picks can't destroy objects.
So, then, by your reading of the rules, the 5th level rapier user can take down a wall in a minute or so.
I've said this already. It's mentioning weapons being ineffective against stone because you can use a hammer more effectively with double damage as an alternative. Every weapon is pretty ineffective against metal, but there isn't an option to deal double damage against it, that I'm aware of at least. If for some reason there were, metal would probably be mentioned, too. That's probably why they even have a section speaking about how to handle vulnerabilities, and that doesn't mean fire against paper. Energy damage has it's own section.So the rule about Inneffective Weapons do ... nothing. The rule about "Vulnerability to Damage" do double damage (although hammers and walls aren't mentioned, and I somewhat doubt a hammer does double damage and ignore hardness against a wall, but whatever). But what does the Inneffective Weapon rule does. I'm not asking what Vulnerability Damage rule would do to picks, but what does Inneffective weapons rule do to longswords. It does... nothing? If I go to the book, and delete the Inneffective weapon rule, but leave Vulnerability Weapon rule there... what's the change, for a longsword? Nothing at all? So, what's the rule doing to the Longsword (or a rapier, for that matter)? Why there is a rule called "inneffective weapons", when it does nothing at all? To reach a word count?
I can ask why it mentions little effect if it is supposed to have no effect. Why would it bother to mention that? Even little implies there is something.
I don't know if you have ever played pokemon. That's like saying ground attacks have little effect on flying types...when it has absolutely no effect at all.
The ignoring hardness bit is just an option. Like a hammer to glass instead of a rapier. It has no examples at all. It's up to the GM I'm guessing.
I'm taking the "little effect" and weapon vulnerabilites both into account instead of seperatly. I think it's kinda badly written, but it wouldn't be the first time that there are confusing entries.
By the way, I don't think the vulnerability rule is for that. Although we don't have any example in this rule, I find it is for things that are really vulnerable.
For example: fire does half damage against most items. It does normal damage against partchment. But it does double damage and ignore hardness against dynamite.
So, then, by your reading of the rules, the 5th level rapier user can take down a wall in a minute or so.I can't find it. I coulda swore I've seen this somewhere. Oh well.Oh and as for that rapier against stone walls comment. It already says that piercing weapons can't destroy objects. The same doesn't apply to every other weapon type.Btw, were does it says so? It would be hilarious that Picks can't destroy objects.
Well, hey. I can do this to metal walls with a rapier, too, so why not?
Here we go
"Smashing a weapon or shield with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon is accomplished with the sunder combat maneuver (see Combat). Smashing an object is like sundering a weapon or shield, except that your combat maneuver check is opposed by the object's AC. Generally, you can smash an object only with a bludgeoning or slashing weapon."
Well it says generally, not always.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rule does something.
It provides a guideline for the GM.
The game has a GM for a reason and some things are best left to the GMs judgement when they are expected to rarely be needed, so a guideline is sufficient.
-------------------------
Also damage and destroy are two different things.
-------------------------
And as previously mentioned real life monks can damage masonry walls with their fists so a superhuman warrior can as well.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I can ask why it mentions little effect if it is supposed to have no effect. Why would it bother to mention that? Even little implies there is something.
We can discuss that if you want. As I said, I'd rule it cause scratches. That has little effect (will allow the Zorro to mark the wall with his Z, but won't allow the zorro to take down the wall in a minute)
The ignoring hardness bit is just an option. Like a hammer to glass instead of a rapier. It has no examples at all. It's up to the GM I'm guessing.
FINE!! Same goes with "inneffective weapons" too. It even goes further, and gives up a pair of examples (such as clubs vs ropes). That's the entire point of the rule: to allow the GM ignore some weapons attacks vs some items, when such attack does not make sense. IT does not give a full, extensive list of every single object and every single weapon, but gives up a pair of examples.
So, beyond those examples, it's up to the GM, who should follow those guidelines.
- Rapier vs wall? Nop
- Kerambit vs iron door? Nop
- scorpion whip vs dwarven tank made of adamantite? Nop
- Long Sword vs granite stalagmite? Nop
- Colossal long sword, weighting three tons, vs granite stalagmite? Yes.
And so on. Now, it's up to each DM. But I'd say *kerambits* are *innefective weapons* against marble statues. And I'll say a group of lvl 1 viking barbarians can't demolish a masonry house using hand axes. Sledge hammers and Picks? Sure. Hand axes, clubs and short swords? No way. No matter how much "weapon specialization" and "weapon training" they have.
I'm taking the "little effect" and weapon vulnerabilites both into account instead of seperatly. I think it's kinda badly written, but it wouldn't be the first...
But they are sepparated, and have different effects. It's not that slashing weapons do double damage against ropes, it's that bludgeoning weapons can't affect them. So it's not like the rope has a special vulnerability vs the blade, it's that the club is specially inneffective against ropes.
"Smashing a weapon or shield with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon is accomplished with the sunder combat maneuver (see Combat). Smashing an object is like sundering a weapon or shield, except that your combat maneuver check is opposed by the object's AC. Generally, you can smash an object only with a bludgeoning or slashing weapon."
Well it says generally, not always.
"Smash" and "damage" are different things. I can see how you can't use a pick to "smash" an item, just like you can't use a warhammer to "cut" an item. That does not mean you can't damage it, though. The fact you can damage or not an item is not related to the kind of damage (bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing), but if the weapon is effective or not against it. A Ballista is piercing, and can damage a door, while a kerambit is slashing, and you can't damage a door with it (other than scratching it).
Well, hey. I can do this to metal walls with a rapier, too, so why not?
No you can't. Just because the Inneffective weapons paragraph says you can't cut a rope with a club, it does not mean you can cut a cord with a club, or cloth. Similarly, just because it says you need weapons specially designed to break rocks, to be able to break rocks, it doesn't mean you don't need weapons specially designed to break metal to be able to break metal. Inneffective weapons rules is not reduced to ropes and stones. A rapier can't break through metal walls, or marble walls, or magically hardened goblin shit that is hard as rock, just like it can't break through rock.
And as previously mentioned real life monks can damage masonry walls with their fists so a superhuman warrior can as well.
Well, those are rigged ;). And even then, this is more a "Break DC" than a "demolition". Ussually you see the monk concentrating, then make a single hit that breaks the rock. Normally you don't see it making full rounds of flurry of blows, demolishing the thing
We can discuss that if you want. As I said, I'd rule it cause scratches. That has little effect (will allow the Zorro to mark the wall with his Z, but won't allow the zorro to take down the wall in a minute)
I would just say it was just using stone walls as an example. It mentions stone walls and doors but not boulders or stalagmites. It could have just said stone in general. Weapons are hardly effective against it for the same reason it is against metal, because it has hardness. Why give hardness to something you just can't damage with any item except a pickaxe or a hammer?
FINE!! Same goes with "inneffective weapons" too. It even goes further, and gives up a pair of examples (such as clubs vs ropes). That's the entire point of the rule: to allow the GM ignore some weapons attacks vs some items, when such attack does not make sense. IT does not give a full, extensive list of every single object and every single weapon, but gives up a pair of examples.
So, beyond those examples, it's up to the GM, who should follow those guidelines.
- Rapier vs wall? Nop
- Kerambit vs iron door? Nop
- scorpion whip vs dwarven tank made of adamantite? Nop
- Long Sword vs granite stalagmite? Nop
- Colossal long sword, weighting three tons, vs granite stalagmite? Yes.And so on. Now, it's up to each DM. But I'd say *kerambits* are *innefective weapons* against marble statues. And I'll say a group of lvl 1 viking barbarians can't demolish a masonry house using hand axes. Sledge hammers and Picks? Sure. Hand axes, clubs and short swords? No way. No matter how much "weapon specialization" and "weapon training" they have.
Some weapons I can understand, but I was mainly going off the idea that nothing could damage stone but a hammer or pickaxe. I mean if someone can punch something for 50 damage in a single stike, I would just let that slide. Same with a long sword. Colossal weapons have a way higher base damage, but it isn't impossible for someone to get higher damage per strike with the long sword than someone elses colossal weapon. So that's why I wouldn't just say it's ineffective.
But they are sepparated, and have different effects. It's not that slashing weapons do double damage against ropes, it's that bludgeoning weapons can't affect them. So it's not like the rope has a special vulnerability vs the blade, it's that the club is specially inneffective against ropes.
I was just going off the fact that it mentions hammers as a means to break rock.
If a hammer didn't have the ability to deal double damage against stone, a person with 10-11 strength would never be able to damage it anyway. No matter what size. That's why I'm sure that it does have that ability to do double. Even on average 2d8 won't do too much, but at least the average person has a chance.
"Smash" and "damage" are different things. I can see how you can't use a pick to "smash" an item, just like you can't use a warhammer to "cut" an item. That does not mean you can't damage it, though. The fact you can damage or not an item is not related to the kind of damage (bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing), but if the weapon is effective or not against it. A Ballista is piercing, and can damage a door, while a kerambit is slashing, and you can't damage a door with it (other than scratching it
The section that we are mostly speaking of is "smashing an object." It just talks about damaging objects, not bursting. It's just what the section is called. Bursting objects requires strength checks. But if you are saying that I can damage an object but not destroy it, then what happens when it reaches 0 HP? I'm a little confused here.
Yeah it is related to the damage type because it's saying I can't generally use piercing weapons to damage an item, but a bastilla wouldn't fall under than category most likely. That's probably up to the GM.
I would just say it was just using stone walls as an example. It mentions stone walls and doors but not boulders or stalagmites. It could have just said stone in general. Weapons are hardly effective against it for the same reason it is against metal, because it has hardness. Why give hardness to something you just can't damage with any item except a pickaxe or a hammer?
It's not an exaustive list, because you would need like one thousands pages to list every single kind of material, object, and weapon, and the relations among them.
The wall has hardiness because it can be damaged by hammers and picks, but also by other things that the GM consider "effective weapons". For example, explosions, the fiery breath of a great wyrm, sledge hammers, or kicks from Colosal Creatures weighting 165 tons. And "weapons are hardly effective against it" is not what the rule is saying. It says *some* weapons (for example, a scorpion whip, a blowgun dart, or a butter knife) aren't effective agains it, not that Sledge Hammers and Mattocks aren't.
Some weapons I can understand, but I was mainly going off the idea that nothing could damage stone but a hammer or pickaxe. I mean if someone can punch something for 50 damage in a single stike, I would just let that slide. Same with a long sword. Colossal weapons have a way higher base damage, but it isn't impossible for someone to...
No, it's not "only hammer and pickaxes". It says weapons able to damage stone, "such as" picks and hammers. Depending on the situation, a Morning Star might work. MAybe a great axe, or even a club, if it's huge sized. Claws aren't effective weapons against walls (and that's the reason Tigers don't break the walls in their cells and leave the Zoo). However, that does not mean a great wyrm claw, which is weight 10 tons, can't do it.
It also depends on the wall. I might allow you to break a weak modern wall with a sword, but not a castle wall. It's up to the GM, depending on the circumstances: which weapon, which object, what materials.
I mean if someone can punch something for 50 damage in a single stike, I would just let that slide.
It depends. It's possible for a character to do a ton of damage with a *blowgun dart*, if he has weapon mastery, greater specialization, deadly aim, point blank shot, and a decent level. That a player does 50 "hit points" does not mean it hit like a truck. It means he knows how to strike, when, what to attack, he can press the opponent and tire him, and so on. Hit points aren't pieces of meat you remove with each slash.
However, that same lvl 10 character who do 1d2+20 with his blowgun against a *person*, is not going to demolish castles using needles. It's not how it works. That's why you have "inneffective weapon" rule
|
As a DM, the only time I get picky about the placement of spells is when the player is taking a long time to find the optimum placement (I mean more than a minute or so)...
In a game I played once, the wizard spent 6 minutes figuring out the optimum placement for Firesnake. It all came down to killing 7 mobs vs 6 mobs... sigh... 6 minutes is a long time to have the other players sitting around getting bored.
I would just say it was just using stone walls as an example. It mentions stone walls and doors but not boulders or stalagmites. It could have just said stone in general. Weapons are hardly effective against it for the same reason it is against metal, because it has hardness. Why give hardness to something you just can't damage with any item except a pickaxe or a hammer?It's not an exaustive list, because you would need like one thousands pages to list every single kind of material, object, and weapon, and the relations among them.
The wall has hardiness because it can be damaged by hammers and picks, but also by other things that the GM consider "effective weapons". For example, explosions, the fiery breath of a great wyrm, sledge hammers, or kicks from Colosal Creatures weighting 165 tons. And "weapons are hardly effective against it" is not what the rule is saying. It says *some* weapons (for example, a scorpion whip, a blowgun dart, or a butter knife) aren't effective agains it, not that Sledge Hammers and Mattocks aren't.
Some weapons I can understand, but I was mainly going off the idea that nothing could damage stone but a hammer or pickaxe. I mean if someone can punch something for 50 damage in a single stike, I would just let that slide. Same with a long sword. Colossal weapons have a way higher base damage, but it isn't impossible for someone to...No, it's not "only hammer and pickaxes". It says weapons able to damage stone, "such as" picks and hammers. Depending on the situation, a Morning Star might work. MAybe a great axe, or even a club, if it's huge sized. Claws aren't effective weapons against walls (and that's the reason Tigers don't break the walls in their cells and leave the Zoo). However, that does not mean a great wyrm claw, which is weight 10 tons, can't do it.
It also depends on the wall. I might allow you to break a weak modern wall with a sword, but not a castle wall. It's up to the GM, depending on the circumstances: which...
I didn't realize that a tiger can technically rip through steel if it's played RAW. It's bite does more than an average person can do with a great sword.
I guess I can just say little claws and daggers and the like wouldn't work against many objects. I have a far easier time picturing someone smash a television with a big sword rather than a big cat ripping it to pieces.
The guide lines on ineffective weapons probably could have been done better.
People already fight monsters made out of stone and marble or other such materials like iron, but the game has a lot of content so I'd imagine they'd fall a little short here and there. Whether 3.x or pathfinder, either which.
Again, obviously it's not perfect. Hardness and hp on objects should and are most important, but they probably didn't realize that when making some animals or creatures. It's only a few, so you probably would just have to ignore it.
I didn't realize that a tiger can technically rip through steel if it's played RAW. It's bite does more than an average person can do with a great sword.
I guess I can just say little claws and daggers and the like wouldn't work against many objects. I have a far easier time picturing someone smash a television with a big sword rather than a big cat ripping it to pieces.
The beauty of open ended rules like Ineffective Weapons, is that you can adapt it on the fly. Yes, I'd also allow a character to smash a television with a great sword. A door too. Maybe a car? But I won't let him to demolish a castle with it. The rule say some weapons are ineffective against some objects, it does not say which weapons against which objects, so it's up to the GM.
A rapier vs a stone wall? No way.
A longsword vs a stone wall? Not in my opinion.
A greatsword vs a stone wall? I'm closer to no, but it might be, if the user has unnatural stregth (like a belt of incredible strength)
A great axe vs a stone wall? Dunno, maybe do normal damage.
A pick vs a stone wall? Vulnerable rules, double damage.
I didn't realize that a tiger can technically rip through steel if it's played RAW. It's bite does more than an average person can do with a great sword.
I guess I can just say little claws and daggers and the like wouldn't work against many objects. I have a far easier time picturing someone smash a television with a big sword rather than a big cat ripping it to pieces.
The beauty of open ended rules like Ineffective Weapons, is that you can adapt it on the fly. Yes, I'd also allow a character to smash a television with a great sword. A door too. Maybe a car? But I won't let him to demolish a castle with it. The rule say some weapons are ineffective against some objects, it does not say which weapons against which objects, so it's up to the GM.
A rapier vs a stone wall? No way.
A longsword vs a stone wall? Not in my opinion.
A greatsword vs a stone wall? I'm closer to no, but it might be, if the user has unnatural stregth (like a belt of incredible strength)
A great axe vs a stone wall? Dunno, maybe do normal damage.
A pick vs a stone wall? Vulnerable rules, double damage.
Because martials aren't allowed to do things. We clearly have a weapon that deals bludgeoning damage (for smashing objects, you can sunder a sword or break an adamantine shield but not a stone wall!?), that can clearly overcome its hardness, allowing you to damage the object, but you say no due to GM fiat and because fighters can't have nice things. (ಠ_ಠ)
I guess for everything else their is mastercard and wizards.
|
|
Lets not forget the wall doing damage to the sword. The wall is big and heavy and even if it takes damage the sword is suffering from an unusual amount of force and stress (most things it hits have a some give to buffer this but not walls).
So hit the wall with your sword as hard as you can, the sword will take damage just like the wall :P
Of course licks and hammers are made to hit un moving things so those they don't take that much damage.
"Little effect" means the device being used is not the best tool for the job. The wall aleady has a high hardness, and most likely hundreds of HP. You can use a long sword, but it is a terrible idea. That does not mean that the longsword won't eventually make it through the wall in fanatasy land. No effect means literally on effect. It would be like trying to use rope to break the wall down.So Little effect means nothing at all?
Let's say you have a longsword. You attack a wooden statue. You roll damage, substract hardiness, and do damage. Now you attack a stone statue. You do the same. What is the effect of the rule Inneffective weapons? Why is it a rule at all? What's the difference then between using a longsword, and using a pick (other than the pick does less damage)?
By the way, walls don't have "hundreds of hp", much less "thousands" as some people have said. The standard 1 feet masonry wall has 90 hp.
That section is big on GM Fiat. I might rule that the longsword's damage is halved before hardness even comes into play, while a pick only has to deal with hardness. I do agree that a miner's pick should be better at a longsword for breaking stone.
That section is big on GM Fiat. I might rule that the longsword's damage is halved before hardness even comes into play, while a pick only has to deal with hardness. I do agree that a miner's pick should be better at a longsword for breaking stone."Little effect" means the device being used is not the best tool for the job. The wall aleady has a high hardness, and most likely hundreds of HP. You can use a long sword, but it is a terrible idea. That does not mean that the longsword won't eventually make it through the wall in fanatasy land. No effect means literally on effect. It would be like trying to use rope to break the wall down.So Little effect means nothing at all?
Let's say you have a longsword. You attack a wooden statue. You roll damage, substract hardiness, and do damage. Now you attack a stone statue. You do the same. What is the effect of the rule Inneffective weapons? Why is it a rule at all? What's the difference then between using a longsword, and using a pick (other than the pick does less damage)?
By the way, walls don't have "hundreds of hp", much less "thousands" as some people have said. The standard 1 feet masonry wall has 90 hp.
It's where I was going with when I mentioned that stone should and likely would have vulnerability to hammers and pickaxes.
|
A somewhat reasonable and fairly simple house rule I encountered for this was to allow the caster to choose the exact square, but they have to roll to determine from which corner of the square the blast generates (d4 for 2 dimensional combat, d8 for 3d combat). This way they still have accuracy unless they are constantly trying to catch things right at the edge of their blasts.
I don't think casting accuracy will ever be added to any core rule system though, if that's what you meant.