The most powerful melee weapon in D&D 5e is... The Rowboat

[Damon_Tor]

So I was flipping through Ghosts of Salt Marsh the other day and I started reading a bit about crashing ships, and more specifically the damage done to things when ships hit them.

On the one hand, it's not very impressive considering the masses involved. Getting hit by the biggest ship possible (gargantuan) only deals 16d10 (~88) damage. Falling from 200+ feet deals 20d6 (~70) damage But then again, free damage is free damage. So how does one use this?

I guess the simplest thing to do is simply to have a strong guy carry a Rowboat into battle instead of a shield. A Rowboat only weighs 100 pounds, well within the carrying capacity of a strength-based character. As a Large boat, it deals 4d10 damage when it "crashes" into something, DC 10 Dex save for half. Again, these aren't numbers that are that impressive in a vacuum, but this is effectively free damage for the guy carrying the boat, that 4d10 damage happens just as a result of his move action. Bonus: the boat gives him total cover against stuff on the other side of it, and it has 50 HP, so its pretty tanky at lower levels of play. As an object, it can't be targeted by many spells or effects. At 50 gold, many characters could afford to buy this as a part of their starting gear. That makes this tactic available as of level 1.

So in summation, a guy can deal 4d10 damage (DC 10 save for half) at-will using no action. The boat will itself be taking damage when you slam it into things, so the mending cantrip seems like a good investment here for between battles. Later when he's flush with cash, he can spend 15,000 GP to upgrade his "weapon" with either an Upgraded Hull (+50 HP) or the Living Vessel upgrade (10 HP regen every round)

What about at higher levels?

Well the rest of the ships don't have a weight listed, and there are no huge ships: the Rowboat is the only listed ship that's Large, and the rest are gargantuan. So how do we increase the damage we can deal with this tactic?

enlarge/reduce

Casting enlarge on a creature also enlarges anything it is carrying. Which would include the rowboat. As a huge ship, it now deals 8d10 damage when it hits something and can plow through medium and smaller creatures, pushing them to one side, turning our guy into a living snow-plow Problem: the rowboat now weighs 800 pounds! Even with the increased carrying capacity of the boat-wielder's new large size (2X), that's heavier than we can expect a PC to be able to carry. Unless, of course, that PC has the Oversized racial trait, the Bear Totem Aspect of the Beast perk, or something else that improves your carrying capacity. A large Goliath with 16 strength has a carrying capacity of 960 pounds. So with the proper build, this is not a problem even at level 3, when enlarge/reduce becomes available to players.

So, at level 3 with a simple level 2 spell cast on him by a teammate, our guy can run through a crowd of enemy soldiers, smashing through them, dealing each of them 8d10 damage. Without even using an action.

Can we take this further?

[JackPhoenix]

Ship crashes when it moves into an occupied space. Based on how forced movement works, it can't crash if it's not moving on its own. Carrying a boat into battle doesn't work.

[Damon_Tor]

Based on how forced movement works, it can't crash if it's not moving on its own.

Forced movement is still movement, if an effect excludes forced movement, it says so. The rule for ship crashing does not say this. And further, it wouldn't make any sense if it did: a ship will crash whether it runs aground because the captain is drunk and pilots it into the rocks or whether a hurricane-force gale pushes it there.

[MaxWilson]

Forced movement is still movement, if an effect excludes forced movement, it says so. The rule for ship crashing does not say this. And further, it wouldn't make any sense if it did: a ship will crash whether it runs aground because the captain is drunk and pilots it into the rocks or whether a hurricane-force gale pushes it there.

Is your objective to prove that the Saltmarsh rules as written are stupid and shouldn't be used? If so congratulations. I will continue not to buy it.

[CheddarChampion]

If there is no 'huge ship' in the rules, where are you getting the 8d10 from?
If a ship crashes into something by moving into its space, but the ship is carried by a creature, then doesn't the creature have to move into another creature for this to work (which the rules don't allow AFAIK)?

[Brookshw]

As tongue in cheek, I like it. By RAW, it's an improvised weapon when wielded, not a crashing ship, and would do damage accordingly.

[Damon_Tor]

If there is no 'huge ship' in the rules, where are you getting the 8d10 from?
A large ship under the effects of enlarge/reduce is huge. There's a chart which lists the amount of damage dealt by and to ship that crash based on size. Huge is 8d10.

If a ship crashes into something by moving into its space, but the ship is carried by a creature, then doesn't the creature have to move into another creature for this to work (which the rules don't allow AFAIK)?
No. For one thing, you don't have to be occupying the same space as something to carry it. For another, a rowboat is 10 feet by 10 feet, so even if you were occupying some of its space, there's still plenty left to hit people with.

[Damon_Tor]

Is your objective to prove that the Saltmarsh rules as written are stupid and shouldn't be used? If so congratulations. I will continue not to buy it.

It does seem somewhat silly that being hit by a rowboat at 2mph is as lethal as being hit four times with a Warhammer. But those are the values listed.

[JNAProductions]

As tongue in cheek, I like it. By RAW, it's an improvised weapon when wielded, not a crashing ship, and would do damage accordingly.

Which should be a decent amount. 100 lbs of wooden boat hurt when hit.

I'd probably rule it as doing 2d10 bludgeoning damage, but disadvantage on attack rolls representing its massive size and awkward heft. (And, of course, no proficiency unless you have Tavern Brawler.)

[Brookshw]

Which should be a decent amount. 100 lbs of wooden boat hurt when hit.

I'd probably rule it as doing 2d10 bludgeoning damage, but disadvantage on attack rolls representing its massive size and awkward heft. (And, of course, no proficiency unless you have Tavern Brawler.)

House rulings aside, "An object thar bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage". PHB pg 148.

[JNAProductions]

House rulings aside, "An object thar bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage". PHB pg 148.

Technically correct, which is the worst kind of correct! :P

While strict RAW might indicate a rowboat does 1d4 damage with no penalties, if you were a player in my game, would you have an issue with my ruling on how it deals damage?

[Tawmis]

Also, wouldn't said Strength Warrior be taking the same amount of damage (4d10 damage), because effectively throwing it is not going to have the same force as carrying it and slamming it into someone. But that that point, said Warrior would also be considered slamming into (the other end) of the rowboat, effectively taking 4d10 damage to themselves.

[Brookshw]

Technically correct, which is the worst kind of correct! :P

While strict RAW might indicate a rowboat does 1d4 damage with no penalties, if you were a player in my game, would you have an issue with my ruling on how it deals damage?

If I were a player in your game, yes, it would feel on the high side. As an alternative I'd suggest 2d6, largely to keep it inline with other weapons, and to avoid a slippery slope of bad precedence.

[JNAProductions]

If I were a player in your game, yes, it would feel on the high side. As an alternative I'd suggest 2d6, largely to keep it inline with other weapons, and to avoid a slippery slope of bad precedence.

Yeah, I suppose. While it's much HEAVIER than a Maul, it's also made of lighter material and is not designed as a weapon.

I'd remove disadvantage, in that case.

[Sindeloke]

Why are there always so many joyless naysayers on the 5e boards? No one is coming to your house to put a gun to your head to force you to turn some Guy On The Internet's silly thought experiment into literal table rules you have to follow or die.

Now, "this rule is stupid, let's block it with another stupid rule (improvised weapons being locked to 1d4)" is more sporting, but still doesn't work, since our Boat Guy isn't using it as a weapon, he's just carrying it for its passive effect; it's more like carrying a lantern enchanted with a constant centered-on-self toxic cloud. There's no attack rolls involved or any form of action at all. The boat just Is. "He damages himself too though" could be a real problem, on the other hand - do the rules specify "when the boat enters a creature's space" or simply being in a creature's space?

Now, we could make Boat Guy a worforged envoy with a built-in rowboat and argue about it becoming a natural attack (damage unknown but doesn't hurt the forged himself), as that also lets us skip past the weight issue (you can always carry yourself) and be self-sufficient (can't drop yourself, can be a caster and provide your own enlarge). But we lose our cover benefits, and the Transformer aesthetic seems less appropriate for this particular character concept than a goliath with a tricorn hat and a huge chunk of wood over his head, anyway.

[Trandir]

Well the funny part is that the 3 mph/ 15 ft speed of the rowboat means that a goliath or half orc with at least 10 Strength would be able to go faster than that with a dash action+ movement. So tecnically one could use the boat to crash against the enemies even more efficiently than a rowboat on the sea.

Well sincee this thread is a nightmare of RAW let's add something else:

If a ship moves into the space occupied by a creature or an object, the ship might crash.

Now a rowboat requires a crew of 2 to use it. If they aren't there it can't partecilate in combat and as such the boat "can't" decide to crash.
So a single PC can't use it as a weapon for the 4d10 damage

[Damon_Tor]

As tongue in cheek, I like it. By RAW, it's an improvised weapon when wielded, not a crashing ship, and would do damage accordingly.

You aren't wielding it at all. You're just carrying it with you. You aren't making attacks with it, you're just running around with a rowboat. And as others have noted, you can actually move faster running while carrying the ship than you can while rowing it in the water, so logically it wouldn't make sense for it to do less damage.

The real question is, why in god's name did they decide getting hit by a rowboat should deal 4d10 damage in the first place?

[Damon_Tor]

Now a rowboat requires a crew of 2 to use it. If they aren't there it can't partecilate in combat and as such the boat "can't" decide to crash.
So a single PC can't use it as a weapon for the 4d10 damage

Ships don't require a crew to crash. Crashing isn't an action the ship takes, crashing is something that happens whenever the ship enters an occupied square, whether it entered that square under its own power or not is irrelevant. If a kraken throws an empty sailboat into some rocks, it's going to crash.

[Brookshw]

You aren't wielding it at all. You're just carrying it with you. You aren't making attacks with it, you're just running around with a rowboat.

Quite the stretch considering you could say the exact same thing about a lance.

[Damon_Tor]

Quite the stretch considering you could say the exact same thing about a lance.

The difference is, there aren't rules explicitly dealing damage to a creature when a lance enters its space. For a rowboat, there are.

[Brookshw]

The difference is, there aren't rules explicitly dealing damage to a creature when a lance enters its space. For a rowboat, there are.

However, by your own admission its being used as a weapon. Exhibit A, the thread title, "The most powerful melee weapon in D&D 5e is... The Rowboat". That triggers the improvised weapon rules.

[Damon_Tor]

However, by your own admission its being used as a weapon. Exhibit A, the thread title, "The most powerful melee weapon in D&D 5e is... The Rowboat". That triggers the improvised weapon rules.

I didn't capitalize. I'm in the clear.

[Brookshw]

I didn't capitalize. I'm in the clear.

You don't need to have capitalized, it's a category. Makes no difference here.

[JNAProductions]

I didn't capitalize. I'm in the clear.

That... That makes no sense.

If I call you "A damnable fool, with the brains of a sniveling worm!" is that any less insulting than "A damnable FOOL, with the brains of a Sniveling Worm!"

For what it's worth, it's a funny bit of RAW, but not something that'd be allowed at any table I know of.

[Sigreid]

Clearly what you need to do is cut a hole in the bottom of the rowboat with suspenders to support it around the waist of a goliath barbarian who then just sprints into things.

[Damon_Tor]

That... That makes no sense.

That's the idea.

[Kane0]

Which should be a decent amount. 100 lbs of wooden boat hurt when hit.

I'd probably rule it as doing 2d10 bludgeoning damage, but disadvantage on attack rolls representing its massive size and awkward heft. (And, of course, no proficiency unless you have Tavern Brawler.)

If I take the Sailor background can I be proficient in boats?

[MaxWilson]

Technically correct, which is the worst kind of correct! :P

While strict RAW might indicate a rowboat does 1d4 damage with no penalties, if you were a player in my game, would you have an issue with my ruling on how it deals damage?

Yes, I would. It incentivizes things like a rowboat wielder who uses Darkness to cancel out disadvantage so that attacks twice at +8 to hit by 6th level for 2d10+5 on each attack, which simultaneously obsoletes GWM and is absurd. In a world like that, why isn't everybody wielding enormous weapons? Why do greatwords even exist? It would damage my suspension of disbelief and make the game less fun for me so yes, I would have an objection to that ruling, as a player.

[Brookshw]

That's the idea.

......., the idea is that your argument is right because you've made a mistake about grammar? Okay.

[stoutstien]

Rules aside, a half orc with the sailor background running into foes with a boat ramp is hilarious.

[Brookshw]

Rules aside, a half orc with the sailor background running into foes with a boat ramp is hilarious.

Absolutely! I also like the idea of a boat dueling league, forced to go underground due to its lethality.

[stoutstien]

Absolutely! I also like the idea of a boat dueling league, forced to go underground due to its lethality.
Make them aquaphobic and let the rest write itself.

[Kane0]

The current reigning champion is a Duergar wielding the front portion of a Trireme.

[Joe the Rat]

And here i figured we were using the foldingboatapult to bludgeon and forcibly relocate opponents...

[JNAProductions]

Yes, I would. It incentivizes things like a rowboat wielder who uses Darkness to cancel out disadvantage so that attacks twice at +8 to hit by 6th level for 2d10+5 on each attack, which simultaneously obsoletes GWM and is absurd. In a world like that, why isn't everybody wielding enormous weapons? Why do greatwords even exist? It would damage my suspension of disbelief and make the game less fun for me so yes, I would have an objection to that ruling, as a player.

Yeah. Makes sense.

My off the cuff ruling was not a good one.

[Knaight]

Improvised weapons aside, this looks like an issue where the boat rules really only make sense interacting with each other - and even there it seems odd in places. I've been hit by a canoe more than once, it shouldn't do 4d10 damage. Ships damaging each other with collision makes a lot more sense than them doing meaningful damage ramming much of anything else, with the notable exception of high speed ramming vessels.


That... That makes no sense.

If I call you "A damnable fool, with the brains of a sniveling worm!" is that any less insulting than "A damnable FOOL, with the brains of a Sniveling Worm!"

For what it's worth, it's a funny bit of RAW, but not something that'd be allowed at any table I know of.

It may or may not be less insulting. Depends on what a Sniveling Worm is, because that sounds like jargon for some sort of astral plane monster.

[AdAstra]

For one, hilarious. On the other hand, your foes can just run into melee range of you. Since the boat only dows damage when it enters someone else’s space, if the enemy is already in its space they won’t take damage. Then it’s impossible to use the boat without getting opportunity attacks, unless you rule that you can move the boat without yourself moving. In which case, you could just infinitely spin the boat, dealing infinite nonmagical bludgeoning damage. Also a good way to get fireballed a bunch.

Or better yet, the dm can send a Gargantuan Swarm of Animated Rowboats after you. A swarm can enter someone’s space, and the rowboats themselves are smaller than the swarm’s space. Since there is no limit to the amount that one can move within their own space, the rowboats can form a tornado-like precession and infinitely enter and exit someone’s space, “instantly” pounding them into paste. Theoretically this could work with a single animated rowboat, or one moved with telekinesis as well, but it would be limited by movement.

Or the DM will just send lycanthropes and golems after you.

Personally, I would just make the player roll an acrobatics check to do combat maneuvers while carrying a boat. You’ve got a pretty long lever arm acting on you, even if it’s only 100 pounds.

[bid]

I guess the simplest thing to do is simply to have a strong guy carry a Rowboat into battle instead of a shield.
Mr. Canoehead!

[Monster Manuel]

Now a rowboat requires a crew of 2 to use it. If they aren't there it can't partecilate in combat and as such the boat "can't" decide to crash.
So a single PC can't use it as a weapon for the 4d10 damage

Aren't there rules about operating a ship with reduced crew? If not, I think this is, unfortunately, correct. This tactic now only works if the Goliath is carrying the rowboat with a gnome at the helm, co-piloting. The gnome does not put the rowboat over the carrying capacity of the Goliath, and the rules do not specify the size requirement of the crew members.

Ideally, the gnome captain can shout encouraging battle cries to his Goliath co-pilot, while posing and pointing dramatically forward in his jaunty captain's hat. I would rule that the gnome captain has to make dex saves to avoid being knocked from the boat upon impact, because I would not want to be unrealistic, here.

"RAMMING SPEED, ENSIGN GROG!" "All hands...BRACE FOR IMPACT!!!"

Phew, I thought we had hit a snag, but it appears the tactic is even more viable now, than it was before...

[Nefariis]

I believe RAW this works, there isn't anything to indicate that it doesn't

it makes no mention of "crashing" being on or located in water and you can dash faster than you can row.

I might make the caveat that you must be dashing and that you you have to drop the ship on someone - but even then, the next round you can pick something back up as a free action.

Now, as for RAI....

eh probably not

either way I love you guys for finding random and hilarious stuff like this

[MaxWilson]

Aren't there rules about operating a ship with reduced crew? If not, I think this is, unfortunately, correct. This tactic now only works if the Goliath is carrying the rowboat with a gnome at the helm, co-piloting. The gnome does not put the rowboat over the carrying capacity of the Goliath, and the rules do not specify the size requirement of the crew members.

Ideally, the gnome captain can shout encouraging battle cries to his Goliath co-pilot, while posing and pointing dramatically forward in his jaunty captain's hat. I would rule that the gnome captain has to make dex saves to avoid being knocked from the boat upon impact, because I would not want to be unrealistic, here.

"RAMMING SPEED, ENSIGN GROG!" "All hands...BRACE FOR IMPACT!!!"

Phew, I thought we had hit a snag, but it appears the tactic is even more viable now, than it was before...

Instead of a gnome, might as well make it an infinitely-high stack of centaurs riding centaurs.

[Damon_Tor]

Aren't there rules about operating a ship with reduced crew?
There are. Each action a ship can take notes the minium number of crewmen needed to perform it. A rowboat's movement action requires only one crewman. This is, however, entirely irrelevant. We aren't rowing the boat, we are carrying it, and nothing about the crashing rules implies a ship has to be crewed or in any way moving under its own power in order to crash.

[Chronos]

This thread sort of reminds me of Pathfinder orcs being proficient in blowtorches and motorcycles, as weapons.

[ATHATH]

Shouldn't you use the grappling/dragging rules for this? Can we treat the rowboat as a creature for the purposes of grappling?

[Rukelnikov]

Yes, I would. It incentivizes things like a rowboat wielder who uses Darkness to cancel out disadvantage so that attacks twice at +8 to hit by 6th level for 2d10+5 on each attack, which simultaneously obsoletes GWM and is absurd. In a world like that, why isn't everybody wielding enormous weapons? Why do greatwords even exist? It would damage my suspension of disbelief and make the game less fun for me so yes, I would have an objection to that ruling, as a player.

You can already do that RAW. DMG 287:

"Big monsters typically wield oversized weapons that deal extra dice of damage on a hit. Double the weapon dice if the creature is Large, triple the weapon dice if it's Huge, and quadruple the weapon dice if it's Gargantuan. For example, a Huge giant wielding an appropriately sized greataxe deals 3d12 slashing damage (plus its Strength bonus), instead of the normal 1d12.
A creature has disadvantage on attack rolls with a weapon that is sized for a larger attacker. You can rule that a weapon sized for an attacker two or more sizes larger is too big for the creature to use at all."

So you can have a Large sized GreatAxe that hits for 2d12, and cast darkness, yada yada


Yeah. Makes sense.

My off the cuff ruling was not a good one.

I think your ruling is ok, much better than "you hit for 1d4 with a blunt object that weights 50 lb"

[Damon_Tor]

Shouldn't you use the grappling/dragging rules for this? Can we treat the rowboat as a creature for the purposes of grappling?

It isn't a creature, so grappling wouldn't apply. You only have to drag something if you don't have the strength to carry it. A rowboat only weighs 100 pounds.

[Yunru]

People, people!
You're missing the obvious!
...
Put the boat on a cart and have the strong guy push that :P


Or better yet, the dm can send a Gargantuan Swarm of Animated Rowboats after you.

Rowboat + Animate Objects?
Sure it can attack for the listed damage, or it could just crash into them? :P

[Monster Manuel]

Instead of a gnome, might as well make it an infinitely-high stack of centaurs riding centaurs.

"But what is the first Centaur standing on?"

"Can't fool me, mister. It's Centaurs all the way down."


We aren't rowing the boat, we are carrying it

Point taken about the reduced crew being an option, and probably not applicable in this instance since the boat is not actually being rowed. But in my head the gnome is still up there. I will not budge on this.

What if the Large Goliath carrying the Enlarged rowboat was a Grave cleric? Building for a Strength of 16 is not unreasonable. Now he can use an action to hit a target with Path to the Grave, and the target is Vulnerable to boat damage. Double dice on the first collision!

[BloodSnake'sCha]

For one, hilarious. On the other hand, your foes can just run into melee range of you. Since the boat only dows damage when it enters someone else’s space, if the enemy is already in its space they won’t take damage. Then it’s impossible to use the boat without getting opportunity attacks, unless you rule that you can move the boat without yourself moving. In which case, you could just infinitely spin the boat, dealing infinite nonmagical bludgeoning damage. Also a good way to get fireballed a bunch.

Or better yet, the dm can send a Gargantuan Swarm of Animated Rowboats after you. A swarm can enter someone’s space, and the rowboats themselves are smaller than the swarm’s space. Since there is no limit to the amount that one can move within their own space, the rowboats can form a tornado-like precession and infinitely enter and exit someone’s space, “instantly” pounding them into paste. Theoretically this could work with a single animated rowboat, or one moved with telekinesis as well, but it would be limited by movement.

Or the DM will just send lycanthropes and golems after you.

Personally, I would just make the player roll an acrobatics check to do combat maneuvers while carrying a boat. You’ve got a pretty long lever arm acting on you, even if it’s only 100 pounds.

You can always use your action to disengage.

[Willie the Duck]

Is your objective to prove that the Saltmarsh rules as written are stupid and shouldn't be used? If so congratulations. I will continue not to buy it.

I think at this point, the thread should be read more as, 'look at what kind of shenanigans I can do with the rules/look at what kind of shenanigans I can do by willfully misinterpreting the empty space in the allowances of the rules.' It says about as much about 5e or Saltmarsh as drown-healing does about 3e (which is to say nothing). It is pseudo-mental/semantic gymnastics.


Why are there always so many joyless naysayers on the 5e boards? No one is coming to your house to put a gun to your head to force you to turn some Guy On The Internet's silly thought experiment into literal table rules you have to follow or die.

History. This place (and most gamer forums) have a long history of people coming and doing things not-unlike this in relative bad faith and then suggesting that it has grander implications one way or another (usually some variation of, 'this game is broken and you should feel bad for liking it because I can take it and do XYZ'). No one takes in on good faith (since such faith has so repeatedly been broken) that OP is just doing a silly thought experiment. Besides, if that is all they are doing, then pointing out the logical leaps they are making to do so is honing the experimental controls.


Yes, I would. It incentivizes things like a rowboat wielder who uses Darkness to cancel out disadvantage so that attacks twice at +8 to hit by 6th level for 2d10+5 on each attack, which simultaneously obsoletes GWM and is absurd. In a world like that, why isn't everybody wielding enormous weapons? Why do greatwords even exist? It would damage my suspension of disbelief and make the game less fun for me so yes, I would have an objection to that ruling, as a player.

Quick aside: greatwords exist because people have amazing vocabularies :smalltongue:

Anyways, as a player in an actual game, I wouldn't accept this as appropriate use of the boat crash rules at all. There is plenty of space for additional 'portable hazards' rules (not unlike the caltrops and earthen berms we discussed in the thread about the party with no one filling the tank role), particularly for creatures big enough to carry massive items (preferably better than rowboats). I think 100 pound objects optimized to the task (spherical balls, possibly with 'children's jacks'-like roll-prevention spikes, if desired) should have some rules, and then a rowboat would be an improvised (poor) substitute. I can see a couple dice damage and maybe a save vs knockback or push-over. Hopefully, the 100 lb weight would make carrying massively multiple of them still prohibitive, and you would still do more actual damage with a great sword.

[Damon_Tor]

No one takes in on good faith (since such faith has so repeatedly been broken) that OP is just doing a silly thought experiment.

I think there are plenty of people understand exactly what I'm doing. Rest assured, I'm not showing up to your AL table with a rowboat tomorrow night.

[MaxWilson]

I think at this point, the thread should be read more as, 'look at what kind of shenanigans I can do with the rules/look at what kind of shenanigans I can do by willfully misinterpreting the empty space in the allowances of the rules.' It says about as much about 5e or Saltmarsh as drown-healing does about 3e (which is to say nothing). It is pseudo-mental/semantic gymnastics.

Not so. It's apparently rooted firmly in the Saltmarsh's rules for rowboats, which make hitting someone with a rowboat do an absurd amount of damage compared to hitting them repeatedly with a giant sword. If hitting someone with a rowboat did damage comparable to tossing them off a two-story building (2d6), we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[Willie the Duck]

I think there are plenty of people understand exactly what I'm doing. Rest assured, I'm not showing up to your AL table with a rowboat tomorrow night.

I'm more talking more in general about the 'joyless naysayer' tendency, and the knee-jerk need to have to jump in and point out that someone is, how shall we put it, doing something wacky with the rules (as if it were not obvious).

Yes, those of us even remotely familiar with you individually know you're grinding the mental wheels, etc.


Not so. It's apparently rooted firmly in the Saltmarsh's rules for rowboats, which make hitting someone with a rowboat do an absurd amount of damage compared to hitting them repeatedly with a giant sword. If hitting someone with a rowboat did damage comparable to tossing them off a two-story building (2d6), we wouldn't be having this conversation.

In both cases it is violating the intended use of the rules in a deliberate 'aha I see a linguistic gap' fashion. The boat crash rules were meant for use in ramming people with a boat moving through water (where even there it does do an absurd amount of damage, honestly, but really isn't comparable to a sword since it's a lot harder to engineer the setup), not just dropping them in their square. Likewise drown-healing exists because the person writing the rules that day didn't think through that hit points can be negative when they wrote "falls unconscious (0 hit points)" instead of 'falls unconscious (hit points fall to 0, if positive)' or the like. Yes, in both cases the rules could have been more tightly worded to exclude such loopholes, but IMO that's really all it says about anything.

[Damon_Tor]

In both cases it is violating the intended use of the rules in a deliberate 'aha I see a linguistic gap' fashion. The boat crash rules were meant for use in ramming people with a boat moving through water

I think the core problem here is that for some reason they decided to use the same chart for damage a ship does to an object/creature and the damage an object/creature does to a ship. Ships are tanky as heck, with their beefy hitpoints and (for the bigger ships) hefty damage thresholds, so it makes sense that they would have to put some big numbers on a chart intended to be used to figure out how much damage a ship takes when it hits something. Two rowboats hitting each other for 4d10 damage (50% chance of half) is fine: they each have 50 hitpoints.

The problem comes in when they use that SAME chart to note the damage taken by objects struck by the ships. We are but fleshy creatures, and 4d10 is a lot of damage.

[MaxWilson]

In both cases it is violating the intended use of the rules in a deliberate 'aha I see a linguistic gap' fashion. The boat crash rules were meant for use in ramming people with a boat moving through water (where even there it does do an absurd amount of damage, honestly, but really isn't comparable to a sword since it's a lot harder to engineer the setup), not just dropping them in their square. Likewise drown-healing exists because the person writing the rules that day didn't think through that hit points can be negative when they wrote "falls unconscious (0 hit points)" instead of 'falls unconscious (hit points fall to 0, if positive)' or the like. Yes, in both cases the rules could have been more tightly worded to exclude such loopholes, but IMO that's really all it says about anything.

No, it really isn't. Even in a bog-standard vanilla scenario, if you ram someone with a rowboat at 2mph, it shouldn't be inflicting 4d10 damage. This thread is about weaponizing a stupid rule to highlight how stupid the rule is, but you're claiming that there isn't a problem with the base rule at all, and that just isn't true. This isn't about linguistic gaps, it's about the Saltmarsh authors writing a rule which doesn't match the rest of the game. Do you really believe that being hit with a crashing rowboat is about as lethal as falling off a 60' cliff?

Why in the world should I pay good money for bad rules? Either the bad rules will never get used, in which case I wasted my money, or the rules will get used and will make my game worse than the rules that I would otherwise have written myself.


I think the core problem here is that for some reason they decided to use the same chart for damage a ship does to an object/creature and the damage an object/creature does to a ship. Ships are tanky as heck, with their beefy hitpoints and (for the bigger ships) hefty damage thresholds, so it makes sense that they would have to put some big numbers on a chart intended to be used to figure out how much damage a ship takes when it hits something. Two rowboats hitting each other for 4d10 damage (50% chance of half) is fine: they each have 50 hitpoints.

The problem comes in when they use that SAME chart to note the damage taken by objects struck by the ships. We are but fleshy creatures, and 4d10 is a lot of damage.

IMO the true core problem is trying to use the same HP rules for killing creatures and destroying objects, and it's a problem which actually predates 5E.

The thing is, if you stick a knife in my eye and reduce me to zero HP, I turn from a living human into a dead human--I can be killed by damaging only a part of me. But there's still a dead body there there. Boats are already unliving, so "killing" a boat by damaging its vital points doesn't mean anything per se, and there's really nothing you can do to a single part of a well-constructed rowboat which will destroy the whole rowboat. Death != disintegration, and if you choose an amount of damage which is appropriate for destroying a hypothetical living rowboat, and try to use those same numbers to model destroying an object, it won't make sense.

If you were determined to use HP to model objects, you could say that a rowboat has 6 sections, each with 10 HP, and when you get in a crash the 3 sections involved in the crash each take 2d6 damage and lose structural integrity if they hit 0 HP. The boat sinks if at least half of its sections are ever reduced to 0 HP. (This would also let an 8d6 Fireball destroy a rowboat, which also seems appropriate, but a Sharpshooter requires multiple arrows to sink a rowboat, which also seems appropriate.) In this case you're letting boats destroy other boats not by doing tons of damage but rather by doing damage to multiple sections.

This is the same kind of thinking you need to apply when players decide they want to tunnel through dungeon walls by attacking them with their weapons. "Fine, you beat on the wall for several minutes with your hammer. You're now looking at a stone wall with several deep cracks and gouges in it, several inches deep. If it had been a mimic you surely have killed it. You're not sure how thick the wall is, but if it's less than a foot thick you can probably reduce it from a wall to a couple of tons of rubble with another ten minutes' work or so, but it is very loud. Do you want to keep hammering away?"

I have also used rules like these to model truly gargantuan creatures: simply declare that the creature is so big that it cannot be slain at all except by damage to certain locations. There's no way an ant can kill a human by attacking its big toe, no matter how much damage it does to that big toe.

[Willie the Duck]

No, it really isn't. Even in a bog-standard vanilla scenario, if you ram someone with a rowboat at 2mph, it shouldn't be inflicting 4d10 damage. This thread is about weaponizing a stupid rule to highlight how stupid the rule is, but you're claiming that there isn't a problem with the base rule at all, and that just isn't true. This isn't about linguistic gaps, it's about the Saltmarsh authors writing a rule which doesn't match the rest of the game.

I think the rowboat is out bounds with the actual mass of the vessel (in other words, excessive), but I appreciate that the rules recognize that being hit by a moving ship will actually mess you up. That it's the same for 2 mph or 20 knots, and again that row boats specifically are included in that chart, are unfortunate side effects of a low granularity system. I do not think row boats should be included on a chart like this -- being hit by one is really unlikely to be able to kill anyone, except by knocking them out in water (which is always dangerous, but in that instance rowboat and tree branch are roughly similar in risk). It should be for actually large vessels where getting hit by them would be decidedly dangerous. Clearly the sweat spot for this system is two somewhat similarly sized vessels crashing into each other (or ramming The Alert into the head of Cthulhu).

However, my primary point of concern, which is clearly very different from your point, is that porting these rules (which, regardless of the accuracy of the damage numbers, were meant for vessels at speed crashing into creatures or each other) to someone walking around with a boat on their equipment list and depositing it into someone else's square is absolutely weaponizing a stupid/silly willful misinterpretation of a rule well outside of its intended scope or area of implementation.


Do you really believe that being hit with a crashing rowboat is about as lethal as falling off a 60' cliff?

Max, you are better than this. You, me, everyone I can think of on these boards recognize that falling damage is borked beyond recognition. Using it to prove some other point about relative damage is inherently flawed. I am disappointed.



IMO the true core problem is trying to use the same HP rules for killing creatures and destroying objects, and it's a problem which actually predates 5E.

The thing is, if you stick a knife in my eye and reduce me to zero HP, I turn from a living human into a dead human--I can be killed by damaging only a part of me. But there's still a dead body there there. Boats are already unliving, so "killing" a boat by damaging its vital points doesn't mean anything per se, and there's really nothing you can do to a single part of a well-constructed rowboat which will destroy the whole rowboat. Death != disintegration, and if you choose an amount of damage which is appropriate for destroying a hypothetical living rowboat, and try to use those same numbers to model destroying an object, it won't make sense.

If you were determined to use HP to model objects, you could say that a rowboat has 6 sections, each with 10 HP, and when you get in a crash the 3 sections involved in the crash each take 2d6 damage and lose structural integrity if they hit 0 HP. The boat sinks if at least half of its sections are ever reduced to 0 HP. (This would also let an 8d6 Fireball destroy a rowboat, which also seems appropriate, but a Sharpshooter requires multiple arrows to sink a rowboat, which also seems appropriate.) In this case you're letting boats destroy other boats not by doing tons of damage but rather by doing damage to multiple sections.

This is the same kind of thinking you need to apply when players decide they want to tunnel through dungeon walls by attacking them with their weapons. "Fine, you beat on the wall for several minutes with your hammer. You're now looking at a stone wall with several deep cracks and gouges in it, several inches deep. If it had been a mimic you surely have killed it. You're not sure how thick the wall is, but if it's less than a foot thick you can probably reduce it from a wall to a couple of tons of rubble with another ten minutes' work or so, but it is very loud. Do you want to keep hammering away?"

I have also used rules like these to model truly gargantuan creatures: simply declare that the creature is so big that it cannot be slain at all except by damage to certain locations. There's no way an ant can kill a human by attacking its big toe, no matter how much damage it does to that big toe.
On that we agree. Boats tend to work better using damage states. Something like breached/sinking/split/destroyed, or the like. Other vehicles and structures as well. There are a number of systems that work better than most D&Ds in this regard.

[Laserlight]

Absolutely! I also like the idea of a boat dueling league, forced to go underground due to its lethality.

In Passignano, Italy, there's a boat race, the Palio delle Barche, which involves several crews each carrying their boat through the narrow medieval streets, including one spot which involves going up a set of stairs, around a corner, and through a door--and the boats are too long, so the crew has to toss it through an opening in the wall. It is possible that the other crews, who have to get their boats through the same spot, stand politely by, giving each other plenty of space and graciously waiting for an opening, before they proceed in a stately and dignified manner around the course...and if that were so, then "ramming other crewmembers with your rowboat" would be mere idle speculation.

[Trandir]

Ok I got an idea that will make everybody happy: Swarmkeeper ranger (or any other class after you cast fly on them) with a rowboat and strong enough to carry it.
It flyes into the battlefield crashing against the enemies.

[MaxWilson]

However, my primary point of concern, which is clearly very different from your point, is that porting these rules (which, regardless of the accuracy of the damage numbers, were meant for vessels at speed crashing into creatures or each other) to someone walking around with a boat on their equipment list and depositing it into someone else's square is absolutely weaponizing a stupid/silly willful misinterpretation of a rule well outside of its intended scope or area of implementation.

FWIW I agree on this point. We just disagree on whether or not that was crucial to Damon_Tor's point: I think he was mocking the Saltmarsh rules, and you apparently think he was looking for ways to theorycraft increased damage in combat. Yes/no? Only Damon_Tor can say for sure which they intended.


Max, you are better than this. You, me, everyone I can think of on these boards recognize that falling damage is borked beyond recognition. Using it to prove some other point about relative damage is inherently flawed. I am disappointed.

I don't even know what you're trying to say here. Using the rules for getting crushed by enormous forces/momentum against flat surfaces (e.g. falling rules) to represent getting crushed by enormous forces/momentum against mostly-flat surfaces (boats) seems frankly seems like the best correspondence you're going to find in 5E. I'm disappointed that you see the need to frame your disagreement in personal terms, as if it were as some kind of a moral or intellectual failing in the person you're disagreeing with. Can't you just state your reasons for disagreement and leave it at that?

[Damon_Tor]

FWIW I agree on this point. We just disagree on whether or not that was crucial to Damon_Tor's point: I think he was mocking the Saltmarsh rules, and you apparently think he was looking for ways to theorycraft increased damage in combat. Yes/no? Only Damon_Tor can say for sure which they intended.

"Mocking" is a strong word. Satire, perhaps, a modest proposal.

[UnderwaterAir]

Dynasty Warriors already did the boat weapon. By gods it was strong. >_>

[MaxWilson]

"Mocking" is a strong word. Satire, perhaps, a modest proposal.

Yeah, I'm probably projecting a bit. But I was pretty sure your core point had nothing to do with actually wielding rowboats in combat, per se, and I think you just confirmed that. (Not surprising because you already said so in posts #8 and #17.)

[Yunru]

For those wondering, the crashing rules appear to be the same as the ones in the UA (https://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/UA_ShipsSea.pdf).
(I say appear to be because I have neither the money, nor the inclination, to purchase Saltmarsh.)

[MaxWilson]

For those wondering, the crashing rules appear to be the same as the ones in the UA (https://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/UA_ShipsSea.pdf).
(I say appear to be because I have neither the money, nor the inclination, to purchase Saltmarsh.)

Thanks. And wow, there's so much wrong with those rules, starting with the fact that they can't differentiate between ship sizes for any ship larger than 20' in length or width. I can almost sort of understand why WotC figured there was no point in differentiating monsters bigger than 20', but when I look at that "Crash Damage" table and think about the fact that practically every ship in history from 25m ancient Egyptian ships made from papyrus to 300m-long aircraft carriers built fro modern steel are all treated the exactly the same under these rules... *facepalm*

I suspect that error was the root cause of the crashing rules errors, wherein tiny rowboats (Large) inflict 4d10 damage because the almost-uninhabited categories of Small and Medium ships led the whoever wrote the crashing rules to feel that Large ships ought to do quite a lot of damage, without considering what sorts of ships would actually be rated as Large under the rules given ("A ship’s size category is determined by its length or width, whichever is longer"). Maybe it's also related to WotC's general impression throughout their works that 100' is quite a long distance, when in reality it's only barely beyond comfortable conversational distance (20m) and quite a bit closer than shouting distance.

Anyway, thanks Yunru.

[Trandir]

Has anyone considered that the rawboat would also sustain damage over the uses? It would be the only "weapon" to get damaged in the whole 5e

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Has anyone considered that the rawboat would also sustain damage over the uses? It would be the only "weapon" to get damaged in the whole 5e

Yes, that is why there was a suggestion to get mending for making it work longer.

[Willie the Duck]

FWIW I agree on this point. We just disagree on whether or not that was crucial to Damon_Tor's point: I think he was mocking the Saltmarsh rules, and you apparently think he was looking for ways to theorycraft increased damage in combat. Yes/no? Only Damon_Tor can say for sure which they intended.

"Mocking" is a strong word. Satire, perhaps, a modest proposal.

I caught that it was not a serious attempt to implement in-game. It is a critique of the splatbook's rules. However, I posit a further distinction -- it was willfully ignoring that the intended use of these rules, as evidenced by the phrasing (and here I'm going by the UA language, since I also don't have Saltmarsh) "If a ship moves into the space occupied by a creature or object, it might crash" whereupon the crash rules, including this objectionable damage, take effect. To me, regardless of whether the subsequent crash rules are particularly good or not (and I think being run over by a rowboat, unless you are stuck in the mud and its moving extremely fast, probably should do less than 4d10, although this might be a case of granularity and rowboats being on the low end of large-size craft), if you need to do this to highlight the absurdity of the rules, you've already lost a lot of rhetorical momentum.



I don't even know what you're trying to say here. Using the rules for getting crushed by enormous forces/momentum against flat surfaces (e.g. falling rules) to represent getting crushed by enormous forces/momentum against mostly-flat surfaces (boats) seems frankly seems like the best correspondence you're going to find in 5E. I'm disappointed that you see the need to frame your disagreement in personal terms, as if it were as some kind of a moral or intellectual failing in the person you're disagreeing with. Can't you just state your reasons for disagreement and leave it at that?

I believe in retrospect that I overreacted, as I took your "Do you really believe that being hit with a crashing rowboat is about as lethal as falling off a 60' cliff?" line more closely to 'do you agree with my position or do you hate God, America, and apple pie?'/'When did you stop beating your wife?' style loaded question than I do today. As to the rest, it might not seem like it now, but others having standards for you is a positive. In your time here, you're argumentation has show growth, and I've warmed to your behavior with some satisfaction. It was genuinely disheartening to see what I took as backsliding. My apologies.

As to falling damage (not that it's worth going over at this point), I mean that we all know that over ~30' fall is usually lethal and 60' is almost always lethal, and that the falling damage rules ignore this and have since the beginning. Everyone agrees how silly it is, and it's a valid critique of the system as a whole, but then why use a known-bad-metric to gauge the appropriateness of this other damage system?


I suspect that error was the root cause of the crashing rules errors, wherein tiny rowboats (Large) inflict 4d10 damage because the almost-uninhabited categories of Small and Medium ships led the whoever wrote the crashing rules to feel that Large ships ought to do quite a lot of damage, without considering what sorts of ships would actually be rated as Large under the rules given ("A ship’s size category is determined by its length or width, whichever is longer"). Maybe it's also related to WotC's general impression throughout their works that 100' is quite a long distance, when in reality it's only barely beyond comfortable conversational distance (20m) and quite a bit closer than shouting distance.

This certainly has some merit. Scale has always been an issue for game designers --not just WotC, TSR seemed to forget how big their dragons were repeatedly, and I recall one of the other competitors (MERPS?, T&T?, one of them) treating their ogre or trolls as being both 8-10' tall and also treating 2-3' PCs as effectively gnats. Looking through the theoretical lens that maybe the writer forgot that a rowboat would be large (and instead a 'large ship' would be 'large'), the numbers would make a lot more sense.

[MaxWilson]

I believe in retrospect that I overreacted, as I took your "Do you really believe that being hit with a crashing rowboat is about as lethal as falling off a 60' cliff?" line more closely to 'do you agree with my position or do you hate God, America, and apple pie?'/'When did you stop beating your wife?' style loaded question than I do today. As to the rest, it might not seem like it now, but others having standards for you is a positive. In your time here, you're argumentation has show growth, and I've warmed to your behavior with some satisfaction. It was genuinely disheartening to see what I took as backsliding. My apologies.

It sounds like you've been misreading me for years. I guess this explains why I see you occasionally veer from substantive discussion into personal attacks--you're gradually learning that I don't argue in bad faith, but apparently it's taken some time. I'm glad I stopped to address this one instead of just ignoring it.


As to falling damage (not that it's worth going over at this point), I mean that we all know that over ~30' fall is usually lethal and 60' is almost always lethal, and that the falling damage rules ignore this and have since the beginning. Everyone agrees how silly it is, and it's a valid critique of the system as a whole, but then why use a known-bad-metric to gauge the appropriateness of this other damage system?

Because they are physically similar. If you simply say, "Crashing inflicts the same damage as falling twice the distance the boat moved on its last turn, up to a maximum of the distance listed in this chart: rowboat 20', trireme 80', battleship 200'" etc., now you have a consistent system w/rt damage AND anyone who's rewritten the falling rules to be more damaging or to take size into account automatically inherits a more-appropriate crashing damage too without having to rewrite that one separately.

And players will be able to reason successfully about the likely damage of crashing a steamship into Cthulhu, even if they haven't read the crashing rules, and can predict whether countermeasures like Feather Fall and Levitation are likely to work as they logically should. Prediction is important for players so they can make good plans instead of bad plans that will waste their time and resources and/or get their PCs killed for nothing.

(BTW I'm not proposing this hypothetical rule + table as the best of all possible systems, since it ignores things like material strength and being crushed between two ships instead of just one, but I don't want to complicate the proposal more than is necessary to make the point.)

[Damon_Tor]

Because they are physically similar. If you simply say, "Crashing inflicts the same damage as falling twice the distance the boat moved on its last turn, up to a maximum of the distance listed in this chart: rowboat 20', trireme 80', battleship 200'" etc., now you have a consistent system w/rt damage AND anyone who's rewritten the falling rules to be more damaging or to take size into account automatically inherits a more-appropriate crashing damage too without having to rewrite that one separately.

And players will be able to reason successfully about the likely damage of crashing a steamship into Cthulhu, even if they haven't read the crashing rules, and can predict whether countermeasures like Feather Fall and Levitation are likely to work as they logically should. Prediction is important for players so they can make good plans instead of bad plans that will waste their time and resources and/or get their PCs killed for nothing.

(BTW I'm not proposing this hypothetical rule + table as the best of all possible systems, since it ignores things like material strength and being crushed between two ships instead of just one, but I don't want to complicate the proposal more than is necessary to make the point.)

I'm pondering a collision system where a given object has "collision dice" (based vaguely on it's mass; a medium-sized creature made of flesh and bone would usually have a collision dice of 1d6) which would determine damage dealt by an impact, multiplied by the current relative velocities at the time of collision (probably based entirely on how far the objects has moved toward each other the past round in units of 10 feet). The resulting number would be split between the two impactors based on their relative hardness. Hardness would likely be a static number, with flesh and bone creatures having a hardness of 0 and solid stone having a hardness of, say, 30. So if a creature falls 100 feet and impacts the ground below you would do 10d6 (the collision die of the moving object times the number of feet) resulting in 35 damage or so. If the two impactors were of the same hardness they would both take 17 damage, but the rock's hardness of +30 relative to the creature would prevent up to 30 points of collision damage to itself and increase the damage taken by the creature by the amount prevented would mean the creature would take all of the damage from the particular fall.

In most cases that system would treat most minor falls much the same as they are now, while allowing for surfaces of lesser hardness to absorb some of the damage taken in some situations. But it would also mean that non-fall impacts would follow the same rules for consistency. Under this system a rowboat moving its normal speed of 15 feet per round and with it's mass of 100 pounds (comparable to a medium humanoid) would only deal 1d6 damage when it collided with something. If wood has a hardness of 10 (I'm pulling these hardness numbers out of nothing, this is just spaghetti-tossing at this point) and it impacted a creature of flesh at these speeds it would never take damage from such an impact (why would it? a rowboat should be able to survive bumping into things) though the damage to the creature itself would still be minimal.

And my hypothetical boat-wielding strong guy wouldn't be likely to find boat wielding very useful. Moving 30 feet with the boat and slamming it into someone could result in 3d6 damage, and once you factor in a fairly easy dexterity save to avoid the collision (not for half damage, sidestep it entirely) and/or a strength check reaction to catch the boat and reduce the damage by taking the impact with physical force. Maybe when he dashes and threatens 6d6 damage it starts to seem viable, but then he's using his action to do this and would still face the same mitigation. And of course he could do this with any "100-200 pound" object, you wouldn't be limited to the specific (and silly) rules pertaining just to ships.

[MaxWilson]

I'm pondering a collision system where a given object has "collision dice" (based vaguely on it's mass; a medium-sized creature made of flesh and bone would usually have a collision dice of 1d6) which would determine damage dealt by an impact, multiplied by the current relative velocities at the time of collision (probably based entirely on how far the objects has moved toward each other the past round in units of 10 feet). The resulting number would be split between the two impactors based on their relative hardness. Hardness would likely be a static number, with flesh and bone creatures having a hardness of 0 and solid stone having a hardness of, say, 30. So if a creature falls 100 feet and impacts the ground below you would do 10d6 (the collision die of the moving object times the number of feet) resulting in 35 damage or so. If the two impactors were of the same hardness they would both take 17 damage, but the rock's hardness of +30 relative to the creature would prevent up to 30 points of collision damage to itself and increase the damage taken by the creature by the amount prevented would mean the creature would take all of the damage from the particular fall.

In most cases that system would treat most minor falls much the same as they are now, while allowing for surfaces of lesser hardness to absorb some of the damage taken in some situations. But it would also mean that non-fall impacts would follow the same rules for consistency. *snip*

I think this basic approach is sound. I invented a similar system (splitting falling damage between two objects based on some metric of which is tougher, in my case based on relative masses instead of hardness) early in 5E's run because a player wanted to play a Shadow Monk/Moon Druid who eventually intended to teleport high above enemies and fall onto them with his gigantic 4000-lb. rocky body. I think you're on the right track.

[Damon_Tor]

splitting falling damage between two objects based on some metric of which is tougher, in my case based on relative masses instead of hardness

I feel like that fails with something like dropping a 500 pound anvil onto a 5000 pound elephant. The fact that the elephant has 10x the mass of the anvil is irrelevant to the fact that the anvil isn't going to be damaged at all (except maybe when it tumbles off the elephant and hits the cobblestones below) while the elephant is going to get pretty messed up.

Interestingly, a druid transforming into an Earth Elemental above someone's head was a specific example I've been working with to get a feel for how I want the numbers to work.

[MaxWilson]

I feel like that fails with something like dropping a 500 pound anvil onto a 5000 pound elephant. The fact that the elephant has 10x the mass of the anvil is irrelevant to the fact that the anvil isn't going to be damaged at all (except maybe when it tumbles off the elephant and hits the cobblestones below) while the elephant is going to get pretty messed up.

Yes, it also fails if an elephant falls on top of a kitten instead of hitting the Earth. The kitten winds up taking all the damage and the elephant is unharmed. I acknowledged this to my players up front when I proposed the rule, but it never actually became an issue in play.

Relative hardness is probably a better metric so your system is probably better than mine was.