The fighter or paladin takes 5 less damage, and then... the shield is instantaneously broken, reduced to worthless slag. They need to spend an action to unstrap it, so that is probably happening only after combat. Indeed, after the battle, the fighter or paladin withdraws another heavy steel shield from their golf bag.
I think the intent is that if you're a shield user, you invest in a feat that allows you to quickly repair the dent in 10 minutes after combat.
The intent is to allow you to choose to block many small hits or a limited number of big hits. If you choose to get dents in the shield, you have to repair them.
But then on the next round, the fighter or paladin uses Raise a Shield and Shield Block again towards a 30-damage attack. They again prevent 15 damage... but alas, that pushes the shield into 4 Dents, meaning it is "destroyed beyond salvage." So much for that 10th-level item.
The fighter had a choice of whether to use the Shield Block reaction or not. She could have waited to use the Shield Block on a lesser hit.
Maybe shields and items could use another dent before being broken, but I don't have enough playtest experience to have an opinion.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The shield's main usefulness is the +2 ac. It's actually extremely powerful. There are very few ways to get your ac higher in this edition. The shield block ability shouldn't be used on the main boss of the encounter. Rather you should be trying to block his minion attacks. You negate the same base damage per block anyways so it makes more tactical sense to block the smaller strikes and just take the bigger one (hopefully your + to ac will either help you not get hit, or not get crit.)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
block damage that is below your hardness, and from rase shield action you get AC bonus.
Shield is not made to take big hits, rather with a bonus to AC and negating damage up to its hardness, its more of anti-attrition tool rather than anti spike-damage tool.
So with shield, those 3 or 5 damages that you periodically block save you a lot of life over time. Only occasionally is smart to block big damage, if that would save you from going down, a party is low on healing and sacrificing shield is a good idea in that moment
I actually find it funny how people who don't understand mechanics very well, or are not intelligent enough to see that even 5 hardness shield is not anti-spike tool, treat it as such and demand its uselessness because of it
How often is it going to be remotely useful though? Take a light shield. It has Hardness 3. Only blowguns have a damage die below 1d4, which means with no damage bonus at all all but the absolute weakest weapon in the game has a 50/50 chance of denting a light shield. With a +1 damage mod a 1d4 weapon now has a 75% chance of denting a light shield, and with a +2 damage bonus it's guaranteed to dent it (with a 25% chance of breaking it).
But let's look at a Heavy shield instead. Hardness is up to 5, so yeah that dagger or whatever won't get through it on its own, and doesn't reach 50/50 until a +2 damage bonus (because that's so hard to get, right?) Let's step up one size though, now we've got a 1d6 weapon, which people might actually use as a primary weapon. Flat, it has a 33% chance to dent your shield. At +1 damage, it's up to 50/50. At +2 damage it's now at 66% chance to dent, and at +3 you'd only be able to block a min-damage blow without taking a dent. And of course this is just flat worse with d8, d10, or Gods forbid d12 weapons.
Let's go a few levels, say level 5. You've now got an Expert shield. Light Hardness 4, or Heavy 6. Meanwhile your foes have +1 weapons. Let's see how long that Hardness 4 or 6 lasts against 2d6, 2d8, or 2d12 hitting opponents. But maybe you splurged and got a Sturdy shield. At item level 5 you have Expert Light Steel or Heavy Wooden, either way getting Hardness 8. You're still going against 2dWhatever, with whatever damage bonus... still a very high chance of taking bare minimum 1 dent (>50% with 2d6+1, or 2d8 or higher flat) but at least you can block 3 times before that very expensive level 4 or 5 shield is Broken and useless I guess.
Now let's look at the strongest option, the uncommon Legendary Heavy Adamantine Shield. Hardness 21. Meanwhile you're fighting foes wielding +5 weapons, dealing 6d4 to 6d12 damage flat, likely with other effects on top of that. You have a good chance of blocking a flat +5 dagger, which only has a 2.05% chance of beating 21... but a d6 weapon dents you more than half the time, a d8 weapon just shy of 90% of the time, and against a d12 you have only a 1.29% chance of it being low enough to not dent and a 38.65% chance of it dealing enough damage to inflict 2 dents at once. The entire reaction is either a money sink or completely worthless.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Real shields were not actually sturdy, because it was beneficial for the sword to bite in your shield because that way you trap the sword and disarm the other guy.
Shields were basically one-time use items, in battles if you had any action, you would probably need to replace parts of your shield afterwards, maybe even just boss would be all that is left.
[Citation Needed]
This guy, who wrote an entire book about shields, says otherwise.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
You should have seen the phalanx marching with Alexander, their shields fell apart at the slightest pressure, they were practically paper mâché. Likewise the Roman legionary shields used to form a shield wall in the final battle against Queen Boudica's massive army. Kleenex over a frame of popsicle sticks.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
You should have seen the phalanx marching with Alexander, their shields fell apart at the slightest pressure, they were practically paper mâché. Likewise the Roman legionary shields used to form a shield wall in the final battle against Queen Boudica's massive army. Kleenex over a frame of popsicle sticks.
yeah, I've got a friend with a PhD in military history who says that actually, the only reason rank-and-file soldiers ever used shields is that they were ordered to. Everybody knew dual-wielding was the most effective fighting style, but only nobles and other people with high social status were allowed to, since it wouldn't look as cool if everyone was doing it.
Light steel shields have hardness 5. They have light bulk, so you can have a lot of them. I had a fighter on his third light steel shield in one fight in the play test. Free action to drop broken shield, action to get new shield, action to raise new shield, and an action to attack with long sword. My fighter took 5 crits that fight and thanks to healing and the shields he did not drop. So it works at level one. Do not know about the higher levels but I think not. Need a feat or skill feat to boost the hardness to meet increasing damage without increasing the cost of shields to much. The magic shields will not work for the style I used at higher levels.
|
I still don't understand the "clarification". According to the text of shield block, the shield only takes the damage that it stops. This makes sense, and is what the action actually says. It also means that you'll never have a shield take two dents since it's not possible to block more damage than its hardness (which after the recent errata is one dent).
Where does this other idea that you look at the total damage come from? It feels like this is needlessly complicated and punishing as well as being weird in that the same points of damage are basically hitting two things (the shield and you).
I still don't understand the "clarification". According to the text of shield block, the shield only takes the damage that it stops. This makes sense, and is what the action actually says. It also means that you'll never have a shield take two dents since it's not possible to block more damage than its hardness (which after the recent errata is one dent).
Where does this other idea that you look at the total damage come from? It feels like this is needlessly complicated and punishing as well as being weird in that the same points of damage are basically hitting two things (the shield and you).
The general example of item damage on 175 compares total damage to shield and assigns two dents, this also matches the wording of Construct Armor, as well as the rules for damaging Hazards (if it were actually possible to do so).
Shield Block is now the special snowflake, and likely its mechanics are erroneous, and they really are as bad as they can possibly be...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
OK guys, for real, go listen to the twitch. They start talking about hardness and dents a little after 59 minutes in, right at the end. They never actually use the world shields. Mark is just re-stating the general rules for damaging items.
It is never actually said that a SHIELD takes 2 dents if it takes twice its hardness in damage. All the arguments for why shields may be exceptions to this-- like the fact that your shield is only absorbing up to its hardness in damage, and you are taking the rest-- means it can't actually take multiple dents on one hit.
Mark also specifically says there is no sunder mechanic intentionally in the playtest, because having the DM target your gear always upsets players. Which doesn't inform the shield block by RAW, but it does give us some insight into their intent when we are trying to figure this out.
Paizo still needs to clarify this, because the shield dents rules are still confusing af. But currently I'm running it as written. "Your shield prevents you from taking an amount of damage up to its Hardness-- the shield takes this damage instead, possibly becoming dented or broken." That read that if you shield block with a light wooden shield on a hit for a 100 damage, the shield only takes 3 damage and one dent, because the other 97 damage goes to you. Currently the only way to break an undamaged shield in one blow (sans special abilities like Wrecker Animal Companions or that Rogue feat) is to attack it while it is unattended.
It also means that while you can break a shield in combat, it will pretty much never be destroyed since it ceases to give its benefit when broken. So provided you have time to repair it between combats, you can get great mileage out of a single shield.
Threads like this are just spreading misinformation. I'm hoping that the website stays up for long enough for Mark or somebody else to actually clarify how shields work, and that in the meantime people will actually listen to what they have said so far.
I still don't understand the "clarification". According to the text of shield block, the shield only takes the damage that it stops. This makes sense, and is what the action actually says. It also means that you'll never have a shield take two dents since it's not possible to block more damage than its hardness (which after the recent errata is one dent).
Where does this other idea that you look at the total damage come from? It feels like this is needlessly complicated and punishing as well as being weird in that the same points of damage are basically hitting two things (the shield and you).
It is coming from two things:
`1) The playtest rules being confusing and potentially contradictory as written on various things about this. That said, the specific rules on shield block support what you are saying. Page 175 talks about a wooden shield with Hardness 3 taking 10 damage taking 2 dents, but as written the only way that shield can take 10 damage is if the shield is lying on the ground when you decide to smash it.
2) Some people didn't closely listen to the twitch stream and thought Mark and Dan were talking about shields when they clearly were just talking about items. (To be fair, I think a lot of people in the twitch chat may have been hoping for answers on shields, but the question filtered through the chat moderator was just on dents and hardness.) Other people have taken this and ran with it. It is essentially a big game of telephone.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Threads like this are just spreading misinformation. I'm hoping that the website stays up for long enough for Mark or somebody else to actually clarify how shields work, and that in the meantime people will actually listen to what they have said so far.
Yes, they need to clarify in both the playtest rules and in the forums, because your understanding of the rules and the following paragraph don't agree.
ITEM DAMAGE
An item can be destroyed if it takes damage enough times. An item reduces any damage dealt to it by its Hardness. The Hardness of various materials is explained in the Materials section on page 354. If an item takes damage equal to or exceeding the item’s Hardness, the item takes a Dent. If the item takes damage equal to or greater than twice its Hardness in one hit, it takes 2 Dents. For instance, a wooden shield (Hardness 3) that takes 10 damage would take 2 Dents.
I'd much prefer if it changed to :
"If an item takes damageIt would be more intuitive.
@Captain Morgan:
Correct, currently as written a Shield can only take 0 or 1 Dent from being used the Shield Block. However I'm certain shields are supposed to work like an animated object's Construct Armor does. Which would allow it to take up to 2 dents (possibly being destroyed if it was already Dented) from a single hit, as well as making shields take damage like every other object is supposed to (assuming it was even possible to attack objects of course).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Jason S: Yeah, I got into page 175 in a follow post. It doesn't actually contradict what I (IE, the shield block reaction) say though. If that shield takes 10 damage it takes 2 dents. But it can't take 10 damage from a shield block as written. But you are absolutely right they need to clarify, because even assuming I am right that is the single most confusing example of an item to use for page 175. I actually PM'ed Mark about exactly this; we will see if he can weigh in.
@Cantriped: Eh. Maybe. There's good reason to assume Construct Armor isn't relevant to this though.
1) We know from the Paizo stream that they intentionally left out sunder, and there is no way as written to specifically attack worn or wielded items.*
2) We know monsters don't follow the same rules as PCs. Using the bestiary to justify PC abilities doesn't follow.
3) Construct armor doesn't behave anything like normal armor.
4) "Every other object is supposed to" not actually be able to be dented, broken or destroyed when worn*. Shields blocks are already exceptions to this.
*Barring very specific abilties with dedicated costs like Wrecker Animal Companions or the Sabotage rogue feat.
OK guys, for real, go listen to the twitch. They start talking about hardness and dents a little after 59 minutes in, right at the end. They never actually use the world shields. Mark is just re-stating the general rules for damaging items.
Go watch today's.
This is what we got:
If the player takes 100 damage and has a wooden shield (3 hardness) the PC takes 97 damage. The shield will take at least 1 dent. If it was a critical, then at least 2. But its kind of a moot point as its likely destroyed.
Mind, there's a little paraphrasing there as I was typing that up after listening to him and he rambled a bit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK guys, for real, go listen to the twitch. They start talking about hardness and dents a little after 59 minutes in, right at the end. They never actually use the world shields. Mark is just re-stating the general rules for damaging items.Go watch today's.
This is what we got:
If the player takes 100 damage and has a wooden shield (3 hardness) the PC takes 97 damage. The shield will take at least 1 dent. If it was a critical, then at least 2. But its kind of a moot point as its likely destroyed.Mind, there's a little paraphrasing there as I was typing that up after listening to him and he rambled a bit.
I'll listen to it myself later. In the other thread they mentioned he was referencing what he would do as a GM, which is not necessarily the same as the actual rules. I mean, going by what you wrote we know for certain he was playing Calvin Ball because there's nothing in the rules about crits affecting dents, just raw damage numbers.
Without that sentence to item damage, shields are really terrible. If they kept it in the book, they were actually very sturdy, even without modification. Making most average attacks only being able to Dent it once due to mathematical reasons (a good thing) rather than a forced rule (like some people interpreted the text, which was a bad thing).
In short, with Hardness acting as hardness (like PF1) a Wooden Shield would need to taken 6 damage (BEFORE reduction) to be dented ONCE. Because the damage dealt to the shield would be only 3. Making it very hard for a shield to take two dents and require repair, only happening with a 9 damage -with 6 dmg to the shield after reduction -(often max damage or even crit for some monsters). In case you're thinking they're too strong... The monsters I'm using in this example are Level 0 (which for simplicity I didn't take the time to specify, but most of them roll 1d6 or 1d6+x), which makes bosses and higher CR enemies really wreck your shield, but it's more in line with is expected, you'll put your shield to save you from a very powerful blow and it will suffer for it, but surprisingly, it also will be unlikely to have the shield completely destroyed save for rare cases.
Things were actually quite manageable, requiring clarification of the rules and some tweaks. Then they screwed everything up with that errata. Just add the sentence back in and clarify everything Paizo! Please!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll listen to it myself later. In the other thread they mentioned he was referencing what he would do as a GM, which is not necessarily the same as the actual rules. I mean, going by what you wrote we know for certain he was playing Calvin Ball because there's nothing in the rules about crits affecting dents, just raw damage numbers.
It's after the 50 minute mark, but I didn't jot down the exact time stamp.
As for "what he'd do as a GM" that it may have been, but if he adjucates as the GM something that's clearly not in the rules ("a crit does 2 dents"), he's doing it wrong. As a player I'd raise my hand and say, "Uh, excuse me, where does it say that in the rules?" He can still come back and say, "Oh this is a house rule."
In either case the question was clearly asked for clarification on the rules that exist and he didn't answer that question. It's gotten really frustrating that we haven't gotten this rule errata'd yet.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In either case the question was clearly asked for clarification on the rules that exist and he didn't answer that question. It's gotten really frustrating that we haven't gotten this rule errata'd yet.
QUITE!
I have the feeling that at LEAST 2 different people were working on the Equipment Damage and Shield Mechanics and they really never came to a meeting of the minds.
I'm confident that based on the dozens of threads in these PT Forums that the Purple Golem is probably taking a harder look at both systems right now. No matter what they NEED to get rid of the Red Herring Example of a Shield taking damage from 175, and probably provide a combat example of how Shield Block is actually supposed to work in the Action description.
Nobody wants to hear "If I were the GM then X, but probably..." from the literal Developers and I'm sure they're starting to take a close look at the issue now that they've been put on the spot during the Livestream at least twice now.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nobody wants to hear "If I were the GM then X, but probably..." from the literal Developers...
I certainly don't, but I don't wanna watch those videos at all... ever. I want the RAW to be updated ASAP, even if that means releasing daily 'hot-fixes' declaring what the intended mechanics were supposed to be.
I'll listen to it myself later. In the other thread they mentioned he was referencing what he would do as a GM, which is not necessarily the same as the actual rules. I mean, going by what you wrote we know for certain he was playing Calvin Ball because there's nothing in the rules about crits affecting dents, just raw damage numbers.It's after the 50 minute mark, but I didn't jot down the exact time stamp.
As for "what he'd do as a GM" that it may have been, but if he adjucates as the GM something that's clearly not in the rules ("a crit does 2 dents"), he's doing it wrong. As a player I'd raise my hand and say, "Uh, excuse me, where does it say that in the rules?" He can still come back and say, "Oh this is a house rule."
In either case the question was clearly asked for clarification on the rules that exist and he didn't answer that question. It's gotten really frustrating that we haven't gotten this rule errata'd yet.
I think part of the problem is that the questions that are filtering through aren't the cleanest examples. I've already pointed out the problem on Mark's stream. I'd hazard a guess that Stephen got hung up on how extreme that example was. 100 damage on a first level shield is a rather absurd scenario, and I could totally see houseruling extra dents to the shield in that situation. Using the example from page 175 might actually have gotten us a better answer, for example.
At any rate, I will add my voice to the chorus of folks frustrated that it hasn't been clarified yet, and until I hear DEFINITIVE proof otherwise I'm gonna continue with my initial interpretation. I just think it is the most fun way to run it, and while fun is slightly less of a priority for a playtest than a normal game, I still want my players to like it.
Nobody wants to hear "If I were the GM then X, but probably..." from the literal Developers...I certainly don't, but I don't wanna watch those videos at all... ever. I want the RAW to be updated ASAP, even if that means releasing daily 'hot-fixes' declaring what the intended mechanics were supposed to be.
They're doing weekly errata postings. Don't expect anything as massive as Death and Dying again, though.
All right, finally listened to the stream. (At about the 46 minute mark.) Gonna sum it up. (Also going to post it in more than one place because I really don't want more misinformation spreading.)
Question: A fighter uses a wooden shield and blocks a 100 point hit. How much damage does the fighter take and how many dents does the shield take?
1) Stephen decisively says the fighter takes 97 damage; this is consistent with the common reading of the rules.
2) "Now the shield is gonna take AT LEAST one dent, and if I were the GM, though this isn't really codified, it would just shatter." Slight paraphrasing there.
3) He justifies this by saying the point is moot; if you are using such a low level shield you probably don't have 97 hit points and are just dead anyway.
4) "But yeah, you'd take AT LEAST one dent."
5) Dan asks Stephen if that would be dependent on the GM. At this point Stephen is clearly thinking through it out loud but again that would be him as the GM.
6) Stephen says "if it was a critical hit it would be two dents." There is nothing in the rulebook that supports this AFAIK.
7) He says "I think there's also a thing where if you hit double that damage threshold you're gonna take 2 dents as well." He's almost certainly referencing page 175, but as discussed page 175 doesn't gel (or technically contradict) with what the shield block reaction says. Also he's expressed enough uncertainty by now that taking this as gospel seems rather shaky.
8) "So the shield would be destroyed, you would be dead... Just don't take that much damage at that level with a wooden shield." That's his final point. It seems clear that he's too hung up on the extreme amount of damage and is dropping into "What is the most cinematic for me as GM" rather than actually answering the question.
9) In conclusion: This is completely inconclusive. Next time we get Paizo answering questions, let's use a more realistic example, like a fighter with a light wooden shield (hardness 3) blocking 10 damage.
9) In conclusion: This is completely inconclusive. Next time we get Paizo answering questions, let's use a more realistic example, like a fighter with a light wooden shield (hardness 3) blocking 10 damage.
Completely agreed. I didn't watch the stream live (meant to) and the question--as asked--was pretty bad. It should have been asking with only 9 damage (the value that it'll either take 2 dents or 3)
9) In conclusion: This is completely inconclusive. Next time we get Paizo answering questions, let's use a more realistic example, like a fighter with a light wooden shield (hardness 3) blocking 10 damage.Completely agreed. I didn't watch the stream live (meant to) and the question--as asked--was pretty bad. It should have been asking with only 9 damage (the value that it'll either take 2 dents or 3)
I don't THINK an object can get more than 2 dents on a hit. Not just a shield. The specific example from the book was an object with 3 hardness getting hit for 10 damage, and it took 2 dents. 2 dents is enough to break most things though, so that's fine. It just takes a second hit to destroy it beyond repair.
Sure it can.
1 dent is a dent
2 dents is broken (confers no benefit, can be repaired)
3 dents is destroyed (cannot be repaired)
An item that would
take a Dent or become broken while already broken is
destroyed beyond salvage
Note that the Paladin Shield Ally feature grants 2 extra dents over normal (so, destroyed at the 5th and broken at the 4th).
Resilient sphere gets "2 extra dents," Wall of Force gets 3 extra.
The Wrecker companion deals double-denting any time it damages items (sorta? looks like it always deals 2 dents if it deals any at all; would be better if it was 'if would deal at least one dent, it instead deals one more').
If a PC gets petrified, they can take "a number of Dents equal to
1 plus Constitution modifier" before becoming broken.
Lion's Shield can be dented 3 times before breaking (instead of twice).
The Sturdy Shield enhancement also grants any shield its applied to an additional dent.
Sure it can.
1 dent is a dent
2 dents is broken (confers no benefit, can be repaired)
3 dents is destroyed (cannot be repaired)An item that would
take a Dent or become broken while already broken is
destroyed beyond salvageNote that the Paladin Shield Ally feature grants 2 extra dents over normal (so, destroyed at the 5th and broken at the 4th).
Resilient sphere gets "2 extra dents," Wall of Force gets 3 extra.
The Wrecker companion deals double-denting any time it damages items (sorta? looks like it always deals 2 dents if it deals any at all; would be better if it was 'if would deal at least one dent, it instead deals one more').
If a PC gets petrified, they can take "a number of Dents equal to
1 plus Constitution modifier" before becoming broken.Lion's Shield can be dented 3 times before breaking (instead of twice).
The Sturdy Shield enhancement also grants any shield its applied to an additional dent.
I think we are talking past each other. I know an object can have more than two dents. My point is the rules say they can't take more than two dents from a single hit. Check the example on page 175. 10 damage gave two dents, despite being more than 3 times the hardness of the wooden shield. (Ugh, why couldn't they have just used a door.)
Stuff like the wrecker animal companion might be able to break that rule, but those are definitely the exceptions.
...Ugh, why couldn't they have just used a door...
I am guessing it is because you're literally supposed to Break Open a door instead; but also because you can't Strike non-creatures, and they omited Smash. Shields were assumed to be the most common thing to take damage in the playtest. Personally I don't care what item they pick, I just want the example given to actually be consistent with the rules given!
I think we are talking past each other. I know an object can have more than two dents. My point is the rules say they can't take more than two dents from a single hit. Check the example on page 175. 10 damage gave two dents, despite being more than 3 times the hardness of the wooden shield.
Everyone agrees that the example is just flat wrong.
I think we are talking past each other. I know an object can have more than two dents. My point is the rules say they can't take more than two dents from a single hit. Check the example on page 175. 10 damage gave two dents, despite being more than 3 times the hardness of the wooden shield.Everyone agrees that the example is just flat wrong.
From page 175:
"If the item takes damage equal to or greater than twice its Hardness in one hit, it takes 2 Dents."
There is no clause regarding damage beyond double hardness. Two dents is the max any item can take in a single hit.doesnt matter if it's 2x hardness or 20x hardness, the only rule that is in the book is the one I quoted.
...Ugh, why couldn't they have just used a door...I am guessing it is because you're literally supposed to Break Open a door instead; but also because you can't Strike non-creatures, and they omited Smash. Shields were assumed to be the most common thing to take damage in the playtest. Personally I don't care what item they pick, I just want the example given to actually be consistent with the rules given!
There's just as much information on demolishing structures with dents in the bestiary as there is on Breaking them with Athletics. They also specify there how many dents a door can take if it is reinforced and what not. And in contrast they give examples of things you can't just demolish with damage without special tools and downtime.
The one thing that supports your point is that I haven't seen anything about HOW you damage objects-- IE, is that considered a strike? The strike action specifically says creature, and I haven't seen anything for objects having AC. However, many hazards do have AC.
Personally, I'm inclined to think go with "You can deal your weapon damage to an object as an action" as a basic rule. Maybe with an asterisk on the type of damage making sense-- you probably can't shoot a door apart with a bow and arrow. I don't think getting a critical hit on a wall or a door makes much sense because it doesn't really have vitals to target (while many hazards do) and it can't really dodge so having an actual attack roll seems unnecessary.
There's just as much information on demolishing structures with dents in the bestiary as there is on Breaking them with Athletics. They also specify there how many dents a door can take if it is reinforced and what not. And in contrast they give examples of things you can't just demolish with damage without special tools and downtime.
The one thing that supports your point is that I haven't seen anything about HOW you damage objects-- IE, is that considered a strike? The strike action specifically says creature, and I haven't seen anything for objects having AC. However, many hazards do have AC.
Per RAW, only a few spells/powers can legally target objects ATM... Technically you cannot even attack a Hazard at all, despite almost every rule indicating you should be able to, because they're defined as non-creatures, and therefore cannot be Struck or hit with spells that only target creatures.
The rules refer to a 'Smash' action, which currently doesn't exist. I assume is just like Strike, but targets Objects (like Hazards), and is supposed to note how to target unattended objects (likely using an arbitrary AC). Also, Dents are still relevent to doors as Break Open potentially causes them to become Broken (and we need to know howy many dents that represents if we're repairing the door later). We also needed hardness and dents in-case the door gets caught in a hazard, or hit by splash/AoE damage.
From page 175:
"If the item takes damage equal to or greater than twice its Hardness in one hit, it takes 2 Dents."
There is no clause regarding damage beyond double hardness. Two dents is the max any item can take in a single hit.doesnt matter if it's 2x hardness or 20x hardness, the only rule that is in the book is the one I quoted.
What part of
Everyone agrees that the example is just flat wrong.
Did you not get? I'm well aware of that example on page 175 and the fact that it's wrong.
A wooden shield had 5 hardness, not 3, so 10 damage would only do 2 dents (and still doesn't tell us what happens with the Shield Block reaction!)
Nay not.
Use the thin Hardness for shields and thin items and the regular Hardness for sturdier objects such as armor...
Per the same page, Thin Wood has Hardness 3. Ergo a Wooden Shield also has Hardness 3...
...and still doesn't tell us what happens with the Shield Block reaction.
