| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Here is the rule:
"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."
(core book, page 174)
What does "little effect" means? I've been discussing this lengthy in another thread (this ). What does "little effect" means?
There are two positions.
One of those positions means that innefective weapons (such as a longsword, or quarter staff, or bladed scarf vs a wall) rolls damage normally, and then substract hardness normally, while those weapons that are effective (such as a warhammer, maul or pick) destroy it with more ease (using a second rule, called vulnerability, that says
Vulnerability to Certain Attacks:
Certain attacks are especially successful against some objects. In such cases, attacks deal double their normal damage and may ignore the object’s hardness)
My position is that those weapons that are inneffective and do "little effect" (such as wooden clubs, spiked chains or kerambits) can't damage the wall normally. They do, at most, scratchs (that may allow you to draw the Z of Zorro, but can't tear down the wall), while the weapons that are effective against it, use regular damage vs hardness (and I reserve vulnerable rule for things like a demolition charge, or using fire vs a keg of lantern oil)
In any case, the ruling is (and should be) quite vague about which weapons are effective or not. For example, a Ram, which is not explicitly mentioned, could be treated as an effective weapon, if the GM thinks it's so. And some materials will have differen't effective weapons against it (for example, axes might be effectives against trees, while warhammers aren't). The question is, those weapons that aren't effective, are "inneffective weapons" and thus do "little effect". What does this mean?
I'd like to hear a FAQ about this.
It means whatever the GM thinks it means. If the GM wants these "little effects" to be cosmetic only, then they are. If he wants it to mean you can do damage, but only tiny amounts such that it will take hours, then it does.
I doubt you're going to get a FAQ on this.
No FAQ needed. This is one of those cases where if they made a specific rule for every material vs weapon type out there the rules would be huge and take up a page / have to be updated constantly. Instead they just say, "GM decision" and move on. Much simpler way of doing it and it won't require constant updates.
So, in the sentence "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"
It seems to me that if A has an effect, and B is likewise, then B has a similar effect, not a totally unrelated one. So, for example, if a bludgeoning weapon can't effectivelly damage a rope and that means it can't damage it at all, and likewise, a hammer has little effect on a rubber wall, it seems to indicate that a hammer can't effectively damage a rubber wall and therefore has a similar effect. Then, likewise a hammer does with a rope, a falchion can't effectively damage a stone wall.
Is that right?
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
No FAQ needed. This is one of those cases where if they made a specific rule for every material vs weapon type out there the rules would be huge and take up a page / have to be updated constantly. Instead they just say, "GM decision" and move on. Much simpler way of doing it and it won't require constant updates.
I agree with that (and I like it, indeed, as it's impossible to cover every single combination of attack and object), but when you play, say, PFS, and someone wants to break a wall of stone (or, even, a Wall of Stone, like the spell), I'm pretty sure that allowing or not to break the stone wall (or the Wall of Stone) with a dervish dancing scimitar will cause some heated debate.
Imho, the wording is clear, when it says a club cant break a rope, and likewise some weapons can't effect stone walls, it means some (per DM fiat) weapons can't damage stone walls. Or walls from other materials. For example, a long sword can't affect a stone wall, while a hammer can't affect a rubber wall. However, the rule is open ended, so some swords can affect some walls. For example, a colosal sword weighting three tons and a half, might have enough damage to be considered a wrecking device and do damage to a wall. Similarly, an adamantine katar (such as Wolverine's claws) could do so, by GM decision.
The problem I have with the other side of the debate position, is that under their definition, the GM can't negate a weapon the possibility to break a wall. It's decided by hardiness alone. Sure, their position is that the GM can give a bonus to hammers, but, under their reading of the rules, if a weapon does enough damage to bypass hardiness, then it is an effective weapon, period. So you happen to see people breaking walls with bladed scarfs, scorpion whips, or kerambits.
The problem I have with the other side of the debate position, is that under their definition, the GM can't negate a weapon the possibility to break a wall. It's decided by hardiness alone. Sure, their position is that the GM can give a bonus to hammers, but, under their reading of the rules, if a weapon does enough damage to bypass hardiness, then it is an effective weapon, period. So you happen to see people breaking walls with bladed scarfs, scorpion whips, or kerambits.
This rule expressly gives the GM the ability (that he already had due to rule 0) to do that (rule that bladed scarfs, scorpion whips or whatever are ineffective against a stone wall and bludgeoning weapons are ineffecting against a flexible object like a rope or rubber). Is this what you're asking the FAQ to say ? That the rule means what it says ?
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The problem I have with the other side of the debate position, is that under their definition, the GM can't negate a weapon the possibility to break a wall. It's decided by hardiness alone. Sure, their position is that the GM can give a bonus to hammers, but, under their reading of the rules, if a weapon does enough damage to bypass hardiness, then it is an effective weapon, period. So you happen to see people breaking walls with bladed scarfs, scorpion whips, or kerambits.This rule expressly gives the GM the ability (that he already had due to rule 0) to do that (rule that bladed scarfs, scorpion whips or whatever are ineffective against a stone wall and bludgeoning weapons are ineffecting against a flexible object like a rope or rubber). Is this what you're asking the FAQ to say ? That the rule means what it says ?
Basically, yes, it's that. If you go to the thread I linked, it seems some people have a different vision. They see it as if the rule does not allow a DM to say that some weapons (like say, a bladed scarf, or a scimitar) is ineffective against the wall. Their position is that the longsword (and by extension, any other weapon) does regular damage against the wall, while the hammer does double damage, or ignore hardiness, or a combination of both. They base their position in that, although it explicitly say that the bludgeoning weapons are useless against rope, it says that melee weapons other than hammers or picks have "little effect" on walls, and "little effect" is not "non effect at all". So, for them, "little effect" means regular damage, minus hardiness (and the hardiness being what make that effect to be "little")
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The rule means what it says. Exactly what the "little effect" is is up to the GM.
Now the GM shouldn't deny the fellow with the adamantine dagger from doing damage to the wall, but he should be able to limit how a weapon not designed to break stone could be used. Even if I've got an adamantine rapier, I'm not thrusting at the wall and putting little holes clean through it. I'm probably grasping the blade in my gloved or gauntleted hand and using the tip like a gouge. I'm doing damage, but not likely full weapon damage every six seconds. I'm having some "little effect" and it will take me some time to make a hole big enough to see through, let alone crawl through.
I've even had some GMs that compare the hardness of the wall to the hardness of the weapon and rule "You can do that, but since your weapon isn't as hard as the wall, it will take damage as well if you insist on trying."
This is why it's handy to carry a small adamantine chisel, so you can turn the damage that big club is doing into piercing, just so long as you trust that big barbarian to hit the chisel and not the hand you're holding it with.
I'd say give the item in question double toughness against said items. A Giant smashing a rope with a mattock is still going to smash those fibers to mush. A tiny dagger won't destroy a section of stone, but a dagger in a Storm Giant's hands probably will do more against it.
|
As most have said, the GM decides in the situation. As someone who has broken a number of tools using them inappropriately I think the rule that its ineffective is generous. You are more likely to ruin a longsword using it to smash through a door or break rocks. The rules don't cover that, they do say the GM can rule it just won't work. By contrast, even a relatively weak person can break stone with a light pick or cut wood with a handaxe, no harness bypass required.