Because I just look at it in both real life and in a fantasy context. A fighter that is high enough level that his sword cannot be sundered anymore I would let damage stone normally.
This all started on the premise that a fighter cannot damage stone with his fists. It's possible already to destroy it with a strength check. Some fighters can probably hit so hard with their hands that it can damage stone (damage higher than hardness), because strength isn't the only thing to translate into very destructive strikes.
The rule assumes common sense from the GM, like every other rule that use GM fiat.Which is my point exactly. There's nothing wrong with saying "It's a GM's call." But if you're going to argue common sense, then it's common sense that some GMs are going to rule that a longsword can cut a pillar (Robin Hood, Men in Tights or several samurai type movies.) or a punch can break a chain (Cap vs punching bag in Avengers).
It's the same 'common sense' that says a DM can look at the player who wants to use his nerf hammer to pound in a nail and laugh, but let a metal hammer do the job.
Well for me, really, what I would do is let a sword damage and cut through a pillar. But if they are going to stand there like their mining because their longsword isn't damaging enough, unlike a hammer would be, then I'm going to damage it. I doubt a pillar would have much health, anyway.
My view on "little effect" isn't really any different. I just wouldn't let a longsword damage stone without recieving some damage in return. That's my view on little effect. I would still allow them slice right through a stone wall if they can give the wall the broken condition in a single strike or two. I just won't let them burrow through a dungeon's walls with minimal damage because the rules don't cover it aside from "little effect"
I know this is a fantasy game with legendary super heroes that can kill a dozen t-rexes from all sides (like my character can), but they have to still work their way up there while still following the rules of common sense for some part. If they can hit for 80 damage with a great sword, I would just let it slide. It's not like many realistic things can do that much damage (sidewinder does 20d6 in d20 modern, which is still less on average)
|
the 'accuracy' could be thought of as the Reflex DC. also the incidences of 1s and 2s on the d6s.
is your intent to introduce a small (1% or 5% or 10%) deviation chance?
if so, is the encounter you are introducing this 'realism' into worth the slowdown?
i can see this being useful for dramatic/climatic effect in an important scene. maybe.
The rule assumes common sense from the GM, like every other rule that use GM fiat.Which is my point exactly. There's nothing wrong with saying "It's a GM's call." But if you're going to argue common sense, then it's common sense that some GMs are going to rule that a longsword can cut a pillar (Robin Hood, Men in Tights or several samurai type movies.) or a punch can break a chain (Cap vs punching bag in Avengers).
It's the same 'common sense' that says a DM can look at the player who wants to use his nerf hammer to pound in a nail and laugh, but let a metal hammer do the job.
Sure, I have no problem with that. But that a GM is entitled to let a punch break a chain, because he feels it's right for the kind of campaign (ie: avengers), is not the same that saying that players are *entitled* to do regular damage to items with any weapon (and double with hammers). It's a GM issue. Sure, some GM might allow to cut pillars of stone with swords (magical for some GM, any sword for some others). But *there is* a rule that says that such weapons have *little effect*, and let the GM what that little effect means. Maybe a GM can rule that your bladed scarf does no damage at all, a longsword just scratch the stone (thus ruining a rune, but not breaking the wall), a great club allow you to break the wall in 8 hours of work, and a large sized adamantine pick obliterate it. Hey, some GM might even rule that you can break a rubber wall with a hammer, or a stone wall with a scimitar!. I'm perfectly fine with that. However, what we are discusing here is not that. The other side says it's just regular damage vs hardiness, and not accepting it, is nerfing the fighter. The rule is clear. A longsword has "little effect". What does that little effect, is up to GM discretion.
Because I just look at it in both real life and in a fantasy context. A fighter that is high enough level that his sword cannot be sundered anymore I would let damage stone normally.
At what level is a fighter's sword impossible to sunder?
At what level is a fighter's sword impossible to sunder?Because I just look at it in both real life and in a fantasy context. A fighter that is high enough level that his sword cannot be sundered anymore I would let damage stone normally.
None, apparently... It's only disarming and it's at 20. Maybe an achetype has it.
None, apparently... It's only disarming and it's at 20. Maybe an achetype has it.At what level is a fighter's sword impossible to sunder?Because I just look at it in both real life and in a fantasy context. A fighter that is high enough level that his sword cannot be sundered anymore I would let damage stone normally.
The bladebound magus has it (as long as he has arcane points remaining). Maybe you mixed it?
No. I mixed it up with the shielded fighter archetype with his un-sunderable shield.
The problem is that "not being especially effective" is not the same as "being ineeffective". A silver bullet is specially effective against a werewolf, but a regular bullet is effective too.
No it isn't. By all accounts a regular bullet will not be effective. Effective means, by definition means adequately producing the intended expected results. Using non-silver weapons against a werewolf is not effective, nor adequate for the expected result. With enough force you may be able to make up the difference, but that's like saying wielding fire against a metal wall is "effective" because with enough heat the wall would come down. Of course, you would need extreme temperatures for the iron wall to come down. Can damage and effective are not the same thing.
A pillow, on the other hand, it's ineffective. Sure, it has "little effect" on him (like making him angry". And, if you have enough time, or whatever, it might have *Some* efficiency (such as if you drown him under six tons of pillows).
And again, I disagree. The pillow is likely going to do nothing (though I would even be willing to say if you hit someone hard enough with a pillow you could knock them out). But you are suggesting that "make him angry" is an effect of the weapon rather than an effect of your attacking him. It might even make him happy. Happy and jovial. Laughing as you wield a very non-silver nonlethal improvised gag weapon against him.
The rule, as written, does not say "the longsword is not especially effective against the wall". The rule as written says "the longsword is ineffective against the wall". That's why it's in the "ineffective weapons" paragraph.
The rules don't actually say longsword. It says most melee weapons, and gives examples of those that are better. However, it also doesn't say that the weapons cannot damage it like you are describing, but instead say they have little effect; whereas the others are apparently supposed to have much greater effect -- yet we can see unless you consider them to have a special strength against them, there is no difference between a longsword and warhammer for the purposes of sundering stuff.
If anything, I think there is less to support your idea of this than there is the alternative. Hence why I don't agree with you. When there is more supporting your position, then I will reconsider. Until then, you are barking in the wind trying to prove that a line that can be interpreted in multiple ways must be interpreted in the way that makes the least amount of sense in regards to the rest of the breaking object rules, sundering rules, and so forth.
That's not a disconect, because the rule does not talk about ^materials* but about *objects*. So, while a longsword can be effective to break, say, another sword, it might not be effective against other items made of metal. Such as a tank, or an asteroid made of metal. That you can break a small marble figurine does not mean you can break a huge wall of marble.
And again, you are wrong. Sundering is clearly spelled out as a combat maneuver. Breaking objects is noted as being like sundering except that there are clear differences in how it works (you use attack rolls instead of combat maneuvers, you may do it with ranged weapons, spells, and so forth), and there are no stipulations as part of sundering that says that you cannot break X with Y. None whatsoever. You can most certainly use a quarterstaff to shatter a breastplate if you can hit it hard enough, or tear a warhammer apart with a dagger if you can hit it hard enough. The only thing that hinders you is A) the hardness of the object, B) the hit points of the object, and C) the wielder's capability of evading against your sunder.
When smashing an object, C is not even relevant because the object is stationary. In fact, you can even never miss if you don't mind popping it as a full-round action. Now why in the heck would breaking through an inch of stone plating be harder and/or more impossible to do so when it was stationary and not actively avoiding your hit? It wouldn't. That's the point. If a 20th level Fighter wants to, he can take a dagger and slice through somebody's greatclub in a single strike (a greatclub). He doesn't even need a magic dagger. He tears the club in half.
So why would the club suddenly become harder to chop if it was now a wooden plank sitting on a sawhorse? If the fighter can slice through someone's full plate armor with his longsword, why can he not slice through the iron hinges of a door, or cut a hole in stone with the same raw force and inhuman capability?
My view on "little effect" isn't really any different. I just wouldn't let a longsword damage stone without recieving some damage in return. That's my view on little effect. I would still allow them slice right through a stone wall if they can give the wall the broken condition in a single strike or two. I just won't let them burrow through a dungeon's walls with minimal damage because the rules don't cover it aside from "little effect"
First I want to say I'm not disagreeing with you. Just I wanted to comment on something you bring up here.
1) This is a fantasy game, yet consistency is a virtue. I do not want any GM telling me the same sword I am using to slice through iron golems, animated objects, and potentially adamantine golems is somehow going to start suffering because I want to break a stone door down. Either be realistic across the board, or don't. But being wishy-washy is just dumb. It also doesn't really add anything to the game. Let me tell you a story.
I once played under a GM for a very brief period. This GM was big on some sort of theoretical realism. If an enemy missed you because of your shield he rolled a free sunder attempt against your shield. Weapons were damaged using them against armor. Whenever you killed an opponent, you assuredly broke his armor. This basically was an absolutely huge drag as we got to spend time after every combat getting a rather monotonous listing of all the crappy gear that was effectively worthless and/or unusable at the end of combats, and were effectively punished for being anything that couldn't use liberal amounts of magic (because magic was allowed to be cool but martials got to deal with their weapons constantly being ruined, rusting, snapping, and their shields becoming worthless after a few fights).
Nobody liked playing in his game. When I say that, I mean nobody. The entire group he recruited including me and four other people quit his game after a very short while. None of us were having any fun, the game was bogging down with too much bookkeeping as we tallied the damage to our weapons from just them being used and so forth. It was horrible.
So naturally in the same way the game assumes that you've got the right components in your spell pouch, the game assumes your weapons aren't constantly getting chipped and turned from masterwork weapons to clunky dead weight with flat blades and broken handguards. If your dwarven fighter wants to smash a stone door down with his greataxe then he can give it a shot. Roll damage and see how it goes, watch out for the noise alerting unsavory attention, and move on. Be happy you are cool enough to hack down a door despite it being very hard.
2) On the subject of tunneling through dungeons and such, you may want to check out the environmental rules on cave ins and collapses. That is pretty much the #1 reason I know of that you do not want to be doing that as a form of exploration. It might, however, be a really cool reason to use your awesomeness to tear down some pillars if you're being pursued by enemies.
My view on "little effect" isn't really any different. I just wouldn't let a longsword damage stone without recieving some damage in return. That's my view on little effect. I would still allow them slice right through a stone wall if they can give the wall the broken condition in a single strike or two. I just won't let them burrow through a dungeon's walls with minimal damage because the rules don't cover it aside from "little effect"First I want to say I'm not disagreeing with you. Just I wanted to comment on something you bring up here.
1) This is a fantasy game, yet consistency is a virtue. I do not want any GM telling me the same sword I am using to slice through iron golems, animated objects, and potentially adamantine golems is somehow going to start suffering because I want to break a stone door down. Either be realistic across the board, or don't. But being wishy-washy is just dumb. It also doesn't really add anything to the game. Let me tell you a story.
I once played under a GM for a very brief period. This GM was big on some sort of theoretical realism. If an enemy missed you because of your shield he rolled a free sunder attempt against your shield. Weapons were damaged using them against armor. Whenever you killed an opponent, you assuredly broke his armor. This basically was an absolutely huge drag as we got to spend time after every combat getting a rather monotonous listing of all the crappy gear that was effectively worthless and/or unusable at the end of combats, and were effectively punished for being anything that couldn't use liberal amounts of magic (because magic was allowed to be cool but martials got to deal with their weapons constantly being ruined, rusting, snapping, and their shields becoming worthless after a few fights).
Nobody liked playing in his game. When I say that, I mean nobody. The entire group he recruited including me and four other people quit his game after a very short while. None of us were having any fun, the game was bogging...
I was just saying that for a mundane longsword. I never damage magical ones unless they are sundered by equally or more powerful weapons.
Thinking about it more. Even if they had a giant magic hammer somewhat early in the game, I still wouldn't want them to tunnel through anything they want constantly because they had time, granted that they try. I probably would just fatigue them, then exaust them. I don't like RAW-playing as opposed to roleplaying, and the game doesn't cover some of these issues, so a GM has to in their own way.
Edit: Idk, I just kinda assume noone is going to be using a mundane sword anyway at higher levels. I like to have realism in my games so using a magical sword to do this or that or whatever usually isn't realistic in our world that would be more fantastic in game, rather than people just assuming it's similar to a video game in a fantasy sense. I've played with people like that.
A sword, or a war-hammer, or a breastplate, is quite possible to sunder in battle. It was quite common. You have to remember that "sundering" doesn't necessarily mean "destroying"; if you put a large dent into your enemy's shield with your sword, then that shield will probably be useless for the rest of the battle (and possibly actually harmful if you bent it so badly he can't get it off of his arm). Same with a helmet, or a weapon, ect. All these things are possible, and were in fact fairly common.
A sword is a fairly thin and relatively light sheet of metal; a hard enough blow at the right time can easily ruin it, bend it or break it or just shatter it. Same with a club, or a warhammer (you just have to cut off the head, you don't actually have to destroy the iron head), ect. I mean, if you've watched professional baseball, you've probably seen pitchers sunder a baseball bat with a baseball when the bat just breaks. ;)
I don't really see it being an issue, unless you're fighting a storm giant who is actually using an entire brick wall as a bludgeoning weapon, lol. And in that case, if you try to sunder it, your DM can and should just laugh at you.
What you are describing is broken vs destroyed. When an object is reduced to 0 hp (such as a wall, or a breastplate) it is destroyed. If an object that has suffered significant damage but is still somewhat serviceable has the broken condition instead.
Broken: Items that have taken damage in excess of half their total hit points gain the broken condition, meaning they are less effective at their designated task. The broken condition has the following effects, depending upon the item.
If the item is a weapon, any attacks made with the item suffer a –2 penalty on attack and damage rolls. Such weapons only score a critical hit on a natural 20 and only deal ×2 damage on a confirmed critical hit.
If the item is a suit of armor or a shield, the bonus it grants to AC is halved, rounding down. Broken armor doubles its armor check penalty on skills.
If the item is a tool needed for a skill, any skill check made with the item takes a –2 penalty.
If the item is a wand or staff, it uses up twice as many charges when used.
If the item does not fit into any of these categories, the broken condition has no effect on its use. Items with the broken condition, regardless of type, are worth 75% of their normal value. If the item is magical, it can only be repaired with a mending or make whole spell cast by a character with a caster level equal to or higher than the item's. Items lose the broken condition if the spell restores the object to half its original hit points or higher. Non-magical items can be repaired in a similar fashion, or through the Craft skill used to create it. Generally speaking, this requires a DC 20 Craft check and 1 hour of work per point of damage to be repaired. Most craftsmen charge one-tenth the item's total cost to repair such damage (more if the item is badly damaged or ruined).
For the record if you have electronics in your game, the broken condition should make them disabled. Lol.
I was just saying that for a mundane longsword. I never damage magical ones unless they are sundered by equally or more powerful weapons.
This is actually how it was in 3E too. Your +X bonus must have been equal or greater to their +X to sunder the weapon. This instance came up in a situation a long time ago in 3.0, when my Fighter had a magic sword. He attempted to swing the break a door down (and it took some hacking it did, because his stats weren't that awesome, but he did have a nice +1 sword), and the GM said "Well I think banging your sword like that would be bad for it, so it has a -1 to damage now", and I pointed out that if you can't even damage the +1 sword by trying to crush the blade with a non-magical weapon, no matter how great, why would hitting a mundane door damage it? He pondered it and said "Hm, good point, carry on."
Thinking about it more. Even if they had a giant magic hammer somewhat early in the game, I still wouldn't want them to tunnel through anything they want constantly because they had time, granted that they try. I probably would just fatigue them, then exaust them. I don't like RAW-playing as opposed to roleplaying, and the game doesn't cover some of these issues, so a GM has to in their own way.
Tunneling through stuff is rarely useful beyond a thought exercise. Seriously, your average hewn stone wall in a dungeon (as is common for the underground sort) has hardness 8 and 540 HP per inch of thickness. Even if you don't have to worry about damaging your weapons, and can also damage the wall, sitting and banging on the walls for 8 hours isn't likely to help you do anything. I mean, the amount of time that it would take to tunnel would take days. You might alert enemies to your presence and the likelihood of actually doing anything meaningful to your success is critically low.
I just don't see what the problem is. Smashing down a stone door? Go for it. That's part of how the game is expected to be played (it even is used to describe a style of gameplay in the 3.x DMG), but breaking into dungeon walls is not useful and likely gives you no benefit. It surely wouldn't allow you an element of surprise by any means, and would be exceptionally long and arduous. This all seems to be much ado about nothing. :\
Edit: Idk, I just kinda assume noone is going to be using a mundane sword anyway at higher levels. I like to have realism in my games so using a magical sword to do this or that or whatever usually isn't realistic in our world that would be more fantastic in game, rather than people just assuming it's similar to a video game in a fantasy sense. I've played with people like that.
Well the thing about it is, higher levels don't mean much in the sense of a fantasy game. It's entirely possible to encounter animated objects made of wood, stone, or harder materials even at low levels, when mundane weapons are entirely common. I think most would find it in bad taste to have people break their weapons or be unable to damage a stone or metal animated object (which has hardness even).
Likewise, ever play Baldur's Gate II by chance? It's a game where high level characters (it's 2E so keep in mind that around 9th level you've effectively capped out in your leveling of HP and such, and not far from where most games ended) begin in a dungeon after having been captured by the BBEG. You basically have to make due with what you have, which includes looting some entirely mundane and non-magical weaponry from the lair of your enemies (looting battleaxes and arrows and bows off goblins, picking up maces, swords, and spears from cases, and all of it entirely mundane). While you go through the dungeon you have to face things like fiends, golems, and so forth.
It's entirely possible to be wielding fairly mundane weapons at surprising levels due to circumstances and events. That's one of the cooler reasons to have your fighter trained in unarmed fighting, because when you lose your favorite weapon, well being able to punch demons into submission or kick doors off their hinges is sufficiently badass. :P
For the record if you have electronics in your game, the broken condition should make them disabled. Lol.
My sister broke my SNES. It still ran, but it was prone to shutting off due to a loose cable. Had to nudge the cable to a certain position to avoid it randomly cutting off. :P
I think thinking up weird quirks for the broken condition would be amusing if everyone was on board with it. For example, a broken canteen might only hold a fraction of its water. Maybe filling it up too much causes it to leak out after a point? ^-^
I was just saying that for a mundane longsword. I never damage magical ones unless they are sundered by equally or more powerful weapons.This is actually how it was in 3E too. Your +X bonus must have been equal or greater to their +X to sunder the weapon. This instance came up in a situation a long time ago in 3.0, when my Fighter had a magic sword. He attempted to swing the break a door down (and it took some hacking it did, because his stats weren't that awesome, but he did have a nice +1 sword), and the GM said "Well I think banging your sword like that would be bad for it, so it has a -1 to damage now", and I pointed out that if you can't even damage the +1 sword by trying to crush the blade with a non-magical weapon, no matter how great, why would hitting a mundane door damage it? He pondered it and said "Hm, good point, carry on."
Thinking about it more. Even if they had a giant magic hammer somewhat early in the game, I still wouldn't want them to tunnel through anything they want constantly because they had time, granted that they try. I probably would just fatigue them, then exaust them. I don't like RAW-playing as opposed to roleplaying, and the game doesn't cover some of these issues, so a GM has to in their own way.Tunneling through stuff is rarely useful beyond a thought exercise. Seriously, your average hewn stone wall in a dungeon (as is common for the underground sort) has hardness 8 and 540 HP per inch of thickness. Even if you don't have to worry about damaging your weapons, and can also damage the wall, sitting and banging on the walls for 8 hours isn't likely to help you do anything. I mean, the amount of time that it would take to tunnel would take days. You might alert enemies to your presence and the likelihood of actually doing anything meaningful to your success is critically low.
I just don't see what the problem is. Smashing down a stone door? Go for it. That's part of how the game is expected to be played (it even is used to...
wait.. 540 per inch? I thought it was 540 due to the fact that it's 3 feet thick. (goes to check again)
Edit: Yeah, it's 3 feet thick with 540 hit points.
For the record if you have electronics in your game, the broken condition should make them disabled. Lol.My sister broke my SNES. It still ran, but it was prone to shutting off due to a loose cable. Had to nudge the cable to a certain position to avoid it randomly cutting off. :P
I think thinking up weird quirks for the broken condition would be amusing if everyone was on board with it. For example, a broken canteen might only hold a fraction of its water. Maybe filling it up too much causes it to leak out after a point? ^-^
I can always just say that it took a few points of damage and didn't have the broken condition :)
...I was just saying that for a mundane longsword. I never damage magical ones unless they are sundered by equally or more powerful weapons.This is actually how it was in 3E too. Your +X bonus must have been equal or greater to their +X to sunder the weapon. This instance came up in a situation a long time ago in 3.0, when my Fighter had a magic sword. He attempted to swing the break a door down (and it took some hacking it did, because his stats weren't that awesome, but he did have a nice +1 sword), and the GM said "Well I think banging your sword like that would be bad for it, so it has a -1 to damage now", and I pointed out that if you can't even damage the +1 sword by trying to crush the blade with a non-magical weapon, no matter how great, why would hitting a mundane door damage it? He pondered it and said "Hm, good point, carry on."
Thinking about it more. Even if they had a giant magic hammer somewhat early in the game, I still wouldn't want them to tunnel through anything they want constantly because they had time, granted that they try. I probably would just fatigue them, then exaust them. I don't like RAW-playing as opposed to roleplaying, and the game doesn't cover some of these issues, so a GM has to in their own way.Tunneling through stuff is rarely useful beyond a thought exercise. Seriously, your average hewn stone wall in a dungeon (as is common for the underground sort) has hardness 8 and 540 HP per inch of thickness. Even if you don't have to worry about damaging your weapons, and can also damage the wall, sitting and banging on the walls for 8 hours isn't likely to help you do anything. I mean, the amount of time that it would take to tunnel would take days. You might alert enemies to your presence and the likelihood of actually doing anything meaningful to your success is critically low.
I just don't see what the problem is. Smashing down a stone door? Go for it. That's part of how the game is expected to be played (it even
Oops. My bad dude, I mispoke there. Even still though. That's not even a whole 5ft. square. What is gonna be gained from this, unless there is a room directly adjacent to the wall you're breaking through? Even then, seems like if you can escape Alcatraz with some improvised tools by breaking holes in the walls over some time as a few entirely mundane commoners, then breaking a hole in a wall to get to an adjacent open space on the other side with a big 2 handed club or something seems reasonable. Seems like the makings for a really awesome escape game. The party is bound and gagged, thrown in a cell across from each other. When nobody is looking, the Fighter escapes his grapple (the bonds) with a powerful combat maneuver check, then grabs a nearby object (such as a toilet, or the bed, or maybe even his hands) and breaks through the stone wall to free his companions.
I still say the idea of "tunneling" through something is pretty useless though. People complained about how warlocks in 3.5 could "tunnel through dungeons" because they could eldritch blast infinitely. Seriously I've never seen anyone ever have any luck trying such a thing, and not because the GM said they couldn't do so. Just because it is heinously worthless even if you theoretically can do it.
Something that's important to note as well. When I say that a fighter can punch down a stone wall, that clearly demonstrates that the fighter is awesome. The catch however is that even if it's possible, it's not usually a great idea. Just because a 20th level fighter can break 1 inch thick adamantine plates doesn't mean that people stand around breaking 1 inch plates in games, or that using your fists is somehow better than using a weapon more suited for the task. It just means you can do it.
I can always just say that it took a few points of damage and didn't have the broken condition :)For the record if you have electronics in your game, the broken condition should make them disabled. Lol.My sister broke my SNES. It still ran, but it was prone to shutting off due to a loose cable. Had to nudge the cable to a certain position to avoid it randomly cutting off. :P
I think thinking up weird quirks for the broken condition would be amusing if everyone was on board with it. For example, a broken canteen might only hold a fraction of its water. Maybe filling it up too much causes it to leak out after a point? ^-^
Well it definitely didn't work correctly after it was broken, which makes broken seem like the correct condition. :P
Heh, I never thought about that about the warlock, lol.
Idk about using a toilet to do it. Improvised weapons break on a 50/50 chance, unless you can get a really good hit in using vital strike with power attack. I guess weapon spec: toilets are not really avaliable for extra damage with someone in the right mind.
The rules don't actually say longsword. It says most melee weapons, and gives examples of those that are better. However, it also doesn't say that the weapons cannot damage it like you are describing, but instead say they have little effect; whereas the others are apparently supposed to have much greater effect --...
That's not what the rule say. It does not give examples of weapons that are "better", it does give examples of weapons which are "ineffective" and "do little effect", and then show a few exceptions that aren't ineffective and don't do little effect. Not doing little effect is not the same that doing "great" effect. It does not say that other have "much greater effect". It says others are effective against it, not "much more effective".
It also says so in a context, where the previous example was that you couldn't use effectively a bludgeoning weapon to damage a rope, unlike slashing weapons. You can't infere from that that using a slashing weapon against a rope gets double damage. Only that it works *normally*.
Actually, the rule text goes like this:
"Certain weapons just can’t effectively deal damage to certain objects"
Then, from the miriad of possible combinations of weapons that can't effectively deal damage to certain objects, it takes two examples:
1)first example of weapons that can't effectively deal damage to certain objects, a bludgeoning weapon vs a rope
2) second escample of weapons that can't effectively deal damage to certain objects, most weapons vs walls, unless specifically designed for it.
Both are examples of the same rule, which is "certain weapons just can't effectively deal damage to certain objects"
Also, the rule say that weapons are ineffective, and "do little effect". It doesn't say "unless wielded by someone with piranha strike and weapon specialist". If you use a bladed scarf against a wall, it does "little effect", regardless of the wielder. It's the weapon what it is ineffective, not the guy using it. If you allow to roll damage, just like if that page does not exist at all, then it's not true that it does "little effect".
By the way, I just found another good example of funny stuff that happen when you apply the "ineffective weapon" rule as the "ineffective rule of weapons" and don't apply any penalty to those weapons that are ineffective, and only apply bonus to those who are effective.
A charge from bisons (2d6+12) can *devastate* stone walls :) Most animals, actually, can destroy walls:
Bears +1d6+5, three attacks.
Boar, 1d8+4
Cocrodile, 1d8+6, 1d12+2 (tail slap)
riding dog 1d6+3
Aurochs 1d8+9
Hyena 1d6+3
Lion 1d8+5, 1d4+5x2
Shark 1d8+4
Tiger 1d8+6 x2, 2d6+6
I'm not even counting "dire" versions, or the Elepahnt and rhino. All those can destroy a wall of masonry, some of them really fast, the weaker ones will need a couple of hours. I guess pathfinder zoos are made of adamantite walls :P
By the way, I just found another good example of funny stuff that happen when you apply the "ineffective weapon" rule as the "ineffective rule of weapons" and don't apply any penalty to those weapons that are ineffective, and only apply bonus to those who are effective.
A charge from bisons (2d6+12) can *devastate* stone walls :) Most animals, actually, can destroy walls:
Bears +1d6+5, three attacks.
Boar, 1d8+4
Cocrodile, 1d8+6, 1d12+2 (tail slap)
riding dog 1d6+3
Aurochs 1d8+9
Hyena 1d6+3
Lion 1d8+5, 1d4+5x2
Shark 1d8+4
Tiger 1d8+6 x2, 2d6+6I'm not even counting "dire" versions, or the Elepahnt and rhino. All those can destroy a wall of masonry, some of them really fast, the weaker ones will need a couple of hours. I guess pathfinder zoos are made of adamantite walls :P
Is that supposed to bother me somehow? You're basically talking about a mastiff sized hound (not a normal dog like a doberman or collie but a man-sized dog) that is powerful being able to possibly cause some trivial damage to an object by chewing and attacking the thing for an about half a minute. Given that a 1 ft. thick stone wall has 90 hp, the dog is going to give up before he gets anywhere. I could imagine a dog of that side busting through a wooden enclosure more easily (and have seen similar).
Basically your poochy has to roll max damage to damage a stone anything. Its damage vs the wall is only about 0.16 per round. I imagine that a dog would have long since given up any attempts to free itself from a stone enclosure. A dragon on the other hand might have much more luck (heck dragons are known to eat stone).
Also, a charge from a bison doesn't devastate a brick wall. It won't even give it the broken condition, because it's maximum damage can't even deal half the wall's HP in damage before hardness, let alone after hardness.
And as for dire animals and elephants, if there was a creature I would expect to actually be somewhat dangerous to a structure, that would probably be it.
The dog gets through your wall in less than an hour. Six rounds is only a long time to deal damage if you're thinking in terms of "well, combats only last a few rounds"; remember that most of the world doesn't run on the PC's combat clock where twenty seconds is an eternity.
|
|
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.
nice.
Is that supposed to bother me somehow? You're basically talking about a mastiff sized hound (not a normal dog like a doberman or collie but a man-sized dog) that is powerful being able to possibly cause some trivial damage to an object by chewing and attacking the thing for an about half a minute. Given that a 1 ft. thick stone wall has 90 hp, the dog is going to give up before he gets anywhere. I could imagine a dog of that side busting through a wooden enclosure more easily (and have seen similar).
Actually it's supposed to bother Sauce, who already got bothered with tigers being able to destroy walls easily ;)
Basically your poochy has to roll max damage to damage a stone anything. Its damage vs the wall is only about 0.16 per round. I imagine that a dog would have long since given up any attempts to free itself from a stone enclosure. A dragon on the other hand might have much more luck (heck dragons are known to eat stone).
True, the dog will chew the wall down in around 55 minutes. Not that bad, but not impressive.
What it's impressive is how the cocodrile chew it down in 3 minutes, and the tiger shredd it in one minute :P. If the tiger get's lucky, he can do it in 3 rounds, counting pounce and rake.Also, a charge from a bison doesn't devastate a brick wall. It won't even give it the broken condition, because it's maximum damage can't even deal half the wall's HP in damage before hardness, let alone after hardness.
Note that I didn't say from "a" bison, but from "bisons". About 8 bisons destroy a wall.
And as for dire animals and elephants, if there was a creature I would expect to actually be somewhat dangerous to a structure, that would...
I agree, that's why I didn't list them.
The dog gets through your wall in less than an hour. Six rounds is only a long time to deal damage if you're thinking in terms of "well, combats only last a few rounds"; remember that most of the world doesn't run on the PC's combat clock where twenty seconds is an eternity.
To which again I respond that the dog likely wouldn't be trying to get through it anyway. It would find the object hard and difficult to chew and would likely give up. Could, by virtue of the mechanics, this giant dog (and that's what a riding dog is, a person sized dog like a mastiff) with its powerful natural body might be able to eventually get through it. An hour is a long time to be attacking a stone wall with little obvious effects.
Is that supposed to bother me somehow? You're basically talking about a mastiff sized hound (not a normal dog like a doberman or collie but a man-sized dog) that is powerful being able to possibly cause some trivial damage to an object by chewing and attacking the thing for an about half a minute. Given that a 1 ft. thick stone wall has 90 hp, the dog is going to give up before he gets anywhere. I could imagine a dog of that side busting through a wooden enclosure more easily (and have seen similar).Actually it's supposed to bother Sauce, who already got bothered with tigers being able to destroy walls easily ;)
Basically your poochy has to roll max damage to damage a stone anything. Its damage vs the wall is only about 0.16 per round. I imagine that a dog would have long since given up any attempts to free itself from a stone enclosure. A dragon on the other hand might have much more luck (heck dragons are known to eat stone).True, the dog will chew the wall down in around 55 minutes. Not that bad, but not impressive.
What it's impressive is how the cocodrile chew it down in 3 minutes, and the tiger shredd it in one minute :P. If the tiger get's lucky, he can do it in 3 rounds, counting pounce and rake.Also, a charge from a bison doesn't devastate a brick wall. It won't even give it the broken condition, because it's maximum damage can't even deal half the wall's HP in damage before hardness, let alone after hardness.Note that I didn't say from "a" bison, but from "bisons". About 8 bisons destroy a wall.
And as for dire animals and elephants, if there was a creature I would expect to actually be somewhat dangerous to a structure, that would...I agree, that's why I didn't list them.
Just pointing out I find this more of a flaw in the way that the animals are built and designed from a simulationist standpoint. The d20/PF system more or less assumes commoners have between 1-4 HP on average (average HP for a 1st level commoner is 3 hp before Con). The majority of those animals possess some exceptionally inflated damages from a simulationist perspective. With damages like those, no one would ever survive encounters with animals who wanted to kill a human.
An alligator would reduce a human to negative HP on its minimum damage, instantly killing them. Most alligators in reality aren't going to kill you with an initial bite. They're going to get ahold of you and then tear you apart over the next few rounds with their twisting and rolling. If you wanted a more or less realistic set of animal statistics, most medium sized animals would have 6 damage on the high end.
However, I accept the goofy statistics of these animals because they are effectively monsters to fight. The fact that a 5th level PC has little chance of surviving an encounter with a tiger is just one of those things that is fantastic.
Just as an example, people have been hunting alligators that would easily qualify as large sized for years. Sometimes they get bitten, often slapped with a tail, but rarely do you get actual deaths unless they are alone and in a situation where the gator has a clear advantage (such as getting them in the water). An athletic sort might have 12 HP at most. Your garden variety croc would kill such an individual with no hope of retaliation, even with weaponry like axes or firearms (which would be useful for hunting the beasties).
I mean, it would be like watching the show Swamp People and assuming they were hunting countless CR 2+ creatures every day for a month.
Well, first, that a dog will get bored before chewing down the wall is debatable. I've seen dogs chewing plastic toys longer than that, and after a minimal 5 minutes lapse, they already have chewed through 10% of the wall. So the progress is there. After just 22 minutes, it has chewed down half the wall.
About the animals and damage, and commoners with 5hp... well, only village idiots are 1st level commoners. Farmers are Commoner 1/Expert 1, (source Gamemaster Guide). Even beggars are commoner 1/rogue 1 and barmaids are commoner 2. About your alligator hunters, those guys you see there are trappers. A Trapper is, by Gamemastery guide, a Ranger 4. Which is perfectly fine to take down an alligator (Catching a full fledged adult Nile cocrodile alive is slightly harder)
And yes, the damage from animals is quite goofy. There's no chance a farmer (commoner 1/expert 1) survives a tiger's bite in the game. However, that's a moot point, because the players' damage is also goofy. There's no chance a farmer survive a single punch from a first level unarmed fighter either. Heck, there's no chance a farmer survive a *blowgun needle* from a competent 4th lvl fighter (weapon training, deadly aim, point blank shot and weapon spec) So the animals are, indeed, in the same league of goofiness than the PC. Under your reading of the rules, dogs chew down walls in less than one hour, and tigers tear down walls in twenty seconds.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here are some crazy things that a Tiger can do RAW that isn't debatable by rules interpretation
It can drag over 9000 pounds. 23 strength (600 maximum load), x3 for size and it being a quadruped, and x5 for pushing or dragging.
It can break Iron or stone doors with a strength check. +6 for strength, +4 for size.
Maybe this is the fantasy super tiger version in D&D and it really can claw steel walls down. Lol.
Here are some crazy things that a Tiger can do RAW that isn't debatable by rules interpretation
It can drag over 9000 pounds. 23 strength (600 maximum load), x3 for size and it being a quadruped, and x5 for pushing or dragging.
It can break Iron or stone doors with a strength check. +6 for strength, +4 for size.
Maybe this is the fantasy super tiger version in D&D and it really can claw steel walls down. Lol.
This is my point. I don't blame item hardness rules which work pretty darn well IMHO using the interpretation we've mentioned here, and interacts cleanly with the normal sundering rules, and so on and so forth. I blame the design of the animals. These animals were clearly designed in a way where the writers were thinking of them as monsters for specific CR ranges, not actual living, breathing, animals.
The general gist of it is that most of these animals are monstrous versions of what these animals would actually be capable of. The base bite damage of a riding dog is as much as a light mace, and its strength is no joke.
About the animals and damage, and commoners with 5hp... well, only village idiots are 1st level commoners. Farmers are Commoner 1/Expert 1, (source Gamemaster Guide). Even beggars are commoner 1/rogue 1 and barmaids are commoner 2. About your alligator hunters, those guys you see there are trappers. A Trapper is, by Gamemastery guide, a Ranger 4. Which is perfectly fine to take down an alligator (Catching a full fledged adult Nile cocrodile alive is slightly harder)
Just for a record, I will not humor or accept anything from the GMG's NPC gallery as a common example of anything. That is off the table. This is not negotiable. If you want to cite a source that declares your average beggar or prostitute to be a 2nd level heroic character with levels in rogue as a reference point for your argument, this discussion is already over.
And yes, the damage from animals is quite goofy. There's no chance a farmer (commoner 1/expert 1) survives a tiger's bite in the game. However, that's a moot point, because the players' damage is also goofy. There's no chance a farmer survive a single punch from a first level unarmed fighter either.
I disagree. A 1st level fighter (not talking any weird archtypes here, just core) may deal around 1d3+4 damage (assuming 18 strength). Enough to knock your average farmer out. Of course, that's a heroic class (Fighter) with heroic stats (18 Strength). Against another NPC, such as a 1st level warrior, he's not going to 1 shot the farmer unless he is lucky.
Your dials are all screwed up.
Heck, there's no chance a farmer survive a *blowgun needle* from a competent 4th lvl fighter (weapon training, deadly aim, point blank shot and weapon spec)
Again, 4th level heroic class with heroic stats. You are trying to argue that animals have reasonable statistics because Batman or the Punisher can kill someone with a shuriken/dart/blowgun. Repeat it with me. 4th level. Heroic class (one specifically meant for killing I might add). Heroic ability array. Above normal.
So the animals are, indeed, in the same league of goofiness than the PC.
Yet theoretically those animals are not supposed to be representing super heroic versions of their kind, just normal animals. Hence the difference. It would be like taking that 4th level Fighter and saying "yeah, this is your average human, capable of surviving 40 ft. pitfalls into razor sharp spiks, able to break wooden boards with his unarmed strikes, and make 16 ft. jumps without trying. All traits of what is common for your garden variety human".
No. Just no. Suddenly I understand why we're having this conversation.
Under your reading of the rules, dogs chew down walls in less than one hour, and tigers tear down walls in twenty seconds.
Again, see the fact animals are crazy amazing. Also, you're saying "dogs" which is misleading. A normal dog (even the statistics for a normal dog in PF's inflated animal world) cannot do that. A "riding dog" can do that, which seems bizarre in reality but not next to other medium or large sized animals as they are presented in the bestiary; which leads to show that while these animals are not consistent with our reality they are consistent within their reality, and in their reality a tiger can drag four and a half tons of weight and tear through iron bars.
Just for a record, I will not humor or accept anything from the GMG's NPC gallery as a common example of anything. That is off the table. This is not negotiable. If you want to cite a source that declares your average beggar or prostitute to be a 2nd level heroic character with levels in rogue as a reference point for your argument, this discussion is already over.
Well, I won't accept your word as gospel, so you need something to back your claim that farmers are first level commoners and not Commoner 1/expert 1 as the developers of the game suggest. You know, my opinion has some back up at least (an oficial book, which has a section explicitly to stat them), while yours is based only in your own tastes. In your own homerules, sure, you can say everybody is a first level commoner, and those guys hunting crocos are actually first level too and can die to a house cat. It's your game, it's your house rule. Just like you can allow to destroy walls with a bladed scarf, or to destroy a rubber wheel with a sledge hammer, up to you. I'm talking about the pathfinder RAW and books.
You can retreat from the conversation if you want, up to you.
I disagree. A 1st level fighter (not talking any weird archtypes here, just core) may deal around 1d3+4 damage (assuming 18 strength). Enough to knock your average farmer out. Of course, that's a heroic class (Fighter) with heroic stats (18 Strength). Against another NPC, such as a 1st level warrior, he's not going to 1 shot the farmer unless he is lucky.
Your dials are all screwed up.
That's not a first level fighter, that's a first level commoner with STR 18. A first level fighter has feats (three of them, actually). A first level martial artist fighter with power attack and unarmed strike kill first level farmers in one punch. And I mean first level farmers from the Gamemastery guide, your 1st level farmers who are only commoner 1 are even more screwed.
Your average first level warrior has 13 in his best stat, +2 from race. So kinda probable that he can kill it too (power attack, and it's surefire)
Again, 4th level heroic class with heroic stats. You are trying to argue that animals have reasonable statistics because Batman or the Punisher can kill someone with a shuriken/dart/blowgun. Repeat it with me. 4th level. Heroic class (one specifically meant for killing I might add). Heroic ability array. Above normal
A 4th level heroic class is your average *trapper*, for example. You know, the kind of guys who can go out in the wild and do not die to a regular house cat ;).
However, I'm not talking about someone with elite array stats. A 4th level fighter with dex 13, str 10, every other stat at 10, do 1d2+2+4+1= minimum 8 damage with a blowgun needle, using point blank shot, deadly aim, and weapon specialization.
Even another NPC class (such as an expert) do 1d2+5, enough to kill a first level commoner with a blowgun needle, without specialization, at lvl 4.
Yet theoretically those animals are not supposed to be representing super heroic versions of their kind, just normal animals. Hence the difference.
No, you have just made that up. "super heroic versions" of those animals use the Advanced Template. That's not Cujo. That's the average St Bernard.
Actually, Cujo can destroy the wall much faster.Again, see the fact animals are crazy amazing. Also, you're saying "dogs" which is misleading. A normal dog (even the statistics for a normal dog in PF's inflated animal world) cannot do that. A "riding dog" can do that, which seems bizarre in reality but not next to other medium or large sized animals as they are presented in the bestiary; which leads to show that while these animals are not consistent with our reality they are consistent within their reality, and in their reality a tiger can drag four and a half tons of weight and tear through iron bars.
Riding dogs are, by the bestiary, "huskies, mastiffs, and wolfhounds". So a huskie can chew the wall down in your interpretation of the rules. So it can a Hyena, for example. The regular, run'o'mill hyena, I mean. Not the superheroic Advanced Template hyena.
Here are some crazy things that a Tiger can do RAW that isn't debatable by rules interpretation
It can drag over 9000 pounds. 23 strength (600 maximum load), x3 for size and it being a quadruped, and x5 for pushing or dragging.
It can break Iron or stone doors with a strength check. +6 for strength, +4 for size.
Maybe this is the fantasy super tiger version in D&D and it really can claw steel walls down. Lol.
Yep, the weight he can drag is slightly off, depending how you measure it. There are sights of bengal tigers dragging the carcass of 2000lb gaurs (water buffals), using his jaws. If you tie it to a sledge, probably he can drag maybe double or triple that, but not 9000lb. Probably the bestiary is too generous giving it "large" size. The difference in damage with lions is excesivelly generous with the tiger too.
Fortunately, we can solve some of those issues. For example, the shredding of walls in 20 seconds is solved with the "ineffective weapon" rule. ;)
Now we've talked about the tiger, what about huskies and hyenas chewing walls? Or crocodiles and bulls?
Well, I won't accept your word as gospel, so you need something to back your claim that farmers are first level commoners and not Commoner 1/expert 1 as the developers of the game suggest.
The assumptions of the game system are detailed in the 3.x Dungeon Masters Guides where they explain that the vast majority of the world are only 1st level, and higher level individuals are not only progressively rarer but worth noting in a settlement. These are the standards by which the system was constructed, and while these standards are not noted outright in the Pathfinder rules (because they literally cannot be, as this information was not open game content from those books) the rules have not been rebuilt. No one has increased the Hardness of materials to compare to a new standard. Nobody has changed the standardized DCs. Nobody has changed the various aspects of the system that was built around these assumptions.
You know, my opinion has some back up at least (an oficial book, which has a section explicitly to stat them), while yours is based only in your own tastes. In your own homerules, sure, you can say everybody is a first level commoner, and those guys hunting crocos are actually first level too and can die to a house cat. It's your game, it's your house rule. Just like you can allow to destroy walls with a bladed scarf, or to destroy a rubber wheel with a sledge hammer, up to you. I'm talking about the pathfinder RAW and books.
The NPC gallery is not rules. It is a collection of suggested premade NPCs statistics, many of them being exercises in absurdity; which astounds me that you would reference them in an attempt to argue an interpretation of some rules because you think they are absurd. It seems almost hypocritical to me.
I rebuke them on grounds of absurdity because they make the game less consistent. They aren't even consistent. A world where a trained foot soldier (and it does describe them as a trained soldier) is weaker than your average prostitute or street beggar is bizarre. When a pair of street beggars are akin to an encounter with an Ogre. Where they are described as:
"Beggars are the homeless and hopeless wretches that eke out a meager existence at the fringes of society in cities and towns. Some are once farmers, craftsmen, or other working folk stricken blind or lame, while others are orphans from birth, subsisting on alms and charity so long they have known nothing else."
Yet have skills more befitting thieves and assassins. Their heroic level ability scores and statistics mean that there is no reason they would be homeless beggars. They are stronger than even trained soliders in the same chapter. Reading said beggar further, we can see these are not intended to be common beggars but combat encounters for the PCs.
"A beggar might be accompanied by a village idiot (CR 2), or may team up with a street thug or a pair of pickpockets (CR 3). A pair of beggars may also trail after a dealer or pilgrim (CR 5), or work with a troupe of four wanderers (CR 7). Beggars working as thieves or pickpockets might form gangs of six (CR 6), while four thieving beggars might add their skills to a gang of eight bandits (CR 7)."
The difference here is that you're claiming a pregen statistic used as an aid in the GMG is a rule. It's not, any more than it is a house rule to have goblin experts instead of goblin warriors. I'm saying I'm not buying anything from the GMG NPC gallery as either a rule nor something to be used in a debate on the subject of what is reasonable from a standpoint of reality; especially when you're arguing based on the absurdity of animals being able to break doors.
I mean if that is the case then suddenly its entirely consistent with a reality that makes no sense whatsoever. A reality where your average beggar can fall 20 ft. into a pit of spikes and survive pretty easily (7 average falling damage plus 3 average d6 spike damage means the beggar is okay and can climb out on his own). It's a world where the average beggar is more dangerous than your average hobgoblin fighter. It's a world where your average bartender can single handily render the PCs in Rise of the Runelords pointless during the initial adventures, because he is more powerful than the entire 1st level party.
You can retreat from the conversation if you want, up to you.
I'm simply saying those are not rules. At best they are inflated statistics intended to be helpful but failing horribly at being helpful to provide a world that is consistent.
That's not a first level fighter, that's a first level commoner with STR 18. A first level fighter has feats (three of them, actually). A first level martial artist fighter with power attack and unarmed strike kill first level farmers in one punch. And I mean first level farmers from the Gamemastery guide, your 1st level farmers who are only commoner 1 are even more screwed.
The core rules say that NPC classed individuals use 3 point buy. An 18 strength individual is a very special individual for a 1st level NPC commoner. One might call him Big John or something. Yes, you can kill a commoner with an unarmed strike (you don't even need feats for it) with a strong hit. It happens in reality. The point is that it's not that easy for most people. Your average person likely isn't going to have a 13 strength, let alone a 15, and an 18 is quite heroic (for an NPC classed character, you would have to be awful in the vast majority of your other scores to achieve this).
Also, you're wrong. A 1st level fighter with improved unarmed strike and power attack and an 18 Strength cannot 1 shot the farmer in the Gamemastery statblocks barring a lucky critical hit. Their maximum damage is a mere 8 with those statistics, which means your 1st level fighter only has a 5% chance of knocking a farmer, or a beggar, out in a good fierce punch.
A 4th level heroic class is your average *trapper*, for example. You know, the kind of guys who can go out in the wild and do not die to a regular house cat ;).
A house cat can't kill a commoner in Pathfinder. A 1st level commoner can grapple a house cat (horrible CMD) without provoking (because the cat has no threatened space). The cat might scratch the commoner for 1 nonlethal damage as it frantically bites and claws while trying to free itself. Next turn the commoner deals lethal damage to the cat with a successful grapple check with a +5 bonus, and kills the cat.
Your average trapper would be more appropriately be an expert with a rank or two in survival and profession (trapper). That would be more than enough for them to generate around 7 gp worth of skins per week, survive on their own comfortably in the wild. Come cash in their skins every now and then, buy some supplies, and head back out into the wilderness. A few other skills like Knowledge (Nature), Knowledge (Geography), Craft (Trap), and Stealth might be useful for the trapper. All easy for a 1st level expert.
The idea that your average trapper is a 4th level heroic class with spells, greater martial skill and strength than soldiers, who casts divine spells, has evasion, wears medium to heavy armors, and has feats speccing him as a deadly warrior is just stupid. Hell, if you go by the GMG statblock for "trapper" your average trapper is not only a wood stalking magic wielding warmachine but he's also carrying over 1,375 gp worth of equipment on him at any given time, including a masterwork battle axe, masterwork composite longbow, several scrolls, poisons, and so forth.
There is no consistency here. He can routinely survive a swan dive into the ground from 50 ft. up (maximum damage of such a fall only leaves said trapper staggered), and is statistically likely to survive falls from nearly twice that height without falling unconscious.
No, you have just made that up. "super heroic versions" of those animals use the Advanced Template. That's not Cujo. That's the average St Bernard.
Actually, Cujo can destroy the wall much faster.
Way to parrot what I say while acting like you are disagreeing.
I said "Yet theoretically those animals are not supposed to be representing super heroic versions of their kind, just normal animals. Hence the difference". Try reading it again.
Riding dogs are, by the bestiary, "huskies, mastiffs, and wolfhounds". So a huskie can chew the wall down in your interpretation of the rules. So it can a Hyena, for example. The regular, run'o'mill hyena, I mean. Not the superheroic Advanced Template hyena.
Hence why I said they have inflated statistics compared to their animal counterparts in reality. Give me a knife and I will kill a husky that attacks me. He'll get some bites in, but I will assuredly kill him. I'm no more than 2nd level at best, and I'm definitely not a heroic class, and I'm sure I lack heroic statistics.
If you were to tie it to a sledge, going by RAW, it'd be 18,000 pounds for the D&D tiger.
Probably the same way that the game was too generous with the weight capacity, was probably the same way with the damage for a lot of things in the game. I don't really want to pretend what they were intending with a lot of the animals, but they probably didn't consider it at all when concerning dealing with strong and heavy objects (enemies like iron golems have too high of an AC, so that doesn't count, for the most part). The the entry of ineffective rules had no examples to give, according to the d20 hypertext. This was just a thing (a little confusing thing) that paizo just decided to write into it. I just think it just it should be whatever the GM wants it to be. It's too ambiguous, and even the people in the thread that you made even think that. If the GM want's their tigers and lions to be horse sized monstrosities, that's cool, because that would be something interesting to see.
Damn.. Talking about grabbing cats and killing them, and stabbing huskies. LOL
Damn.. Talking about grabbing cats and killing them, and stabbing huskies. LOL
It's a dog eat dog world out there. XD
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gustavo, before you continue this argument, I want you to stop and think about something for a second.
Which is more unreasonable;
- A superhuman with unreal strength smashing through a thin barrier given some time
- The average trapper is a nature-attuned killing machine that channels divine magic
If you were to tie it to a sledge, going by RAW, it'd be 18,000 pounds for the D&D tiger.
Probably the same way that the game was too generous with the weight capacity, was probably the same way with the damage for a lot of things in the game. I don't really want to pretend what they were intending with a lot of the animals, but they probably didn't consider it at all when concerning dealing with strong and heavy objects (enemies like iron golems have too high of an AC, so that doesn't count, for the most part). The the entry of ineffective rules had no examples to give, according to the d20 hypertext. This was just a thing (a little confusing thing) that paizo just decided to write into it. I just think it just it should be whatever the GM wants it to be. It's too ambiguous, and even the people in the thread that you made even think that. If the GM want's their tigers and lions to be horse sized monstrosities, that's cool, because that would be something interesting to see.
The most success and consistency I've found with any of it is basing it off of what sort of damage the weapon is using. Seems reasonable that you can't cut a rope with a bludgeoning weapon, or do much to a rubber tire with a hammer, but a slashing weapon might work if not perfectly.
But if it's GM fiat or bust, then I suppose it has no use in the forums at all. It does get tiring adding "unless your GM doesn't want you to" after everything though.
I just find that entry to be really ambigious.
It would suck if a DM (someone who doesn't exactly roam this site) said "well your (+3)sword has no effect on this stone structure because the GM guide says so" and then wanting to convince the DM otherwise by getting in to similar argument as this one.
If it were up to me, that entry would not exist about "little effect" nonsense. What does little effect should just be up to the DM, just like it was in 3.5.
I still stand by the "little effect" means something if it's going to bother to say that, but with some discretion at least, by the GM.
Gustavo, before you continue this argument, I want you to stop and think about something for a second.
Which is more unreasonable;
- A superhuman with unreal strength smashing through a thin barrier given some time
- The average trapper is a nature-attuned killing machine that channels divine magic
Wiser words were never spoken.
|
Everything in the book was written as guidelines, the rule is there to get the GM to think about it before just automatically allowing or denying something (to many modern GMs need the help)
The point is to think about what the character is trying to do and is it feasible now? What if they had plenty of time? etc.
A hammer isn't gonna do anything to a rope that's freely hanging, but tighten that rope around and anvil and the hammer will weaken the rope and break it eventually, though it might take a day or two.
Also think of how it affects the tool used, a sword will damage a wall but the damage is minimal thus it will take a long time to carve a path through and will result in a badly damaged sword.
Yes an army can crumble a castle with swords but they wouldn't because there are better and faster methods and they don't want to reduce their weapons to scrap since they likely have to fight an enemy while doing so.
Gustavo, before you continue this argument, I want you to stop and think about something for a second.
Which is more unreasonable;
- A superhuman with unreal strength smashing through a thin barrier given some time
- The average trapper is a nature-attuned killing machine that channels divine magic
18 str is not "unreal str". Actually, 20 str is not "unreal str" either. If you look at the deadlift rules, and then go and look at powerlifting or strongman competitions, there are a lot of people with 18+ str. Sure it's not "average". But it's not "unreal" either. Any olympic weightlifter is over 18 str, and they can't take down 1 feet of masonry with they fists (I guess this is your thin barrier). Even more important, they can't take down a wall using a bladed scarf, no matter how hard they try, because a bladed scarf is simply NOT effective against a wall. Those strongman use sledge hammers vs rubber wheels to train too, to little effect. Which means no effect at all.
The average frontier trapper in a world where you can be attacked by a cockatrice when you go into the woods sounds about right. For real world, a ranger archetype without magic works perfectly.
Just so I can make sure this is clear: in your world the average civilian tracker is twice as well trained as a soldier and wields divine magic, because the NPC gallery says so. Yes or no?
Everything in the book was written as guidelines, the rule is there to get the GM to think about it before just automatically allowing or denying something (to many modern GMs need the help)
The point is to think about what the character is trying to do and is it feasible now? What if they had plenty of time? etc.
A hammer isn't gonna do anything to a rope that's freely hanging, but tighten that rope around and anvil and the hammer will weaken the rope and break it eventually, though it might take a day or two.
Also think of how it affects the tool used, a sword will damage a wall but the damage is minimal thus it will take a long time to carve a path through and will result in a badly damaged sword.
Yes an army can crumble a castle with swords but they wouldn't because there are better and faster methods and they don't want to reduce their weapons to scrap since they likely have to fight an enemy while doing so.
Exactly my position. Little effect means you can use your sword as a chisel, or whatever, and slowly carve a path. It'll take you a few days or weeks or more, depending on the size of the wall, but it's possible. However, it has "little effect"
Just like when someone tries to evade from a prison and start to cut the bars or carving a hole in the wall using a spoon. Is it possible to break the wall using a spoon? Yes. In a few years, you'll be free. However, it's not something that is measured in combat rounds, or use regular hit&damage rules. Thus it has effect. But this effect is little.
To Saucer and Ashiel:
If you let players with longswords to beat stone walls, because it'll be unfair for fighters not to do so... do you let the fighter with a hammer to destroy a rubber wall?
If the answer is no... isn't that unfair for the hammer fighter?...
If the answer is yes... can he destroy a rubber wheel with a hammer?
If the answer is no... why can he destroy a rubber wall, but not a rubber wheel? And if the answer is yes... why he can't destroy a rope with a hammer (something you have agreed so far) but he can destroy a rubber wheel with a hammer?