Hardness v.s. weapons with energy damage.

[RoboEmperor]

Posted this in the RAW Q&A but there seems to be some disagreement, so making a thread for it!

If a weapon that has 1d8 damage + 1d6 fire damage hit a creature with hardness 8, does the hardness damage reduction apply to both the 1d8 and the 1d6 for a total of 16 damage reduction, or does it only reduce one of the two?



Hardness
Each object has hardness—a number that represents how well it resists damage. Whenever an object takes damage, subtract its hardness from the damage. Only damage in excess of its hardness is deducted from the object’s hit points (see Table: Common Armor, Weapon, and Shield Hardness and Hit Points; Table: Substance Hardness and Hit Points; and Table: Object Hardness and Hit Points).



Energy Attacks
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.

Assuming both dies hit for maximum, would the resulting damage be 8-8+6/2 = 3 damage? Or 8-8+6/2-8= 0 damage?

The creature is a stone animated object.

[Goaty14]

I don't think that there is (or should be) any confusion. You deal 0 damage, unless your DM has some sort of houserule on scratch damage (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ScratchDamage). In your quote, (bolded)

Energy Attacks
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.
Thus, you divide the fire damage by 2 before subtracting 8.

[Mike Miller]

You are making one attack in this example. Therefore, the hardness is applied once.

[heavyfuel]

I don't think that there is (or should be) any confusion. You deal 0 damage, unless your DM has some sort of houserule on scratch damage (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ScratchDamage). In your quote, (bolded)

Thus, you divide the fire damage by 2 before subtracting 8.

The question is actually if you apply hardness twice (once for the weapon damage and once for the energy damage) or just once (for weapon plus energy damage)

I stand by my position that it's only applied once

[StreamOfTheSky]

I also agree, hardness should only apply once. It's the same attack.

[Troacctid]

It's one instance of damage, so apply hardness once.

[Florian]

Same as usual when you apply different damage sources as one attack. Specific beats general.

General: You treat it as one attack, so hardness only applies once per attack.
Specific: Energy damage vs. hardness has the energy damage halved or quartered based on type, before applying hardness.

It´s the same with energy resistance or immunity.

[RoboEmperor]

Ok so lets say this creature also has regeneration for some reason and only fire damage deals lethal damage to it. Do I get to choose whether the hardness reduction reduces the fire damage completely? Or is it always weapon damage first, bonus damage 2nd?

[ben-zayb]

It's 1 damage roll

[DeTess]

Hardness is applied once, but the fire portion of the damage is halved. The specific rule only states that the fire damage is halved before applying hardness, and doesn't specify how hardness is applied, so the general rule is still in effect.

[Khedrac]

My reason for saying that hardness applies twice (it is two damage rolls, one for the physical and one for the fire) is as from the Damage Reduction rules.

Whenever damage reduction completely negates the damage from an attack, it also negates most special effects that accompany the attack, such as injury type poison, a monk’s stunning, and injury type disease. Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks, energy damage dealt along with an attack, or energy drains. Nor does it affect poisons or diseases delivered by inhalation, ingestion, or contact.
The energy damage is not part of the weapon damage, it is dealt "along with" it. In most cases this is to the wielder's benefit, against hardness it is a drawback.

[Mike Miller]

My reason for saying that hardness applies twice (it is two damage rolls, one for the physical and one for the fire) is as from the Damage Reduction rules.

The energy damage is not part of the weapon damage, it is dealt "along with" it. In most cases this is to the wielder's benefit, against hardness it is a drawback.

Your quote is irrelevant. This thread is about hardness, not damage reduction. Hardness =/= DR

[Mordaedil]

I'd say you roll damage first, then apply modification and then finally reduce the damage by hardness and then apply the remainder to the HP of the weapon.

Seems straight forward enough, but I can see why it'd be confusing, but it'd never help given how low the damage dice is.

[ben-zayb]

My reason for saying that hardness applies twice (it is two damage rolls, one for the physical and one for the fire) is as from the Damage Reduction rules.

The energy damage is not part of the weapon damage, it is dealt "along with" it. In most cases this is to the wielder's benefit, against hardness it is a drawback.

Not part of weapon damage, but a part of damage roll. Unless you mean to say that a Power Attack for 1 on a Two-Hander adds a total of +12 damage (aka +2 per damage roll) on a +1 Flaming Shocking Frost Sonic Corrosive weapon, and a PA for 5, 10, and 20 adds +60, +120, and +240 damage per swing, respectively

[Crake]

To everyone saying the fire damage is halved, this is a creature with hardness, not an object. The halving of fire and electricty only applies to objects.

Also, the fire and the weapon damage are indeed separate packets of damage. If they can be resisted separately, they are not the same packet of damage.

[Nebuul]

I though the rule was that if it has hardness, you use object rules, and you use creature rules of it has damage reduction.

[Goaty14]

It's 1 damage roll

Two. Although this is irrespective of the argument, you're still rolling 1d8+1d6 for damage.

[ben-zayb]

Two.Citation needed.

And it matters, because rolling maximum means the damage roll result of 11 (8+3) only gets reduced by 8.

[Zytil]

Citation needed.

And it matters, because rolling maximum means the damage roll result of 11 (8+3) only gets reduced by 8.

Citation: You're rolling two dice, and not one.

It doesn't matter, because it's deliberately silly.

[Khedrac]

Your quote is irrelevant. This thread is about hardness, not damage reduction. Hardness =/= DR

My quote was very relevant - it clearly showed why I take the position I do. I did not state it as a definitive answer (from the amount of disagreement it is clear that there isn't one), but it does show a categorisation of how at least one author regarded weapons with energy damage attached.

As for the argument "one damage roll or two damage rolls" I would have to say that this is two damage rolls, one for the weapon and one for the fire - the separate types pretty much make that a necessity.

[Mordaedil]

To everyone saying the fire damage is halved, this is a creature with hardness, not an object. The halving of fire and electricty only applies to objects.

Also, the fire and the weapon damage are indeed separate packets of damage. If they can be resisted separately, they are not the same packet of damage.

For some reason I read it as if he attempted to sunder a weapon. Woops.

I don't think creatures have hardness, that's what damage reduction is supposed to represent, isn't it?

[Troacctid]

Citation: You're rolling two dice, and not one.

It doesn't matter, because it's deliberately silly.
You just made me imagine a world where a rogue's 6d6 damage sneak attack counts as six damage rolls and gets reduced by DR six times. Seems awkward!

[Florian]

For some reason I read it as if he attempted to sunder a weapon. Woops.

I don't think creatures have hardness, that's what damage reduction is supposed to represent, isn't it?

Stuff like Animated Object or Animated Trees have Hardness on a creature.

[Crake]

Stuff like Animated Object or Animated Trees have Hardness on a creature.

The caryatid column from fiend folio also has a hardness of 8, same as stone.

[Mordaedil]

Stuff like Animated Object or Animated Trees have Hardness on a creature.

And here I thought those objects just converted hardness to DR. Interesting indeed.

[Zytil]

You just made me imagine a world where a rogue's 6d6 damage sneak attack counts as six damage rolls and gets reduced by DR six times. Seems awkward!

Seven times; base weapon damage would still be reduced.

[ben-zayb]

Seven times; base weapon damage would still be reduced.

But we are not talking about your or anyone else's silly houserules where 6d6 sneak attack damage gets DR seven times, a greatsword damage getting DR twice, and Power Attack with a greatsword giving a 4:1 damage bonus : attack penalty ratio.

We are discussing Rules as Written.

[Mike Miller]

My quote was very relevant

I believe you may have misunderstood why I claimed your quote was irrelevant. For clarification, my point was that we are talking about hardness. You quoted the usage for damage reduction. Hardness and damage reduction are separate. Therefore, explaining how damage reduction affects an attack is superfluous.


Also, I will reiterate my view that this is straightforward. One attack, one application of hardness. The number of dice rolled do not affect the number of applications of hardness. As stated above, it would be rather silly to have a rogue's entire sneak attack be negated from a hardness 8 against every d6.