For reference:
http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/587/roleplaying-games/dd-calibrating-yo ur-expectations-2
Are walls *intended* to be easily broken by a mid to high level melee character?
It seems counter intuitive as it's not common a trope in classic fantasy fiction, and it understandably grinds most GMs gears as it makes walls redundant.
However it is common in "high" fantasy featuring explicitly superhuman heroes.
Pathfinder is not a classic fantasy either, it takes ideas from other genres as well, including comic books and action movies or even tales and media from asia.
So it wouldn't be unreasonable to say that there's a chance this is intended.
Investigating further requires an analysis of the system.
Walls have a listed hardness and a listed HP. If they were meant to be harder to break, it is reasonable to assume that they would be harder.
It's not like the deigners didn't know how much damage a raging barbarian can deal at LV10.
A raging barbarian can literally wield a ballista projectile with his hands and deal *more* damage by swinging it.
The math behind the game leavs little doubt, characters can smash rocks.
There are also monsters that are literally made of stone, or the stoneskin spell. Both have an higher hardness than walls, yet the PCs are supposed to be able to damage them on a regular basis using regular weapons, whereas a professional LV1 miner would struggle even with a pick.
So, characters can smash rocks better than professional miners because they are so much stronger, faster hitting, and, well, superhuman past LV6.
So we know that lv6+ is beyond what's humanly possible, so "common sense" does not apply as we're not talking about "common" people; and walls were intentionally designed to have relatively low stats (realistic for an average human i.e. 12 str bab 0 and therefore no power attack, but easy to overcome for powerful characters)
Some weapons might not be very effective against walls. But magical weapons or weapons made of a special material that bypass stone's hardness are supposed to cut it easily if enough force is applied.
After all, if you can completely bypass its hardness, you're supposed to be able to break it. And if the weapon has a higher hardness than the wall has.
I'm not asking if it's a behavior that should be punished by "making too much noise" or having "structural failure" happen, or "damaging weapons" (which would be weird considering that attacking a stone golem doesn't damage your weapon, and most magic weapons are harder than walls anyway)
I'm asking if it's safe to assume that it was intended to be possible to smash stone at will (just like it was intended that after a certain level, falling damage won't kill you regardless of distance) and if not why didn't they just make walls harder (it's not like they didn't know) and why are PCs supposed to be able to damage stone golems that are harder than walls?
I would say yes they are as around level 7-8 ish spells like resilient sphere start to appear to makes walls which are MUCH harder to smash through. Later you get wall of force, wall of Iron, prismatic wall.
with dungeons though its worth baring in mind that some walls don't lead to tunnels they lead to ... rock and more rock and more rock and eventually the outside or maybe a room or tunnel 30 ft away. Not all walls are worth smashing you know?
Breaking down walls and doors with ease is THE reason I'm super reluctant to give out adamantine weapons when I GM.
Also, back in the days of 3.0, I had a barbarian/fighter/frenzied berserker (or maybe just wannabe frenzied berserker at the time) with an adamantine greataxe and boots of jumping and I jumped on top of a Daern's Instant Fortress and sundered a hole in its roof, all in one round. Which is super crazy. At least it was a garbage campaign that didn't last too long...
An average healthy person with adequate equipment who puts up enough effort should be able to break through a stone wall. It may take a while (and cause sore muscles), but it's not impossible. If an average person can do that, why wouldn't a person with superhuman Strength and the fantasy world equivalent of a jackhammer be able to do the same thing much faster/more efficiently?
Also, I think you are misrepresenting the rules for damaging objects. Hardness is not the same thing as damage reduction. A magic weapon may bypass certain types of DR, but it cannot bypass hardness. Likewise a nonmagical weapon may be especially effective against a certain type of object (bypassing hardness and dealing double damage) whereas a magical weapon could be ineffective against the same object (dealing no damage at all). Most creatures with DR or hardness are subject to critical hits; objects are not.
Adamantine weapons may be able to ignore the hardness of most objects, but they still won't do anything to a stone wall unless they are designed for exactly that purpose:
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.
I have a player who plays an unarmed fighter. He is level 16 with Mythic Tier 6. He punched through the bottom of a pirate ship to sink it. We did the calculations based on his strength, even extra hardness because of thicker wood used in the hull. It took him several strikes, but he did it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To help answer your question, there is even a feat meant specifically to combine with breaking through walls ala Kool-Aid Man.
Stunning Irruption
For extra fun, add this feat to cause shrapnel to spray(it even hits yourself). It's better for large creatures who also have reach and will be outside the shrapnel spray range.
Shrapnel Strike
There is also a weapon designed for breaking things like walls. It deals triple damage against inanimate objects.
Maul of the Titans
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.
Yes, I agree.
In my specific case I'm GMing a group, they are 12th level and the monk asked if he could dig a hole in a wall using fists.
Because monks are trained to break stones with bare hands, I rule that a monk's fist is a suitable weapon.
More importantly, he is a "martial artist" monk and he has a class ability that lets him ignore Hardness if he makes an appropriate check.
I said he could but another guy in the party started complaining that it was unrealistic, not possible by the rules and definitely not intended to be possible.
We had a small discussion that didn't really settle the argument.
It ended with the monk player (a good guy, really) saying to the other player "if it bothers you, I won't".
So I thought maybe I made wrong assumptions about the game, and I asked for the opinion of the community.
Thank you for your answers so far.
Dot.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.Yes, I agree.
In my specific case I'm GMing a group, they are 12th level and the monk asked if he could dig a hole in a wall using fists.
Because monks are trained to break stones with bare hands, I rule that a monk's fist is a suitable weapon.
More importantly, he is a "martial artist" monk and he has a class ability that lets him ignore Hardness if he makes an appropriate check.I said he could but another guy in the party started complaining that it was unrealistic, not possible by the rules and definitely not intended to be possible.
We had a small discussion that didn't really settle the argument.It ended with the monk player (a good guy, really) saying to the other player "if it bothers you, I won't".
So I thought maybe I made wrong assumptions about the game, and I asked for the opinion of the community.
Thank you for your answers so far.
I would have ruled the same way as you. A monk's fist is a bludgeoning weapon and it fits their lore.
Also, to the player who did not like your call, A: This is a GM call B:The whole game is unrealistic C: It does fit the rules D: Monks sunder metal objects with their fists, this is very intended