| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Smashing an Object
Smashing a weapon or shield with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon is accomplished with the sunder combat maneuver (see Combat). Smashing an object is like sundering a weapon or shield, except that your combat maneuver check is opposed by the object's AC. Generally, you can smash an object only with a bludgeoning or slashing weapon.
Armor Class: Objects are easier to hit than creatures because they don't usually move, but many are tough enough to shrug off some damage from each blow. An object's Armor Class is equal to 10 + its size modifier (see Table: Size and Armor Class of Objects) + its Dexterity modifier. An inanimate object has not only a Dexterity of 0 (–5 penalty to AC), but also an additional –2 penalty to its AC. Furthermore, if you take a full-round action to line up a shot, you get an automatic hit with a melee weapon and a +5 bonus on attack rolls with a ranged weapon.
Hardness: Each object has hardness—a number that represents how well it resists damage. When an object is damaged, subtract its hardness from the damage. Only damage in excess of its hardness is deducted from the object's hit points (see Table: Common Armor, Weapon, and Shield Hardness and Hit Points, Table: Substance Hardness and Hit Points, and Table: Object Hardness and Hit Points).
Hit Points: An object's hit point total depends on what it is made of and how big it is (see Table: Common Armor, Weapon, and Shield Hardness and Hit Points, Table: Substance Hardness and Hit Points, and Table: Object Hardness and Hit Points). Objects that take damage equal to or greater than half their total hit points gain the broken condition (see Conditions). When an object's hit points reach 0, it's ruined.
Very large objects have separate hit point totals for different sections.
Energy Attacks: Energy attacks deal half damage to most objects. Divide the damage by 2 before applying the object's hardness. Some energy types might be particularly effective against certain objects, subject to GM discretion. For example, fire might do full damage against parchment, cloth, and other objects that burn easily. Sonic might do full damage against glass and crystal objects.
Ranged Weapon Damage: Objects take half damage from ranged weapons (unless the weapon is a siege engine or something similar). Divide the damage dealt by 2 before applying the object's hardness.
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.
That's where the concept is derived from.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen/heard people say that weapons need to be of an appropriate type to break through walls/doors/etc. Where does it say this?
Is this what you're looking for, from the CRB, Breaking and Entering
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.
Edit: Ninjad by Claxon while fact checking
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's interesting that it says most weapons have little effect on doors but in the environments section it says most slashing/bludgeoning weapons work.
That's STONE doors.
I don't advise trying to carve through a stone door with your longsword.
|
It's interesting that it says most weapons have little effect on doors but in the environments section it says most slashing/bludgeoning weapons work.That's STONE doors.
I don't advise trying to carve through a stone door with your longsword.
I suppose it can be read that way (and it probably should).
What about adamantine? If the wall has fewer hardness than what an adamantine weapon can ignore, does it still need to be an appropriately-typed weapon? (i.e. which rule is more specific)
I'd say that adamantine beats cuts the stone.
I think if a weapon is ineffective, changing what it's made from won't necessarily make it any more effective. An adamantine bludgeoning weapon won't affect a rope anymore than a steel one.
I could see exceptions being made in some circumstances though.
|
|
I think if a weapon is ineffective, changing what it's made from won't necessarily make it any more effective. An adamantine bludgeoning weapon won't affect a rope anymore than a steel one.
I could see exceptions being made in some circumstances though.
I suppose that example makes sense, but what about a sword vs a wall? If the wall's hardness is low enough the sword should still be able to slice through it.
Obviously this is a different world/universe/whatever, but Wolverine's claws cut through stone/metal/doors/walls all the time.
Adamantine weapons ignore up to 20 points of hardness, so an adamantine slashing weapon can carve through stone (hardness 8), iron (hardness 10), steel (hardness 10), and mithral (hardness 15), along with all the lesser materials I didn't mention like cloth and wood and such. The only thing adamantine weapons cannot slash through is other adamantine, or anything else that has a hardness of 20 or higher.
Nevertheless, sometimes weapons are still ineffective, like the example above with an adamantine club and rope - at the GM's discretion, of course.
I would rule that adamantine weapons can still be ineffective, reducing the damage done. A rapier, for example, might be able to punch holes in a stone wall but that will not bring the wall down any time soon.
Thats what the ineffective weapon rule is about and thats how I intend to rule it.
I would rule that adamantine weapons can still be ineffective, reducing the damage done. A rapier, for example, might be able to punch holes in a stone wall but that will not bring the wall down any time soon.
Thats what the ineffective weapon rule is about and thats how I intend to rule it.
Please note that the rules say only slashing and bludgeoning weapons are generally effective at smashing objects. This mean piercing weapons, like the rapier, are kind of automatically out. Subject to GM discretion.
An adamantine slashing weapon vs a stone wall becomes somewhat effective, but would it be fully effective? I am torn. I'm with JustaGuess and an Adamantine rapier just isn't going to do anything much anytime soon.
If you don't want a binary effective/ineffective situation how about this additional guideline: If you judge an adamantine weapon as becoming more effective, but not fully effective, consider allowing it to deal damage without bypassing DR.
There should not be a blanket prohibition of damage types vs a wall. After all, what type of damage does a pick do?
|
|
A sword might put a scratch in the wall, but it isn't going to be able to pry the edges of that scratch apart. Swords have thickness to them. You know those scenes in cartoons where someone slashes a sword and some object seems intact but then sheers off along a perfect mirror edge? Yeah, that doesn't really happen, especially not with a stone wall. You need to be able to lever and pry the stones apart with an appropriate tool (ie. pickaxe). By contrast, wood is much softer and more pliable, compared to stone, so your adamantine sword would have far less trouble cleaving through it. It's basically the distinction between Hardness and Strength. Diamond is hard, but at the same time fragile. You cannot scratch a diamond and a diamond can scratch anything, but if you smack a diamond with a hammer, it will shatter. A diamond can scratch a steel bar, but that steel bar wouldn't necessarily shatter if struck with a hammer. Adamantine will overcome hardness, but it can't overcome compression or tensile strength.
I'm inclined to say your argument is entirely flawed as the bolded isn't defined at all for pathfinder, but there isn't enough text on the subject to say what's right and what isn't in this regard.
I would venture t say that compression and tensile strength (among other things) are expressed by the game concepts of hardness and hitpoints.
I would venture t say that compression and tensile strength (among other things) are expressed by the game concepts of hardness and hitpoints.
And the nebulous 'ineffective weapon' clause. Which makes it difficult.
I don't like the concept that as soon as someone gets an adamantine weapon they can tunnel through solid stone with ease, but I don't have a great way, even with a house rule, to fix it and keep some things that I do like (taking an axe to a door for example.) My solution so far has been to not abuse this as a player, and when I run games my players have returned the favor, but if it came down to it I'm not sure how I would rule.
|
|
I would venture t say that compression and tensile strength (among other things) are expressed by the game concepts of hardness and hitpoints.
Which is ignored by adamantine for most all materials. Hence me saying most of what you're saying probably doesn't matter. But Dave is right in that what exactly makes a weapon "ineffective" isn't well defined.
Eh...I imagine adamantine sword vs stone wall like the Star Wars scenes of Jedi cutting through doors. Less swing as stab and slice.
And I like the idea of high level martials punching through walls (perhaps with adamantine gauntlet assistance).
If you don't want a binary effective/ineffective situation how about this additional guideline: If you judge an adamantine weapon as becoming more effective, but not fully effective, consider allowing it to deal damage without bypassing DR.
What?
Did you mean allowing it to deal damage without bypassing Hardness?
EVERY weapon can already do that. If you hit a stone door with a steel great maul, you do your damage -8 (Hardness) to the door.
Now you're suggesting that the way to balance adamantine in a non-binary way is to treat it like it's not adamantine? That seems like extremely binary, actually.
He suggests to treat an ineffective adamantium weapon as a not ineffective not adamantium weapon.
If you don't want a binary effective/ineffective situation how about this additional guideline: If you judge an adamantine weapon as becoming more effective, but not fully effective, consider allowing it to deal damage without bypassing DR.What?
Did you mean allowing it to deal damage without bypassing Hardness?
EVERY weapon can already do that. If you hit a stone door with a steel great maul, you do your damage -8 (Hardness) to the door.
Now you're suggesting that the way to balance adamantine in a non-binary way is to treat it like it's not adamantine? That seems like extremely binary, actually.
(just noticed I used DR when I meant hardness - sorry about that!)
Not quite what I meant. I'm talking about a weapon that would normally be totally ineffective - that is dealing zero damage - becoming partially effective.so instead of:
0 damage->ignores hardness
you get:
0 damage->can't ignore hardness->ignores hardness
It was just a thought in an area already subject to GM arbitration.
(For hardness read hardness less than 20 of course)
I don't like the concept that as soon as someone gets an adamantine weapon they can tunnel through solid stone with ease, but I don't have a great way, even with a house rule, to fix it and keep some things that I do like (taking an axe to a door for example.)
Well, you could just point out that without some Knowledge (engineering) they risk tunnels collapsing on top of them or taking out a load-bearing wall.
@ Kurt, It's still not a house rule. Whether a certain type of damage is effective is explicitly up to DM discretion. Whatever you choose was literally stated to be how the rule works.
|
The problem with that is that lightsabers don't have to worry about friction - their business end is made of energy, and they're not so much cutting things and burning/melting them. A physical blade is relying on depth of penetration to inflict damage, and it's going to encounter a LOT of friction the deeper it goes thanks to the flat of the blade. In comparison, a pickaxe has a wedge-shaped head that's designed to deliver a more focused impact without much penetration, and be easier to withdraw without getting stuck in the material.Eh...I imagine adamantine sword vs stone wall like the Star Wars scenes of Jedi cutting through doors. Less swing as stab and slice.
And I like the idea of high level martials punching through walls (perhaps with adamantine gauntlet assistance).
Indeed. Remember that ice doesn't have any hardness either, yet I don't imagine anyone thinks that one can use a normal sword to cut through a two foot thick block of ice as if it were made of butter.
Indeed. Remember that ice doesn't have any hardness either, yet I don't imagine anyone thinks that one can use a normal sword to cut through a two foot thick block of ice as if it were made of butter.The problem with that is that lightsabers don't have to worry about friction - their business end is made of energy, and they're not so much cutting things and burning/melting them. A physical blade is relying on depth of penetration to inflict damage, and it's going to encounter a LOT of friction the deeper it goes thanks to the flat of the blade. In comparison, a pickaxe has a wedge-shaped head that's designed to deliver a more focused impact without much penetration, and be easier to withdraw without getting stuck in the material.Eh...I imagine adamantine sword vs stone wall like the Star Wars scenes of Jedi cutting through doors. Less swing as stab and slice.
And I like the idea of high level martials punching through walls (perhaps with adamantine gauntlet assistance).
I do in D&D or Pathfinder. I am the One then.
Regardless of what sort of hardness you're getting past, the stone wall will still have plenty of hitpoints so why is it hard to believe that an adamantine sword could eventually carve a path? Most classes would have to be reasonably leveled to break down a wall in a single blow and by that point, there are also spells to make doors and/or holes so I don't see a balance problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
mmmmmm..pointless rules minutiae