PDA

View Full Version : [4E]Damaging Objects



Oracle_Hunter
2009-02-28, 02:53 AM
From the poster that brought you "Drowning" - "Damaging Objects", or "I punch the door to death."

Having looked at the 4E rules for damaging objects (DMG 66) it turns out they merely have Defenses and HP - no hardness or Resists for damage. This means that, by RAW, you can punch your way through any substance, given enough time. And to be honest, it's not very much time for some things - the base Door HP is 20; at 1d4+STR per swing, that's not going to last very long.

I would like to have some sort of damaging objects rule, if for no other reason than it'd be nice to know how hard it is to hack apart a door instead of picking it.

Now, my natural response is to reintroduce Hardness, but at what values for what objects? Or is there a better way?

Here's the list of materials listed in the DMG, and their HP modifiers:

Reinforced × 1.5
Paper or cloth × 0.1
Glass or ice × 0.25
Leather or hide × 0.5
Wood x 1
Stone × 2
Iron or steel × 3
Adamantine × 5

tcrudisi
2009-02-28, 02:57 AM
Considering the door is 20hp, I'd think that was just about right.

Consider the 1d4+4 str you quoted. I'm going to assume that means 18 str. Someone with an 18 str should be able to break a wooden door down within 20 seconds. You are talking about a bodybuilder here, after all.

Some things may not make sense but when those occur I find that a simple, "Sorry, you can't punch through the earth. At least have the decency to buy a shovel" suffices. But really, how often do you run into something like what you are asking?

Asbestos
2009-02-28, 02:58 AM
First off, do we have to call it Hardness? Objects have AC, HP, and defenses, can't we just stick a 'Resist 5 All' on there or something?

Wood- Resist 5 All

Stone- Resist 10 All

Iron- Resist 15 All

Adamantine- Resist 20 All

Glass- Vulnerable 5 All

Paper/Cloth- Vulnerable 10 All

Leather/Hide effectively has Resist/Vulnerable 0, if I used wood as the base then paper would be vulnerable 15 all and adamantine would be resist 15 all, but I felt that wood should be a little tougher.

I don't think admantine needs any other special requirement since I can't imagine it being encountered by anything but high level characters.

Since Reinforced is something that gets stacked onto the other qualities, I'd say that it works as is by just granting the door more HP. So.. a Reinforced Medium Sized Wooden Door would have 30 hp and a DR 5/-, seems about right.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-02-28, 03:06 AM
Considering the door is 20hp, I'd think that was just about right.

Consider the 1d4+4 str you quoted. I'm going to assume that means 18 str. Someone with an 18 str should be able to break a wooden door down within 20 seconds. You are talking about a bodybuilder here, after all.

Some things may not make sense but when those occur I find that a simple, "Sorry, you can't punch through the earth. At least have the decency to buy a shovel" suffices. But really, how often do you run into something like what you are asking?

Think about the PCs in a Prison. Let's say they're facing a classic iron-bars set-up (x3 HP) and we'll generously call it a single Large object (Base 40 HP). The PCs need to get through 120 HP of prison bars to escape, but they can basically auto-hit (AC 4) for at least 1d4 a round. Unless the guard is keeping an eye on them ("'ey you! No punchin' the bars!") they're out in between 120 rounds (12 minutes) and 30 rounds (3 minutes). That's just silly.

Yes, we could say "no, you can't punch through iron bars" but then what can they use? Would a sword work? How about an axe? I'd like to just have a simple, uniform rule to use here, instead of having to play "Mother may I" with my PCs.

@Asbestos
Oh sure, we'll call it Resist X instead of Hardness, but the idea is the same.


Wood- Resist 5 All

Stone- Resist 10 All

Iron- Resist 15 All

Adamantine- Resist 20 All

Glass- Vulnerable 5 All

Paper/Cloth- Vulnerable 10 All

Leather/Hide effectively has Resist/Vulnerable 0, if I used wood as the base then paper would be vulnerable 15 all and adamantine would be resist 15 all, but I felt that wood should be a little tough.

Let's see... Resist 5 would still allow a strong man to punch through a door, but it would take some more time; Stone too, actually...

How about this:

Wood - Resist 10 All
Stone- Resist 15 All
Iron/Steel - Resist 20 All
Adamantine- Resist 25 All


I figure that wood should be strong enough that you need to be really strong to just punch or dagger through it. Stone should really need some sort of tool to get through, and if Iron/Steel doesn't stop most weapons, it's not very good portcullis material, is it?

Explanation
Things like clubs, dagger, fists and other small arms do between 1d4 and 1d6 damage; these really shouldn't be able to break through a sturdy wooden door. However, once you move up to maces (iron heads) and two-handed improvised weapons (battering rams!) you start doing 1d8 damage; now you've got a decent chance to break through. Best of all, Battleaxes do 1d10 damage; even in the hand of a STR 10 fellow, he can do some damage if he uses both hands :smallbiggrin:

Iron/Steel should be able to resist normal weapon damage; I mean, that is what they're making swords out of, right? Resist 20 isn't going to be broken through by any normal man, even swinging something like a Maul. Only Big Damn Heroes are going to have the firepower to break that.

But what about Longbows? Perhaps a rule that bows and hand-projectiles cannot damage anything of size Medium or larger? That still lets Rangers shoot down nooses without worrying about the "arrowing a door" problem.

Asbestos
2009-02-28, 03:13 AM
The DR 20/- of the Adamantine door still means that anyone doing 2[W] with a decent sized weapon/str score is still damaging it.. might boost it higher. That'd mean losing my nice linear progression though :smallfrown:

Inyssius Tor
2009-02-28, 03:14 AM
It seems that you have failed to grasp the paradigm.

Get with the program, man! Simulationism for the lose!

sonofzeal
2009-02-28, 03:15 AM
To damage an object, you need to attack with something that has equal or greater hardness to the object?

Asbestos
2009-02-28, 03:17 AM
To damage an object, you need to attack with something that has equal or greater hardness to the object?

Yeah, but what about spells and stuff?


For Adamantine I'd probably say that it can only be unlocked or knocked down, rather than hacked through.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-02-28, 03:23 AM
Yeah, but what about spells and stuff?


For Adamantine I'd probably say that it can only be unlocked or knocked down, rather than hacked through.

Well, we don't want to make Adamantine immune to magic though... do we?

EDIT:
Thought - for simplicity's sake, should we count all melee hits against an object of Medium or larger as Criticals? This fixes my "Fireman Problem" (can a man with an axe break through a wooden door?) by causing the Fireman to do STR+1 damage to the door every turn with his axe, while d4, d6, and d8 weapons are going to be behind the curve.

Plus, this has the handy effect of making a Magic Axe better at cutting through mundane materials than a regular Axe (because of the extra crit damage) - which I think is neat. :smallsmile:

Of course, all extra class damage (quarry, sneak attack, curse, etc.) doesn't affect objects.

AgentPaper
2009-02-28, 03:38 AM
As was pointed out, by RAW, you can't attack an object except with certain powers, namely Force Orb and Disintegrate. And object is an object, and almost all powers target creatures, or enemies, which is basically a creature you don't like. Unless the power specifically says it can target an object then by RAW it cannot.

Of course, you can still make a homebrew rule of hardness which would apply to other attack types, but by RAW you can not in fact punch down a door.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-02-28, 03:55 AM
As was pointed out, by RAW, you can't attack an object except with certain powers, namely Force Orb and Disintegrate. And object is an object, and almost all powers target creatures, or enemies, which is basically a creature you don't like. Unless the power specifically says it can target an object then by RAW it cannot.

Of course, you can still make a homebrew rule of hardness which would apply to other attack types, but by RAW you can not in fact punch down a door.

I am... uncomfortable with that interpretation of the rules. That would mean you could not punch through a window, or stomp a clay jug, or what have you; heck, you couldn't even think about swinging a sword at something that wasn't alive - or at least threatening.

For me, that seems like a clearly absurd result. What page of the PHB do you see that rule?

AgentPaper
2009-02-28, 04:26 AM
I am... uncomfortable with that interpretation of the rules. That would mean you could not punch through a window, or stomp a clay jug, or what have you; heck, you couldn't even think about swinging a sword at something that wasn't alive - or at least threatening.

For me, that seems like a clearly absurd result. What page of the PHB do you see that rule?

Page is, well, any page that has powers on it. Melee basic attack is outlined on 287, though. All powers that do damage say "Target: Creature", and I don't know how that could mean anything other than it can target a creature. You can't target anything else, by RAW. The fact that Force Orb and Disintegrate specifically say that they can target objects reinforces this.

As for punching through a window or stomping a jug, that would have you make a strength check to break an object, which there should be rules for. Right now, there's only rules for breaking doors and walls, but the same idea could be applied to any object really. DC for breaking a window for example would be low, probably around 5-10. You can say you do it with your sword or your fist or your foot, it doesn't really matter much.

icefractal
2009-02-28, 06:03 AM
That interpretation still doesn't work for me. At the point when we're saying that Fireball can't burn a wooden hut, that's the point where we may as well be playing a purely abstract game like chess. I know that "videogame-like" gets bandied about altogether too much, but "invulnerable scenery" really is a recurrent irritation in video games, and one I have no interesting in adding to D&D.

Reintroducing hardness wouldn't be a bad idea, but if you do so, you should probably reduce/remove the material-based HP multiplier, becuase they're basically doing the same thing.

AgentPaper
2009-02-28, 06:19 AM
Stuff like Fireball burning a tent is supposed to be up to the DM to decide. Yes, by RAW you can't light things on fire, but this is a PnP game, RAW is just there to help. RAW plays like a video game, which is true for any system. What is a video game but a set of rules? It's when the DM takes lead that it becomes something else.

Basically, instead of trying to list every single after-effect or type of object and how they all interact, they told the DM to use common sense and logic. Otherwise, the rules would have gotten "bloated", as the DMG itself states.

Muyten
2009-02-28, 07:02 AM
Page 66 of the DMG actually suggest that you add resistance or vulnerability to some object or materials so it's not like they didn't think about it they are just leaving it up to the DM to decide. So giving glass vulnerability 5 to physical damage or adamantium resistance 20 to all damage is fine just like their example of giving paper vulnerability 5 to fire.

ColdSepp
2009-02-28, 07:06 AM
As was pointed out, by RAW, you can't attack an object except with certain powers, namely Force Orb and Disintegrate. And object is an object, and almost all powers target creatures, or enemies, which is basically a creature you don't like. Unless the power specifically says it can target an object then by RAW it cannot.

Of course, you can still make a homebrew rule of hardness which would apply to other attack types, but by RAW you can not in fact punch down a door.

Incorrect.

Target [Addition]
Player ’s Handbook, page 57
Add the following sentences to the end of the first paragraph: “Some powers include objects as targets. At the DM’s discretion, a power that targets a creature can also target an object, whether or not the power lists an object as a potential target.”


The errata places this solely at the discretion of the DM. Of course, it doesn't make much sense as to why they can't attack a door, but that is the point of the thread.

Considering powers are At Will, you're in quite a pickle if you want to keep PC's looked up, short of flat out saying 'no, it doesn't work.' Twin Strike and Howling Strike both present problems, as it's big damage for an At Will.

BobVosh
2009-02-28, 07:43 AM
I remember someone on this forum complaining about the vehicles in the Vault book, they were fighting ...I want to say a kraken. Level 10, pooled cash, bought a level 12 or so warship. They fight the Kraken, mostly ignoring this canoe of kobolds. The kobolds throw spears, and then start jabbing at the boat with small size spears to sink it. In like 5 rounds. So 30 seconds for a bunch of puny midgets with tiny toothpicks spears sink a boat.

Honestly the easiest way to do this is to just put a dr/ax or some other sensible tool to acomplish the task.

Sebastian
2009-02-28, 08:33 AM
It seems that you have failed to grasp the paradigm.

Get with the program, man! Simulationism for the lose!

Exactly. After all if you can justify a 10 STR halfling pushing a gargantuan creature 20 feet back why he can't also break a wall barehanded? Just make up some fluff, say that he is so charismatic that he can persuade the wall to crumble or something. It is 4e , it is not supposed to make sense. :smallbiggrin:

Asbestos
2009-02-28, 11:24 AM
Of course, all extra class damage (quarry, sneak attack, curse, etc.) doesn't affect objects.

Ranger: "Its all over now, door, I've got you in my sights..."

Rogue: "Yeah! Right with the grain..."

Warlock: "Door, I curse thee to the lowest pit of Hell!" OR "F*** you, door!"

Asbestos
2009-02-28, 11:25 AM
Exactly. After all if you can justify a 10 STR halfling pushing a gargantuan creature 20 feet back why he can't also break a wall barehanded?

I take it then, that you find things like Judo absurd?

hewhosaysfish
2009-02-28, 11:31 AM
Thought - for simplicity's sake, should we count all melee hits against an object of Medium or larger as Criticals? This fixes my "Fireman Problem" (can a man with an axe break through a wooden door?) by causing the Fireman to do STR+1 damage to the door every turn with his axe, while d4, d6, and d8 weapons are going to be behind the curve.

Plus, this has the handy effect of making a Magic Axe better at cutting through mundane materials than a regular Axe (because of the extra crit damage) - which I think is neat. :smallsmile:

Of course, all extra class damage (quarry, sneak attack, curse, etc.) doesn't affect objects.

*points at Coup de Grace rules*

All hits become crits and damage equal to the target's bloodied value "slays" it outright? Sounds about right. A door is helpless, isn't it?

And why do I find the mental image of a rogue stabbing a door with hsi dagger and going "Aha! You weren't expecting that, were you?!" tremendously funny?

Grynning
2009-02-28, 11:39 AM
I remember someone on this forum complaining about the vehicles in the Vault book, they were fighting ...I want to say a kraken. Level 10, pooled cash, bought a level 12 or so warship. They fight the Kraken, mostly ignoring this canoe of kobolds. The kobolds throw spears, and then start jabbing at the boat with small size spears to sink it. In like 5 rounds. So 30 seconds for a bunch of puny midgets with tiny toothpicks spears sink a boat.

IIRC that thread was not about an actual in-game incident, it was purely hypothetical like this one. Allowing guys with spears to sink the PC's boat would be, in my opinion, incredibly bad DM'ing.

I ran a ship-to-ship fight in my last 4th ed. session between the PC's and goblin and zombie pirates. There was a lot of spear and arrow throwing, and I let the PC's use the rails of the boat for cover, and one of their missed javelins became a springboard for the crazy halfling to bounce up on to the enemy boat. Because, like sensible human beings, we just accepted that spears didn't do damage to the boats and moved on. No one even brought it up.

You do not have to have rules for things that can be resolved with common sense. Just do what's dramatically appropriate.

MartinHarper
2009-02-28, 11:51 AM
For a boat I can see some spear holes below the waterline causing it to slowly take in water and eventually sink, or broken oars/masts/rigging causing it to be immobile until repaired.

For arbitrary objects, I've tended to just handwave it based on my gut, which doesn't seem any worse than handwaving resist all 5; vulnerable 5 axes for wooden doors. I save HP/defences/resistance for specific objects that I know in advance the PCs might want to attack.

Artanis
2009-02-28, 11:57 AM
Incorrect.

Target [Addition]
Player ’s Handbook, page 57
Add the following sentences to the end of the first paragraph: “Some powers include objects as targets. At the DM’s discretion, a power that targets a creature can also target an object, whether or not the power lists an object as a potential target.”


The errata places this solely at the discretion of the DM. Of course, it doesn't make much sense as to why they can't attack a door, but that is the point of the thread.

Considering powers are At Will, you're in quite a pickle if you want to keep PC's looked up, short of flat out saying 'no, it doesn't work.' Twin Strike and Howling Strike both present problems, as it's big damage for an At Will.
Aww, I wanted to bring that up :smallfrown:

I also remember the thread that BobVosh mentions (I think it was goblins and not kobolds, but I digress :smalltongue: ). Part of the problem the person had with the goblins sinking the boat was that they did it with spears. Hacking through the hull using an axe is one thing, but stabbing your way through with a spear or shooting your way through with arrows is another thing altogether.

My reaction was that with that situation, the goblins attacking the boat were effectively just a timer anyways: if the DM chooses enemies that would hack through the hull in X turns, then he'd get the same effect by just giving the PCs an X turn time limit to deal with it (using warnings like "there's goblins chopping at the hull", then "they're making progress", then "seriously, you should do something about them" or something).

I'm guessing that the point of the thread is situations where none of this would really work. Where saying "yes" or "no", or using STR checks, or some other method wouldn't work. Situations like that would probably be pretty rare, but probably exist.

Sebastian
2009-02-28, 12:05 PM
I take it then, that you find things like Judo absurd?

Please, don't put in my mouth (or keyboard, whatever) word that i didn't used.

I said that if you can justify a small, weak creature pushing around creatures big as a house or more (using his charisma, apparently), then you should have no problem with someone breaking a wall barehanded, or even just with the force of his personality. The two things are not so different, after all.

and yes, 4e is not meant to make sense,it is meant to be balanced, "sense" is something that must be put in by the GM and players with appropriate use of fluff.

Totally Guy
2009-02-28, 12:23 PM
Maybe it could be played differently.

Say the door instead of having 20 hit point it instead has a DC of 20 in damage to knock down.

The idea behind this is as such: If you attak the door it either breaks or it does not break. Boxing Glove Wizard does about 4 damage a turn but none of those hits can break through.

The Big Booted Paladin is struggling too. He can hit about 16 damage but that's not enough to break it either. He could use a daily power like Martyr's Strike to down it. So he rools and scores 23 and the door is down.

This way objects are much sturdier than when it'sdependent on reliably hittingdamage greater than the damage reduction in the earlier post.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-02-28, 12:28 PM
*points at Coup de Grace rules*

All hits become crits and damage equal to the target's bloodied value "slays" it outright? Sounds about right. A door is helpless, isn't it?

I don't want to use the Coup de Grace rules because that allows you to break an object without reducing it to 0 HP; that steps on the toes of the Break DCs already listed.

OK, general rule:
- No combat manuevers may be used against objects (DM's discretion).
- Objects may not be push, pulled or slid (DM's discretion)

This way you can Bull Rush a table or something (but not a wall), and you're not going to use Come and Get It to summon all furniture in a 15' radius :smalltongue:

EDIT:

Maybe it could be played differently.

Say the door instead of having 20 hit point it instead has a DC of 20 in damage to knock down.

The idea behind this is as such: If you attak the door it either breaks or it does not break. Boxing Glove Wizard does about 4 damage a turn but none of those hits can break through.

The Big Booted Paladin is struggling too. He can hit about 16 damage but that's not enough to break it either. He could use a daily power like Martyr's Strike to down it. So he rools and scores 23 and the door is down.

This way objects are much sturdier than when it'sdependent on reliably hittingdamage greater than the damage reduction in the earlier post.

Problems:

(1) Doors are now save-or-die. Either they can stand up to punishment forever or they fall in one blow. And it allows the Greataxe Fighter to basically walk-n-axe his way through a castle (Power Attack FTW)

(2) People with lesser attacks cannot wear away at the door. The Fireman can never get through the DC 20 wooden door, even with a Greataxe.

bosssmiley
2009-02-28, 12:44 PM
It seems that you have failed to grasp the paradigm.

Get with the program, man! Simulationism for the lose!

Open the adv_enviro.ini file in a text editor and change the AffectScenery property from "0" to "1" :smalltongue:

Oracle_Hunter
2009-02-28, 12:48 PM
I said that if you can justify a small, weak creature pushing around creatures big as a house or more (using his charisma, apparently), then you should have no problem with someone breaking a wall barehanded, or even just with the force of his personality. The two things are not so different, after all.

Actually, the problem here is that 4E has thrown up incompatible rules.

On one hand, you have the Break DCs; make a STR v. DC check to bust on through a door or a wall. These are very high; only an exceptional character can punch down a wall.

On the other hand, walls have HP and no damage resistance. By RAW, you can just take your axe to that wall and start carving a tunnel. The worst is the Wooden Door - even a wizard can punch that down in less than a minute.

As written, there is never a reason to try a Break DC; it is just too hard to do, and a five-man party can make short work of pretty much any fortification much faster. I am looking for a rule that preserves Break DCs without making for invincible windows.

Spiryt
2009-02-28, 01:03 PM
As written, there is never a reason to try a Break DC; it is just too hard to do, and a five-man party can make short work of pretty much any fortification much faster. I am looking for a rule that preserves Break DCs without making for invincible windows.

Isn't it the matter of common sense?

I mean, you can make rules at mortem, and there still will be something missing. And as far as I know, complex rules don't go well with 4ed.

Just tell a player, "Yes, you can break this window", "No, you cannot damage stone wall with your sword" and "Yes, you can punch that door for 1d4 damage beacuse of hand ache".

Artanis
2009-02-28, 03:27 PM
I'm with Spiryt on this one. If a Wizard wants to try to punch through an adamantine door, tell him "no".


First, let me say that I don't think the problem is with objects. I think the problem is with vehicles.

Ignoring vehicles for a moment, looking through the DMG, the numbers given seem pretty reasonable. Door break DCs are actually pretty realistic, and door HP is pretty good (yeah, 20hp ain't much...but you're hacking the thing with a greataxe, and a door-breaking check is only one standard action).

When you run the numbers for other objects, such as statues, it seems pretty reasonable as well. A low-level character is going to have to hack at a stone statue for quite a while to take it down. A high-level character with massively powerful weaponry and attacks that will give deities pause though? Yeah, say goodbye to the statue. Again, that seems reasonable and, IMO, pretty good verisimilitude, actually.

AFAIK, the DMG doesn't even give hp for walls. So it doesn't matter how high the DCs to break down walls because a wall's HP is going to be DM fiat anyways. And besides, we're talking really, REALLY thick walls here. Of course throwing your shoulder into it won't work very well.

The only problems arise when somebody tries to use an "unrealistic" attack like a Wizard slapping the thing. That's when, by RAW, the DM tells the person, "ain't gonna happen."

NOW, with all that out of the way, we get to vehicles. As the goblin example points out, problems arise with vehicles. You basically need a hell of a lot more use of telling people "no, you can't do that" for vehicles to work, and even then they have quite a few problems. The quickest fix would just be to assign resistances to vehicles on a case-by-case basis, but there's no doubt a much more elegant solution.


Now, for said vehicle resistances (and if you're absolutely, positively adamant (no pun intended) on some sort of hardness system anyways), I have a couple suggestions:

1) Looking in the DMG, I notice that a good place to start would be the object's listed FORT defense value x the material multiplier on the table directly below it. For example, consider an item of a certain material. Say the item's listed FORT value is 11 and the material multiplier is x4. Then it would have Resist All 44 in this example.

2) You could also use the material multiplier times some fraction of the listed base HP of an object...0.05 (i.e. 1/20th) looks like a good starting spot. So an object with the previous one's x4 material multiplier would have 4/20*HP=HP/5 hardness.

Now, I'm sure that neither of these will work all that well as-is, but they should be good starting points to work from.

Asbestos
2009-03-01, 12:35 AM
I said that if you can justify a small, weak creature pushing around creatures big as a house or more (using his charisma, apparently), then you should have no problem with someone breaking a wall barehanded, or even just with the force of his personality. The two things are not so different, after all.

And that is some bad logic.

Yes, indeed someone small can move someone larger than them, no, that doesn't mean that they can punch down a wall.

Do you have similar problems with people using the force of their personality to break physics?

mrmaxmrmax
2009-03-01, 12:52 AM
I am looking for a rule that preserves Break DCs without making for invincible windows.

I like 4e because it is not a simulation of real life.

That said, it is time for Newton's 3rd law of motion.

If you punch a door and do 1d4 + 2 damage to it, you should also be taking 1d4 + 2 damage.

Good luck getting through that iron door now. Muah hah hah!

That said, I would recommend the DM's Little Helper on this one: When using an item that would work to break the door, you get a +2 on your strength check. If you are helping by using a power on the door, you are making an aid another check.

I don't like the idea of attacking the doors hit points as it is. Why would the DMG assign break DCs, indeed?

Maxwell.

AgentPaper
2009-03-01, 01:57 AM
If you're gunna make hardness, you first need to know what type of damage players can put out at various levels. Damage per attack is what we're worried about, with at-wills, encounters, and dailies. If someone could make chart of this for each class, that would go a long way towards making hardness rules make sense.

Second, we need to decide what materials should be for what tiers. Wood for heroic, stone/iron for paragon, and adamantine/other really hard metal for epic seems like a good start. As well, the material can be fragile or reinforced, which puts it in between the normal stuff. Progression could go:

1-3 - Fragile Wood
4-7 - Wood
8-10 - Reinforced Wood
11-13 - Fragile Stone/Iron
14-17 - Stone/Iron
18-20 - Reinforced Stone/Iron
21-23 - Fragile Adamantine
24-27 - Adamantine
28-30 - Reinforced Adamantine
31+ - Starmetal

TheOOB
2009-03-01, 03:41 AM
I think first and foremost, a little GM fiat needs to be exercised. You will not break through that wall with a longsword, here's some turtle wax and instant rice for your efforts.

I personally don't like hardness a great deal. It doesn't scale well in my mind, and makes breaking objects a war of attrition.

I would instead use thresholds and multipliers. First multipliers. Certain attacks do more or less damage. For example, a wall would have a multiplier of 1x against siege type attacks(battering rams, catapults, dragon claws, ect), 0.5x against normal attacks, and .25x against most energy attacks(fire isn't that good at breaking stone walls).

Then you also have a threshold, a minimum damage you need to deal in order to hurt the object. If you beat the threshold, you deal full damage, otherwise you only do superficial damage.

It's a little more complex, but I think it works.

OneFamiliarFace
2009-03-01, 04:35 AM
Second, we need to decide what materials should be for what tiers. Wood for heroic, stone/iron for paragon, and adamantine/other really hard metal for epic seems like a good start. As well, the material can be fragile or reinforced, which puts it in between the normal stuff.

I think this is what you are looking at here. A heroic character's physical abilities are still within the realm of exceptional human beings. As such, high level heroic characters should have an easy time of wood, but probably not stone (unless it is a small stone piece). Paragon characters should have a shot at stone, but only the most exceptional should be able to have a go at metals. Likewise, Epic characters should be have a time of metal, and stuff like adamantium would be impenetrable to all but the most powerful of characters.

So, a simpler system may just be an easy

Can they Attack it Chart?

This is based on the notion that a DM can say when a power can be used to attack an object. Melee basic attack is technically a "power." I would say that Ranged Weapon Attacks can never be used to target objects unless the DM rules otherwise (in the case of the Artificer or the Ranger's "Hammer Shot" for example). The DM gives vulnerability or resistance as he sees fit (wood has vulnerable 5 fire, etc). Anyway, on with the chart.

Heroic
Wood - unarmed (yes), with tool (yes)
Stone - unarmed (no), with tool (yes)
Metal or greater - (No, but with exceptional tool)

Paragon
Stone - unarmed (yes), with tool (yes)
Metal - unarmed (no), with tool (yes)
Special Metal - (No, but with exceptional tool)

Epic
Metal - unarmed (yes), with tool (yes)
Special Metal - unarmed (no), with tool (yes)

A character can break any material at any level as long as he/she can make the break DCs. A simple feat can be made which allows players to count as having a tool when unarmed (monks might get that as a bonus feat). I could see feats for the "Pick" class of weapon being used here too.
Possible Feats/Weapons

These aren't for comment in this thread. Just for examples of how the rules might work.

Feats:

Stone Fist:
Prerequisites: Str 13, Heroic Tier
Benefit: Your unarmed attacks count as armed for the purposes of attacking objects.

Destructive Pick:
Prerequisites: Str 15, Con 13, Paragon Tier
Benefit: When you hit an object with a pick, that hit counts as a critical.

Items:

Destructive Weapon:
Level 4 +1 Level 19 +4
Level 9 +2 Level 24 +5
Level 14 +3 Level 29 +6
Weapon: Axe, Hammer, Pick
Enhancement: Attack rolls and damage rolls.
Critical: +1d6 per plus (or +1d12 per plus against objects)
Property: Your melee attacks with this weapon ignore any resistances an object has against your attacks.
Power (Daily): Free Action. Use this power when you hit a medium or smaller object that you can legally damage with this weapon. That object is destroyed.

I need to change the wording on that daily power, so it is harder to just carry around as a lvl 4 item to use on traps, but I like the idea of it. I might move this to the design thread, so it can be commented on in its rightful place.

potatocubed
2009-03-01, 04:39 AM
Just an aside: If you're going to do this all out, you should probably make objects outright immune to psychic damage.

Maybe also necrotic and radiant too, although the latter means that many paladins and clerics can be incapacitated by locking them in a paper bag. :smalltongue:

Asbestos
2009-03-01, 04:45 AM
Just an aside: If you're going to do this all out, you should probably make objects outright immune to psychic damage.

Maybe also necrotic and radiant too, although the latter means that many paladins and clerics can be incapacitated by locking them in a paper bag. :smalltongue:

Page 66 of the DMG
"All objects are immune to poison damage, psychic
damage, and necrotic damage.
Objects don’t have a Will defense and are immune
to attacks that target Will defense."

I don't view radiant/necrotic as positive/negative energies anymore, so I don't mind if radiant energy can reduce an object to dust.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-03-01, 04:51 AM
So, the reason I don't want to just go DM fiat is because there are rules for damaging objects - they just don't work as written. Plus, damaging objects is common enough (and often plot sensitive) that it should have a general set of rules - preferably ones which are simple to remember and adjudicate.

Now, I'm not too worried about scaling because Paragon and Epic characters are supposed to be able to do things that Heroic ones cannot. Sure a Paragon Fighter Encounter can probably one-shot the door with Hardness - but it could already do that by RAW! Hardness is just supposed to make it a little harder for Heroic-level entities to wreck up the joint.

AgentPaper's break-down is very good, but perhaps too complicated for what we need; simple "Tier" materials probably works just fine - perhaps we'll add a high & low Tier material for each? He did note something I forgot - reinforced materials! Let's just have that be a +2 to Resist Damage; simple and in line with other 4E mechanics. And for kicks, let's have a -2 Resist for Fragile materials.

So, new Hardness Table:
Reinforced = +2 Resist
Weak = -2 Resist

Heroic
Hide = Resist 5
Wood = Resist 10

Paragon
Stone = Resist 15
Iron = Resist 20

Epic
Adamantine = Resist 25
Starmetal = Resist 30

I'm not worried about vulnerabilities for weak stuff at the moment; it doesn't seem like a pressing problem.


The more I think about it, the more I'm liking the auto-crit rule for melee attacks on Medium or larger objects; less dice rolling and a steadier progression through an object. This can also make it reasonable for the PCs to figure out whether it'd be better to try to Break the door down, or hack it to pieces.

OK, new Damaging Objects rules:
- Objects may be attacked by any power the DM rules could target the object, unless otherwise noted in the power description. Powers that target Will can never be used to damage an object.

- Ranged or Close Weapon Attacks cannot damage an object of Medium size or larger, subject to DM rulings.

- Sneak Attack, Hunter's Quarry, Warlock's Curse and similar Class Features cannot be used on objects. An object can never be Marked or Divine Challenged. Objects cannot be targeted by a Coup De Grace attack.

- Objects of size Medium or larger are immune to powers that push, pull and slide, subject to DM rulings.

- Any melee attack that hits an object of size Medium or larger results in a Critical Hit. Powers that are triggered by Critical Hits are never triggered by an attack on an object, though extra damage from magical items and feats are rolled as normal.

The HP table and Break DCs are still used as normal. I think that's short, easy to remember, and easy to adjudicate. Thoughts?

EDIT:
On Radiant/Necrotic
To be honest, I'm fine with these damaging objects. Necrotic energies cause the objects to decay and warp; Radiant energies blast 'em apart with Shiny Energy :smallbiggrin:

AgentPaper
2009-03-01, 08:08 AM
This will assume starting with 18 STR, and a 2d6 damage weapon, likely a maul. (We only care about people who are trying to be good at taking down a wall, right?)

At-Will:
Heroic: 2d6+4, 6-16, average 11.
Paragon: 2d6+8, 10-20, average 15.
Epic: 4d6+12, 16-36, average 26.

Encounter:
Heroic: 4d6+4, 8-28, average 18.
Paragon: 6d6+8, 14-44, average 29.
Epic: 8d6+12, 20-60, average 40.

Daily:
Heroic: 6d6+4, 10-40, average 25.
Paragon: 8d6+8, 16-56, average 36.
Epic: 12d6+12, 24-84, average 54.

Glass/Ice: 5
Wood: 10
Stone: 15
Iron: 20
Steel: 25
Adamantine: 30
Weak: -5
Reinforced: +5
Magic: +5

Weak means the object isn't just a solid piece of whatever material, like a latticework or some such. Reinforced objects have some tougher material used to make the whole thing stronger, like wood with metal bars across it. Magic means the object has been enchanted to be more resistant.

As you can see, reinforced wood and stone make tough barriers in heroic, and Iron is nearly impossible before paragon. Things becomes easier in epic, but even then a magic, reinforced Adamantine door is out of reach with normal attacks. Encounter abilities will on average do damage to such an object, but with the limit on those it will take a long time indeed, especially if the object is large.

Daily powers blow through hardness pretty easily, but unless the object is somewhat small they won't take it out in a single attack, most likely. Also, I didn't include Starmetal, as I think that should be reserved as a literally impenetrable deal, short of some really powerful MacGuffin. So, a plot door.

And for radiant and necrotic, radiant works because it's basically just Really Hot Fire (TM). Necrotic I wouldn't allow, because it basically drains the life force out of people, which objects don't have any of.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-03-01, 08:52 AM
Think about the PCs in a Prison. Let's say they're facing a classic iron-bars set-up (x3 HP) and we'll generously call it a single Large object (Base 40 HP). The PCs need to get through 120 HP of prison bars to escape, but they can basically auto-hit (AC 4) for at least 1d4 a round. Unless the guard is keeping an eye on them ("'ey you! No punchin' the bars!") they're out in between 120 rounds (12 minutes) and 30 rounds (3 minutes). That's just silly.

Yes, we could say "no, you can't punch through iron bars" but then what can they use? Would a sword work? How about an axe? I'd like to just have a simple, uniform rule to use here, instead of having to play "Mother may I" with my PCs.

D&D 4E goes back toward the old style of "the DM applies common sense and arbitrates results." It's pointless to try to give rules for everything, especially outside of combat.

PCs cannot punch through doors - at least until they're pretty high-level. They can't damage iron bars at all, bare-handed or with weapons - at least until they're pretty high-level. And so on and so on.

What's silly is assuming that PCs would be able to punch through iron bars just because the rules come out that way.

Artanis
2009-03-01, 12:20 PM
*things about materials*
The table with door break DCs includes materials (specifically the material of the door in question). That'd be a good place to start for this sort of list.


So, the reason I don't want to just go DM fiat is because there are rules for damaging objects - they just don't work as written.
Depends on your Point of View. If you consider "the DM can say 'no'" as part of the RAW (which I do), then they work fine. If you do not consider it part of RAW, or if you never want it to come up (or at least as seldom as possible), then they don't work particularly well.

Both (or I guess all three, depending on your PoV :smalltongue: ) are legitimate viewpoints, of course. You obviously fall into the "either not RAW or else don't want to use anyways" camp, which is why I'm helping despite disagreeing.

I do things like that a lot :smallcool:

icefractal
2009-03-01, 06:00 PM
Item 1 - "We can't have rules for every single interaction."
Yes, but damage objects is a common situation and not one that needs a huge number of rules. 3E hardness did the job pretty well, and it took less than a page.

Item 2 - "It's about common sense - you can't punch down a door."
But you can punch down an iron golem? Or an elemental made of rock? And something like Flaming Burst seems ideal for destroying doors, actually. Common sense doesn't cover most of the situations an adventuring party finds themselves in.

Item 3 - "The DM should just make a ruling."
Ok, but the same type of door can come up in different contexts. In a situation where the party is locked in a cellar with a bunch of zombies, and the only one able to reach the door is the Warlock, blasting that door down with hell-power makes a heck of a lot of sense. Claiming that you can't attack the door would seem absurd. But now, given that they can bust down doors that way, there are a lot times it would come in handy.

Item 4 - "The DM should make a different ruling in each case, screw consistency."
But then, you rob players of any plan-making agency. When you have no idea what effects your actions will have, you can't think beyond the next round. And that leads to bored, "reactive" players.


Now honestly, no matter how you set up your system, people will generally be able to break doors down. Primarily, because time in combat is an order of magnitude faster than time out of combat, and anything you have even a slight chance to break down when a fight is underway is something you can trivially break down with 5-10 minutes on your hands. With hardness, you can at least solve the "punch your way out of prison" issue, but doors will still fall like dominoes to a full party.

But really, is that a problem? If you're smashing steel golems and rock elementals and adamantine-armored demons right and left, then it hardly breaks verisimilitude to smash a door or wall the same way. And honestly, why would anyone expect masonry to be an epic-tier challenge?

LurkerInPlayground
2009-03-01, 06:05 PM
But really, is that a problem? If you're smashing steel golems and rock elementals and adamantine-armored demons right and left, then it hardly breaks verisimilitude to smash a door or wall the same way. And honestly, why would anyone expect masonry to be an epic-tier challenge?
Pretty much sums up my feelings about this.

Besides, correct me if I'm wrong, isn't "defense" the new hardness?

Asbestos
2009-03-01, 06:09 PM
Pretty much sums up my feelings about this.

Besides, correct me if I'm wrong, isn't "defense" the new hardness?

Nah, 'defense' is the new saving throw, but DR still exists.

LurkerInPlayground
2009-03-01, 06:23 PM
Nah, 'defense' is the new saving throw, but DR still exists.
That just seems particularly selective. Defense is a new "saving throw" but nah, the comparison doesn't work for the hardness of objects.

Although as pointed out earlier in the thread, hardness is easy enough to substitute for by giving objects general resistances.

miserable
2009-03-01, 08:49 PM
Actually, the problem here is that 4E has thrown up incompatible rules.

On one hand, you have the Break DCs; make a STR v. DC check to bust on through a door or a wall. These are very high; only an exceptional character can punch down a wall.

On the other hand, walls have HP and no damage resistance. By RAW, you can just take your axe to that wall and start carving a tunnel. The worst is the Wooden Door - even a wizard can punch that down in less than a minute.

As written, there is never a reason to try a Break DC; it is just too hard to do, and a five-man party can make short work of pretty much any fortification much faster. I am looking for a rule that preserves Break DCs without making for invincible windows.


Yes , there are two different rules. One is a general rule that assigns hit points to objects(and it does use the words "general Rule" in the description).

The other is a rule that deals specifically with breaking down doors. It is specific because doors is the ONLY thing this one rule deals with.

4.0 PHB pg 11 . One of the three main rules of the core mechanic. Specific rules beat general rules . You can TRY to attack a door thats being used AS a door with punches kicks and bows if you want , but it won't DO anything unless you use those weapons in some fashion that would provoke a strength check . And you don't even need to use weapons for that.

The role playing for this might be using a sword as a makeshift prybar, slamming your shoulder into the door , picking up a rock and hammering the door with it. It WON'T actually do any damage according to the rules , but it can be described as such by a good DM . You guys are all focused on the wrong rule for this .

Sure it may be WOtC just wording things badly (they are great at that), but it solves all your confusion and makes doors more than just pig pieces of paper mache . Once you realize that this is the way doors actually work in the game , then lockpicking , the knock ritual, and arcane lock all make perfect sense.



A Strength check MUST be rolled to break down a door . If you want to use a weapon to do it and hack it into little pieces , that is fine , but you still need to roll the strength check first to see if you're strong enough to.



But if you guys want to play the game incorrectly , then grumble that it doesn't work correctly then have fun. :)

Artanis
2009-03-01, 10:11 PM
DMG 65 explicitly gives hp for doors AND explicitly mentions knocking doors off their hinges in a paragraph that talks about attacking objects.

Thus, it is possible to attack doors that are in use as doors.

Kurald Galain
2009-03-02, 08:55 AM
And why do I find the mental image of a rogue stabbing a door with hsi dagger and going "Aha! You weren't expecting that, were you?!"
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!!



Say the door instead of having 20 hit point it instead has a DC of 20 in damage to knock down.
You mean it takes zero damage, but any hit that does >20 damage breaks it? Sorry, but that doesn't work either, you can just keep hitting until you get maximum damage on your roll. Probability says that'd be within the minute.


All hits become crits and damage equal to the target's bloodied value "slays" it outright? Sounds about right. A door is helpless, isn't it?
Technically it's not, because conditions don't apply to objects.


What this needs, really, is the old gem that you can't repeat checks until you get them right. Most RPGs that I'm aware of, if you punch a door and fail the check, that means that the door is too strong for you. D&D is one of the few exceptions that lets you repeat punching the door until you roll high enough, which by laws of probability will be quite soon.

I think that "let the DM decide" is a good reaction here; on that account, the table with object hardness shouldn't be in the book, because it's actually a bad guideline for letting the DM decide.

Thane of Fife
2009-03-02, 09:13 AM
What this needs, really, is the old gem that you can't repeat checks until you get them right. Most RPGs that I'm aware of, if you punch a door and fail the check, that means that the door is too strong for you. D&D is one of the few exceptions that lets you repeat punching the door until you roll high enough, which by laws of probability will be quite soon.

That does end up with the problem of Joe "Str 18" Fighter rolls a 1 and fails to break the door, while Zack "Str 6" Wizard rolls a 20 and breaks it down ("Yeah, yeah, I loosened it for you"). Not that that's really that bad, though.

Kurald Galain
2009-03-02, 09:30 AM
That does end up with the problem of Joe "Str 18" Fighter rolls a 1 and fails to break the door, while Zack "Str 6" Wizard rolls a 20 and breaks it down ("Yeah, yeah, I loosened it for you"). Not that that's really that bad, though.

It does. The second part of the old gem is to either disallow the entire party from rolling, or to adjust the DC to account for the fact that four or five people are making the check now.

It's basic statistics. It amazes me how many players and DMs are unaware of such basic math that whenever you need to roll X or higher on 1dY, your chances of rolling that go UP for every additional roll you're allowed (and quite fast too, for the first couple of added rolls!). Can I say "duh" loudly enough? :smallbiggrin:

Artanis
2009-03-02, 12:25 PM
That does end up with the problem of Joe "Str 18" Fighter rolls a 1 and fails to break the door, while Zack "Str 6" Wizard rolls a 20 and breaks it down ("Yeah, yeah, I loosened it for you"). Not that that's really that bad, though.
Looking at the chart on DMG 64, a character trained in Athletics OR who starts with 20 STR will break down a level-appropriate door on a Take 10. At some levels, the character that starts with 18 STR will break down a level-appropriate door on a Take 10. So the really strong character doesn't have to worry about failing.


*statistics stuff*
Agreed. Very, very much agreed. Hell, this is even the basis of the Take 20 rule: on average, it'll take you 20 rolls to get a natural 20, so the game says, "instead of rolling dice over and over, just say you rolled twenty times and assume you got a natural 20 in there somewhere." :smallwink:

Thane of Fife
2009-03-02, 12:30 PM
It does. The second part of the old gem is to either disallow the entire party from rolling, or to adjust the DC to account for the fact that four or five people are making the check now.

I've also seen it done the opposite way - Skills and Powers, I believe, advocated giving additional checks to people with really high ability scores.



It's basic statistics. It amazes me how many players and DMs are unaware of such basic math that whenever you need to roll X or higher on 1dY, your chances of rolling that go UP for every additional roll you're allowed (and quite fast too, for the first couple of added rolls!). Can I say "duh" loudly enough? :smallbiggrin:

I call that the "Principle of Saving Throws:" the more PCs you can hit with one spell, the more likely one of them blows the save. :belkar:

EDIT:


Looking at the chart on DMG 64, a character trained in Athletics OR who starts with 20 STR will break down a level-appropriate door on a Take 10. At some levels, the character that starts with 18 STR will break down a level-appropriate door on a Take 10. So the really strong character doesn't have to worry about failing.


I wasn't actually talking about 4e specifically, but rather of a general 'problem' that often occurs when checks are limited to one per character.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-03-02, 02:15 PM
What this needs, really, is the old gem that you can't repeat checks until you get them right. Most RPGs that I'm aware of, if you punch a door and fail the check, that means that the door is too strong for you. D&D is one of the few exceptions that lets you repeat punching the door until you roll high enough, which by laws of probability will be quite soon.

I think that "let the DM decide" is a good reaction here; on that account, the table with object hardness shouldn't be in the book, because it's actually a bad guideline for letting the DM decide.

But, we're talking about objects taking HP damage here. Surely you're not just allowing every PC a single swing at the door - if they can't one-shot it, they can never smash it to pieces? :smallconfused:

EDIT:

But if you guys want to play the game incorrectly , then grumble that it doesn't work correctly then have fun. :)

I don't know if your reading of the rules is accurate. Here are some quotes:

Like characters, objects have hit points and defense scores (except for Will defense; see Object Immunities
and Vulnerabilities, below).

. . .

An object reduced to 0 hit points is destroyed or otherwise rendered useless. At your judgment, the object might even still be more or less whole, but its
functionality is ruined—a door knocked from its hinges or a clockwork mechanism broken internally, for example.

This really sounds like WotC intended for all objects to use HP, and that they specifically thought about smashing down a door when writing these rules.

Meanwhile, the Break DCs are from this section:

Dungeon dressing is a category of mundane terrain that covers everything you expect to find in a dungeon.

Walls: Most dungeon walls are masonry or carved out of solid rock. Characters can use Athletics checks to climb a wall and break right through a wall with an incredible Strength check.

Doors: Opening a door takes a minor action, or a standard action if the door is stuck and requires a Strength check. A door might be locked, or it could have a window in it that provides superior cover to anyone firing through it.

Characters can open locked doors by using Thievery to pick the lock instead of breaking down the door. This is a standard action as part of a skill challenge. See “Open Lock” on page 189 of the Player’s Handbook.

Portcullises: A portcullis is a metal gate that swings shut or drops down from the ceiling. It provides cover, and a Strength check allows a character to lift it or pull it open.

This sounds like it only is intended to cover a specific circumstance - when you are trying to break down (as opposed to smash up) a door or portcullis. You would not, for example, require a STR check to burn down a wooden wall with fire & oil.

The only way I can read these sections is that
(1) All Objects have HP
(2) When an Object reaches 0 HP its functionality is ruined
(3) A ruined door no longer blocks a passage
(4) You can also "ruin" a door with a pure STR check instead of reducing its HP to 0.

Can you explain how these passages fit into your analysis? :smallconfused:

Kurald Galain
2009-03-02, 02:25 PM
But, we're talking about objects taking HP damage here. Surely you're not just allowing every PC a single swing at the door - if they can't one-shot it, they can never smash it to pieces? :smallconfused:

Actually I am. If they can't one-shot the door, they'll have to think of another way. In my experience players tend to get creative if you tell them the brute force approach isn't going to work.

However, this only works in certain styles of campaign.

If the story is linear, as frankly many printed modules are, then every obstacle must have several obvious ways to bypass it. Because if it can't be bypassed, the players will never get to the story goal, and if it has only one way, you might get a group that never thinks of that, or with PCs that lack the prerequisite spells or skills. Example: DM of the Rings (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=680).

If the story is not linear, then it's really not a problem if any particular obstacle turns out (unplanned!) to be insurmountable. The players will just have to go do something else. Obviously, this means the DM will need to have "something else" available, and also, making the story goal insurmountable is not such a great idea. Darths and Droids probably has a bunch of examples.

YMMV.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-03-02, 02:37 PM
Actually I am. If they can't one-shot the door, they'll have to think of another way. In my experience players tend to get creative if you tell them the brute force approach isn't going to work.

However, this only works in certain styles of campaign.

If the story is linear, as frankly many printed modules are, then every obstacle must have several obvious ways to bypass it. Because if it can't be bypassed, the players will never get to the story goal, and if it has only one way, you might get a group that never thinks of that, or with PCs that lack the prerequisite spells or skills. Example: DM of the Rings (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=680).

If the story is not linear, then it's really not a problem if any particular obstacle turns out (unplanned!) to be insurmountable. The players will just have to go do something else. Obviously, this means the DM will need to have "something else" available, and also, making the story goal insurmountable is not such a great idea. Darths and Droids probably has a bunch of examples.

YMMV.

Hmm... fair enough. :smallsmile:

But between you and me, I think a world where axes can't chop down wooden doors is pretty close to Insurmountable Waist Height Fence (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InsurmountableWaistHeightFence) territory.

Kurald Galain
2009-03-02, 02:44 PM
But between you and me, I think a world where axes can't chop down wooden doors is pretty close to Insurmountable Waist Height Fence (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InsurmountableWaistHeightFence) territory.

Well, yes.

That's why I wouldn't ask for a check to chop down a wooden door with an axe.

Punch a wooden door down with your bare hands? Strength check plz. If you fail, turns out that's a pretty heavy door, so think of something else.

Smash through a titanium wall with your bare hands? Not gonna happen, not even if you roll a 20. Well, depending on genre, of course. So no roll here, either. Rolls are for the part in the middle, where the result unsure.

miserable
2009-03-03, 05:10 PM
DMG 65 explicitly gives hp for doors AND explicitly mentions knocking doors off their hinges in a paragraph that talks about attacking objects.

Thus, it is possible to attack doors that are in use as doors.




Yes this general rule is in the DMG , and it also says on the next page that "some unusual materials might be particularly resistant to some or all kinds of damage" . It doesn't say WHICH materials in the DMG , so it is up to the DM to decide.

Are you guys looking at this rule as a player or as a DM?

If the DM has no common sense at all , then he might allow a player to punch down an adamantine door. Or if he is smart he'll ask for the required specific strength check for that door and if a "player" has the audacity to tell the DM how to run his games, then that player should get the boot , or sit behind the screen and DM any which way he chooses.

There is nothing in the Players handbook that I can find about destroying objects , but there IS a nice chart with doors, portcullises and walls and their appropriate DCs in there on pg 262.

Sure possibly maybe it makes sense to hack a wooden door apart with an axe, mace , large blade or such , and I guess I probably would allow that .
It makes absolutely zero sense that you can just bash it to pieces with fists,or a dagger unless you roleplay that into your strength check.

And again Specific beats general . Only a bad DM would allow this. Locked doors are obstacles to overcome through skill and important in dungeon and encounter design. They are not meant to be disintegrated by the measliest of forces.

Artanis
2009-03-03, 05:49 PM
Yes this general rule is in the DMG , and it also says on the next page that "some unusual materials might be particularly resistant to some or all kinds of damage" . It doesn't say WHICH materials in the DMG , so it is up to the DM to decide.

Are you guys looking at this rule as a player or as a DM?

If the DM has no common sense at all , then he might allow a player to punch down an adamantine door. Or if he is smart he'll ask for the required specific strength check for that door and if a "player" has the audacity to tell the DM how to run his games, then that player should get the boot , or sit behind the screen and DM any which way he chooses.

There is nothing in the Players handbook that I can find about destroying objects , but there IS a nice chart with doors, portcullises and walls and their appropriate DCs in there on pg 262.

Sure possibly maybe it makes sense to hack a wooden door apart with an axe, mace , large blade or such , and I guess I probably would allow that .
It makes absolutely zero sense that you can just bash it to pieces with fists,or a dagger unless you roleplay that into your strength check.

And again Specific beats general . Only a bad DM would allow this. Locked doors are obstacles to overcome through skill and important in dungeon and encounter design. They are not meant to be disintegrated by the measliest of forces.
*headdesk*

But the given HP IS specific. The "measliest of forces" don't do jack BY RAW, as has been said repeatedly. I do not see how you can possibly come to the conclusion you have.

Collin152
2009-03-03, 09:49 PM
I like 4e because it is not a simulation of real life.

That said, it is time for Newton's 3rd law of motion.

If you punch a door and do 1d4 + 2 damage to it, you should also be taking 1d4 + 2 damage.

Good luck getting through that iron door now. Muah hah hah!


That's not how that law works; the force is going both ways, but the effect of the force isn't, and 1d4+2 damage is a representation of the effect of the force applied.
To draw a parallel, when one fires a cannon, while there is recoil, there is not a path of destruction wreaked directly behind it.

miserable
2009-03-03, 10:01 PM
*headdesk*

But the given HP IS specific. The "measliest of forces" don't do jack BY RAW, as has been said repeatedly. I do not see how you can possibly come to the conclusion you have.

It HP is given for doors in a chart that is covering a "general rule" for giving HP to a multitude of things. It says in the description that it is a "general rule". It deals with many things all at once, therefore it is a "general rule".

There is a specific rule in BOTH the DMG and PHB which deals with breaking down doors . Specific rules beat general rules. And as I quoted from the DMG in case you want to let the general rule slide.


"some unusual materials might be particularly resistant to some or all kinds of damage"



NOw , if you are the DM ,you can choose to let the players run rampant through the walls of your dungeons . OR you can choose to try to make the game fun and challenging for your players. Sometimes that involves saying things like

" you cast magic missle at the darkness!!! ... but nothing happens"
" you stab the adamantine door with your dagger!!! .. but nothing happens"

Hmmm why even have dungeons anymore at all, just have all outdoor encounters . I mean if doors and walls serve no purpose , then they are a waste of time to put in an encounter. No trees either, you can punch them down on your turn! What is that in that square causing difficult terrain ? RUBBLE?!!! I'll just punch it out of the way ! Its clear now! I'll punch right through that armor the enemies are wearing too, its gotta only have a couple hitpoints , so that will drop its AC by a lot right? I'll even punch through the earth to get to China , It may take a few rounds though but it is possible !!!

Ninetail
2009-03-05, 02:05 AM
So, the reason I don't want to just go DM fiat is because there are rules for damaging objects - they just don't work as written. Plus, damaging objects is common enough (and often plot sensitive) that it should have a general set of rules - preferably ones which are simple to remember and adjudicate.

Then why not make the existing rules work, instead of coming up with new ones?

As I understand it, you think hp is generally too low, but you want to allow for partial results, which hp does, to simulate slowly hacking your way through.

All right, then. How about this: large objects (like doors and walls) don't simply break when they're out of hp. Instead, each time they take damage that exceeds their hp, the break DC is reduced by (2/5/whatever value works for you). The object breaks when the DC is reduced to 0, if the break check isn't rolled before then.

So punching that door enough will cause it to splinter and weaken, and reduce the DC from 20 to 18, then to 16, then to 14, and so on. Is the door made of adamantite? Well, it has more hp, so it takes more damage to reduce its break DC (which also starts out higher).

Naturally, you still need to fiat it somewhat. Punch down iron bars? Not unless you're a monk. Punch down an adamantite door? Uh-uh, sorry. Fireball on a wooden hut? Extra damage for you. No system is ever going to account for every possibility.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-03-05, 02:40 AM
All right, then. How about this: large objects (like doors and walls) don't simply break when they're out of hp. Instead, each time they take damage that exceeds their hp, the break DC is reduced by (2/5/whatever value works for you). The object breaks when the DC is reduced to 0, if the break check isn't rolled before then.

So punching that door enough will cause it to splinter and weaken, and reduce the DC from 20 to 18, then to 16, then to 14, and so on. Is the door made of adamantite? Well, it has more hp, so it takes more damage to reduce its break DC (which also starts out higher).

Naturally, you still need to fiat it somewhat. Punch down iron bars? Not unless you're a monk. Punch down an adamantite door? Uh-uh, sorry. Fireball on a wooden hut? Extra damage for you. No system is ever going to account for every possibility.

Now, that works fine, but it involves more number tracking than my proposed system and doesn't really address the core problem - objects are far too easy to destroy. With this system the PCs merely have to wait longer to get through whatever they're facing - usually about a round, since a party can easily to 20-30 damage in a turn. Plus, DMs still need to arbitrate; not a problem, but something that I'd like to avoid if possible.

The nice thing about a Hardness system is that the "what damages the object" question is easy to resolve. For instance, you say that only a monk can punch down iron bars - but what about an ogre or a giant? Why can they punch a bar when a human can't? Is it a function of their size or their strength? How strong does a human have to be to damage an iron bar? Using Hardness system, these questions are easy to resolve - if it can to more than 20 damage on a hit, it can damage the bars.

But thank you for the input :smallsmile:

miserable
2009-03-05, 03:32 AM
Hmmmmm. Now that I think more and more about it . I could easily just DM rule it that doors are immune to damage from any melee attack that isn't a 2 handed weapon. And are immune to critical hits and ranged weapons. And Adamantine (and possibly arcane locked) doors might require magical weapons to damage. All this using the line on pg 66 DMG :
" Some unusual materials may be particularly resistant to some or all kinds of damage. "

Big hefty weapons damaging doors make sense , like 2 handed axes and sledgehammer type weapons, but daggers and arrows don't.

But you can still destroy a door . It just won't be as super quick as before.

Strength checks to break the door down remain important because they are instantaneous and could be done in battle on a single turn .

Hacking away would work eventually , but would work better out of battle.

Knock and lockpicking remain important because you might want to be stealthy and or keep relock a door behind you .

I'm satisfied with that , and I'm still following all the rules as described in the DMG. Well except for the arcane lock needing magical weapons to hit. But the ritual magically basically strengthens the door , which might also protect it from damage somewhat...

I would rule that trying to punch the door down is roleplaying exactly how you try to break the door down during a strength check.

Punching through the Earth to china would be illegal .

Oracle_Hunter
2009-03-05, 04:27 AM
But you can still destroy a door . It just won't be as super quick as before.

But how long does it take to hack down a door then? Is it faster with a battleaxe or a flail? A longsword or a morningstar? A giant's fist or a Maul?

miserable
2009-03-05, 12:40 PM
But how long does it take to hack down a door then? Is it faster with a battleaxe or a flail? A longsword or a morningstar? A giant's fist or a Maul?

Hmmm , to be simple I would just say that all two handed weapons might work slightly different but end up with the same effect , thereby not needing a bonus to one over the other.

Maybe a better idea instead of being immune to anything but two handers would be immune to lightblades, spears , staff , unarmed, and ranged.

OR "particularly resistant " might mean wooden/stone doors have 20/25 resist to light blade,spear, unarmed,staff,ranged. , while other weapons only have 10/15 resist . and Crits might be fine . That would let super strong characters destroy wooden/stone doors with very good weapons . Low level weaklings would still find wooden/stone doors challenging to get through , but high level characters would not.

Adamantine doors should still take a heck of a lot more to physically destroy.
It is what? One of if not thee strongest metals around in the DnD universe.
I'd say immune to all non magical weapons. or resist 25 or something , I'll have to think on it more.


I surely do wish WotC would think ahead a little before they publish vague things. A little more info on rituals for instance .And the ease of thinking doors are the equivalent of paper was not quite good enough. 4.0 is no where near as bad as 3.0 was when it came out.