energy and hardness question

[big teej]

greetings playgrounders,

I recall reading/hearing somewhere that acid and sonic damage ignore hardness for damaging objects.

is this true?

[Jeraa]

greetings playgrounders,

I recall reading/hearing somewhere that acid and sonic damage ignore hardness for damaging objects.

is this true?

No, its not.


Acid and sonic attacks deal damage to most objects just as they do to creatures; roll damage and apply it normally after a successful hit. Electricity and fire attacks deal half damage to most objects; divide the damage dealt by 2 before applying the hardness. Cold attacks deal one-quarter damage to most objects; divide the damage dealt by 4 before applying the hardness.

When an object is damaged by energy damage, the damage usually gets divided before hardness is applied. Acid and sonic attacks deal damage normally to objects - they aren't divided like other energy types are. Hardness is never ignored - it applies to all damage.

From the 3.5 FAQ:

Hardness applies to acid and sonic attacks. These attacks deal normal damage both to creatures and to objects, and thus would deal normal damage to an animated object (less the effect of the hardness). You would subtract 5 points for hardness from whatever damage a Melf’s acid arrow spell deals to the animated table in your example.

The question was specifically dealing with animated objects, but all objects would work the same way.

[big teej]

thankyou very much :smallbiggrin:

[Rubik]

Psionic sonic damage explicitly bypasses hardness, but other types do not, far as I know.

[KillianHawkeye]

Psionic sonic damage explicitly bypasses hardness, but other types do not, far as I know.

God I wish the game developers had looked up the word "consistency" in the dictionary... :smallsigh::smallsigh::smallsigh:

[tyckspoon]

God I wish the game developers had looked up the word "consistency" in the dictionary... :smallsigh::smallsigh::smallsigh:

Nothing inconsistent there. Sonic and Acid energy attacks do not, as a general rule, bypass hardness. *Specific* abilities that use Sonic or Acid may, if the designer wanted to grant them that power and wrote them to do so. It's a pretty good example of the principle D&D is built on: specific rules for something take precedence over general (so Energy X-Sonic flavor ignore hardness because it says it does, trumping the general rule that energy attacks don't ignore hardness), which is itself a case of D&D being an exception-based ruleset: That is, almost every ability of note is an exception, an authorized means of breaking some rule or another.

[DarkestKnight]

Sonic and acid are actually better at destroying objects, but as noted don't ignore hardness. instead, they roll damage as normal then subtract hardness where lightning and fire damage are halved before hardness and cold is quartered, again before hardness. So yes acid and sonic are good against objects, but not more than a hammer.

one weird thing that should be noted is that any acid effect will do 1d6 points of acid to a creature in addition to the norm, as it counts as round of exposure to acid (dmg 302). Suddenly acid splash is a might scarier at first level...

[KillianHawkeye]

Nothing inconsistent there. Sonic and Acid energy attacks do not, as a general rule, bypass hardness. *Specific* abilities that use Sonic or Acid may, if the designer wanted to grant them that power and wrote them to do so. It's a pretty good example of the principle D&D is built on: specific rules for something take precedence over general (so Energy X-Sonic flavor ignore hardness because it says it does, trumping the general rule that energy attacks don't ignore hardness), which is itself a case of D&D being an exception-based ruleset: That is, almost every ability of note is an exception, an authorized means of breaking some rule or another.

Actually, the fact that the exceptions are so rampant IS indicative of inconsistency. Which was my point. Acid and sonic damage should either ignore hardness or they shouldn't. Don't make it depend on what each specific spell or power says.

[lorddrake]

Actually, the fact that the exceptions are so rampant IS indicative of inconsistency. Which was my point. Acid and sonic damage should either ignore hardness or they shouldn't. Don't make it depend on what each specific spell or power says.


"What you must learn is that these rules are no different than the rules of a computer system. Some of them can be bent. Others can be broken." - Morpheus, The Matrix

Is it just me that finds it funny that he has this on his sig?

In my opinion every system deals with rules and exceptions. I have a little understanding of math and computer to know it aplies. I have a lot of knowledge on linguistics and I can say that in every natural language it works that way. Systems work based on rules and exceptions to those.

By your definition on inconsistency we should ban every spell because they are all exceptions. If you charm someone you make them your friend. Usually no one is automatically your friend, so it is an exception.

You have to ban fear effects because normally they are not afraid.

You have to ban every spell. Because if you fireball someone, well, normally they are not combusting themselves.

You cannot dominate someone, because you cannot control other characters that do not belong to you.

You cannot time stop because time do not stop. And so on.

And not only spells. You could not use power attack because you weapon damage is only = Str bonus + weapon damage (for example). But it is an exception when you have that feat.


The list goes on infinitely...

[supermonkeyjoe]

I've never been able to figure out what Force damage does to objects? Full damage? Half damage? No damage?

[Rubik]

I've never been able to figure out what Force damage does to objects? Full damage? Half damage? No damage?Hardness applies, but otherwise deals regular [force] damage.

What about Share Pain damage to a psicrystal? I say the hardness 8 applies, even if it's through a Share Pain (or Shield Other) effect. Is there anything to indicate that it doesn't?

[Belmikor]

For simplicity (and for verisimilitude to some degree) I have ruled it is empathic damage akin to Empathic Feedback (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/empathicFeedback.htm) even though it is psychometabolism (as opposed to feedback's telepathy) just because it seems more logical. And partly because of wording. When something deals damage it usually says just that
A fireball spell is an explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level I'm not sure if it's always consistent (knowing WotC it probably isn't), but they usually tend to use verb 'deal' when someone is about to receive injury but can try to do something about it. Share pain on the other hand says
...some of your wounds are transferred to the subject. You take half damage from all attacks that deal hit point damage to you... Not transferring damage, but wounds, i.e. already dealt damage. And taking damage sounds kinda irrevocable. You'll take it and like it that way.

But in conclusion I'm not really sure how it is supposed to be RAW. I haven't spotted anything indicating it couldn't be migitated, but have felt that it can't as it really transfers wounds not damage.

[ericgrau]

The confusion comes from the word "normally". Rules compendium clarifies that this means full damage minus hardness, just like a weapon.

From a balance POV subtracting hardness after half or quarter damage REALLY sucks so sonic and acid are still far better. The misinterpretation only leads to people insta-nuking barriers like they're nothing and that takes away one of the utility things that melee is better at.

FAQ says that abilities like share pain bypass hardness, immunities, etc. You're transferring the resulting damage directly. You're not applying the original source of the damage to a new target. Or at least shield other and a ring of friend shield work like that.

[KillianHawkeye]

By your definition on inconsistency we should ban every spell because they are all exceptions. If you charm someone you make them your friend. Usually no one is automatically your friend, so it is an exception.

You have to ban fear effects because normally they are not afraid.

You have to ban every spell. Because if you fireball someone, well, normally they are not combusting themselves.

You cannot dominate someone, because you cannot control other characters that do not belong to you.

You cannot time stop because time do not stop. And so on.

And not only spells. You could not use power attack because you weapon damage is only = Str bonus + weapon damage (for example). But it is an exception when you have that feat.


The list goes on infinitely...

Now you're just being ridiculous. :smallannoyed:

[kardar233]

The confusion comes from the word "normally". Rules compendium clarifies that this means full damage minus hardness, just like a weapon.

From a balance POV subtracting hardness after half or quarter damage REALLY sucks so sonic and acid are still far better. The misinterpretation only leads to people insta-nuking barriers like they're nothing and that takes away one of the utility things that melee is better at.

FAQ says that abilities like share pain bypass hardness, immunities, etc. You're transferring the resulting damage directly. You're not applying the original source of the damage to a new target. Or at least shield other and a ring of friend shield work like that.

By that FAQ, would Share Pain or similar bypass Regeneration? Because I'm seeing a way around the Emerald Legion here.

[KillianHawkeye]

By that FAQ, would Share Pain or similar bypass Regeneration? Because I'm seeing a way around the Emerald Legion here.

No, it would transfer the wound, but if that wound is not lethal to the recipient, there's no reason he shouldn't be able to regenerate. It would not prevent fast healing, either.

[ericgrau]

And I would think that a troll with share pain could even absorb damage from a target that was burned without taking fire damage himself; it's just damage.