PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] Trouble with breaking things



Epinephrine
2008-11-10, 09:23 AM
I have a lot of trouble with people cutting down trees with their swords, or worse yet, busting apart a marble statue with one.

How much use do you DMs make of this rule?
Certain weapons just can’t effectively deal damage to certain objects.

Personally, I think it's a very sensible rule. I'd use it an awful lot. Without the right tool, you simply can't break things. For players, how annoyed would you be if a DM said that you simply can't damage an object with your weapon? (chopping down a tree with a dagger, for example - it's a slashing weapon, but a horrendously ineffective one for forestry).

I wonder how other DMs deal with the (to me) troubling mountain hammer strike, and other similar strikes.

What really bothers me about it is the "ignores hardness" aspect. Punching a stone structure to rubble (hardness 8, 900 hit point) just shouldn't be possible, by anyone. The are some things that just don't make sense. If you are punching a 5' thick pillar of rock you will damage yourself before damaging the rock in the slightest.

I'd insist that one needs appropriate tools to do any work attacking inanimate objects. I can see ignoring DR (maybe knowing how to strike, finding weak spots), and even ignoring hardness on objects that one could reasonably damage with the weapon in question, but having every martial initiate able to bust through iron doors with bare hands, a quarterstaff, or hand axe just doesn't make sense. If you carry a two handed pick, or large sledge hammer around, sure. If your weapon of choice is the Maul, or the Greathammer, there are few things I wouldn't allow you to damage. For bladed weapons and cutting things, axes are ideal, as are some pole-arms and really heavy bladed swords, but an elven thinblade or rapier isn't going to chop down a door.

Dublock
2008-11-10, 09:27 AM
I can be at times a fan of Rule 0 :smallwink:

But the rule that some weapons just can't deal damage makes sense. Although for the example of a dagger cutting down a tree, I'll just make the character waste a lot of time doing it.

Epinephrine
2008-11-10, 09:50 AM
I can be at times a fan of Rule 0 :smallwink:

But the rule that some weapons just can't deal damage makes sense. Although for the example of a dagger cutting down a tree, I'll just make the character waste a lot of time doing it.

Right, I'd allow dagger/tree possibly, given enough time (and unless the dagger were at least masterwork, a chance of busting it).

But would you object as a player if a DM told you that you simply can't hack through X with your weapon*?

*A DM I play with let a player bust a door down with a frog crotch arrow (it does slashing damage!), which is just patently ridiculous.

Telonius
2008-11-10, 09:56 AM
Using the weapon group feat (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/weaponGroupFeats.htm) variants here might be useful. Some sorts of items - like a tree, say - might have DR 10/Axes. A stone wall could have DR 10/Picks and Hammers, Maces. It would probably require a bit of retooling, but shouldn't be all that difficult.

Proven_Paradox
2008-11-10, 10:00 AM
I personally would be okay with it, as long as you tell me before I make my character. For example, one of the primary reasons either Mountain Hammer or Foehammer can by found among pretty much all of my martial adept maneuvers known is that they're absurdly useful for breaking things. If that changes, let me know before-hand, so I can re-tool my builds appropriately.

bosssmiley
2008-11-10, 10:10 AM
I have a lot of trouble with people cutting down trees with their swords, or worse yet, busting apart a marble statue with one.

<trim>

I wonder how other DMs deal with the (to me) troubling mountain hammer strike, and other similar strikes.

What really bothers me about it is the "ignores hardness" aspect. Punching a stone structure to rubble (hardness 8, 900 hit point) just shouldn't be possible, by anyone. The are some things that just don't make sense. If you are punching a 5' thick pillar of rock you will damage yourself before damaging the rock in the slightest.

I have no problem with any of this in D&D. Bear in mind two points: people IRL can break wooden boards (Hardness 5) and concrete slabs (hardness 8) with their bare hands
by about 6-7th level characters are already superhuman in their abilities. They are capable of feats on a par with most mythic and folkloric heroes and can do stuff that is impossible in our world

A martial adapt punching out a stone pillar? No more outlandish than a wizard shifting in-and-out of phase, or a psion telekinesing weapons around the room, or a monk running up walls; all of which are totally in keeping with the genre at higher levels. Besides, ridiculously OTT property damage is fun. :smallbiggrin:

If people hacking apart trees and statues with non-magic swords at 1st level is the problem, just rule that excessive damage requires a save-or-crumple-like-tinfoil on behalf of the inappropriate weapon. As for similar happening with magic swords: they might just get to add their enhancement bonus to their save, or maybe they're sufficiently cool to be afforded plot protection allowing them to make these impossible cuts. Nothing says 'magic sword' quite like hacking an anvil in half. :smallcool:

Quietus
2008-11-10, 10:33 AM
In the case of inappropriate weapons, like a dagger hacking at a tree or a greatsword trying to hack through stone/iron, I'd deal whatever damage they do to the object to their weapon. Apply hardness, of course, but every time they beat 8 damage they chip away some stone.. and if they beat 10 damage, their sword gets a little more warped.

Starbuck_II
2008-11-10, 10:43 AM
In the case of inappropriate weapons, like a dagger hacking at a tree or a greatsword trying to hack through stone/iron, I'd deal whatever damage they do to the object to their weapon. Apply hardness, of course, but every time they beat 8 damage they chip away some stone.. and if they beat 10 damage, their sword gets a little more warped.

What about Adamantine daggers?

rayne_dragon
2008-11-10, 11:13 AM
The way I'd rule this sort of thing is that you compare the hardnesses of the attacking object and defending object. If the attacking object has lower hardness it takes damage equal to the difference in hardness for each atack made. I'd also rule that the weapon takes damage on a natural roll of 1 regardless.

I can't remember off hand if magic items already have rules for adjusting hardness and hp, but I'd give them their equivilant enhancement bonus to ther hardness (so a +1 longsword with an enchantment worth a +2 bonus gets +3 to its hardness) and 5x that amount in extra hp (+15 hp in the example).

For the Monk thing, I'd suggest that it's a breaks in one hit or not at all sort of thing. The monk has to do enough damage with one full attack to break it or it doesn't lose hit points at all. Thus he can break stone slabs, small trees and maybe even crash through shoddy walls (shouting "Oh Yeaaaaaah!"), but won't be able to punch a tunnel through a mountain or demolish a stone building (except maybe piece by piece). You may wish to have the monk take damage should they fail as well.

bosssmiley
2008-11-10, 11:43 AM
What about Adamantine daggers?

I presume you saw the X-Men movies. Yeah, that. :smallwink:

Get enough force (+Str bonus damage) behind an adamantine blade and it'll go through anything. Adamantine treats other matter like butter, that's its USP in D&D: Mithral for ACP/ASF cheese, Adamantine for Wolverine cheese.

Fax Celestis
2008-11-10, 12:07 PM
Punching a stone structure to rubble (hardness 8, 900 hit point) just shouldn't be possible, by anyone. The are some things that just don't make sense.

You do realize you're talking about a game where wizards stop time, monks deal more damage with their fists than a nonmagical greatsword, dragons fly the skies, golems walk the earth, divine intervention is not unheard of, and hell is an actual place you can visit for a casual Sunday?

I'm sorry, I understand where you're coming from, but it's a bit like going to see Cars and saying "WTF, cars don't talk!" We know that it doesn't work that way, but in the interests of fun and of streamlined rules, we're making it work that way.

Burley
2008-11-10, 12:09 PM
I really don't think it's that big of a deal. Yeah, it seems silly that a Shortsword could bust through a tree, each and every attack already has DR 8/- applied to it. Hardness equals DR, in my book. So, let's have a Level 5 Fighter, trying to chop down a tree, with a shortsword. He's a got a +5 strength, and is doing 1d6 damage. Even if he rolls max damage on an attack, he can only do 3 points of damage, per attack. But, that is going to exceed the hardness 10 of the sword, so, one point of damage. Given that a short sword has Hardness 10 and HP 2, one point of damage is gonne mess it up, and the tree will be missing a sliver.

A long sword wouldn't do much better. An axe would, I guess, but it'd have a specially made for tree chopping (read: masterwork). Mundane weapons usually aren't made of the best material, and shouldn't be treated as shiny works of art.

I think the rules are there, and they work pretty well. I vote: No Changes Needed.

Starbuck_II
2008-11-10, 12:28 PM
I'm sorry, I understand where you're coming from, but it's a bit like going to see Cars and saying "WTF, cars don't talk!" We know that it doesn't work that way, but in the interests of fun and of streamlined rules, we're making it work that way.

That would be funny conversation.

"That movies suck: do they really expect us to believe that cars talk."
"Dude, it is just a movie. Maybe in this world they can."
"But the place look just like earth!"

I'm thinking the bolded text could applued to lots of things in real life:
Same way the bumbleflys in the real world: it doesn't really work that way but for the interest of fun and streamlined rules; we're making it work that way (really bees shouldn't be able to fly).

Zeful
2008-11-10, 12:38 PM
That would be funny conversation.

"That movies suck: do they really expect us to believe that cars talk."
"Dude, it is just a movie. Maybe in this world they can."
"But the place look just like earth!"

I'm thinking the bolded text could applued to lots of things in real life:
Same way the bumbleflys in the real world: it doesn't really work that way but for the interest of fun and streamlined rules; we're making it work that way (really bees shouldn't be able to fly).

Which is why every movies should start, "This isn't earth. The laws of physics don't apply unless we say they do."

PanNarrans
2008-11-10, 01:00 PM
I'm thinking the bolded text could applued to lots of things in real life:
Same way the bumbleflys in the real world: it doesn't really work that way but for the interest of fun and streamlined rules; we're making it work that way (really bees shouldn't be able to fly).

Wrong! Bumblebees clearly can fly, even though simple physics says they shouldn't. That's because that physics is an approximation, and doing the fairly simple maths doesn't account for all the clever tricks that evolution has given the bees allowing them to conserve energy.
Similarly, the rules are an approximation, and we don't want to be doing all the maths to work out whether a bronze greataxe can cut the BBEG's armour.

Epinephrine
2008-11-10, 03:38 PM
For the Monk thing, I'd suggest that it's a breaks in one hit or not at all sort of thing. The monk has to do enough damage with one full attack to break it or it doesn't lose hit points at all. Thus he can break stone slabs, small trees and maybe even crash through shoddy walls (shouting "Oh Yeaaaaaah!"), but won't be able to punch a tunnel through a mountain or demolish a stone building (except maybe piece by piece). You may wish to have the monk take damage should they fail as well.

See, that's good! I'd be fine even with Mountain Hammer and so on working like this. Sure, you can trash something you can break in a hit (lop the head of a statue off, chop a thin tree down), but no tunneling through a mountain with a butter knife. Or maybe allow it to apply up objects with no more HP than you have. So you can mountain hammer something, as long as it isn't huge. It scales nicely so that later on the hero really can chop down a tree in a hit, but he's still not taking out a 5' thick pillar with a punch.

only1doug
2008-11-10, 04:16 PM
See, that's good! I'd be fine even with Mountain Hammer and so on working like this. Sure, you can trash something you can break in a hit (lop the head of a statue off, chop a thin tree down), but no tunneling through a mountain with a butter knife. Or maybe allow it to apply up objects with no more HP than you have. So you can mountain hammer something, as long as it isn't huge. It scales nicely so that later on the hero really can chop down a tree in a hit, but he's still not taking out a 5' thick pillar with a punch.

As long as no one objects to me breaking stuff with my +3 adamantine maul there won't be no problems.

(Last session my maul got a new nickname, already named "Crushing Despair" it is also now know as "Door-Maker")

Quietus
2008-11-11, 01:14 AM
What about Adamantine daggers?

They ignore the hardness of the thing you're attacking, and have hardness themselves of 20 (+1 for each point of enhancment bonus it gets - of course, that's negated by the +1 to damage, so..). If you're regularly doing over 20 points of damage with a dagger, then yeah, you're using it a little roughly and it ought to get bent a bit. Though at that point, the fact that you're *doing 20 over damage with a light weapon to a hunk of rock* is pretty impressive...

That being said, I'd apply that houserule to gritty settings. If I'm specifically designing an over-the-top setting, I wouldn't worry about it so much, because it's MEANT to be fantastic and over the top. The thought of someone cleaving through an iron door with a greatsword might not be really nice in a setting that's supposed to be dark, gritty, and realistic (usually lethal joins those traits, too...), but in a setting where every action the heroes take is dramatic and entertaining, I'll happily describe how each blow of the greatsword makes a long, jagged hole in the door, until they finally deal the final blow and simply kick the door inward, sending sharp, jagged chunks of metal flying into the room, presumably followed by the rest of their party. Because frankly, that's just awesome.

Harp
2008-11-11, 02:48 AM
I don't see it as a big deal, myself. Half the fun of D&D is kicking in the door after all. Daggers sawing through trees in a single round is a bit extreme for even my tastes, but I think this is possibly the most extreme example of abusing the existing rules. If players aren't supposed to break it when it grabs their attention or blocks their path, enchant it or make it out of adamantine (just be prepared to dissuade them somehow when they are trying to drag the 10 ft. high adamantine gates back to town).

I typically don't hack apart trees and statues without good reason as a player, however, so I'm not entirely certain if you are simply curious about how people would respond to the use of rules preventing object damage or looking for a way to keep your evil artifacts from getting smited. As a player I often consider the uses of sonic energy and adamantine weaponry as being contingently useful against objects that may need to be quickly destroyed, and as a DM I feel if you don't want something blown up or killed you can easily prevent it from being possible without making your intentions too apparent. As always, if you want to change the rules, you are well within your rights.

Brock Samson
2008-11-11, 03:56 AM
My question is: is this somehow breaking the game? Making it less fun for the players? Any spellcaster has a variety of means of either blasting the thing apart, phasing through it themselves, shrinking the item to pocket-size, creating a passwall, or summoning a huge-huge-something-or-other to break it apart piece-by-piece. So why not let a sword imbued with the power of magic slice through something as common as wood and stone.

Telonius
2008-11-11, 11:34 AM
I typically don't hack apart trees and statues without good reason as a player,

Trees, no; statues yes. I can count on one hand the number of statues my characters have encountered that haven't eventually attacked them. :smallbiggrin:

Tyrael
2008-11-11, 01:44 PM
The other day, I stole a battle from Neverwinter Nights: Hordes of the Underdark. There was a big room with magical mirrors, when the players looked intot he mirrors, evil Shadow versions of them stepped out and attacked. They were simply carbon copies, I just printed off my own set of their character sheets and used those for the enemies. The party Rogue knew what was going on, and he knew that if Evil Rogue got out, he would Sneak Attack everyone faster than Lickity Split. So...

"I attack the mirror."
"What?"
"I draw my short sword and attack the mirror."
:smallconfused: "Oooookaaaaayyy....the mirror is scratched."
"What?"
"Swords are sharp, bladed weapons. If you attack a mirror with a blade, you scratch it. If you want to actually CRACK or SHATTER it, that's a different story."
"Fine. I attack it with the pommel of my sword."
"There you go, much better. The shadow-you tries to exit the mirror, bounces back, and glares at you."

Harp
2008-11-11, 11:52 PM
The other day, I stole a battle from Neverwinter Nights: Hordes of the Underdark. There was a big room with magical mirrors, when the players looked intot he mirrors, evil Shadow versions of them stepped out and attacked. They were simply carbon copies, I just printed off my own set of their character sheets and used those for the enemies.

The Mirror of Opposition actually existed well before Bioware was making video games, so you can take some solace in the fact they borrowed it from elsewhere themselves. Kudos on your savvy player though, I hope you rewarded him well.

Epinephrine
2008-11-12, 07:35 AM
My question is: is this somehow breaking the game? Making it less fun for the players? Any spellcaster has a variety of means of either blasting the thing apart, phasing through it themselves, shrinking the item to pocket-size, creating a passwall, or summoning a huge-huge-something-or-other to break it apart piece-by-piece. So why not let a sword imbued with the power of magic slice through something as common as wood and stone.

Yes. 3rd level characters able to bash through a prison with their bare hands certainly ruin things.

Fishy
2008-11-12, 07:45 AM
Yes. 3rd level characters able to bash through a prison with their bare hands certainly ruin things.

For the DM. If he's not good at thinking on his feet.

C'mon. If your players have come up with a solution to a problem that involves cutting down a nearby tree? Let it work. You have to encourage them when they come up with stuff you didn't think about- that's why they're there, after all.

Epinephrine
2008-11-12, 08:15 AM
For the DM. If he's not good at thinking on his feet.

C'mon. If your players have come up with a solution to a problem that involves cutting down a nearby tree? Let it work. You have to encourage them when they come up with stuff you didn't think about- that's why they're there, after all.

Every prison in the world having adamantine bars would be silly. There are simply times when you don't want the players able to easily use force - it has nothing to do with not being good at thinking on one's feet.

Fax Celestis
2008-11-12, 11:06 AM
Every prison in the world having adamantine bars would be silly. There are simply times when you don't want the players able to easily use force - it has nothing to do with not being good at thinking on one's feet.

Who throws people in the clink who still have all their stuff? That's just ASKING for a breakout.