They are applied separately. You get two things damaging the object, but it's two different sources of damage, therefor, the hardness applies to each source of damage.
If you had a feat that let you add damage together before hardness/DR, then that would let you stack them.
Don't forget that energy damage is halved before applying hardness, meaning it's mostly useless on anything hard.
Correct. Doesn't apply to golems or robots. Animated Objects though, take half damage...
Unless the type of damage is particularly suited to damaging that object, such as fire vs. wood or paper, sonic vs. Glass, etc.
|
They are applied separately. You get two things damaging the object, but it's two different sources of damage, therefor, the hardness applies to each source of damage.
Question - and I mean this as respectfully as possible.
Could you please show me where it specifically states this in the rules. I respect and understand that this is how it's ruled in the vast majority of situations (I myself do it just to conform), but I've never been shown where it says this is how it's handled.
Is this another of those situations where 90% of the people agree, but there's no actual reference, or is there a reference that's been forgotten over time?
This is not a conversation about how hardness works - that one's well documented, this is about damage from two sources that are combined into one (spellstrike is usually the best example).
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
this is about damage from two sources that are combined into one (spellstrike is usually the best example).
Spellstrike isn't an example of "two sources that are combined into one". Nothing in Spellstrike suggests the two pools of damage are in any way combined into a single event. Heck, they even use separate crit multipliers (spell is always x2, weapon is whatever it normally is).
The weapon damage and spell damage never got combined in the first place (it was always "you deal weapon damage, and also discharge the touch spell regardless of whether it's even a damage spell in the first place"), so you don't need anything telling you to keep them separate.
They are applied separately. You get two things damaging the object, but it's two different sources of damage, therefor, the hardness applies to each source of damage.Question - and I mean this as respectfully as possible.
Could you please show me where it specifically states this in the rules. I respect and understand that this is how it's ruled in the vast majority of situations (I myself do it just to conform), but I've never been shown where it says this is how it's handled.
Is this another of those situations where 90% of the people agree, but there's no actual reference, or is there a reference that's been forgotten over time?
This is not a conversation about how hardness works - that one's well documented, this is about damage from two sources that are combined into one (spellstrike is usually the best example).
EDIT: D'oh, ninja'd by jiggy.
Spellstrike doesn't combine the melee and spell damage into one attack. It lets you cast a touch spell as part of your melee attack and deliver the touch through your weapon. So you have melee damage AND spell damage. They are still sourced separately and treated as separate attacks. The only exceptions are specific rules that may combine damage from multiple attacks (such as the Clustered Shots feat in Ultimate Combat, for purposes of overcoming DR).
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The source rule for what specifically? For not combining damage events that just happen to occur very close to each other? Why would you ever combine them in the first place? Where's the source rule for that?
EDIT: Also, I think you misunderstand what "circular logic" is.
|
|
Jiggy - this is the problem with this argument. If I were a new player, I'd be immensely frustrated at this point. There are, and can be interpretation differences in semantics. I don't want to get into those. I'd like, for the purposes of instructing a new player who's now mad that their character, which runs the way they read, operates per the way we all play.
Maybe it's multiple sources. Maybe it's one line somewhere. Maybe it's forum clarification. I don't know - that's why I asked.
|
I'd point to this right here, myself.
Can a magus use spellstrike (Ultimate Magic, page 10) to cast a touch spell, move, and make a melee attack with a weapon to deliver the touch spell, all in the same round?Yes. Other than deploying the spell with a melee weapon attack instead of a melee touch attack, the magus spellstrike ability doesn’t change the normal rules for using touch spells in combat (Core Rulebook 185). So, just like casting a touch spell, a magus could use spellstrike to cast a touch spell, take a move toward an enemy, then (as a free action) make a melee attack with his weapon to deliver the spell.
All Spellstrike does is add the ability to make an attack with a melee weapon in addition to delivering the spell. The damage is not added together, but counted separately. And honestly, it's still a good deal. Sure, you get hardness counted twice against both damage rolls, but if you can beat the hardness with both, then you have a chance to do extra damage. If the issue is that your weapon isn't penetrating, then maybe you should just cast it as a touch spell as normal.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Also, if the concern is new players, then my advice would be to avoid implanting in them a mindset that any random idea they might think up needs a specific counter-rule to disprove it. "Not explicitly and specifically contradicted with its own special rule" is not the same as "valid interpretation that's supported by the rules".
EDIT: In case of any miscommunication, let me clarify I'm not trying to be snarky here. Completely serious. In years of observation, "Where does it say X isn't the case?" has consistently been one of the top 10, maybe even top 5, most commonly committed rules interpretation errors.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*sigh*
Thank you @Misroi for giving something firm to start with. Don't know if I agree that it says what you're saying it says, but it is absolutely a start.
This is the reason I no longer visit rules forums. I don't need you to read-into the intent of my question, I'm looking for an actual place to start and a place to go to better understand both the ruling, and potential alternatives/pitfalls to the ruling. It's like every time a question is posted, all the intent is read, but none of the actual question is answered.
We all look at rules with the blinders on. "It works this way because it works this way." Whether you like it or not, the language in this game is atrocious. It's is very easy to interpret a different way. I'm a long term player and I interpret differently than all of you. I run it the same way because everybody does, but I do interpret it differently. Sometimes, I'm just looking to see if we've interpreted it correctly, because if there's a group that thinks otherwise, there may be a reason we all think otherwise, especially when you compound it with the awful language used in the definitions of the game.
That's fine though - I'll look into it on my free time.
I think people think the damage is from two sources because one part of the damage comes from a weapon and one part of the damage comes from a spell and those are in fact two different things.
What I have a hard time understanding is why anyone would think they come from one source.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*sigh*
...
This is the reason I no longer visit rules forums. I don't need you to read-into the intent of my question, I'm looking for an actual place to start and a place to go to better understand both the ruling, and potential alternatives/pitfalls to the ruling. It's like every time a question is posted, all the intent is read, but none of the actual question is answered.
We all look at rules with the blinders on. "It works this way because it works this way." Whether you like it or not, the language in this game is atrocious. It's is very easy to interpret a different way. I'm a long term player and I interpret differently than all of you. I run it the same way because everybody does, but I do interpret it differently. Sometimes, I'm just looking to see if we've interpreted it correctly, because if there's a group that thinks otherwise, there may be a reason we all think otherwise, especially when you compound it with the awful language used in the definitions of the game.
Well that was salty. Not sure that was called for.
Nobody was calling your motives into question or telling you "it works this way because it works this way". For my part, I was telling you that the burden of proof lies on a different side of the argument than you think it does, and advising how you could help new players avoid that type of error. That's a far cry from "circular logic" or reading into your motives. (And that's to say nothing of the actual rule that I cited in response to your request, twice, that you had no comment on.)
You know, I only even opened this thread because I saw your name in the Recent Activity sidebar and thought, "Hey, I remember that guy from before I got soured on PFS, that guy's alright; maybe I'll go see what he wants and maybe I can be helpful." Then when my citations and explanations weren't to your liking, you accused me of reading into your motives and played the "I'm experienced!" card.
Lesson learned, I guess. :/
|
|
If you want your wrench in the interpretation (which honestly made me consider when I read it), just refer to the actual text of Spellstrike:
If successful, this melee attack deals its normal damage as well as the effects of the spell.
That can easily be parsed in different ways.
ex. This attack (singular) deals (the damage of the weapon) in addition to (the effects of the spell). So, one attack (one effect) has damage (1d8) plus the effect of the spell (5d6 Electric).
Attack = (1d8) + (5d6 electric)
For that interpretation, why would you add hardness twice?
It doesn't say 'the enemy is then subject to the spell' it says 'as well as the effects of the spell', as if it's just a part of the weapon attack.
On the other hand, we have an example of an attack with a spell cast: spell storing.
Anytime the weapon strikes a creature and the creature takes damage from it, the weapon can immediately cast the spell on that creature as a free action if the wielder desires.
This is a bit more clear on the parsing:
The attack (singular) hits and does (the damage of the weapon). Then, you (cast a spell) that is stored (as a free action).Attack = (1d8), Free action = (5d6).
There we actually have two separate actions, it's obvious what happens there - each action is separate and subject to the defenses.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's still the fact that Spellstrike itself specifies that you determine crit multipliers separately for the weapon and spell damage. It would be quite a stretch to say that you determine the crit damage separately for the two damage sources but then pool them together before actually dealing the damage.
Additionally, if we take "as well as the effects of the spell" to mean what you suggest, then does Spellstrike bypass the need for saving throws or SR checks? After all, that's not part of the "effect" of the spell. Or what about spells that don't even have an "effect" line at all?
If we have enough of a stop-gap to say that we need to go through the process of checking whether shocking grasp gets through SR, then can we really call it a single damage event? Or to come at it from another angle, if shocking grasp fails to overcome SR, then wouldn't the unification of the damages mean that the weapon damage fails as well? If the weapon damage still goes through, doesn't that mean the spell and the weapon are still separate?
Now then, there's also the above-cited FAQ saying that the ONLY change between Spellstrike and the Core touch spell rules is the involvement of a weapon; well, we also have this bit from the "Holding the Charge" subsection of "Touch Spells in Combat":
Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. .... If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges.
Now, we know from FAQs and much discussion that the only modification Spellstrike is supposed to make to the normal touch spell rules is that you can deliver with a weapon. What most people don't know is that the same concept exists for unarmed/natural weapons in the Core Rulebook already.
Spellstrike for non-manufactured weapons is a Core rule, and the FAQ confirms they work identically.
With that in mind, look at that last line: you deal your normal punch damage and the spell "discharges".
What happens when you deal normal damage for your unarmed strike? What happens when you discharge a touch spell?
What's the process when you deal normal damage for your unarmed strike against a target with hardness? You subtract the hardness from the unarmed strike damage.
What's the process when you discharge a (damaging) touch spell against a target with hardness? You subtract the hardness from the spell's damage.
Argument #1
Premise: The process for resolving unarmed strike damage clearly includes subtracting hardness from the unarmed strike damage.
Premise: The process for resolving a damaging spell clearly includes subtracting the hardness from the spell's damage.
Premise: The touch spell rules, when delivering a touch spell through an unarmed strike, tell you to complete both of the above processes, not to consolidate them into a single process.
Conclusion: When delivering a touch spell through an unarmed strike, you subtract hardness from both the unarmed strike damage and the spell's damage.
Argument #2 (Dependent on argument #1)
Premise: When delivering a touch spell through an unarmed strike, you subtract hardness from both the unarmed strike damage and the spell's damage.
Premise: Per the FAQ, Spellstrike functions exactly like the normal touch spell rules except for allowing a weapon in place of a touch or unarmed strike.
Conclusion: When delivering a touch spell through Spellstrike, you subtract hardness from both the weapon damage and the spell's damage.
I believe LazarX confused hardness and DR in his head. DR wouldn't apply against the energy damage portion.
Outside of a very specific subset of creatures it's rare for hardness to come up, so it's easy to conflate them.
|
|
Just to throw something out there, sneak attack damage is notated as "extra damage" and counted as part of the same damage for doing things like overcoming DR.
If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.
The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied. Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet.
With a weapon that deals nonlethal damage (like a sap, whip, or an unarmed strike), a rogue can make a sneak attack that deals nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage. She cannot use a weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage in a sneak attack, not even with the usual –4 penalty.
The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment.
As a mirror question, would you deduct DR X/- from the 1d6+x (weapon damage) + 5d6 electrical damage, or just from the 1d6+x weapon damage?
|
|
The last PFS scenario I played on Saturday prior begs to disagree. It had creatures with both DR and Hardness.... created by those nasty Pathfinders.I believe LazarX confused hardness and DR in his head. DR wouldn't apply against the energy damage portion.
Outside of a very specific subset of creatures it's rare for hardness to come up, so it's easy to conflate them.
And one thing to remember in that case is to determine whether one is bypassed, but the other is not, the one not bypassed still applies.
E.g.: DR 5/Piercing, Hardness 8
Attacker is wielding an adamantine greatsword, which will bypass the Hardness, since it is less than 20, but still be reduced by the DR, as the greatsword is not, normally, a piercing weapon.
The last PFS scenario I played on Saturday prior begs to disagree. It had creatures with both DR and Hardness.... created by those nasty Pathfinders.I believe LazarX confused hardness and DR in his head. DR wouldn't apply against the energy damage portion.
Outside of a very specific subset of creatures it's rare for hardness to come up, so it's easy to conflate them.
Then the last scenario you played was wrong.
DR applies against all attacks except those that specifically bypass that type of DR and energy attacks.
Hardness applies against all types of attacks, period. Objects with hardness (not creatures) also reduce the damage from energy attacks by half unless ruled to be especially effective, like fire versus wood or paper.