| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On page 40 the PCs encounter a fully operational Collector Robot in a "must fight" encounter . This robot has a hardness of 10 .
Given that the PCs will be level 3 at this point it is extremely unlikely that they will own an Adamantine weapon.
Why was such a potentially invulnerable foe put in at such a low level?
A canny PC should be packing -some- kind of electricity damage to do some harm to it.
A well placed crit will wreck it, and so will any PC that can hit pretty decently (most anyone with a 2hander or powerattacking).
It's tanky (took a while for my group of level 2 pc's to take it) but it's not completely invulnerable. There's also nothing wrong with running away, being more prepared and coming back
A well placed crit will wreck it, and so will any PC that can hit pretty decently (most anyone with a 2hander or powerattacking).
So Greatswords are now the "default" assumption?
Greatswords, or greataxes, or rapidshot cluster shot, or a ranger's favored enemy, or electricity damage, or a light weapon good for getting criticals, or any number of other high damage options. Robots are hard to kill but perfectly manageable at level 3. It's significantly easier than the quasit fight in Rise of the Runelords.
Also adamantine arrows.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually I agree with op. Hardness 10 is a bit much for that level. I would tone it down to 5.
My players didn't have an issue with that encounter, sure i had the collector robot use mostly it's stun gun (because he wanted the specimens alive).
My group at that time had a two hander bloodrager, a pistolero gunslinger (who used his adamantine bullets), a DEX based inquisitor and a wizard.
Sure the inquisitor and the wizard couldn't even scratch it but the gunslinger and the bloodrager handled it well.
In the land of barbarians, everyone has Power Attack.
At least, in theory.
Electricity! load up on electricity.
We have an Android with a Great Sword so we should be good:)
And yes unless your GM takes pity on you, its not going away!
Adapt or Die!
My players were fine with it. Fighter saw his first strike leave a small gleaming scratch, so he put all the strength he could behind his follow up strikes (I.E. power attacked). Others tried different ways of disabling it (trying to throw stuff into its fan blades), or of supporting the fighter (flanked, or aid another). It was a hard fight, but they enjoyed it.
And since they failed to disable the Robot Core, they had a round two with another one AND Meyanda which turned it into a desperate and pitched battle expending every resource.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, if you're a construct, energy doesn't care what sort of hardness you have - it gets through and does full damage.
That may or may not be true, honestly. Technically, the rules don't even allow for creatures to have hardness, for all that several do. The hardness description, and indeed almost all other rules text interacting with hardness, only refers to hardness as something that objects have, not creatures. The Devastating Smash power from the mythic champion path more or less implies that hardness should be treated as DR/-, in which case the energy damage would get through... but that's reading as much into the text as is actually there, maybe more.
|
Technically, the rules don't even allow for creatures to have hardness, for all that several do. The hardness description, and indeed almost all other rules text interacting with hardness, only refers to hardness as something that objects have, not creatures.
... Most constructs have hardness and construct is a type of creature, I'm not even following this.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rez1?Robot-Hardness-Questions#17
has all the information you need about energy damage and hardness in respect to robots.
Technically, the rules don't even allow for creatures to have hardness, for all that several do. The hardness description, and indeed almost all other rules text interacting with hardness, only refers to hardness as something that objects have, not creatures.... Most constructs have hardness and construct is a type of creature, I'm not even following this.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rez1?Robot-Hardness-Questions#17
has all the information you need about energy damage and hardness in respect to robots.
If that is true, why not simply give them DR 10/adamantine?
|
|
Technically, the rules don't even allow for creatures to have hardness, for all that several do. The hardness description, and indeed almost all other rules text interacting with hardness, only refers to hardness as something that objects have, not creatures.... Most constructs have hardness and construct is a type of creature, I'm not even following this.
Most constructs do not have hardness. Of the ones in the original Bestiary, they all have either DR or nothing at all, with the lone exception of animated objects. As far as I can tell, none of the ones in Bestiary 2 have hardness whatsoever.
Moreover, the actual rules for hardness describe it as a quality of objects, not creatures. RAW, we have no way to deal with a creature with hardness, any more than we do, say, an object with a Reflex save. All the other rules that deal with hardness - the adamantine weapon property, Mythic Improved Unarmed Strike, the dwarven FCB for monks - do so solely in the context of objects. And yet here we are, with all these robots running around with hardness. James Jacobs' posts notwithstanding, RAW there's no way to know how it should work.
If that is true, why not simply give them DR 10/adamantine?Technically, the rules don't even allow for creatures to have hardness, for all that several do. The hardness description, and indeed almost all other rules text interacting with hardness, only refers to hardness as something that objects have, not creatures.... Most constructs have hardness and construct is a type of creature, I'm not even following this.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rez1?Robot-Hardness-Questions#17
has all the information you need about energy damage and hardness in respect to robots.
Because hardness applies to energy damage. It's otherwise functionally the same.
Honestly it's pretty simple. As creatures with hardness, robots reduce all damage done by their hardness value (unless the damage source ignores hardness, such as with an adamantine weapon). Even if the damage is energy-based, they still reduce it by the hardness value (though it is not halved like it is for objects). After that, simply apply any other applicable reductions or resistances the robot may have like for any other creature.
I don't understand what's difficult about this.
Because hardness applies to energy damage. It's otherwise functionally the same.If that is true, why not simply give them DR 10/adamantine?Technically, the rules don't even allow for creatures to have hardness, for all that several do. The hardness description, and indeed almost all other rules text interacting with hardness, only refers to hardness as something that objects have, not creatures.... Most constructs have hardness and construct is a type of creature, I'm not even following this.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rez1?Robot-Hardness-Questions#17
has all the information you need about energy damage and hardness in respect to robots.
So the party's wizard would still need a fairly powerful electrical attack to punch through that Hardness, even with the Robot's vulnerability.
This goes back to my original question. Is a Hardness 10 too high at this level?
I would definitely apply the robot's vulnerability first before hardness. That will definitely help.
A shocking grasp or aggressive thundercloud at that point would be doing (3d6*1.5)-10, or about 5 damage a shot (with the thundercloud lasting 3 rounds but also allowing Reflex saves).
A scroll or wand of lightning bolt would hit for 16 before Reflex save.
Shock shield is too weak to be of use without amplification, which comes with its own dangers. Still, a creative evoker with energy resistance up can probably doing something with it. Defensive shock suffers from a similar limitation, though without the potential of personal injury. Unfortunately, even if you could make it useful, you can't cast it on someone else.
The robot in question has about 30 hit points. It has a decent Reflex save, but only a 13 touch AC, so shocking grasp attacks are likely to land. Obviously having some range would be better, so if the wizard has managed to get a wand of lightning bolt, he can almost take it out by himself in 2-3 rounds. Its melee to hit is small for the CR, and easily countered by having a decent Dex and mage armor up. But even without the wand, having shocking grasp will still deal enough damage to help take it down - about a third of its health in just 2 rounds.
I had a lengthy discussion about this in one of the threads, Robots' Hardness applies before vulnerability. I was arguing the other way around (Agreeing with you) but I was convinced otherwise.
Still, if the players' only option of killing the various Hardness-10 robots in this adventure (There are three!), feel free to apply it the other way around for their sake.
My own group had a 22-strength (Non-Raging) Orc Barbarian with a Greataxe (Now using a Falchion), and so they use him to get through the robots' durability. The rest of the group helps the orc via assists and flanking, since none of them are really capable of hurting the thing otherwise.
|
|
I looked up that discussion, and I still don't think it's right. The "golden rule" is not "whatever is best for the defender" in d20 or Pathfinder; there is no general guideline like that in this game. (I personally think the golden rule is "whatever is best for the game," but that's a personal playstyle thing, not a rules thing.) In this case, though, we have a pretty strong precedent in the actual rules:
Energy Attacks: Energy attacks deal half damage to most objects. Divide the damage by 2 before applying the object's hardness.
In this instance, it's a resistance rather than a vulnerability, but the order of effects is clear: multiply, then subtract hardness. I can't for the life of me see any reason why it would be any different for vulnerability.
I looked up that discussion, and I still don't think it's right. The "golden rule" is not "whatever is best for the defender" in d20 or Pathfinder; there is no general guideline like that in this game. (I personally think the golden rule is "whatever is best for the game," but that's a personal playstyle thing, not a rules thing.) In this case, though, we have a pretty strong precedent in the actual rules:
Energy Attacks: Energy attacks deal half damage to most objects. Divide the damage by 2 before applying the object's hardness.In this instance, it's a resistance rather than a vulnerability, but the order of effects is clear: multiply, then subtract hardness. I can't for the life of me see any reason why it would be any different for vulnerability.
I'm not very educated in this subject, but I also read that discussion and I believe it was stated that concerning hardness and such you have to remember that robots are not objects, they are creatures, and they should be treated as so, and that rules concerning objects do not apply to robots.
I'll admit I read that discussion a while ago, but I'm fairly certain on this.
We're not talking about objects, we're talking about creatures with hardness.
I argued the same, but someone had given me the example with Resist spells - you subtract the resist before anything else, such as vulnerabilities. One would assume the hardness does the same.
That being said, theres absolutely nothing wrong with applying vulnerabilities first, ESPECIALLY because the rules don't clearly state it. Really, in this case, its more or less up to the GM - and, in this case, it favors the players so I doubt they'll mind!
I agree that the Golden Rule should be 'whatever is best for the game', thus my reasoning on that its up to the GM to decide which one to use. Considering the difficulty of these robots so early on, its probably best to use the vulnerability before hardness rule anyways.
I take everything I said back. Vulnerability before Hardness it is! I should've just listened to my instinct before being convinced otherwise. I was right in the first place, back when I first got into the discussion a while back.
My own group had a 22-strength (Non-Raging) Orc Barbarian with a Greataxe (Now using a Falchion), and so they use him to get through the robots' durability. The rest of the group helps the orc via assists and flanking, since none of them are really capable of hurting the thing otherwise.
So, what are saying is that without that heavily optimized, full-blooded Orc Barbarian character (wielding a two handed weapon), your heroes would be unable to effect the robots.
From Crustypeanut's link:
The animated objects are constructs, so they are now creatures, not objects. As creatures, energy damage is not halved against them (in effect, becoming a creature trumps the normal object rules). So they take full damage from energy attacks (150% if they are vulnerable to that energy type), then hardness is applied. However, page 174 of the Core Rulebook states (under "Vulnerability to Certain Attacks") that "Certain attacks are especially successful against some objects.In such cases, attacks deal double their normal damage and my ignore the object's hardness."
Even though the animated objects are no longer "objects," I would still apply this rule about overcoming hardness to them in this adventure (but the 150% creature vulnerability trumps the double damage to an object part of the rule), as hardness can be quite difficult to overcome for low-level PCs. So if the PCs use fire against the warrior dolls, for example, it would deal 150% the normal damage, and ignore the hardness. Other energy damage would deal full damage which would ten be reduced by hardness, the same as for any other attack against it.
This changes things significantly. Essentially, electricity attacks would now deal 150% damage and ignore hardness, making them quite effective against robots, even with cantrips and 1st-level spells. With this, a single lightning bolt scroll could potentially (quite likely) end the robot we've been discussing.
If that is true, why not simply give them DR 10/adamantine?Technically, the rules don't even allow for creatures to have hardness, for all that several do. The hardness description, and indeed almost all other rules text interacting with hardness, only refers to hardness as something that objects have, not creatures.... Most constructs have hardness and construct is a type of creature, I'm not even following this.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rez1?Robot-Hardness-Questions#17
has all the information you need about energy damage and hardness in respect to robots.
Well then a weapon blanch applied to some arrows would be more than enough to handle the problem.
My own group had a 22-strength (Non-Raging) Orc Barbarian with a Greataxe (Now using a Falchion), and so they use him to get through the robots' durability. The rest of the group helps the orc via assists and flanking, since none of them are really capable of hurting the thing otherwise.So, what are saying is that without that heavily optimized, full-blooded Orc Barbarian character (wielding a two handed weapon), your heroes would be unable to effect the robots.
How is a barbarian having high strength and a two-handed weapon heavy optimizing? It's like saying ranger with weapon style: bows using a longbow is heavy optimization.
My own group had a 22-strength (Non-Raging) Orc Barbarian with a Greataxe (Now using a Falchion), and so they use him to get through the robots' durability. The rest of the group helps the orc via assists and flanking, since none of them are really capable of hurting the thing otherwise.So, what are saying is that without that heavily optimized, full-blooded Orc Barbarian character (wielding a two handed weapon), your heroes would be unable to effect the robots.
No, he was just the best suited for the task. The gunslinger could hurt them when using Up Close and Deadly (Pistolero)(While he had Grit), while the Warpriest could hurt them with his warhammer if his accuracy didn't suck.
But yes, basically it would be hard for the group to damage them without the orc. The Gunslinger doesn't have Deadly Aim yet, the Sorceress's only offensive spell is Color Spray, and our Warpriest is cursed into missing most of his attacks because the dice roller hates him.
How is a barbarian having high strength and a two-handed weapon heavy optimizing? It's like saying ranger with weapon style: bows using a longbow is heavy optimization.My own group had a 22-strength (Non-Raging) Orc Barbarian with a Greataxe (Now using a Falchion), and so they use him to get through the robots' durability. The rest of the group helps the orc via assists and flanking, since none of them are really capable of hurting the thing otherwise.So, what are saying is that without that heavily optimized, full-blooded Orc Barbarian character (wielding a two handed weapon), your heroes would be unable to effect the robots.
No, but starting with a non-raging Strength of 22 is a bit heavy in the optimization department.
It does mean that had an 18 which is high but probably not the result of optimization tricks so much as lucky rolls. You do realize that orcs get a +4 to strength right?
My own group had a 22-strength (Non-Raging) Orc Barbarian with a Greataxe (Now using a Falchion), and so they use him to get through the robots' durability. The rest of the group helps the orc via assists and flanking, since none of them are really capable of hurting the thing otherwise.So, what are saying is that without that heavily optimized, full-blooded Orc Barbarian character (wielding a two handed weapon), your heroes would be unable to effect the robots.
No.
As i said above my group did handle the robot with a bloodrager (with rage STR 20) weilding a greatsword and a gunslinger pistolero using adamantine bullets.
The Orc's player wanted to make a b*+&~#&-retarded guy with massive strength. So he dumped his int, wis, and cha to 7 and went with 18 strength and some extra points in dex/con. Its a 15 point build, so its pretty optimized for "Me smash things". While yes, its optimized, its also a very simple and very straighfoward build that most barbarians go after, even new players. That I allowed Orcs was the reason he has 22 strength instead of 20.
He makes up for his high-optimization by truly playing into his 5 int, wis, and cha. Luckily he's not an evil orc, but more like Groot. In fact, his name is Groog.. so yeah.. :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now about the hardness issues.
Based on that i am going to say that you don't get to bypass the hardness of robots with electricity.
Now as to whether the x1.5 comes before or after hardness... i am not sure, i can see it going both ways... personally i think that it comes after hardness.
Did PFS get a ruling on that? from what little i know it seems that this season has quite a few robots.
From Crustypeanut's link:
This changes things significantly. Essentially, electricity attacks would now deal 150% damage and ignore hardness, making them quite effective against robots, even with cantrips and 1st-level spells. With this, a single lightning bolt scroll could potentially (quite likely) end the robot we've been discussing.The animated objects are constructs, so they are now creatures, not objects. As creatures, energy damage is not halved against them (in effect, becoming a creature trumps the normal object rules). So they take full damage from energy attacks (150% if they are vulnerable to that energy type), then hardness is applied. However, page 174 of the Core Rulebook states (under "Vulnerability to Certain Attacks") that "Certain attacks are especially successful against some objects.In such cases, attacks deal double their normal damage and my ignore the object's hardness."
Even though the animated objects are no longer "objects," I would still apply this rule about overcoming hardness to them in this adventure (but the 150% creature vulnerability trumps the double damage to an object part of the rule), as hardness can be quite difficult to overcome for low-level PCs. So if the PCs use fire against the warrior dolls, for example, it would deal 150% the normal damage, and ignore the hardness. Other energy damage would deal full damage which would ten be reduced by hardness, the same as for any other attack against it.
Don't know about PFS, but Leo, but this is the ruling from Rob on Vulnerability and Hardness. Vulnerability first, then apply hardness. Its up to the GM if Robots, which are Vulnerable to Electricity, don't gain their hardness towards it.
Quoted Rob's quote in Thanis' quote for Quoteyness.
I don't think that his personal ruling on the animated dolls shouldn't apply robots, while it does make some sense that against wooden dolls you should be able to ignore hardness (still i don't agree), it doesn't make sense that really good made robots would have such a glaring weakness.
As i said before about whether you get the x1.5 before or after hardness, i am not sure, i just think that it makes a better for a better game that it applies after hardness.
Has James Jacobs weighed in anywhere?
its his AP baby seems like he'd be the man to ask:)
Very little, in another thread that i have linked 3 posts above.
|
|
Correct; robots aren't objects and thus take full damage from energy attacks. Their hardness reduces damage done by 10 (or whatever), regardless of if it's energy damage or force damage or slashing/piercing/bludgeoning damage or whatever. That's why it's not DR (which doesn't touch energy damage) or energy resistance (which doesn't touch slashing/bludgeoning/piercing damage).
Bringing the quote into this thread for easier reference.
Correct; robots aren't objects and thus take full damage from energy attacks. Their hardness reduces damage done by 10 (or whatever), regardless of if it's energy damage or force damage or slashing/piercing/bludgeoning damage or whatever. That's why it's not DR (which doesn't touch energy damage) or energy resistance (which doesn't touch slashing/bludgeoning/piercing damage).Bringing the quote into this thread for easier reference.
So the only thing that doesn't resolve is Hardness vs. Vulnerability.
Personally, I think that applying Vulnerability before Hardness works better.
|
|
This is where lawyering generally kills the game. I settled it as vulnerability then hardness except in situations where it's obviously going to penetrate it (wooden doll reference). Robots I assume have some electrical protection (as they are water proof too apparently) there for they don't have the same condition as wooden dolls and hardness.
GM's there for a reason, if the players want to stir the pot and talk about a ruling for ages where it's RAI floating around, then that's their prerogative.
Heh so my players are currently having one helluva time fighting the Gearsman in the Engineering deck. The Barbarian is having a string of bad luck with hitting it, and since they've replaced their Warpriest with a Monk/Brawler, they have no healer besides a wand of infernal healing that the sorceress is carrying.
They have yet to even identify the damn thing, and the sorceress (who has the Jolt cantrip) hasn't thought to use it. The Gunslinger did deal 4 damage to it, but only then by using grit and dealing max non-crit damage with the pistol (And near max-damage with the Up Close and Deadly deed).
Meanwhile the sorcereress's tiger is fruitlessly dealing 1d6+5 damage, not yet able to penetrate its Hardness and the Monk/Brawler has it grappled. She can do 1d4+6+2d6 damage with her Strangle ability from the Strangler Brawler archetype, so she should be able to hurt it a bit. Unless it kills her first (And it might, considering its minimum damage with that Neural Inhibitor is 11 with power attack, and she's kinda squishy)
Its a ‼FUN‼ (In the dwarf fortress sense) fight for sure. I don't know what they'll do with Meyanda o.o
Didn't your players force the reboot on the robots?
They have yet to even identify the damn thing, and the sorceress (who has the Jolt cantrip) hasn't thought to use it. The Gunslinger did deal 4 damage to it, but only then by using grit and dealing max non-crit damage with the pistol (And near max-damage with the Up Close and Deadly deed).
As we have discussed on the thread, the hardness applies to the Jolt attack. Even with the vulnerability applied first, it still doesn't punch through.
Correct; robots aren't objects and thus take full damage from energy attacks. Their hardness reduces damage done by 10 (or whatever), regardless of if it's energy damage or force damage or slashing/piercing/bludgeoning damage or whatever. That's why it's not DR (which doesn't touch energy damage) or energy resistance (which doesn't touch slashing/bludgeoning/piercing damage).
Didn't your players force the reboot on the robots?
Nope! They didn't examine that room as they didn't want a conflict with the repair drones there. Last time they fought one, it nearly took one of them out, and they got tired of being netted. These drones are happily busy repairing the room so the players opted to let them be, although they're keeping an eye on them in case they join the Gearsman.
They have yet to even identify the damn thing, and the sorceress (who has the Jolt cantrip) hasn't thought to use it. The Gunslinger did deal 4 damage to it, but only then by using grit and dealing max non-crit damage with the pistol (And near max-damage with the Up Close and Deadly deed).As we have discussed on the thread, the hardness applies to the Jolt attack. Even with the vulnerability applied first, it still doesn't punch through.
Correct; robots aren't objects and thus take full damage from energy attacks. Their hardness reduces damage done by 10 (or whatever), regardless of if it's energy damage or force damage or slashing/piercing/bludgeoning damage or whatever. That's why it's not DR (which doesn't touch energy damage) or energy resistance (which doesn't touch slashing/bludgeoning/piercing damage).
I've decided for my game that Electricity damage ignores Hardness of Robots vulnerable to electricity, but it doesn't bypass Resist Electricity for those robots who have it. This allows the Sorceress, who picked Color Spray as her main offensive spell, to help with robots a bit.
Now they just need to find out that this thing's vulnerable to electricity..
Creative Director
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
So... yes. Hardness is indeed hard. It's better than damage reduction. It's something that helps to set robots apart from other constructs, and to counteract the fact that their vulnerabilities to electricity and critical hits can come back to hurt them.
That said... the majority of the robots in Fires of Creation do NOT have hardness, because it IS tough for folks to deal with at low levels.
In hindsight, it would have likely been a good idea to have the collector robot have hardness 5, as a way to ease PCs into the concept of robots a bit more, and then have the gearsman at the end be the full deal with hardness 10. The collector robot is a lot more of a "required encounter" than the gearsman as well, so having it throw around its hardness 10 that early is a bit tricky, considering that it's not an encounter you can really skip that easily.
Well thats ONE way of beating its hardness. Grapple it, pin it, and tie it up - then have the Barbarian coup de grace its face in.
Thats what my players just did..
My PCs....they shut off all the robotsan coup de graced them........
They killed them all.....all of my robots....all dead...