|
You don't ignore energy resistance on a creature because your weapon happens to bypass it's damage reduction, why would you rule differently for hardness?
Because in hardness, they are not two separate things. An adamantine weapon does not bypass damage reduction, it bypasses *hardness*, i.e. *both* damage reduction *and* energy resistance. If the creature was meant to resist separately against physical and energy damage, it would have written as DR+ER.
The flaming property deals 1d6 fire damage, not the weapon.
Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire that deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit. The fire does not harm the wielder.
Compare with:
A merciful weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of damage, but all damage it deals is nonlethal damage. On command, the weapon suppresses this ability until told to resume it (allowing it to deal lethal damage, but without any bonus damage from this ability).
Since the fire damage comes from 'the fire' on the weapon, it gets reduced from hardness separately from the damage you deal with the weapon. But, since the merciful property adds 1d6 points of damage to the weapon that is not reduced separately. Sneak Attack follows the merciful property so it is totalled up before being reduced by hardness.
EDIT: This is why rules arguments get very silly sometimes.
|
|
The fire damage may come from "the fire" on the weapon, but it is still part of the weapon.
It's really quite simple in my opinion.
1. Creature has hardness 10.
2. Attacker has adamantine flaming longsword.
3. Adamantine weapon bypasses hardness. It does *not* just bypass *part* of the hardness. It bypasses hardness, *period*.
4. Therefore, hardness 10 does not exist for that attack.
5. The adamantine flaming longsword then goes on to deliver 1d8 physical + 1d6 fire damage.
|
Because it's integrated to the weapon. It would be different if there was a separate sword swing and a separate scorching ray.
But it is separate. if we change the type of damage we're doing, we should check what defense applies to the new type shouldn't we?
Slightly related: if a creature with hardness 8 and fire resistance 5 would it get both reductions?
|
|
But it is separate. if we change the type of damage we're doing, we should check what defense applies to the new type shouldn't we?
Sure, but since adamantine did not change, hardness is negated either way, so there is no defense that applies whatever the attack type.
Slightly related: if a creature with hardness 8 and fire resistance 5 would it get both reductions?
If attacked with an adamantine weapon, then the hardness would be negated, and the fire resistance would remain, and would deduct from any flaming damage.
|
So, moving on, are there other ways, especially low level, to deal with hardness?
Swarm the robot with a mob of seven angry farmers/peasants/commoners to assist your grapple (each of these mooks will give you +2 to your grapple); pin robot; tie down robot; coup de grace robot.
"Multiple Creatures: Multiple creatures can attempt to grapple one target. The creature that first initiates the grapple is the only one that makes a check, with a +2 bonus for each creature that assists in the grapple (using the Aid Another action).[...] "
Hilarity ensues if you have access to multiple tiny or diminutive friends:
"Tiny, Diminutive, and Fine Creatures
Very small creatures take up less than 1 square of space. This means that more than one such creature can fit into a single square. A Tiny creature typically occupies a space only 2½ feet across, so four can fit into a single square. Twenty-five Diminutive creatures or 100 Fine creatures can fit into a single square. Creatures that take up less than 1 square of space typically have a natural reach of 0 feet, meaning they can’t reach into adjacent squares. They must enter an opponent’s square to attack in melee. This provokes an attack of opportunity from the opponent. You can attack into your own square if you need to, so you can attack such creatures normally. Since they have no natural reach, they do not threaten the squares around them. You can move past them without provoking attacks of opportunity. They also can’t flank an enemy."
The aid another grapple pileup with Tiny or smaller helpers seems the way to go for low levels, especially considering the following:
"Grappled: A grappled creature is restrained by a creature, trap, or effect. Grappled creatures cannot move and take a –4 penalty to Dexterity. A grappled creature takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks, except those made to grapple or escape a grapple. In addition, grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform. A grappled character who attempts to cast a spell or use a spell-like ability must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level), or lose the spell. Grappled creatures cannot make attacks of opportunity."
...which means your tiny friends won't suffer AoOs as they enter the robot's square to Aid Another your grapple... note that if you're dealing with 100+ fine mosquito friends, you may or may not care if a few perish in the attempt.... :P
Hm. I dunno. I can see both sides of this one. Samy and Rynjin both seem to have perfectly valid opinions and it is a bit ambiguous in the rules.
I am inclined to go with Samy's interpretation as it seems like the most literal interpretation of the rules. It does say that Adamantine bypasses hardness and doesn't specify just one type. There is nothing that states that Adamantine works as if Energy Resistance.
Now, I would agree that if it had Hardness (or Damage Reduction) and Energy Resistance that both would apply before resolving damage but that isn't the question here. Hardness seems to be a single number that only needs to be bypassed once. It doesn't matter how you accomplish bypassing it. If it is bypassed then all further damage applies if it is done on the same attack. Now, separate attacks it would apply to separate times, sure. But if it is damage that is all being applied on the same attack then hardness only reduces damage once.
That is how I see it, anyway. It is ambiguous enough to allow for other opinions obviously or this thread wouldn't exist or have gone on this long. I'm FAQing it.