Do Hardness increases from two distinct sources stack?

[Shådid Evånjölyn]

There is a spell called

Reinforce Armaments:

You reinforce a weapon or armor suit to give it a temporarily upgrade or mitigate the fragile quality. A suit of armor or weapon touched that has the fragile quality is not considered to have the fragile quality for the spell’s duration. Normal armor suits or weapons subjected to this spell instead gain the masterwork quality for the spell’s duration and their hardness is doubled. If this spell is cast on masterwork or magical armor or weapons, their hardness is doubled for the duration of the spell.

It doubles the hardness. Then there is an item called a

Fortifying Stone:

On command, this semiprecious stone adheres to an object weighing not more than 100 pounds. As long as it is attached, the stone increases the object’s hardness by 5, its break DC by 5, and its hit points by 20. Like temporary hit points, these additional hit points are lost first when the object the stone is protecting is damaged, and once they are exhausted, the fortifying stone is destroyed. However, unlike temporary hit points, they can be completely restored by repairing the fortifying stone via a single casting of a make whole spell. Any effect that breaks or destroys the protected object also destroys any attached fortifying stones.

which adds 5 to the hardness and is based on stoneskin.
If a (hardness 10) sword is applied both of these, does it's hardness become 30?

[Cuup]

There's no bonus type, so I'd say yes. The real question seems to be if the bonus to Hardness from the Fortifying Stone is doubled from Reinforce Armaments.

[Shådid Evånjölyn]

Cuup wrote:

There's no bonus type, so I'd say yes. The real question seems to be if the bonus to Hardness from the Fortifying Stone is doubled from Reinforce Armaments.

So, you're thinking, maybe, Hardness 25?

[SlimGauge]

This seems to be a rare case where the order of operations matters. If the stone was applied first, then the +5 that it gives is doubled when the spell is cast. If the spell was cast first and the stone applied after, then the +5 is not doubled.

[Shådid Evånjölyn]

SlimGauge wrote:

This seems to be a rare case where the order of operations matters. If the stone was applied first, then the +5 that it gives is doubled when the spell is cast. If the spell was cast first and the stone applied after, then the +5 is not doubled.

Hmmmm... You just made me think of another, time-related case question:

The user applies her fortifying stone followed by reinforce armaments to the sword, and then removes the stone. What would the sword's hardness be now? I just figured it would drop to 20.

[SlimGauge]

20. It's as if the stone was never there.

Look at it this way. Imagine you've got a length of metal bar. You add a reinforcement to the side. Now you heat-treat the assembly. Both the original bar and the reinforcement get stronger/harder. Now remove the reinforcement. You're left with the original bar, but heat-treated.

[Archaeik]

I actually don't think order of operations matters, RA applies a x2 to (hardness)

[Aelryinth]

SlimGauge wrote:

This seems to be a rare case where the order of operations matters. If the stone was applied first, then the +5 that it gives is doubled when the spell is cast. If the spell was cast first and the stone applied after, then the +5 is not doubled.

More likely NOT. It adds a static +5 that comes from the stone. RA affects the base item, not the bonus from the stone.

You'd end up with 25 for the sake of consistency, the +5 bonus always getting added on last after you know the item's base hardness.

==Aelryinth

[SlimGauge]

We disagree. That's OK.

[James Risner]

Expect table variance.

Either 25 (10*2+5) or 30 ((10+5)*2).

There isn't a rule for this, but in the past many things have been ruled to be the worse for the PC (such as metamagic things inside spell containers using the worse) and best for the PC (resistance is applied after the save.)

There is no rule to tell us how to handle this as written, so no RAW covers this scenario. So all versions of RAW are interpreted to be handled in the way the GM sees the rules tells him.

[Shådid Evånjölyn]

I can cope with table variation, just as long as a I have a grasp of just how much things might swing.

And what I am hearing is 30 best case, 25 worst. I can work with that. Thanks.

[Aelryinth]

The rules DO try to be consistent, and not rely on order of operations for variant effects.

So, the conservative answer is 25, which takes that, ahem, out of the equation.

==Aelryinth