| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is to say, if I hit an object with Hardness 5 with a sword that deals 7 slashing and 2 fire, does the object take 2 slashing and no fire damage?
I haven't seen anything mention Hardness is applied differently against different damage types. But if it behaves like Resistance to all damage does, that's a serious boon to shields and construct armor.
But if it behaves like Resistance to all damage does, that's a serious boon to shields and construct armor.
That makes this an important question to have answered, as it could have dramatic effects on combat for shield users or other critter types, as you mention.
Note also that Shield Block's trigger states "damage from a physical attack" which doesn't presumably correspond to an attack that just does "physical damage" as described on page 452. It begs questions like:
"Does positive/negative/force energy damage count as a physical attack?"
"Does alignment damage count as physical?"
"Can Shield Block reduce poison damage?"
"Is mental damage the only type that is non-physical for purposes of hardness/resistance and not triggering Shield Block as a reaction?"
I am necro'ing this thread, because it comes up so often in my games, when a martial character doesn't have an applicable skill to use against a Hazard and resorts to brute force.
In Volume 4 of Age of Ashes, there is a Level 13 Hazard that has Hardness 18. When the 11th-level Dragon Instinct Barbarian strikes it and does 20 slashing and 8 fire damage, does Hardness reduce both totals? There does not seem to be a definitive statement on this in the CRB or the Bestiary. (Because if the answer is no, then they are probably better off using the regular Rage bonus damage.)
(BTW, physically destroying traps seems very difficult in this system!)
As said by Mark in some old post that I'm don't want to search anymore. The barbarian 8 damage is an additional damage so it don't stack to win the Hardness.
As said by Mark in some old post that I'm don't want to search anymore. The barbarian 8 damage is an additional damage so it don't stack to win the Hardness.
So Hardness applies separately and additionally to the fire damage is how I'm reading this. Do you or anyone recall if what he says applies to Hardness generally ?
The exact rules text is as follows:
An item can be broken or destroyed if it takes enough damage. Every item has a Hardness value. Each time an item takes damage, reduce any damage the item takes by its Hardness. The rest of the damage reduces the item’s Hit Points.
So the question then becomes, if a dragon instinct barbarian, for example, attacks something with Hardness 5 is it doing 4 fire damage and then the physical damage (applying the hardness twice), or is it dealing 4 fire damage and physical damage at the same time (applying the hardness once)? Personally I think it's pretty clear that one attack = taking damage one time, and at least a few things seem to break if that's not the case. Take the champion's reaction "Retributive Strike", for example. It gives "resistance to all damage against the triggering damage". If each type of damage is a separate instance of damage, then what's the point of resistance all here? Couldn't you just gain resistance to the damage and call it a day? Even the concept of resistance all would be kind of weird, since the adding together of resistances would already happen if each damage type was considered a different source.
That being said, it wouldn't really break things too much if you changed just the hardness part and left resistance all alone. It would make animated objects and objects in the environment a little stronger, but that's about it. It notably doesn't change how shield's work regardless, since it specifically says in the shield block reaction that it blocks damage "up to the shield's hardness" and you and the shield take any remaining damage.
|
As said by Mark in some old post that I'm don't want to search anymore. The barbarian 8 damage is an additional damage so it don't stack to win the Hardness.So Hardness applies separately and additionally to the fire damage is how I'm reading this. Do you or anyone recall if what he says applies to Hardness generally ?
If someone can find that post it sounds like that would answer the question.
Unless it's one of those, "This is how I'd rule it in my campaign" sorts of caveats.
I'm not quite sure what that Developer post is. It could be one I vaguely remember on adjacent issue, but that I don't think resolves this issue. That one was about clarifying Rage bonus damage as additional damage i.e. if it is Fire only that portion is fire damage, and it doesn't change the damage type of base weapon attack to all be Fire. But that's not really relevent here, because from the very first post the OP was assuming a base weapon attack with X slashing along with Y fire damage. The issue here is Shield Block/Hardness rules aren't directly dependent on Resistance and have their own unique wording that doesn't seem 100% clear.
I see it as Shield Block requires physical damage to trigger. But then it says it blocks (Hardness) amount of damage to you, without specifying type. If they roll 1 on physical damage, but are applying 6 Fire damage, then if you have Hardness 7 it should block all of that. If there is Weakness or further Resistance in play, it could matter how you divide that Hardness damage reduction and that itself isn't clear. But it seems to be a "global" damage reduction not per type.
I believe "additional" was written (and noted by the dev) to be separate from "bonus" so it was understood that various additional sources stacked, while bonuses wouldn't. If additional damage were considered separate, we'd have an issue when additional Rage damage was physical; Would we subtract a Resistance twice in that case? No.
Note I'm only talking about the "additional" phrasing being irrelevant, I'm actually on the side of Hardness subtracting each type separately though I dislike how that interacts w/ Shield Block so am wary of making any assertions.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the thread with the dev comment.
That doesn't seem to have anything to do with this topic.
He's just saying that "additional damage" doesn't have a "bonus type" (ie "status bonus", "circumstance bonus", etc).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the thread with the dev comment.That doesn't seem to have anything to do with this topic.
He's just saying that "additional damage" doesn't have a "bonus type" (ie "status bonus", "circumstance bonus", etc).
Yeah, I just posted it because people referenced it.
I'm pretty sure that, absent a specific rule like Resistance All has, Hardness should apply to the damage only after it has all been added together.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, the fact that resist all goes out of its way to painstakingly describe how it works makes me think it's unlikely hardness is meant to just be inferred to work the same. If an attack does 20 damage, hardness 7 reduces it to 13 regardless of the damage breakdown.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I run hardness as reducing each type of damage separately.
Here's the thread with the dev comment.That doesn't seem to have anything to do with this topic.
He's just saying that "additional damage" doesn't have a "bonus type" (ie "status bonus", "circumstance bonus", etc).
There's other topic about additional damage and how they are calculated.
We have to mix the both.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would probably only be inclined to include Object Immunities beyond the regular rules for Item Damage.
The latter refers to "Each time an item takes damage", which, as we know from the rules for Damage, all occurs during the same step. Including "Additional Damage".
So against Hardness 5, that means:
Here's the thread with the dev comment.That doesn't seem to have anything to do with this topic.
He's just saying that "additional damage" doesn't have a "bonus type" (ie "status bonus", "circumstance bonus", etc).
There's other topic about additional damage and how they are calculated.
We have to mix the both.
Here I found it!
There's the situation for the weakness and resistances are the same:
Mark Post
10 Nonlethal, 6 Cold becomes just 1 Damage
Non-lethal is not a damage type, is a trait. The damage type keeps the same of attack. Probably the additional damages too.
For hardness we have a hard RAI here! :P (sorry I didn't resist the pun)
The hardness definition says "Each time an item takes damage, reduce any damage the item takes by its Hardness". And each time is not exactly "each attack". So we can easy understand that each additional damages is "another time that item takes damage" so the damage don't stack too before the reduction, each damage is reduced separately.
Or it's an instance of them using natural language and does mean per attack.
Exactly! That's why I said RAI and no RAW. Is hard to decide what's exactly "each time an item takes damage" means. So keeps to the GM decide what's make more sense for him.
But still based on how the resistances works. Imagine that's the barbarian additional damage is not fire but electricity to make the think more easier to visualize. And the hardness is too high:
A trap with 18 hardness receives 12 of physical damage and 8 of electrical from a barbarian. If we sum the barbarian cause 2 damage to the trap.
But is it fine for the additional electrical damage helps do win the hardness? It's just like you hit any object with a electrified sword. The eletricity will not help to damage the object because their eletrical resistance (given by hardness) is too high to it take any damage, and the physical damage too, is not high enough to do damage. So don't really make much sense to sum them.
That is to say, if I hit an object with Hardness 5 with a sword that deals 7 slashing and 2 fire, does the object take 2 slashing and no fire damage?
I haven't seen anything mention Hardness is applied differently against different damage types. But if it behaves like Resistance to all damage does, that's a serious boon to shields and construct armor.
My question would be when do you remove hardness from damage? If you have hardness 10 creature with a hardness 10 shield with weakness 5 slashing and resistance 5 fire that blocks vs a sword that deals 17 slashing damage and 4 fire damage, does it take damage and how much? what order do you take things? Do you hardness first? weakness? Immunity?
I'm pretty sure that, absent a specific rule like Resistance All has, Hardness should apply to the damage only after it has all been added together.
So do you add all the damage together before you modify for weakness/resistance for all that the damage counts as [for instance, the attack I mentioned counts both as fire and slashing] or do you take each damage type individually, modify by weakness/resistance and then add to check vs hardness?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am inclined to add all the damage up before applying Hardness once, because Resist All seems limited to a small subset of situations in the lore. And it seems like there needs to be a keyword that operates differently from Resist All and Resist X, because why have a different term for it then?
Finally, it just seems too punishing to have it work like Resist All, particularly with Hazards which already seem to have Hardness values that far exceed the recommended Resistance values that are recommended for a same-level creature in the GMG.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I run hardness as reducing each type of damage separately.
Same. Shields need the boost.
@Yuri,
I wouldn't place too much emphasis for either RAI or RAW using a 2-year old post in the playtest forum, as many things changed before the final version.
Yea, but once we don't have any update about this even after the books releases I think this concept still valid and maybe is just a my interpretation but each time that Mark put enphasis in "additional damage" is like he enforces this concept that additional damage is calculated appart from "main" damage, there's other posts where he talks little more about it. But this in test forum is the more clear that he says how exactly this works.
The trigger for hardness is when an item would take damage (ie, step 4 of damage resolution), so hardness is always applied after resistances and weaknesses.
Isn't the trigger the same as weakness and resistance?
"Whenever you would take that type of damage, increase the damage you take by the value of the weakness."
"If you have resistance to a type of damage, each time you take that type of damage, you reduce the amount of damage you take by the listed amount (to a minimum of 0 damage)."
"Each time an item takes damage, reduce any damage the item takes by its Hardness."
How is there a substantial difference between "Each time an item takes damage" and "each time you take that type of damage" and "Whenever you would take that type of damage"? I don't see how hardness gets dealt with in a different step from weakness and resistance.
The trigger for hardness is when an item would take damage (ie, step 4 of damage resolution), so hardness is always applied after resistances and weaknesses.Isn't the trigger the same as weakness and resistance?
"Whenever you would take that type of damage, increase the damage you take by the value of the weakness."
"If you have resistance to a type of damage, each time you take that type of damage, you reduce the amount of damage you take by the listed amount (to a minimum of 0 damage)."
"Each time an item takes damage, reduce any damage the item takes by its Hardness."
How is there a substantial difference between "Each time an item takes damage" and "each time you take that type of damage" and "Whenever you would take that type of damage"? I don't see how hardness gets dealt with in a different step from weakness and resistance.
The substantial difference is the fact that the rules don't ever refer to Hardness as a form of Resistance and vice-versa. This means that mechanically speaking, even though they can function identically, they are still separate effects, and should be regarded as separate.
If they were identical, then Resistance and Hardness would not stack (since they are considered the same effect), and it would be called out in Step 3 of the Applying Damage rules. However, it's not, and it seems deliberate, especially since it's trivial for them to include it in the same sections, or to clarify that Hardness is a form of Resistance to All Damage.
Maybe,
but resistances are called out to be applied in step 3 and are a codified part of damage resolution. Hardness doesn't have a special place, so in my mind it can only be applied at step 4 (applying damage). The only place that you actually take damage.Step 3: Apply the Target's Immunities, Weaknesses, and Resistances
Source Core Rulebook pg. 451 2.0
Defenses against certain types of damage or effects are called immunities or resistances, while vulnerabilities are called weaknesses. Apply immunities first, then weaknesses, and resistances third. Immunity, weakness, or resistance to an alignment applies only to damage of that type, not to damage from an attacking creature of that alignment.
This is how I see it too. If it was in the damage rules, then I'd just follow whatever it says there, but since it's not I've always interpreted "Each time an item takes damage, reduce any damage the item takes by its Hardness." as having to trigger in the last step of the calculation, because that's where the item actually takes damage.
It is a little weird that the wording's the same, but sometimes the wording's just a little non-specific in PF2 in general, so I don't really have an issue with that. It's also just a lot cleaner IMO. You just do everything like normal and then do exactly what hardness says: when it takes damage, no matter the type of damage, reduce it by that amount.
Plus there's the weird interaction between Weaknesses & Hardness.
Given the same weapon hitting for the same amount of damage, the target's shield may or may not be destroyed because of a creature's Weakness (or Resistance/Immunity for that matter).
So is a Skeleton Warrior's shield that much tougher than a Goblin's, assuming they've equipped the same type?
So it seems that the Shield Block should at least go earlier in the sequence, though yes, blocking's also tied to knowing how much damage is incoming, and that'd be at the end. *sigh*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The substantial difference is the fact that the rules don't ever refer to Hardness as a form of Resistance and vice-versa. This means that mechanically speaking, even though they can function identically, they are still separate effects, and should be regarded as separate.
If they were identical, then Resistance and Hardness would not stack (since they are considered the same effect), and it would be called out in Step 3 of the Applying Damage rules. However, it's not, and it seems deliberate, especially since it's trivial for them to include it in the same sections, or to clarify that Hardness is a form of Resistance to All Damage.
I was referring to one being done in step 3 while the other was in step 4: it's NEVER stated that Hardness is done in a particular step so I was asking why one would be done in one step and another in a different one. The question was never one of stacking but on when they where triggered. So it wasn't a question of the abilities substantial differences but their triggers.
Maybe,
but resistances are called out to be applied in step 3 and are a codified part of damage resolution. Hardness doesn't have a special place, so in my mind it can only be applied at step 4 (applying damage). The only place that you actually take damage.
This is my point: with nearly identical triggers and no specific callout as to when it's calculated, why would do it in a different step? They ALL trigger on 'if you'd be damaged'. At best, it seems more your opinion that Hardness is somehow clearly different even though it's not listed as such.
Plus there's the weird interaction between Weaknesses & Hardness.
Given the same weapon hitting for the same amount of damage, the target's shield may or may not be destroyed because of a creature's Weakness (or Resistance/Immunity for that matter).So is a Skeleton Warrior's shield that much tougher than a Goblin's, assuming they've equipped the same type?
So it seems that the Shield Block should at least go earlier in the sequence, though yes, blocking's also tied to knowing how much damage is incoming, and that'd be at the end. *sigh*
I don't think a shields hardness interacts at all with weaknesses or resistances of the creature: a shields defenses are it's own, not the creature holding it. Resistance and weakness trigger on YOUR being damaged, not your equipment being damaged.
I was referring to one being done in step 3 while the other was in step 4: it's NEVER stated that Hardness is done in a particular step so I was asking why one would be done in one step and another in a different one. The question was never one of stacking but on when they where triggered. So it wasn't a question of the abilities substantial differences but their triggers.The substantial difference is the fact that the rules don't ever refer to Hardness as a form of Resistance and vice-versa. This means that mechanically speaking, even though they can function identically, they are still separate effects, and should be regarded as separate.
If they were identical, then Resistance and Hardness would not stack (since they are considered the same effect), and it would be called out in Step 3 of the Applying Damage rules. However, it's not, and it seems deliberate, especially since it's trivial for them to include it in the same sections, or to clarify that Hardness is a form of Resistance to All Damage.
Well, the trigger for Shield Block is, "While you have your shield raised, [and] you would take damage from a physical attack."
So, ignoring that you have the first part fulfilled, the second part would be when you are taking damage from an attack that deals physical damage. So, we must be able to confirm that the attack is dealing physical damage for this trigger to apply; subjectively, we could have it apply at Step 1 if we know there will by physical damage types involved with the attack, such as a Strike with a weapon. Objectively, that's not clarified until Step 2 of the Damage rules, meaning it can't be that soon, because it's technically unknown until that point. Meaning the soonest we can apply it is Step 2, but Step 1 is already dealt with, since the Shield Block would otherwise affect Step 1's math, which makes no sense.
We also know it's not for Step 3, because it's a relatively exclusive list: Immunities, Resistances, and Weaknesses. These are pretty well-defined and can't really be confused with anything else, even if Hardness behaves very similarly to Resistances (but is a bit more nebulous by comparison).
Thus, that leaves us with Step 4, where you are actually taking the damage and applying it to the target. At this point, we are actually taking the damage, and know what damage type it is to know that Shield Block is eligible to use against the attack, so it's really the only definitive point where there's no math-backtracking we have to do to make it work, even if it means resistances on a given creature likewise then proceeds to apply to their items. (But, given how attended objects are practically invincible in this edition, it's not exactly unprecedented for this to be the case.) So, Step 4 is really the only RAW place for it to occur.
I'd honestly have to say that the Damage rules need a bit of re-ordering. Steps 1 and 2 should be switched at the very least, and Hardness should be clarified as to when it may apply. I'd have to make it more like 5 or 6 steps:
Step 1: Determine Damage Type and Immunities
Step 2: Calculate Damage
Step 3: Apply Hardness (if any)
Step 4: Apply Resistances and Weaknesses
Step 5: Apply Damage Result to Target
Step 1 helps determine if the attack is eligible to affect the target or deal any damage to it. Obviously, if a creature is immune to the attack or damage type, it does nothing, and the result ends there. Step 2 determines the damage value, wherein we know how much is going to normally affect the target. Step 3 is where the Shield Hardness would take place, since it would apply before it affects the character, logically speaking. Then, Step 4 with any Resistances or Weaknesses the targets may innately have, and finally, Step 5, applying the damage to the target.
It's more concise and follows the realistically logical order for things to take place.
Well, the trigger for Shield Block is, "While you have your shield raised, [and] you would take damage from a physical attack."
Yes, but ALL of them [hardness, resistance and weakness rely on "would take damage" so...
We also know it's not for Step 3, because it's a relatively exclusive list: Immunities, Resistances, and Weaknesses.
My point is that it's never stated that it IS an "exclusive list. With the near exact trigger as the others in step 3, I have a very hard time concluding that for some unknown reason it should be shunted to a later step. Without it specifically stating a step, I can't see why it would be in the damage calculation stage vs the take damage stage.
#3 Apply the target’s immunities, weaknesses, and resistances to the damage. [when you modify the damage]
#4 If any damage remains, reduce the target’s Hit Points by that amount. [when you mark off hp's]
IMO, you only modify your hp total in #4 as the modification of damage all happens in step 3.
I'd honestly have to say that the Damage rules need a bit of re-ordering. Steps 1 and 2 should be switched at the very least, and Hardness should be clarified as to when it may apply. I'd have to make it more like 5 or 6 steps:
Step 1: Determine Damage Type and Immunities
Step 2: Calculate Damage
Step 3: Apply Hardness (if any)
Step 4: Apply Resistances and Weaknesses
Step 5: Apply Damage Result to Target
Looks good to me: it's be nice if the actual rules cleared up the order like this.
Maybe not listed as an exclusive list, but it's also not stated to be non-inclusive.
I'm inclined to think it's inclusive vs exclusive based on the wording of step 4. It'd truly bizarre if the "If any damage remains, reduce the target’s Hit Points by that amount" step somehow includes modifications to the damage when there is step 3 already made for modifying the damage total. Step 4 is the 'take the final modified damage and subtract it from hp' step. For instance, if I make a step by step list of how to start a car and leave out putting on the seatbelt, nothing is violated if you put it on before, in the middle or end of all the steps.
so even then it would fall in step three it would still be at end of the list in step three, and weaknesses are always applied before resistances. Inserting it anyway else requires a direct violation of the instructions.
Why? As an unlisted element, how does putting first, last or in the middle violate anything? How is putting it at the end the only option?
If you want to get hyper technical the trigger for hardness is actually current tense, and the trigger for resistances and weaknesses is future tense.
I do not. I'm not about to have an argument turn on the placement of an S.
My recollect is that shield block was clarified to happen after resistances as well.
If it has, I'd like to see it. Any chance you know where/when that happened?
Mathematically as long as immunities then weaknesses are applied before resistances (and or hardness) then it works out the same most the time.
You are conflating hardness with resistance in the steps: there is NO evidence that they are the same and should be done at the same time. You can do EVERYTHING in the same order of what you list if you say
Hardness, immunities, weaknesses, then resistancesImmunities, hardness, weaknesses, then resistances
Immunities, weaknesses, hardness, then resistances
Immunities, weaknesses, resistances, then hardness
In EVERY instance, you "Apply immunities FIRST, Then weaknesses, and resistances THIRD."
There is enough wiggle room to justify either interpretation, and it is clear neither of us will change the others mind, so I'm out.
That's cool. I'm just trying to figure out why you're SO insistent on where hardness is done since I see no evidence that suggest one way over the other. You might be right but I'd like to know why that is if you are.
The wording of Shield Block makes me think hardness only applies against the sum of all damages. Otherwise, an unattended shield would be far more resistant to damage than one you block with.
It could be far less resistant if you pick it up if you pick it up and you have a weakness you apply before you apply hardness.
Okay, let's apply some of these options.
Simple case: What happens when you hit a Skeleton Champion with an arrow (piercing) for 8 damage? (Shield Hardness 5, Resistance 5)
Or a light hammer (blunt) for 8?
When did it choose to block?
Now apply that thinking to a special Zombie who oddly enough can Shield Block for rhetorical purposes. Say it gets hit with an arrow (piercing) for 3 damage? Then gets hits with an axe (slashing) for 3 damage?
Note they have Weakness 10 to slashing & the same shield, Hardness 5.
What about if the arrow comes w/ fire for 1 damage?
Does the energy get blocked because it was part of a physical attack?
Or what if the arrow or axe comes w/ positive energy damage for 1 vs. the zombie? Does the shield block those damages and if so when?
Which is to say I find it hard to have a consistent order.
If the Weakness comes before blocking, then a Lycanthrope's shield takes more damage from a silver arrow than a regular arrow.
Yet blocking is supposed to be done after damage is determined, isn't it?
I think there might need to be a measure of fluidity here rather than a rigorous checklist; PF2's rule of common sense being rule zero and all.
So with Hardness 5 vs Nonlethal 10, is it:
A) 0 damage, because the shield is immune to Nonlethal, or
B) 5 damage to the wielder, 5 damage to the shield, or
C) 5 damage to the wielder, 0 damage to the shield, because it is immune to Nonlethal?I'm inclined to go with C.
I think it has to be C.
The shield is "taking" 5 damage, it's just nonlethal so it's immune.But it raises an interesting point about the shield absorbing what damage it can beforehand. It could hypothetically absorb infinite nonlethal! (And still can if spread out in 5 damage chunks.)
Though I don't know of an attack which mixes nonlethal w/ lethal, what would happen if it were 10 nonlethal and 5 lethal? Who would decide if any lethal damage got through?
Or 10 nonlethal and 5 energy (like w/ Elemental Fist*)?
*I suppose the earth/bludgeoning option could get us that nonlethal w/ lethal as extra damage. I'd be inclined to convert the extra damage to nonlethal too, though I don't know if that's technically an option.
You apply the weakness to the damage you take after the shield block. Your shield does not take more damage just because you have a weakness.
Indeed, if your shield hardness was enough to block all the damage, your weakness does not trigger.
*thumbs up* Is this spelled out someplace? It makes sense to me to do it that way but I couldn't find anything about the order. At best, weakness, immunity and resistance are written in terms of "you have [resistance, weakness and/or immunity]" so you can argue that the shield doesn't have them but you can also argue that you have to total damage on yourself first to see if shield block triggers in the first place.
I personally would run it your way but I'm almost never the DM. ;)