|
If a creature with hardness 5 takes a damage from a monk's fist, which with (1)1d6+5 blunt damage and (2)1d6 ice damage from Frost(Weapon Special Abilities) and (3)1d6 ice dmg from Elemental Fury (Ki power), the damage will subtracted by hardness(5) once, twice (physical and energy) or thrice?
A. 1d6+5 blunt +1d6 ice +1d6 ice -5 hardness
B. (1d6+5 blunt -5 hardness)+(1d6 ice +1d6 ice -5 hardness)
C. (1d6+5 blunt -5 hardness)+(1d6 ice -5 hardness)+(1d6 ice -5 hardness)
A.
Either A or B.
I was going to say B, but I'm not sure enough to disagree with Ender
actually
D. first halve the energy damage (hardness above one halve energy damage before applying it) then add it all up and reduce the hardness.
from the rules ofdamaging-objects(which is where hardness is found)
Energy attacks deal half damage to most objects. Divide the damage by 2 before applying the object’s hardness. Some energy types might be particularly effective against certain objects, subject to GM discretion. For example, fire might do full damage against parchment, cloth, and other objects that burn easily. Sonic might do full damage against glass and crystal objects.
-i know it say objects, but in a way a creature IS an object, also most of the creatures with hardness are objects that got animated.
also remember some things need gm desecration (like fire and paper):
Vulnerability to Certain Attacks
Certain attacks are especially successful against some objects. In such cases, attacks deal double their normal damage and may ignore the object’s hardness.
You're correct thar objects take half damage from energy attacks.
But you're wrong that creatures do as well. Just because a creature has Hardness doesn't mean it follows any other rules that usually apply to objects.
The most common (only?) creatures with Hardness are Constructs, so they often have other resistances and vulnerabilities as well, but unless otherwise stated it's B.
|
Hardness (Ex)
Source Bestiary 5 pg. 294
When a creature with hardness takes damage, subtract its hardness from the damage. Only damage in excess of its hardness is subtracted from its hit points. A creature with hardness doesn’t further reduce damage from energy attacks, ranged attacks, or other types of attacks as objects typically do. Adamantine weapons bypass hardness of 20 or less.Format: hardness 10
Location: Defensive Abilities.
The energy damage and the weapon physical damage are two different stacks of damage, they aren't added together, so you apply the Hardness to both stacks separately.
You said hardness.
But constructs are treated as objects in all regards, so they should still halve the energy damage. Plants have a line that say "even though plants are alive, they are objects, not creatures." so when construct says "A construct is an animated object or artificially created creature." it makes sense to apply object rules to them (even more so than plants). Maybe if there was a construct specifically stated to be not like an object (somehow) and it also still has hardness, it wouldn't halve the energy damage, but I can't think of one of those off the top of my head except an Inevitable, but Inevitables are 100% alive creatures anyway.
|
|
But constructs are treated as objects in all regards, so they should still halve the energy damage. Plants have a line that say "even though plants are alive, they are objects, not creatures." so when construct says "A construct is an animated object or artificially created creature." it makes sense to apply object rules to them (even more so than plants). Maybe if there was a construct specifically stated to be not like an object (somehow) and it also still has hardness, it wouldn't halve the energy damage, but I can't think of one of those off the top of my head except an Inevitable, but Inevitables are 100% alive creatures anyway.
Constructs are creatures. Besides saying that in your quote: "A construct is an animated object or artificially created creature.", they are a Type of creature, and the Monster Types say:
Each creature has one type, which broadly defines its abilities. Some creatures also have one or more subtypes. A creature cannot violate the rules of its subtype without a special ability or quality to explain the difference—templates can often change a creature's type drastically.
And you are misquoting what the plat Type says:
Source Pathfinder RPG Bestiary pg. 309
This type comprises vegetable creatures. Note that regular plants, such as one finds growing in gardens and fields, lack Wisdom and Charisma scores and are not creatures, but objects, even though they are alive. A plant creature has the following features.
Constryucts have Wisdom and Charisma.
|
If you struck an object with a frosty sword, it could take all the damage, take 200% damage, take the full sword damage but none of the frost damage, take full sword but half the cold, or take no sword damage but all of the cold, and apply hardness or not to any of those. Striking objects is very subjective to the GMs decision on how effective your given attack is to harming the object in question. (see the additional rules chapter of the CRB)
Constructs, however, are not objects by pathfinder's definition. As soon as you cast animate object on a chair, it becomes a creature, subject to creature rules. You can no longer pick said chair up and use it as an improvised weapon. Now you would have to make a grapple check, and you couldn't use it to strike another creature with (unless you had an ability like body bludgeon that lets you strike a creature with another creature).
A creature with hardness follows the hardness rules found in the bestiary under universal monster rules, which Diego quoted upthread. Unlike Diego, however, my interpretation is that one attack is one source of damage, regardless if the attack does one damage type or multiple. You would apply hardness once for each hit. If you were to apply it for each damage type, then hardness would apply twice for something like a morningstar (since it is piercing and bludgeoning), which I do not think is intended.
A creature with hardness follows the hardness rules found in the bestiary under universal monster rules, which Diego quoted upthread. Unlike Diego, however, my interpretation is that one attack is one source of damage, regardless if the attack does one damage type or multiple. You would apply hardness once for each hit.
Hmmm... interesting. I've always played like Diego - if an object with 5 hardness is hit by an attack that does Physical damage, Fire damage and Electricity damage you would subtract the hardness from all 3 damage types - but I don't see that anywhere in the rules. It's possible I'm just looking in the wrong places, but is there anywhere it actually says this?
If you were to apply it for each damage type, then hardness would apply twice for something like a morningstar (since it is piercing and bludgeoning), which I do not think is intended.
Physical damage would all be grouped. If hardness is treated like DR then the Morningstar would be subject to the highest DR, not subject to both added together. There is a clear distinction between physical damage and elemental damage, so having a separation between thise two sources kf damage is different to having a separation between B/P/S.
Anyway, does anyone know of an actual ruling about separating the physical vs elemental damage? Ruling either way would be great.
|
|
A creature with hardness follows the hardness rules found in the bestiary under universal monster rules, which Diego quoted upthread. Unlike Diego, however, my interpretation is that one attack is one source of damage, regardless if the attack does one damage type or multiple. You would apply hardness once for each hit.Hmmm... interesting. I've always played like Diego - if an object with 5 hardness is hit by an attack that does Physical damage, Fire damage and Electricity damage you would subtract the hardness from all 3 damage types - but I don't see that anywhere in the rules. It's possible I'm just looking in the wrong places, but is there anywhere it actually says this?
Again, objects are different. Objects follow the rules for hardness found in the additional rules chapter of the crb. Those rules are all sorts of convoluted and complicated and boil down to GM's call. Creatures use the rules for hardness found in the bestiary, which are simple: "When a creature with hardness takes damage, subtract its hardness from the damage." The only further thing it says is to clarify you should ignore all those rules from the crb about object hardness, and then how adamantine interacts.
So I guess the different interpretations comes down to- what does taking damage mean?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can find nothing in the core rules to indicate that damage from one attack should be treated separately.
Damage reduction and energy resistance both say that they apply "per attack." So I treat hardness the same, applying it once per attack.
To put it another way, I believe hardness 5 is different then DR 5/adamantine plus resistance cold 5, fire 5, acid 5, electricity 5, sonic 5.
Well Hardness would also reduce Force damage and whatever type of damage Disintegrate does.
Hmm... yeah I couldn't see anything either, which makes me think you're right. Just coz I couldn't see it doesn't mean it's not there though, so we'll give the people a day or so to find it.
This would of course mean that old Wiggin up top had the correct answer with the first reply.
|
|
A creature with hardness follows the hardness rules found in the bestiary under universal monster rules, which Diego quoted upthread. Unlike Diego, however, my interpretation is that one attack is one source of damage, regardless if the attack does one damage type or multiple. You would apply hardness once for each hit. If you were to apply it for each damage type, then hardness would apply twice for something like a morningstar (since it is piercing and bludgeoning), which I do not think is intended.
The problem with that interpretation is that it doesn't work. If one attack is one source of damage, DR10/adamantine would stop both the weapon damage and fire damage of a +1 flaming sword, as it applies to part of the attack.
If the weapon damage and the fire damage are two different sources of damage, and that follow the rules for how mixed sources of damages work, the appropriate resistance is applied to each stack of damage.Hardness 5 is DR5/- plus all energy resistances 5.
A creature with hardness follows the hardness rules found in the bestiary under universal monster rules, which Diego quoted upthread. Unlike Diego, however, my interpretation is that one attack is one source of damage, regardless if the attack does one damage type or multiple. You would apply hardness once for each hit. If you were to apply it for each damage type, then hardness would apply twice for something like a morningstar (since it is piercing and bludgeoning), which I do not think is intended.The problem with that interpretation is that it doesn't work. If one attack is one source of damage, DR10/adamantine would stop both the weapon damage and fire damage of a +1 flaming sword, as it applies to part of the attack.
If the weapon damage and the fire damage are two different sources of damage, and that follow the rules for how mixed sources of damages work, the appropriate resistance is applied to each stack of damage.
The difference is that DR specifically says it doesn't stop energy damage, while Hardness has no text like that.
Spells, spell-like abilities, and energy attacks (even nonmagical fire) ignore damage reduction.
When a creature with hardness takes damage, subtract its hardness from the damage. Only damage in excess of its hardness is subtracted from its hit points.
Now I'm with you. I think the physical damage and the energy damage are separate. It's how I've always played it. But is it actually in the rules? Now if the damage types are separate then subtracting the hardness after they're calculated separately would cover this, but I'm not sure on this one.
Also:
Hardness 5 is DR5/- plus all energy resistances 5.
This isn't true anyway because Force damage bypasses DR and Energy Resistance but not Hardness.
Well Hardness would also reduce Force damage and whatever type of damage Disintegrate does.
Hmm... yeah I couldn't see anything either, which makes me think you're right. Just coz I couldn't see it doesn't mean it's not there though, so we'll give the people a day or so to find it.
This would of course mean that old Wiggin up top had the correct answer with the first reply.
Yep
|
|
A creature with hardness follows the hardness rules found in the bestiary under universal monster rules, which Diego quoted upthread. Unlike Diego, however, my interpretation is that one attack is one source of damage, regardless if the attack does one damage type or multiple. You would apply hardness once for each hit. If you were to apply it for each damage type, then hardness would apply twice for something like a morningstar (since it is piercing and bludgeoning), which I do not think is intended.The problem with that interpretation is that it doesn't work. If one attack is one source of damage, DR10/adamantine would stop both the weapon damage and fire damage of a +1 flaming sword, as it applies to part of the attack.
If the weapon damage and the fire damage are two different sources of damage, and that follow the rules for how mixed sources of damages work, the appropriate resistance is applied to each stack of damage.Hardness 5 is DR5/- plus all energy resistances 5.
It works perfectly fine. Energy resistance is a special ability that functions in a certain fashion. Damage reduction is another special ability that function as it is defined. Both are defined separately and neither of those reference some universal rule about separating damage. There is no such rule. A flaming sword is one source of damage, it just happens to include multiple damage types which interact with other rules that specifically say they interact with those damage types, like DR, resistances, or vulnerabilities. Hardness is also it's own rule, defined separately, and the definition doesn't include any interaction with any damage types (save adamantine). So you take your total damage from the attack and subtract the hardness.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Add the entire amount of damage from the entire attack, then subtract Hardness amount, and that how much damage you dealt. So (Fist + Ice + Ice) - Hardness = dmg dealt.
If the creature has Hardness, DR, and Resistance, it goes [(Fist - DR) + (Ice - Resistance) + (Ice - Resistance)] - Hardness = dmg dealt.
Inanimate objects benefit from half energy damage, animate objects and constructs do not.
Add the entire amount of damage from the entire attack, then subtract Hardness amount, and that how much damage you dealt. So (Fist + Ice + Ice) - Hardness = dmg dealt.
If the creature has Hardness, DR, and Resistance, it goes [(Fist - DR) + (Ice - Resistance) + (Ice - Resistance)] - Hardness = dmg dealt.
Inanimate objects benefit from half energy damage, animate objects and constructs do not.
I think you're probably right about most of this , but I thought you'd add the 2 Ice damages together from 1 attack before subtracting the Energy Resistance.
If you had the FLAME BLADE spell, and used the ARCANE POOL Magus ability to make it a +1 Flaming Flame Blade, then used Spellstrike to deliver an ELEMENTAL (Fire) SHOCKING GRASP spell, my understanding was that you would totall all the Fire damage together before applying any Fire resistance. Is that correct?
(I'm not sure you can apply an Arcane Pool to a Flame-Blade, but it's irrelevant for this argument. I'm talking about stacking energy damages not how the Magus works, so we can ignore that for now)
|
|
"A creature with resistance to energy has the ability (usually extraordinary) to ignore some damage of a certain type per attack"
-CRB p562
So yes, you add all the energy of the same type together from one attack before applying energy resistance.
Also, total tangent, but I thought if DR reduces damage to zero it negates all riders. Apparently that's not entirely the case. Came across this while re-reading the rules to answer the hardness question.
"Whenever damage reduction completely negates the damage from an attack, it also negates most special effects that accompany the attack, such as injury poison, a monk's stunning, and injury-based disease. Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks, energy damage dealt along with an attack, or energy drains. Nor does it affect poisons or diseases delivered by inhalation, ingestion, or contact."
-CRB p561
|
|
"A creature with resistance to energy has the ability (usually extraordinary) to ignore some damage of a certain type per attack"
-CRB p562So yes, you add all the energy of the same type together from one attack before applying energy resistance.
Also, total tangent, but I thought if DR reduces damage to zero it negates all riders. Apparently that's not entirely the case. Came across this while re-reading the rules to answer the hardness question.
"Whenever damage reduction completely negates the damage from an attack, it also negates most special effects that accompany the attack, such as injury poison, a monk's stunning, and injury-based disease. Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks, energy damage dealt along with an attack, or energy drains. Nor does it affect poisons or diseases delivered by inhalation, ingestion, or contact."
-CRB p561
The shocking grasp and the sword strike aren't the same attack!
The shocking grasp is a rider to the magus weapon attacks that is discharged on the first successful attack, but it is not part of the attack, it is a spell.If successful, this melee attack deals its normal damage as well as the effects of the spell.
Note: " deals ... the effects of the spell", not "add the spell effect to its damage". It delivers the spell as a separate effect, and all appropriate resistances are checked separately for the spell.
|
|
"a magus can make one free melee attack with his weapon as part of casting this spell. If successful, this melee attack deals its normal damage as well as the effects of the spell. "
That sounds pretty clearly to be one attack to me. Yes there are multiple effects going off from said one attack, but DR, energy resist, or hardness don't care how many effects there are, just how many attacks.
We can ignore the spellstrike, that was just adding to the example.
How would a +1 Flaming Flame-Blade work vs a creature with Fire Resistance?
I was under the impression the fire damage would be totaled before applying the Fire Resistance.
|
|
actually
D. first halve the energy damage (hardness above one halve energy damage before applying it) then add it all up and reduce the hardness.
from the rules ofdamaging-objects(which is where hardness is found)
Energy attacks deal half damage to most objects. Divide the damage by 2 before applying the object’s hardness. Some energy types might be particularly effective against certain objects, subject to GM discretion. For example, fire might do full damage against parchment, cloth, and other objects that burn easily. Sonic might do full damage against glass and crystal objects.
-i know it say objects, but in a way a creature IS an object, also most of the creatures with hardness are objects that got animated.
also remember some things need gm desecration (like fire and paper):
Vulnerability to Certain Attacks
Certain attacks are especially successful against some objects. In such cases, attacks deal double their normal damage and may ignore the object’s hardness.
Hardness (Ex)
Source Bestiary 5 pg. 294When a creature with hardness takes damage, subtract its hardness from the damage. Only damage in excess of its hardness is subtracted from its hit points. A creature with hardness doesn’t further reduce damage from energy attacks, ranged attacks, or other types of attacks as objects typically do. Adamantine weapons bypass hardness of 20 or less.
|
We can ignore the spellstrike, that was just adding to the example.
How would a +1 Flaming Flame-Blade work vs a creature with Fire Resistance?
I was under the impression the fire damage would be totaled before applying the Fire Resistance.
i dont think flameblade is a legal target for arcane pool, but plasma sword is. and basically same difference.
i too am under the impression that you "group" damage. all physical, each element individually.
|
|
B
Against the physical damage, it works as DR, against the energy damage as Energy resistance.
The two kinds of damage are applied separately and the resistances are applied separately.
I am not sure if I get you right. So if the 1d6 ice from Elemental Fury is replaced by 1d6 acid, the answer will be C, or still B?
B. (1d6+5 blunt -5 hardness)+(1d6 acid +1d6 ice -5 hardness)
C. (1d6+5 blunt -5 hardness)+(1d6 acid -5 hardness)+(1d6 ice -5 hardness)
The Ice comes from two sources though, Monk's Elemental Fury (Su) and Magic Weapon Enchant, so resistance would apply to each source.
Think of it with Fire and Ice instead of Ice and Ice. Lets say a creature has DR2/-, Fire Resistance 5 and Ice resistance 10, and hardness 5.
And let's say that the Monk chose Fire for his Elemental Fury, instead of choosing Cold. The Monk still has Frost weapon enchant.
[(Fist - 2DR) + (Fire - 5Resistance) + (Ice - 10Resistance)] - 5Hardness = dmg dealt.
Resistance (Ex)
A creature with this special quality ignores some damage of the indicated type each time it takes damage of that kind (commonly acid, cold, electricity, or fire). The entry indicates the amount and type of damage ignored.
Format: Resist acid 10; Location: Defensive Abilities.
And as far as your Magus discussion, the Weapon is what the Magus is charging his Touch Spell with, so even if the Magus doesn't cause damage with an attack due to missing the target's total AC, but the attack defeats the targets Touch AC and strikes the target's armor or shield, the Touch spell will go off anyway.
Touch Spells in CombatMany spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.
Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. The act of casting a spell, however, does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack as long as the spell deals damage. Your opponent’s AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally.
Holding the Charge: If you don’t discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round.If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren’t considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack normally doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack. If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.
Ranged Touch Spells in Combat: Some spells allow you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting of the spell. These attacks are made as part of the spell and do not require a separate action. Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity, even if the spell that causes the attacks was cast defensively. Unless otherwise noted, ranged touch attacks cannot be held until a later turn.
|
|
And as far as your Magus discussion, the Weapon is what the Magus is charging his Touch Spell with, so even if the Magus doesn't cause damage with an attack due to missing the target's total AC, but the attack defeats the targets Touch AC and strikes the target's armor or shield, the Touch spell will go off anyway.
That's just wrong. I'm on mobile so I won't search it, but there's nothing in the rules that say if you miss ac but hit touch something happens. You either 100% hit or 100% miss RAW
If you miss you still hold the charge, and can deliver it on the next attack
If you touch anything while holding a touch spell, even an unattended object, an ally, or enemy on accident, the spell will go off. That's in the rules. Per Magus rules, you're delivering a Touch Spell through your weapon.
Spellstrike (Su)
At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack.
If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges.
So if an enemy has a Touch AC of 13 and an actual AC of 26, and you roll and hit a 25 AC, you definitely hit that guy's armor/shield and bounced off. The Touch Spell would go off.
|
|
And as far as your Magus discussion, the Weapon is what the Magus is charging his Touch Spell with, so even if the Magus doesn't cause damage with an attack due to missing the target's total AC, but the attack defeats the targets Touch AC and strikes the target's armor or shield, the Touch spell will go off anyway.
Spellstrike doesn't work that way.
Spellstrike (Su): At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack. Instead of the free melee touch attack normally allowed to deliver the spell, a magus can make one free melee attack with his weapon (at his highest base attack bonus) as part of casting this spell. If successful, this melee attack deals its normal damage as well as the effects of the spell. If the magus makes this attack in concert with spell combat, this melee attack takes all the penalties accrued by spell combat melee attacks. This attack uses the weapon’s critical range (20, 19–20, or 18–20 and modified by the keen weapon property or similar effects), but the spell effect only deals ×2 damage on a successful critical hit, while the
weapon damage uses its own critical modifier.
It is the last part of "using touch spell in combat":
Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren’t considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack normally doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack. If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.
Either you hit with everything or you miss with everything.
|
|
If you touch anything while holding a touch spell, even an unattended object, an ally, or enemy on accident, the spell will go off. That's in the rules. Per Magus rules, you're delivering a Touch Spell through your weapon.
Spellstrike (Su)
At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack.
So if an enemy has a Touch AC of 13 and an actual AC of 26, and you roll and hit a 25 AC, you definitely hit that guy's armor/shield and bounced off. The Touch Spell would go off.
If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges.
Great houserule. Not RAW
RAW someone has an ac 26 and i roll 25 i miss. No clang, no bounce, pure wiff.
The DM can describe the miss however he wants, pure whiff, bounces off armor/shield, accidentally strike an ally on a nat 1, or strikes a door/table/wall because the enemy had cover. If you touch anything while holding a Touch Charge with your person (or as a Magus with your weapon), on purpose or accidentally, the spell goes off. That's in the rules. It's not a House Rule.
|
|
The DM can describe the miss however he wants, pure whiff, bounces off armor/shield, accidentally strike an ally on a nat 1, or strikes a door/table/wall because the enemy had cover. If you touch anything while holding a Touch Charge with your person (or as a Magus with your weapon), on purpose or accidentally, the spell goes off. That's in the rules. It's not a House Rule.
Again
Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren’t considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack normally doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack. If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.
RAW you just miss, and still hold the charge. Anything else is a houserule and not applicable in the rules forum.
Quote the entire rule, guy.
Holding the Charge: If you don’t discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren’t considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack normally doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack. If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge..
If you miss with your attack, and the DM describes it as you completely whiff, the spell does not discharge. You are still holding the charge.
If you miss with your attack, and the DM describes it as you strike the target's armor/shield but causes no damage with the weapon, you have just satisfied the condition of IF YOU TOUCH ANYTHING OR ANYONE WHILE HOLDING A CHARGE, EVEN UNINTENTIONALLY, THE SPELL DISCHARGES.
If you miss with your attack due to a nat 1, and the DM describes it as you strike your ally with the weapon, you have just satisfied the condition of IF YOU TOUCH ANYTHING OR ANYONE WHILE HOLDING A CHARGE, EVEN UNINTENTIONALLY, THE SPELL DISCHARGES.
If you miss with your attack due to cover, and the DM describes it as you strike the table in front of the target, you have just satisfied the condition of IF YOU TOUCH ANYTHING OR ANYONE WHILE HOLDING A CHARGE, EVEN UNINTENTIONALLY, THE SPELL DISCHARGES.
Let's move on from the Magus discussion, it's irrelevant to this thread. I was trying to illustrate something to ask a question, but not a question about the Magus.
Here's one I know is possible.
From the tech guide, the Android Gunslinger in my Iron Gods game is wielding a LASER RIFLE. If he enchanted it to be a +1 Flaming Laser Rifle how would it work against a creature with Fire Resistsnce 5?
What about Hardness 5?
What if it had both?
If he also added the Corrosive property, how would it work in those 3 scenarios?
I know how I've always played it - we total each type of damage (physical/fire/acid/etc) before applying the resistances/DR/Hardness, but Hardness applies to all damage types.
But people have pointed out that this isn't stated in the rules, and so far I haven't been able to prove them wrong.
I don't think I've ever GM'd a monster with DR and Hardness or with ER and Hardness, but I'd probably have defaulted to "overlaps, does not stack". Again this isn't in the rules, but neither can I find a rule either way (so this might be a GM-Fiat case).
|
|
Quote the entire rule, guy.
Holding the Charge: If you don’t discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren’t considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack normally doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack. If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge..If you miss with your attack, and the DM describes it as you completely whiff, the spell does not discharge. You are still holding the charge.
If you miss with your attack, and the DM describes it as you strike the target's armor/shield but causes no damage with the weapon, you have just satisfied the condition of IF YOU TOUCH ANYTHING OR ANYONE WHILE HOLDING A CHARGE, EVEN UNINTENTIONALLY, THE SPELL DISCHARGES.
If you miss with your attack due to a nat 1, and the DM describes it as you strike your ally with the weapon, you have just satisfied the condition of IF YOU TOUCH ANYTHING OR ANYONE WHILE HOLDING A CHARGE, EVEN UNINTENTIONALLY, THE SPELL DISCHARGES.
If you miss with your attack due to cover, and the DM describes it as you strike the table in front of the target, you have just satisfied the condition of IF YOU TOUCH ANYTHING OR ANYONE WHILE HOLDING A CHARGE, EVEN UNINTENTIONALLY, THE SPELL DISCHARGES.
If you think you're that right, start a new thread, I'll shoot you down there
|
|
Let's move on from the Magus discussion, it's irrelevant to this thread. I was trying to illustrate something to ask a question, but not a question about the Magus.
Here's one I know is possible.
From the tech guide, the Android Gunslinger in my Iron Gods game is wielding a LASER RIFLE. If he enchanted it to be a +1 Flaming Laser Rifle how would it work against a creature with Fire Resistsnce 5?
What about Hardness 5?
What if it had both?
If he also added the Corrosive property, how would it work in those 3 scenarios?
I know how I've always played it - we total each type of damage (physical/fire/acid/etc) before applying the resistances/DR/Hardness, but Hardness applies to all damage types.
But people have pointed out that this isn't stated in the rules, and so far I haven't been able to prove them wrong.
I don't think I've ever GM'd a monster with DR and Hardness or with ER and Hardness, but I'd probably have defaulted to "overlaps, does not stack". Again this isn't in the rules, but neither can I find a rule either way (so this might be a GM-Fiat case).
Laser + flaming damage is all fire damage, so surely one single stack of damage.
Laser + corrosive damage is all energy damage, but two different kinds. of damage. Without any doubt, two different Energy resistances (acid and fire) will apply to the respective separated part of the damage. Hardness has never been addressed in this situation, but we can make an RL comparison: if a material requires a specific kind of acid or a specific heat level to be damaged, generally combining the wrong acid with insufficient heat doesn't allow them to damage the material (there are exceptions). Unless the attack gets some kind of synergic effect I would apply the hardness to both parts of the attack separately.The laser VS Hardness plus Fire resistance: even more tricky. I would apply both as hardness is a rare and special quality, but it is a GM call as I think it has never been addressed.
Maybe we should look at the Technology guide, as robots have hardness and are widely used in it.
I basically entirely agree with Diego (I'd rule differently for DR and Hardness, but I agree it's not in the rules so it's GM fiat).
However I'm really not sure now that this is how it actually works, and if someone disagreed with me I wouldn't be able to tell them they're wrong.
Interesting thread guys, if anyine finds any more rules that clarify any of this I'd be keen to see them, but until then I guess this is something to check with the group before you start playing a construct-heavy game.
|
|
However I'm really not sure now that this is how it actually works, and if someone disagreed with me I wouldn't be able to tell them they're wrong.
I checked the Technology guide. There are several robots with hardness and some form of energy resistance, but no explanation on how they interact.
From what I have seen, the energy resistance was always higher than the hardness, so they could overlap and the energy resistance would still be useful.I haven't noticed any example where the energy resistance was equal to or lower than the hardness. If they overlap, an example with an energy resistance <= to the hardness would indicate that they stack (if they don't stack but instead overlap the ER, in that situation, would meaningless). As there is no example with ER <= to hardness, it is a weak indication that they overlap.
(I know, it is a convoluted argument, but it is the only indication of how they are meant to interact.)
I can see that.
I was thinking for Hardness and DR you could have an Adamantine weapon that overcomes Hardness but not DR, so the DR could be lower and still be useful. ER doesn't really have an Adamantine equivalent so they couldn't do it there, so I think your argument - while not a strong argument - is at least AN argument.
(I'm a player in Iron Gods at the moment so I didn't want to look them up myself, that's kinda cheating.)
Thanks for checking, that at least gives us something to work from =)