How much HP does a cubic foot of stone have?

[SangoProduction]

As the title says.

[Fouredged Sword]

A stone wall is a 10ft by 10ft by 3ft cube of stone and has 540hp. This puts a 1ft by 1ft cube of stone at roughly 2hp. This makes sense, they are not very tough. It has a hardness of 8. Any blow of 10 or more damage would crack it in half. Things tend to ether destroy the block entirely or do no damage to it.

[SangoProduction]

A stone wall is a 10ft by 10ft by 3ft cube of stone and has 540hp. This puts a 1ft by 1ft cube of stone at roughly 2hp. This makes sense, they are not very tough. It has a hardness of 8. Any blow of 10 or more damage would crack it in half. Things tend to ether destroy the block entirely or do no damage to it.

Ah, thanks.

[Diarmuid]

4ES - What is your math based on?

Wall of Stone mentions that 5'x5'x1" has 15 HP. Extrapolating that out would mean that 5'x5'x1 = 180 HP, futher 5'x5'x5' = 900 HP. 5x5x5 is made up of 125 1x1x1 blocks, for just over 7HP per 1x1x1 block.

It's also entirely possible that I math bad.

[Enran]

Wall of Stone mentions that 5'x5'x1" has 15 HP. Extrapolating that out would mean that 5'x5'x1 = 180 HP
I'm having trouble wrapping my head around this part, because those look like the same values you're getting different results for from my perspective. Can you clarify for a math noob?

EDIT: On a second glance, it appears I just wasn't realizing that you were converting an inch to a foot. I need to pay more attention.

[Fouredged Sword]

He is basing his numbers on the wall of stone spell. I am basing my numbers on the statistics for a hewn stone wall (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/dungeons.htm#walls). We are both just trying to generate numbers that make sense and sorta fit with the rules already in place.

I considered using the wall of stone spell, but that didn't seem like a great fit for how I would expect real stone to act, and it seemed more like magic played a part.

In reality, I would recommend a DM use numbers he wishes to use to make this work. Stone is a greatly varied compound, and you can go from as soft as dirt crumbling in your hands to stuff that is harder than steel.

[Sacrieur]

In both PF and 3.5, stone has a hardness of 8 and HP of 15 for every inch of thickness.

Hence, a hewn stone wall 3 feet thick has 36 * 15 = 540 HP.

Your 5x5x5 block has an HP of 60 * 15 = 900 HP.

Note that for large objects, this HP is sectional for only one part of it. I recommend dividing it up into that much HP per 5x5x5 foot block of stone. Also, the GM has the discretion to determine whether or not an object can be effective against the object. For instance, a short sword isn't going to do anything to a stone wall, even if it were made out of adamantine.

And don't forget, objects stay fully functional until they are destroyed. For tunneling through or destroying stone, you can modify this by removing an inch of thickness for every 15 HP they take down.

---

As for the weight of stone, I use 100 lbs per cubic foot. While this seems like a lot, it's still some ways less than what real stone weighs. This number makes it easy to calculate. That means a 5x5x5 block of stone would weigh 12 500 lbs.

[Fouredged Sword]

We are talking about a 1ft by 1ft block. Using your math, it has 180hp.

This doesn't make sense to me, because that same 180hp will break a 10ft by 10ft by 1ft wall. I realize that there are many ways to come to an answer. The DM must come up with a way to determine the effect he wants and apply it consistently.

In my mind, a 12"x12"x12" block of stone can be broken by a solid hit from a large hammer. Hardness 8 and 2hp does this. With 180hp, it would take hours to break even with a good tool.

[Sacrieur]

We are talking about a 1ft by 1ft block. Using your math, it has 180hp.

Any stone that has a thickness of 1 foot has 180 HP. It's not my math; it's straight RAW.



This doesn't make sense to me, because that same 180hp will break a 10ft by 10ft by 1ft wall. I realize that there are many ways to come to an answer. The DM must come up with a way to determine the effect he wants and apply it consistently.

The rules already provide a consistent answer, 15 HP per inch of thickness. For a large object like a wall, the HP is not shared and is split up by sections.

The DM doesn't have to come up with anything.



In my mind, a 12"x12"x12" block of stone can be broken by a solid hit from a large hammer. Hardness 8 and 2hp does this. With 180hp, it would take hours to break even with a good tool.

You must not know exactly how strong stone is. If you want to break the stone with sudden force, then it's a Strength check with a DC of 35.

[Diarmuid]

Thinking about this some more, Sacrieur has a point.

The normal 5 foot x 5 foot x 1 inch wall takes 15 points of damage to "break". That same wall at 1 foot of thickness requires 180 points of dmg to "break".

Thinking back to the statement that 1 good hit from a warhammer would crack a 1 foot cube of solid stone actually seems pretty silly to me. I've swung sledgehammers at stones and made small chips. No, I'm not a fighter with 18 strength and power attack...but crumbling a 1 foot block of stone to unusability would take a heck of a lot more than 2 or 7 HP of dmg.

Granted, I'm using real world logic and physics here so catgirls are dying somewhere.

I dont know what the "right" answer is, but simply applying linear logic from a 5x5x5 block to a 1x1x1 block doesnt seem to be working properly.

[ThinkMinty]

Not enough to not get DISINTEGRATE'd (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/disintegrate.htm) even with the Fort save, so it's less than 5d6, for sure.

[Diarmuid]

I'm guessing you were being sarcastic, but Disintegration's interaction with objects has nothing to do with HP,



When used against an object, the ray simply disintegrates as much as one 10- foot cube of nonliving matter. Thus, the spell disintegrates only part of any very large object or structure targeted. The ray affects even objects constructed entirely of force, such as forceful hand or a wall of force, but not magical effects such as a globe of invulnerability or an antimagic field.

[Sacrieur]

I dont know what the "right" answer is, but simply applying linear logic from a 5x5x5 block to a 1x1x1 block doesnt seem to be working properly.

Then consider this: which angle of attack at a cubic foot of stone has a thickness of less than one foot?

[Diarmuid]

My point is that 180 points of damage renders a 5x5x1 wall of stone "broken" to the point that if it were blocking a passageway then characters could now traverse into the passageway. This doesnt mean the the 5x5x1 wall of stone has been reduced to so much powdered rock and has been deleted from the annals of history.

I dont know that the same 180 points of damage would be required to "break" the 1x1x1 block of stone. But then again, I dont know what function the 1x1x1 block of stone would have been performing that you would be rendering it incapable of performing any more, but I would imagine it would not require 180 points of damage to get it there.

[Sacrieur]

My point is that 180 points of damage renders a 5x5x1 wall of stone "broken" to the point that if it were blocking a passageway then characters could now traverse into the passageway. This doesnt mean the the 5x5x1 wall of stone has been reduced to so much powdered rock and has been deleted from the annals of history.

That's just how the rules say to do it, presumably for balance purposes.

I recommend doing it by iteration, so that for every 15 damage you remove an inch. This would reduce the strength check needed to break the wall.



I dont know that the same 180 points of damage would be required to "break" the 1x1x1 block of stone. But then again, I dont know what function the 1x1x1 block of stone would have been performing that you would be rendering it incapable of performing any more, but I would imagine it would not require 180 points of damage to get it there.

It's just what the rules require. The DM can change the rules if he wants, but let's not say there's no RAW answer, because there is.

[ThinkMinty]

I'm guessing you were being sarcastic, but Disintegration's interaction with objects has nothing to do with HP,

I was a little bit, but it does if the object makes its Fortitude save. Apparently objects have those. I didn't know that before.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I was a little bit, but it does if the object makes its Fortitude save. Apparently objects have those. I didn't know that before.

Non-magical objects only get a save if they are attended. The wall or block in question almost certainly isn't attended. No save, just dust.

[SangoProduction]

Non-magical objects only get a save if they are attended. The wall or block in question almost certainly isn't attended. No save, just dust.

It is really odd that Disintegrate is a fort save. I mean....sure they didn't want rogues to be immune, but what? Your immune system just fights off the disintegrate? "Time for the disintegrate vaccine."

On a more serious note, what would it take to make the wall "attended"? Does someone just need to stare at it, while the spell is being cast? Does someone have to do the jig on top of the while while it was being cast? What?

[supersonic29]

On a more serious note, what would it take to make the wall "attended"? Does someone just need to stare at it, while the spell is being cast? Does someone have to do the jig on top of the while while it was being cast? What?

That's a good question. It can't be that easy, touch must be involved at least. In the context of a wall or something the flavor would probably be trying to support it I guess? If perusing this thread has taught me anything, it's that I need to take a thorough read through object rules...

[Kelb_Panthera]

It is really odd that Disintegrate is a fort save. I mean....sure they didn't want rogues to be immune, but what? Your immune system just fights off the disintegrate? "Time for the disintegrate vaccine."

On a more serious note, what would it take to make the wall "attended"? Does someone just need to stare at it, while the spell is being cast? Does someone have to do the jig on top of the while while it was being cast? What?


That's a good question. It can't be that easy, touch must be involved at least. In the context of a wall or something the flavor would probably be trying to support it I guess? If perusing this thread has taught me anything, it's that I need to take a thorough read through object rules...

Since the rules regarding vehicles say that the vehicle you're driving counts as unattended, I'm pretty sure being "attended" requires the object in question to be worn or carried. As such, a wall can't count as attended. If it's a piece of magical architecture then it gets a save based on its caster level.

As for why it's a fort save, fortitude is a measure of how physically tough and resilient a character is in regards to resisting attacks on his body's integrity as opposed to hit points representing attacks against his body's structure one piece at a time. Since disintegrate attacks both, fort save and damage either way.

[Diarmuid]

That's just how the rules say to do it, presumably for balance purposes.

I recommend doing it by iteration, so that for every 15 damage you remove an inch. This would reduce the strength check needed to break the wall.




It's just what the rules require. The DM can change the rules if he wants, but let's not say there's no RAW answer, because there is.

If you're going to get terribly literal and stubborn about it, there is a RAW answer for how much damage it takes for a 5'x5'x1" "section" of a wall of stone with corresponding logic to add additional inches of thickness to that wall.

But....there is no RAW answer for a 1'x1'x1' block.

You can decide to apply linear thinking and assign a value, but that's just as "RAW" as someone deciding that it does not apply. You cant argue SUPER STRICT RAW one way and then not apply it when it doesnt suit you.

[Andreaz]

Look up damaging objects. Stone, regardless of work and shape, has hardness 8 and 15 hit points per inch of thickness.
For the sake of simplicity, use the thinnest thickness the actor could access to assess its hp.
A cubic foot of stone thus has a thinnest thickness of a foot, twelve inches. 12 x 15 = 180 hp.

It's also useful to remember there are extra clauses to damaging objects.
Ranged and energy attacks deal half damage, unless they're made for breaking objects (usually siege weapons and energies the material would not stand, like fire and dry wood).

Most melee weapons that aren't hammers and picks can't harm stone, and tools made especially for breaking something deal double damage and ignore hardness.
Dealing 180 damage to a thick castle wall with a catapult takes a while(some 13 hits, or five minutes shooting). Doing it with an ogre-operated drill takes as many hits, but is done in just under a minute.

[Ayrynthyn]

a 10'x'10'x1' reinforced masonry wall (think rebar) has 180 hp... your run of the mill 10'x10'x1' stone masonry (block) wall has 90 hp.... or 100 cubic feet has 90 hp. sounds an awful lot like 1 cubic foot would be ~9 HP with a hardness of 8 to me. 7 hp mentioned wouldn't be out of the realm of "sounds 'bout right" as well. Different stone makeup or what not. Anything in the 7 to 12 range would be a fair ruling. Oh, and from my perspective, an adamantine short sword would absolutely make quick work of a 1x1x1 stone block (ignoring hardness). Slashing or Bludgeoning weapons can sunder...

[Sacrieur]

a 10'x'10'x1' reinforced masonry wall (think rebar) has 180 hp... your run of the mill 10'x10'x1' stone masonry (block) wall has 90 hp.... or 100 cubic feet has 90 hp. sounds an awful lot like 1 cubic foot would be ~9 HP with a hardness of 8 to me.

Large objects have sectional HP. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/exploration.htm) a 10'x10'x1' wall would have 180 hp per section.



7 hp mentioned wouldn't be out of the realm of "sounds 'bout right" as well. Different stone makeup or what not. Anything in the 7 to 12 range would be a fair ruling.

That's so little you've never tried smashing stone with a hammer before have you? Go outside with a hammer and smash the concrete with it as hard as you can, tell me what happens to your hammer. 7 HP sounds brutally wrong. Even sandstone has an ultimate crush test of 5000 lbs./sq inch.



Oh, and from my perspective, an adamantine short sword would absolutely make quick work of a 1x1x1 stone block (ignoring hardness). Slashing or Bludgeoning weapons can sunder...

Nah it wouldn't, but it would dull your sword well.

[Andreaz]

Nah it wouldn't, but it would dull your sword well.
Adamantine *ignores* hardness below 20. It won't dull just by beating on stone.

[Fouredged Sword]

Large objects have sectional HP. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/exploration.htm)That's so little you've never tried smashing stone with a hammer before have you? Go outside with a hammer and smash the concrete with it as hard as you can, tell me what happens to your hammer. 7 HP sounds brutally wrong. Even sandstone has an ultimate crush test of 5000 lbs./sq inch.
.

If you hit concrete, one of two things will happen.

A) nothing. Your hammer bounces and your arms hurt.

B) it shatters. Your hammer doesn't bounce and your arms still hurt.

The thing is that swinging lots of times isn't what causes A to become B. If you hit it right, it breaks. If you hit it wrong, it doesn't.

This is best portrayed in game as high hardness, low HP.

And a pick hammer or some other form of wedge is advised.

[Jack_Simth]

I dont know that the same 180 points of damage would be required to "break" the 1x1x1 block of stone. But then again, I dont know what function the 1x1x1 block of stone would have been performing that you would be rendering it incapable of performing any more, but I would imagine it would not require 180 points of damage to get it there.If the function is "doorstop", "paperweight", or possibly "table conversation piece" then yes, you'll pretty much need to powder it. How many uses are there for a one foot cube of stone?

[Ayrynthyn]

That's so little you've never tried smashing stone with a hammer before have you? Go outside with a hammer and smash the concrete with it as hard as you can, tell me what happens to your hammer. 7 HP sounds brutally wrong. Even sandstone has an ultimate crush test of 5000 lbs./sq inch.


I'm old. I've busted my share of stone with sledge, and i can tell you... it didn't do squat. Till that final blow where i managed to crit, do more damage than the hardness of 8, and actually affect the stone. Even then it only broke in twain. I'd wager i did in the 10 - 12 damage range. another 3-4 hp to each half, and i would have considered the stone destroyed. So yeah, 7 - 12 hp still sounds 'bout right. :smallamused: I guess my point is, don't confuse hardness with more hit points. 20 swings averaging 5 damage per swing does not mean i did 100 hp of damage to the rock, nor that the rock had that many HP. It means the rock ignored 17 of those swings and was only really damaged by the 3 that struck true (did more than 8 damage in a single blow) ;). That's the real world effect the game mechanic of hardness is trying to compensate for.

[Sacrieur]

Adamantine *ignores* hardness below 20. It won't dull just by beating on stone.

Are you going to rule it just cuts right into it?

That's fine, when stone has 180 HP. When it has 9 HP what you're saying is that my fighter can slice through walls like it was paper, so long has he can get hands on a adamantine sword. So thanks for making dungeoning easy.



If you hit concrete, one of two things will happen.

A) nothing. Your hammer bounces and your arms hurt.

B) it shatters. Your hammer doesn't bounce and your arms still hurt.

The thing is that swinging lots of times isn't what causes A to become B. If you hit it right, it breaks. If you hit it wrong, it doesn't.

This is best portrayed in game as high hardness, low HP.

Just so we're clear, this is what you personally advocate and not RAW. It suffers from balance problems, as one scenario posted above.

You're free to play your houserules as much as you want though (:



I'm old. I've busted my share of stone with sledge, and i can tell you... it didn't do squat. Till that final blow where i managed to crit, do more damage than the hardness of 8, and actually affect the stone. Even then it only broke in twain. I'd wager i did in the 10 - 12 damage range. another 3-4 hp to each half, and i would have considered the stone destroyed. So yeah, 7 - 12 hp still sounds 'bout right. :smallamused: I guess my point is, don't confuse hardness with more hit points. 20 swings averaging 5 damage per swing does not mean i did 100 hp of damage to the rock, nor that the rock had that many HP. It means the rock ignored 17 of those swings and was only really damaged by the 3 that struck true (did more than 8 damage in a single blow) ;). That's the real world effect the game mechanic of hardness is trying to compensate for.

I very much disagree based on what I know about engineering. But hey you can play with stone having low HP if you want. Nothing is stopping you from changing as many rules as you see fit.

[SangoProduction]

Are you going to rule it just cuts right into it?

That's fine, when stone has 180 HP. When it has 9 HP what you're saying is that my fighter can slice through walls like it was paper, so long has he can get hands on a adamantine sword. So thanks for making dungeoning easy.]

Adamantine ignores hardness of anything with less than 20 hardness (basically adamantine). So, for most intents and purposes, you can think of it as a lightsaber. If it impacts another lightsaber blade, it can't cut through it, if it doesn't, then it cuts.

Paper has a hardness of 0, so that's essentially what you reduce it to, when you use adamantine. If you want to discuss the "how to stop people from cutting through walls" problem, then there's already a forum on that. [Of course, most primitive underground walls were at least 5 feet, to be stable, so it would take a while even with a few hit points per inch.]

[Sacrieur]

]

Adamantine ignores hardness of anything with less than 20 hardness (basically adamantine). So, for most intents and purposes, you can think of it as a lightsaber. If it impacts another lightsaber blade, it can't cut through it, if it doesn't, then it cuts.

Paper has a hardness of 0, so that's essentially what you reduce it to, when you use adamantine. If you want to discuss the "how to stop people from cutting through walls" problem, then there's already a forum on that. [Of course, most primitive underground walls were at least 5 feet, to be stable, so it would take a while even with a few hit points per inch.]

It wouldn't take any time at all to cut through a 5 foot wall, you could slice through a 45 HP with a greatsword in all of three attacks.

[SangoProduction]

It wouldn't take any time at all to cut through a 5 foot wall, you could slice through a 45 HP with a greatsword in all of three attacks.

Just to make this clear: I am not supporting one side or the other, I'm just arguing that your reasoning for why the other side would be wrong is not neccesarily correct.
Well, it is just paper (effectively). I think in that star wars film, it took around 15 seconds to cut through that plasteel door with a lightsaber, which is undoubtedly stronger than rock.

[Sacrieur]

Just to make this clear: I am not supporting one side or the other, I'm just arguing that your reasoning for why the other side would be wrong is not neccesarily correct.
Well, it is just paper (effectively). I think in that star wars film, it took around 15 seconds to cut through that plasteel door with a lightsaber, which is undoubtedly stronger than rock.

Pretty sure the blast doors were durasteel. Which is stronger than rock, yes. But lightsabers heat metal on contact.

[jiriku]

Adamantine presents two problems for our intuition. First, it's about as hard as diamond. Most of us have zip real-world experience with using diamond-tipped cutting tools. Second, in the real world, no object "ignores" the hardness of another. Even diamond-tipped tools get dulled from use and have to be replaced. Adamantine's property of ignoring hardness is a rules simplification that doesn't model how to cut/bash/smash things in the real world.

In D&D, you don't need to use harder or specially shaped weapons to break objects -- you just need to deal a lot of damage per hit to overcome hardness. For example, the reason you can't punch through a wall with your fist in D&D isn't because your fist is softer than stone -- it's because unarmed strikes deal nonlethal damage. If you're a monk, you don't need a special feat to break boards with your bare hands -- your unarmed strikes deal lethal damage, so you just need to deal a lot of damage per hit. Adamantine ignores hardness, so it cuts through stuff like a hot knife through butter -- not because of real-world physics but because adamantine is awesome, semi-magical stuff. It doesn't care about physics.

Now, as DMs we can houserule in some extra realism if we like, by making the players use a more "realistic" weapon or deal more "realistic" amounts of damage. I force my players to make Profession (mining) checks to avoid cave-ins when they try to tunnel through a dungeon. But the RAW just isn't that granular, if you'll pardon the pun. It doesn't seek to be a realistic model because both the designers and the majority of players are more interested in stabbing orcs and looting treasure chests than in creating and memorizing elaborate models for damaging objects.

[Andreaz]

Are you going to rule it just cuts right into it?Maybe. It sure works with an adamantine sledgehammer.
Also, note how i said "adamantine is so tough that a knife won't lose its edge by scraping on stone", not "any adamantine weapon is the ultimate stone breaker"

All the rules to break the object still apply: appropriate weapon or tool, goes through hardness and hp, some weapons do half damage or no damage at all...

[Ayrynthyn]

It wouldn't take any time at all to cut through a 5 foot wall, you could slice through a 45 HP with a greatsword in all of three attacks.

And a 10x10x1 masonary wall (still) has 90 hp. a 10x10x5 wall would have 450, not 45... so carving through walls with an adamantine greatsword would be possible, it's not likely probable. Not to mention the K:Architecture rolls that may need to be made, lest we take down a supporting wall and "hilarity ensues".

[Sacrieur]

And a 10x10x1 masonary wall (still) has 90 hp.

It has sectional HP. How large the sections are is up to the DM's discretion. So I'm not sure where you're getting this "10' x 10'" number.

This is inconsistent with a previous decision that 1' of stone had 9 HP.



a 10x10x5 wall would have 450, not 45... so carving through walls with an adamantine greatsword would be possible, it's not likely probable. Not to mention the K:Architecture rolls that may need to be made, lest we take down a supporting wall and "hilarity ensues".

Yes, that's what the rules say. Which is balanced.

[Jack_Simth]

I'm old. I've busted my share of stone with sledge, and i can tell you... it didn't do squat. Till that final blow where i managed to crit, do more damage than the hardness of 8, and actually affect the stone. Even then it only broke in twain. I'd wager i did in the 10 - 12 damage range. another 3-4 hp to each half, and i would have considered the stone destroyed. So yeah, 7 - 12 hp still sounds 'bout right. :smallamused: I guess my point is, don't confuse hardness with more hit points. 20 swings averaging 5 damage per swing does not mean i did 100 hp of damage to the rock, nor that the rock had that many HP. It means the rock ignored 17 of those swings and was only really damaged by the 3 that struck true (did more than 8 damage in a single blow) ;). That's the real world effect the game mechanic of hardness is trying to compensate for.

How do you know you weren't actually doing more than that, and it was simply getting absorbed by microfractures that you couldn't actually see, such that the final blow wasn't so much the one of a dozens that got through the hardness, but the one that finally brought it to 0 HP? If you're averaging 10 damage per hit (and using an appropriate weapon that avoids the half damage problem) on big block of stone (the 12 inches thick, 15 hp/inch), then you're averaging about 2 HP damage per blow (more than that, actually, as hits that would deal below the hardness deal 0 damage, not negative damage, but that doesn't matter too much for current purposes), then that 12 inch thick block of stone at 15 HP/inch (180 HP) would take around 90 hits to get through (less, actually, as noted, but ignoring that for now...), and the 'fully functional until 0 hp' thing would show you... exactly what you saw; it seemed pretty much fine until it broke (although you probably weren't dealing with a perfectly intact cube of rock).

[Ayrynthyn]

It has sectional HP. How large the sections are is up to the DM's discretion. So I'm not sure where you're getting this "10' x 10'" number.

This is inconsistent with a previous decision that 1' of stone had 9 HP.


The foot note on the srd (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/dungeons.htm#walls) says "(1) per 10x10 section" the table says "Typical Thickness" and the entry says "1ft" and the "Hit Points (1)" column says "90". so... 10x10x1 has 90, which is consistant. And then 1x1x1 would be 9-ish ... typically.

As to how i know how much damage i was doing, i honestly don't. The mechanics of the rules say. Hardness 8, 90 hp per 10x10x1. I ruled 1x1x1 would have 9 hp with a hardness of 8, and added my appropriate DM fluff text to fit the crunchy ruling. Nothing more.

[SangoProduction]

The foot note on the srd (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/dungeons.htm#walls) says "(1) per 10x10 section" the table says "Typical Thickness" and the entry says "1ft" and the "Hit Points (1)" column says "90". so... 10x10x1 has 90, which is consistant. And then 1x1x1 would be 9-ish ... typically.

As to how i know how much damage i was doing, i honestly don't. The mechanics of the rules say. Hardness 8, 90 hp per 10x10x1. I ruled 1x1x1 would have 9 hp with a hardness of 8, and added my appropriate DM fluff text to fit the crunchy ruling. Nothing more.

Well, that solves that. Thanks.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Well, that solves that. Thanks.

No it doesn't. That's the masonry wall entry he's quoting. Masonry is clay bricks, not stone blocks. The hewn stone wall is 3ft thick and has 540hp. If you divide 540 by the 36 inches you get, surprise surprise, 15hp per inch of thickness.

10' X 10' X 1" has 15hp. Converted to inches, that's 120*120*1=14400 cubic inches for 15hp. A cubic foot is 12*12*12=1728 cubic inches. 1728/14400=0.12 or 12% of the wall section. 0.12*15=1.8hp.

Or

10' X 10' X 12" = 180hp in a foot thick wall. 1 cubic foot is 1/100th of it and that also equals 1.8hp worth of stone.

Round it off to 2 and apply hardness and there you go.

[Stegyre]

No it doesn't. That's the masonry wall entry he's quoting. Masonry is clay bricks, not stone blocks. The hewn stone wall is 3ft thick and has 540hp. If you divide 540 by the 36 inches you get, surprise surprise, 15hp per inch of thickness.

10' X 10' X 1" has 15hp. Converted to inches, that's 120*120*1=14400 cubic inches for 15hp. A cubic foot is 12*12*12=1728 cubic inches. 1728/14400=0.12 or 12% of the wall section. 0.12*15=1.8hp.

Or

10' X 10' X 12" = 180hp in a foot thick wall. 1 cubic foot is 1/100th of it and that also equals 1.8hp worth of stone.

Round it off to 2 and apply hardness and there you go.
It seems to me that this analysis makes certain assumptions that we do not know are valid.

First, you assume that, from a given value for a 10'x10'x3' wall, you can derive the HP for each cubic inch by simple division.

Second, and I think more importantly, there seems to be an underlying assumption as to what the HP of the wall actually represent. For example, (a) do the HP represent the damage (net of hardness) that must be done to create a hole in the wall (sufficient, say, to allow line-of-effect), or (b) do they represent the damage (same net) to completely destroy the wall, or (c) do they represent something else?

It seems to me that, if (a) is true, your analysis may be correct, but if (b) is true, all we really care about is the thickness, so a 10'x10'x10' section has the same HP as a 3'x3'x3' section.

[Kelb_Panthera]

It seems to me that this analysis makes certain assumptions that we do not know are valid.

First, you assume that, from a given value for a 10'x10'x3' wall, you can derive the HP for each cubic inch by simple division.

Second, and I think more importantly, there seems to be an underlying assumption as to what the HP of the wall actually represent. For example, (a) do the HP represent the damage (net of hardness) that must be done to create a hole in the wall (sufficient, say, to allow line-of-effect), or (b) do they represent the damage (same net) to completely destroy the wall, or (c) do they represent something else?

It seems to me that, if (a) is true, your analysis may be correct, but if (b) is true, all we really care about is the thickness, so a 10'x10'x10' section has the same HP as a 3'x3'x3' section.

Line of effect only requires an opening of just over a square foot so just enough for line of effect isn't the same as section destroyed.

Walls aren't the only thing divided into 10ft sections and in all cases destroying one section severely damages adjacent sections, this is inconsistent with that section being mostly intact but passable.

A 10*10*3 wall has exactly the HP expected of a 36 inch thick stone "object" per table 9-9 in the PHB. On the page previous to that, under the "damaged objects" heading, it plainly says an object brought to zero HP is destroyed.

These facts lead to the conclusion that a 10ft section of wall that is destroyed is one that has been reduced to rubble, not one simply having had a hole punched in it. If this were not true then surrounding sections would be left unharmed.

[Stegyre]

A 10*10*3 wall has exactly the HP expected of a 36 inch thick stone "object" per table 9-9 in the PHB. On the page previous to that, under the "damaged objects" heading, it plainly says an object brought to zero HP is destroyed.

These facts lead to the conclusion that a 10ft section of wall that is destroyed is one that has been reduced to rubble, not one simply having had a hole punched in it. If this were not true then surrounding sections would be left unharmed.
That's strange, because I would point to that as evidence of the opposite conclusion: if a 10'x10'x3' wall section has, by RAW, the same HP as a 3'x3'x3' (or even a 6'x6'x3' or any n'xm'x3') section, that would indicate that they are not completely destroyed, but that the HP measure is what is required to puch through it.

RAW does not address the size of the hole punched through. (Certainly enough for LOE, but as you note, that is not very big.) But it seems absurd to claim that the same force that "reduces to rubble" 27 cu. ft. also does the same to 300 cu. ft.

Also, we may be looking at different quotes on PHB 165, but my copy says an object is "ruined," which has a different set of connotations (and denotations) from "destroyed": it no longer performs its function: the wall is not going to keep things out – it's breached – but you can still have plenty of wall standing around a breach.

[Kelb_Panthera]

That's strange, because I would point to that as evidence of the opposite conclusion: if a 10'x10'x3' wall section has, by RAW, the same HP as a 3'x3'x3' (or even a 6'x6'x3' or any n'xm'x3') section, that would indicate that they are not completely destroyed, but that the HP measure is what is required to puch through it.

Walls and other large objects are not measured in 3*3 sections, they are measured in 10*10 sections. A 3*3 section isn't part of the rules construct so it has no relevance.


RAW does not address the size of the hole punched through. (Certainly enough for LOE, but as you note, that is not very big.) But it seems absurd to claim that the same force that "reduces to rubble" 27 cu. ft. also does the same to 300 cu. ft.

I made no such claim. You did. You did so with no rules support for such at that. Destroying a 10*10 section of a wall reduces the surrounding sections HP by half, if there were still 3-1/2 feet of stone surrounding the hole you've made that would very likely preclude damage radiating all the way into the surrounding sections unless the targetted section were already particularly stressed (already severely damaged or central to a load-bearing portion of the structure).


Also, we may be looking at different quotes on PHB 165, but my copy says an object is "ruined," which has a different set of connotations (and denotations) from "destroyed": it no longer performs its function: the wall is not going to keep things out – it's breached – but you can still have plenty of wall standing around a breach.

You're looking in the wrong sub-section. Toward the bottom of the page in the same column it says, plainly, "Damaged Objects: A damaged object remains fully functional until the item's hit points are reduced to 0, at which point it is destroyed."

[Stegyre]

Walls and other large objects are not measured in 3*3 sections, they are measured in 10*10 sections. A 3*3 section isn't part of the rules construct so it has no relevance.
I'm really doing no more than extending your own terms:

A 10*10*3 wall has exactly the HP expected of a 36 inch thick stone "object" per table 9-9 in the PHB.
Unless I'm seriously misunderstanding you, are you not saying that a 10'x10'x3' wall has "exactly the HP" as a 36" stone object? That object could be a 3'x3'x3' block, a 6'x6'x3' block, or (as far as I can tell), any n'xm'x3' object.

That really seems to be your position, not mine.

Mine is simply that, if that is so, we have a serious loss of verisimilitude if the loss of those HP mean they have each "been reduced to rubble." (Your words, again, in the same post.)


RAW does not address the size of the hole punched through. (Certainly enough for LOE, but as you note, that is not very big.) But it seems absurd to claim that the same force that "reduces to rubble" 27 cu. ft. also does the same to 300 cu. ft.
I made no such claim. You did. You did so with no rules support for such at that.
My comment is only made with reference to the "reduced to rubble" phrase, which is your language. As near as I can tell, your position seems to be that any n'xm'x3' stone object is "reduced to rubble" by exactly the same amount of HP damage.

If that's not what you're saying, then I've misunderstood you, so what are you saying?

You're looking in the wrong sub-section. Toward the bottom of the page in the same column it says, plainly, "Damaged Objects: A damaged object remains fully functional until the item's hit points are reduced to 0, at which point it is destroyed."
Yes, I found it after my post. All this really seems to establish, however, is that the PHB uses "ruined" and "destroyed" without much distinction.

To be clear, my position is simply that I do not find RAW support for conclusion that an entire wall section is "reduced to rubble" when its HP are exhausted.

My reference to LOE is simply to note that it does seem certain, even if it is not explicitly stated, that you would have a hole sufficient for LOE. How much larger I find hard to say, based on the very same reasoning that you seem to believe clearly supports your rubble position:

If it takes exactly 180 HP to demolish a 1'x1'x1' block, so that, at 179 damage it's fully functional (by RAW: PHB 165) but at 180 it's gravel, it strains my sense of verisimilitude to conclude that exactly the same amount of damage also reduces an entire wall section one-hundred times larger to the same condition.

By RAW, an object that has its HP exhausted is "ruined" or "destroyed." If it's armor, it no longer provides AC; at a minimum, it seems that, whatever the object, it is non-functional. Beyond that, however, it is not at all clear what "ruined" or "destroyed" mean, by RAW.

[Alex12]

Side note about adamantine weapons and objects: Keith Baker, in...one of the Eberron novels he wrote, I think City of Towers but I'm not 100% sure on that, had a character using an adamantine dagger on some iron manacles. The dagger was explicitly described as cutting through the iron like cheese. So, at least if you're playing in Eberron, that's actually how adamantine does work, per the guy who created the setting.

[Melcar]

A 1 ft. x 1 ft. x 1 ft. of reinforced masonry has a thickness of 12 inches on all sides, thus has 180 HP.

A 1 ft. x 1 ft. x 1 ft. of hevn stone has a thickness of 12 inches on all sides, thus has 180 HP.

[Ayrynthyn]

No it doesn't. That's the masonry wall entry he's quoting. Masonry is clay bricks, not stone blocks. The hewn stone wall is 3ft thick and has 540hp. If you divide 540 by the 36 inches you get, surprise surprise, 15hp per inch of thickness.

10' X 10' X 1" has 15hp. Converted to inches, that's 120*120*1=14400 cubic inches for 15hp. A cubic foot is 12*12*12=1728 cubic inches. 1728/14400=0.12 or 12% of the wall section. 0.12*15=1.8hp.

Or

10' X 10' X 12" = 180hp in a foot thick wall. 1 cubic foot is 1/100th of it and that also equals 1.8hp worth of stone.

Round it off to 2 and apply hardness and there you go.

yep... bad math on my part 90/100 cu ft is .9 not 9 HP per for masonry. so round it up to 1? and that makes sense too with the block of cheese assertion/reference above (love that by the way) Only point of contestation here is masonry walls can be stone, not just clay or fired brick per
The common materials of masonry construction are brick, building stone such as marble, granite, travertine, and limestone, cast stone, concrete block, glass block, and cob. Fluff here could be cutting and grinding stone is easier than the alchemy required to mix stone and sand and water and time and binder and fire and time and heat and... *shrug* all of our castles were always blocks of stone.

[Sacrieur]

yep... bad math on my part 90/100 cu ft is .9 not 9 HP per for masonry. so round it up to 1? and that makes sense too with the block of cheese assertion/reference above (love that by the way) Only point of contestation here is masonry walls can be stone, not just clay or fired brick per Fluff here could be cutting and grinding stone is easier than the alchemy required to mix stone and sand and water and time and binder and fire and time and heat and... *shrug* all of our castles were always blocks of stone.

Yeah you just have to get an adamantine dagger and poke a cubic foot of stone and it crubbles into rubble. Makes perfect sense.

[Misery Esquire]

Yeah you just have to get an adamantine dagger and poke a cubic foot of stone and it crubbles into rubble. Makes perfect sense.

I think the appropriate reply is...


Any stone that has a thickness of 1 foot has 180 HP. It's not my math; it's straight RAW.

RAW is ; you deal the HP damage required, it breaks. No ifs, ands or buts.

And there's no rules on dulling or wear on weapons and tools, aside from when specifically noted that there is a chance to break your tool. So with time and patience, you could slowly cut down a mountain with a adamantine (or sufficient damage per hit), if you really wanted to. But is it really a problem that a fighter of some variety can hack their way through a foot thick wall in a fair number of rounds when a caster of any flavour can reduce it to paste with a single spell?

[Ayrynthyn]

Yeah you just have to get an adamantine dagger and poke a cubic foot of stone and it crubbles into rubble. Makes perfect sense.

but it's not stone when we're talking adamantine... it's cheese. perhaps a nice roquefort (sp?). Poke and crumble. The wall is treated like a brick of velveta... brilliant. seriously. i think that revalation has caused a paradigm shift in ideals that haven't been shifted since well, the mid 80s... oh and curse you Baker!! and less so the dude that brought him up ;)

[Sacrieur]

RAW is ; you deal the HP damage required, it breaks. No ifs, ands or buts.

Ideally, yeah.

I'm using that to point out the flaw in their system.



And there's no rules on dulling or wear on weapons and tools, aside from when specifically noted that there is a chance to break your tool. So with time and patience, you could slowly cut down a mountain with a adamantine (or sufficient damage per hit), if you really wanted to. But is it really a problem that a fighter of some variety can hack their way through a foot thick wall in a fair number of rounds when a caster of any flavour can reduce it to paste with a single spell?

I've always envisioned it as tungsten, which in pure form, is harder than hardened steel with incredible properties.

The game is based on some amount of physics, and part of what gives metals their use is the fact they're malleable and can be shaped into a number of objects. This also means that we have to sharpen them over time, as repeated use dulls the blade. A cheese knife will dull after enough uses so it's not even true that if there were a metal that could cut through stone like cheese it wouldn't dull.

But sure it's got some weird extraordinary property then lets it do that. The hardest things on the planet are the most brittle. This is why you can't make blades out of tungsten carbide or industrial diamond, and the closest thing we've produced is a ceramic blade, something also relatively brittle. By sheer physics, either adamantine is either a metal and has properties of metals, or it's a crystal and has properties of crystals. There's really no way around this.

But I see that we've moved away from the "realism" argument. We're no long applying realism uniformly when it suddenly becomes inconvenient for someone to do so.

---

The real problem with having adamantine exist like that is that it changes the mode of warfare. A single adamantine blade can let a single person sneak into a fortress. Dwarves in particular could probably just tunnel into cities and then invade them under the cover of night in a matter of days.



but it's not stone when we're talking adamantine... it's cheese. perhaps a nice roquefort (sp?). Poke and crumble. The wall is treated like a brick of velveta... brilliant. seriously. i think that revalation has caused a paradigm shift in ideals that haven't been shifted since well, the mid 80s... oh and curse you Baker!! and less so the dude that brought him up ;)

If it's cheese, then cheese also doesn't crumble when you poke it with a knife.

[Andreaz]

But I see that we've moved away from the "realism" argument. We're no long applying realism uniformly when it suddenly becomes inconvenient for someone to do so.
Gee, snippy much?.


The real problem with having adamantine exist like that is that it changes the mode of warfare. A single adamantine blade can let a single person sneak into a fortress. Dwarves in particular could probably just tunnel into cities and then invade them under the cover of night in a matter of days.
You forgot the existence of drills. Tunneling under walls and breaking them open always existed, adamantine weapons do not change that.
So even with just bronze those dwarves will try to dig if digging is viable. The hardness-ignoring property of adamantine isn't helpful either: tools made to break into an object automatically ignore hardness and deal double damage.

Also, and i repeat myself here: if a weapon isn't made to break the object (like hammers against ropes or daggers against stone), they deal half damage or even no damage at all, adamantine is nigh-irrelevant.

Your one soldier with an adamantine sword is adding nothing to the dynamics of warfare.