[3.5] Mountain Hammer seems too amazing

[TheAmazingOP]

When playing around with my Warblade the other day, I started using Mountain Hammer a lot more with a sledgehammer he always carried around with him, and it seemed like it busted through anything (even adamantine walls!) and was the maneuver of 2nd level.
Three questions:
Are there any downsides of Mountain Hammer?
How do magic enhancements on the weapon and object affect each other while using this maneuver? Is it the same as regular rules, where the weapon has to have a higher enchantment bonus? Apparently it was a houserule which I didn't know was a houserule. Man do I feel stupid.
Finally, what can Mountain Hammer be stopped by and what can Mountain Hammer not do (in respect to its area of use)?
Thanks in advance!

[Deaxsa]

the only downside i can think of is if your iterative attacks would do more total damage (including the damage taken away from hardness/DR)

also, it takes up a maneuver, so you can't pick something else? (not really a downside)

finally, those extra dice don't get multiplied on a crit.. but that's not really a downside, 2d6 extra damage is not too shabby, and a crit is fairly unlikely. Actually, that makes me curious.. can you crit against objects?

[Greenish]

Actually, that makes me curious.. can you crit against objects?No.


There's also the fact that you have to be standing on solid earth to use it, like with other Stone Dragon maneuvers.

[Twilightwyrm]

the only downside i can think of is if your iterative attacks would do more total damage (including the damage taken away from hardness/DR)

also, it takes up a maneuver, so you can't pick something else? (not really a downside)

finally, those extra dice don't get multiplied on a crit.. but that's not really a downside, 2d6 extra damage is not too shabby, and a crit is fairly unlikely. Actually, that makes me curious.. can you crit against objects?

By RAW no, since they don't have an anatomy as suck. However, it would not be unreasonable for a DM to rule that (assuming such a structure is exposed), a critical might allow you to hit a key support on said object (the chain on a necklace, for example), thereby doing crit damage.

But yeah, with reference to Mountain Hammer, one of the only upsides of the fact that Tome of Battle got little to no support from proceeding supplements was the fact that there wasn't any magic specifically designed to counter it. So yeah, as far as anyone is concerned, Mountain Hammer has no drawbacks (other than the two you mentioned). So feel free to go nuts.

[Twilightwyrm]

No.


There's also the fact that you have to be standing on solid earth to use it, like with other Stone Dragon maneuvers.

True. Though if you are a Crusader, or somehow otherwise pick up the maneuver, the Foehammer maneuver does the same thing without that annoying caveat.

[TheAmazingOP]

True. Though if you are a Crusader, or somehow otherwise pick up the maneuver, the Foehammer maneuver does the same thing without that annoying caveat.
But then again, Foehammer doesn't allow for overcoming hardness (which leads to all the awesome dungeon-crashing adventures)

[Greenish]

By RAW no, since they don't have an anatomy as suck. However, it would not be unreasonable for a DM to rule that (assuming such a structure is exposed), a critical might allow you to hit a key support on said object (the chain on a necklace, for example), thereby doing crit damage. It might get a bit weird if you could crit against a cupboard, but not against an animated cupboard. :smalltongue:


True. Though if you are a Crusader, or somehow otherwise pick up the maneuver, the Foehammer maneuver does the same thing without that annoying caveat.Foehammer doesn't ignore hardness, though.

[avr]

Stone Dragon, so it only works when you're touching the ground. Also you have to recover it before using it again via whatever means your class uses, or after 5 minutes if you acquired it via Martial Study.

The enhancement bonus requirement you mention doesn't seem to be a thing in the general rules on sunder or damaging objects, maybe it was a house rule?

[TheAmazingOP]

\The enhancement bonus requirement you mention doesn't seem to be a thing in the general rules on sunder or damaging objects, maybe it was a house rule?

Oh yeah maybe, I was just told it was a general rule when I first started. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Pechvarry]

Oh yeah maybe, I was just told it was a general rule when I first started. Thanks for clearing that up.

I think that's actually a 3.0 rule...

[Andreaz]

When playing around with my Warblade the other day, I started using Mountain Hammer a lot more with a sledgehammer he always carried around with him, and it seemed like it busted through anything (even adamantine walls!) and was the maneuver of 2nd level.
[...]
Are there any downsides of Mountain Hammer?It's meager against things with low DR/Hardness. It's one atack, and if you want to do it again as often as possible the best you get is once every two rounds.
Past levels 3-5 it's pretty easy to outdamage it, leaving it basically as a gimmick to fight the ocasional golem or brick wall.

Also note very hard materials tend to have obscene hit points too! A worked stone column in a dungeon would easily have hundreds of hp.

[Shining Wrath]

Mountain Hammer is useful, no doubt. Once your character is high enough level to own an adamantine weapon, though, the extra 2D6 isn't that special.

[Fouredged Sword]

It is known as the ToB lockpick for a reason. A masterwork adimantium padlock doesn't stand a chance. The real fun starts when you realize that you can use punishing stance for an additional 1d6 and power attack for an additional 10 or so damage.

Still, compare to the diamond mind strike that lets you deal a concentration check as damage. You can get a vest that adds 20 to a concentration check 3/day for fairly cheap. That works out to 1d20+23+HD.

[Deaxsa]

It is known as the ToB lockpick for a reason. A masterwork adimantium padlock doesn't stand a chance. The real fun starts when you realize that you can use punishing stance for an additional 1d6 and power attack for an additional 10 or so damage.

Still, compare to the diamond mind strike that lets you deal a concentration check as damage. You can get a vest that adds 20 to a concentration check 3/day for fairly cheap. That works out to 1d20+23+HD.

...aaaand then there's Greater insightful stike, lol. twice your concentration check as damage. it's a pity you cannot use emerald razor with it.

out of curiosity, and since i've already asked crit questions, can insightful strike be used against objects? because i've got a nagging feeling that it is precision damage.

[Fouredged Sword]

No, grab a scythe.

Get Greater insightful strike.

Now be prepared to full power attack.

Now get a wand of the cleric spell that you can end the duration to treat an attack roll as a nat 20.

You crit on command.

Now deal (2d20+46+4xHD) X 4

Minimum 352 damage, cannot miss. Two standard actions to pull off.

[Malimar]

By RAW no, since they don't have an anatomy as suck. However, it would not be unreasonable for a DM to rule that (assuming such a structure is exposed), a critical might allow you to hit a key support on said object (the chain on a necklace, for example), thereby doing crit damage.

"I backstab the book!"
"You can't, It doesn't have a discernible anatomy."
"It's got a spine, doesn't it?"

[Chained Birds]

The enhancement bonus requirement you mention doesn't seem to be a thing in the general rules on sunder or damaging objects, maybe it was a house rule?

I believe this is a Pathfinder ruling as a +1 hammer cannot sunder a +2 dagger but can sunder a +1 greatsword. So yes, in a non-PF game, this would be a houserule.

[Yogibear41]

Now get a wand of the cleric spell that you can end the duration to treat an attack roll as a nat 20.


What spell are you talking about?

[Quietus]

"I backstab the book!"
"You can't, It doesn't have a discernible anatomy."
"It's got a spine, doesn't it?"

Groan...
Where's the like button? :smalltongue:

[Lord_Gareth]

What spell are you talking about?

Surge of Fortune

[andromax]

It's just a really good maneuver. You wouldn't want to use it every round, even if you could.. because it's situational. Also.. why does there need to be a downside?

And "too amazing" is just silly. Let melee's have a couple nice things for crying out loud.

If you want to pick on a maneuver then start with Iron Heart Surge :P

[navar100]

No, grab a scythe.

Get Greater insightful strike.

Now be prepared to full power attack.

Now get a wand of the cleric spell that you can end the duration to treat an attack roll as a nat 20.

You crit on command.

Now deal (2d20+46+4xHD) X 4

Minimum 352 damage, cannot miss. Two standard actions to pull off.

You do get extra damage from feats or weapons when using the Insightful Strikes. You only get Concentration Check damage, 1d20 + skill modifier. It can be a critical hit for x2, which becomes x3 for Greater Insightful Strike due to two doubles becomes a triple.

The loophole is Skill Focus (Concentration) since the feat itself does not give you extra damage.

[Fouredged Sword]

If I remember right you deal "twice your concentration check in damage". The doubling is not happening on the same step, so you actually double twice.

You double your concentration check and that is your damage.

Then you double your damage (or times for due to scythe) and that is your damage on a crit.

[danzibr]

Likely (at least where I play) problem: DM doesn't want a door/chest/whatever to be opened that way, and so it can't be. Period.

[BRC]

If you want to pick on a maneuver then start with Iron Heart Surge :P
Somebody once wrote up a proposal to nerf Iron Heart Surge. They were then considered a negative effect, and were Ended.

[Shining Wrath]

Somebody once wrote up a proposal to nerf Iron Heart Surge. They were then considered a negative effect, and were Ended.

They weren't Ended. Instead, nerf stopped being soft and instead took on the characteristics of adamantine.

[Hiro Protagonest]

"Mountain hammer seems too amazing"

When all you have is a hammer...

[hewhosaysfish]

I believe this is a Pathfinder ruling as a +1 hammer cannot sunder a +2 dagger but can sunder a +1 greatsword. So yes, in a non-PF game, this would be a houserule.

Not a house rule: it's in the D&D 3.5 DMG, I'm looking at it right now.
Page 222, top of the page, the section headed "Hardness and Hit Points".

It's not in the corresponding section of the SRD though. Don't know why. I though it was only the bits relating to character advancement and proprietary monsters that was left out of the SRD.

[Xenogears]

Not a house rule: it's in the D&D 3.5 DMG, I'm looking at it right now.
Page 222, top of the page, the section headed "Hardness and Hit Points".

It's not in the corresponding section of the SRD though. Don't know why. I though it was only the bits relating to character advancement and proprietary monsters that was left out of the SRD.

Possibly it was errata'd later on? Not sure on this.

[Barsoom]

Mountain Hammer is amazing for breaking stuff at low levels, but once you get iteratives, it becomes useless, it becomes better to just take full attacks.

[Toliudar]

This makes me want to establish a tribe of dwarves who are all low-mid level warblades, burrowing down into a mountain at a furious rate using Mountain Hammer. Has anyone actually done this?

[Curmudgeon]

Not a house rule: it's in the D&D 3.5 DMG, I'm looking at it right now.
Page 222, top of the page, the section headed "Hardness and Hit Points".
It pays to stay on top of the errata, and you're about 9 years behind on this particular erratum:
Hardness and Hit Points
Dungeon Master’s Guide, page 222
Problem: The first paragraph is not consistent with similar information for shields on page 217.
Solution: Delete the first sentence after the boldface header. Change the next sentence to read as follows:
Each +1 of enhancement bonus adds 2 to a weapon’s or shield’s hardness and +10 to its hit points.