Acid, Sonic, Hardness, and their Effects

[Ashiel]

This thread was created to continue the debate that was started on Page 4 of this thread. Below are the details of that debate.

The Problem
While it is generally accepted that Acid and Sonic damage ignore Hardness with Objects, it has been said that the two energy types do not affect objects any differently than normal, and only ignore hardness if specified in spells, powers, or other effects, citing that the Hardness rules work against all forms of damage.

I am attempting to prove that Acid and Sonic damage by virtue of their type ignores Hardness; as it says in the rules. Making it more difficult is that the FAQ (which has a history of being wrong) declares that Hardness applies to Acid and Sonic damage types in the FAQ's summary, but this goes against the wording of the rules in the SRD (posted below).

The rules governing the situation are listed here.

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).

Hit Points
An object’s hit point total depends on what it is made of and how big it is (see Table: Common Armor, Weapon, and Shield Hardness and Hit Points; Table: Substance Hardness and Hit Points; and Table: Object Hardness and Hit Points). When an object’s hit points reach 0, it’s ruined.

Very large objects have separate hit point totals for different sections.

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.

Not the rules, but the FAQ excerpt is listed here.

Originally Posted by D&D® Frequently Asked Questions
Many animated objects have hardness scores. What affect, if any, will an animated object’s hardness have on spells used against the animated object? For example, an animated wooden table would have hardness 5, right? How would that hardness affect spells such as fireball, lightning bolt, Melf’s acid arrow, ray of frost, and magic missile?
If the spell in question has an energy descriptor, hardness affects the attack as noted in the rules for damaging inanimate objects (see page 165 in the PH); here’s a summary:

• Hardness applies to acid and sonic attacks. These attacks deal normal damage both to creatures and to objects, and thus would deal normal damage to an animated object (less the effect of the hardness). You would subtract 5 points for hardness from whatever damage a Melf’s acid arrow spell deals to the animated table in your example.
• Hardness applies to electricity and fire attacks. These attacks deal half damage to inanimate objects, but animated objects are creatures and they take full damage (less the effect of the hardness). You would subtract 5 points for hardness from whatever damage a fireball or lightning bolt spell deals to the animated table in your example. Reduce the damage for a successful saving throw before you apply hardness
• Hardness also applies to cold damage. Cold attacks deal one-quarter damage to inanimate objects, but again, an animated object takes full damage less the effect of the hardness. You would subtract 5 points of damage for hardness from whatever damage a ray of frost spell deals to the animated table in your example. Since ray of frost deals only 1d3 points of damage, it will prove ineffective against the animated table unless you somehow increase the damage the spell deals.
• Hardness applies to force attacks. These attacks deal normal damage both to creatures and to objects (when applicable), and thus would deal normal damage to an animated object (less the effect of the hardness). You would subtract 5 points for hardness from whatever damage a magic missile spell deals to the animated table in your example. A magic missile spell normally cannot be aimed at an object. Because an animated object is a creature, however, it can affect the animated table in the example.

The argument against Acid and Sonic damage overcoming Hardness hinges on the following paragraphs.

Each object has hardness—a number that represents how well it resists damage. Whenever an object takes damage, subtract its hardness from the damage.

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.

This argument requires you to read the "roll damage and apply it normally after a successful hit" to be telling you to apply Hardness as described two paragraphs back. However, there are problems with this interpretation.

Problem 1: The interpretation creates an issue of redundancy. According to this interpretation, it's telling you to treat the object as a creature, then treat it as an object. That doesn't make sense.
Problem 2: The interpretation requires you to assume that it is referencing the Hardness rules from two paragraphs back, as opposed to telling you to damage it as a Creature instead of an Object when it says "roll and apply it normally", despite the instructions being part of the same sentence structure.
Problem 3: Hardness is a property of Objects, as detailed in the Breaking and Entering section of the SRD. It is not a common property of Creatures, and thus treating it as attacking a Creature and dealing damage normally would mean it doesn't benefit from Hardness.
Problem 3a: Some have offered the rebuttal that some creatures (specifically Animated Objects and Psi-crystals) possess Hardness as a special ability, meaning that the treating them as Creatures doesn't mean you ignore an Object's Hardness score.

Re-Rebuttal: Hardness on creatures is a defined ability of that creature. To say that because SOME creatures possess Hardness as Objects means that treating it as a nondescript Creature means it retains Hardness is akin to saying it also has Fire Immunity because some creatures do, or to say that it could Mind Blast because some creatures have that defined ability. In the context it is presented in, it seems clear that it is telling you to treat it as you would any creature, thus ignoring the Object's Hardness.

Additionally, the argument of Problem 3a requires you to assume the rule-text is poorly written and redundant, calling out to treat the Object as a Creature only to treat it as an Object normally (creating a redundant circle that makes no sense).

Since all of the above require you to treat the Object as a Creature for no described reason, or to treat it as a Creature being treated as an Object, none of that makes sense.

Further discrediting this interpretation is the manner in which the rules are written; as detailed below.

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.

Objects take half damage from ranged weapons (unless the weapon is a siege engine or something similar). Divide the damage dealt by 2 before applying the object’s hardness.

All other cases where it's telling you how attack forms interact with Hardness, it specifies to apply Hardness after determining the damage; whereas the Acid or Sonic does not. If Hardness was intended, it would have been worded more like "Acid and sonic attacks deal normal damage to objects; roll damage normally before applying Hardness"; but there is no mention of Hardness after instructing you to deal damage to it as a Creature (something the other examples do not instruct, and all the other examples explain to add Hardness after the fact in the same manner).

My Position
From all of the above, I would surmise that the following is the correct reading of the rules.

• Acid and Sonic damage deal normal damage (without Hardness reductions) because it says "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", telling you to deal damage to it as a Creature, instructing to deal damage normally and mentioning no Hardness as the other notations do.
• Hardness as defined in the Breaking and Entering section specifies "Each object has hardness—a number that represents how well it resists damage. Whenever an object takes damage, subtract its hardness from the damage." Since you treat the Object as a Creature when dealing Acid or Sonic damage, it negates the Hardness as per the Hardness rules.
• Should a Creature have Hardness as defined in the Animated Object or Psi-crystal entries, you treat them as Objects for the purpose of Hardness; resulting in normal damage from Acid and Sonic attacks since they would then be treated as Creatures as per the Hardness rules. Note: Some have specified that since the Hardness ability of Animated Objects merely says they retain their Hardness, but doesn't specify that they are treated as Objects that they do not in fact gain the benefits of their hardness. I find this an asinine technicality; but if you adhere to it then it means creatures cannot possess hardness in any fashion, so feel free to ignore this portion.

This interpretation does not conflict with any of the written rules, nor requires the written rules to be redundant, or leave anything out, while also working perfectly during play.

[olentu]

I contend that there is no clause in the rules that says that creatures should be treated as objects with regards to hardness as no one has presented such a rule. Additionally of the rules on hardness that have been presented to me only objects have any listed benefit from hardness.

From these two I must conclude that creatures gain no benefit from hardness unless they are also able to be referred to as objects.

Additionally as there is no rule that creatures should be treated as objects for hardness that I have seen any position that includes such a proposition must be extending the rules and thus is not a position that actually follows the rules.



Edit: Additionally I see nothing that precludes creatures having hardness only that there are no rules that give them a benefit for having such a thing unless they can also be referred to as objects. From this any position that requires that creatures do not have hardness requires rules stating such a thing as I have not seen them presented as of yet.

[Greenish]

I am attempting to prove that Acid and Sonic damage by virtue of their type ignores Hardness; as it says in the rules. Making it more difficult is that the FAQ (which has a history of being wrong) declares that Hardness applies to Acid and Sonic damage types in the FAQ's summary, but this goes against the wording of the rules in the SRD (posted below).

I'm pretty sure there's a FAQ ruling somewhere that states that Acid and Sonic ignore hardness, too, if that makes you happy. It's indeed less than reliable.

Problem 1: The interpretation creates an issue of redundancy. According to this interpretation, it's telling you to treat the object as a creature, then treat it as an object. That doesn't make sense.

The line about treating the objects as creatures could be taken to just mean that the damage from those energy types is not halved or quartered. Anyway, making sense is not a requirement for D&D rules.

Problem 2: The interpretation requires you to assume that it is referencing the Hardness rules from two paragraphs back, as opposed to telling you to damage it as a Creature instead of an Object when it says "roll and apply it normally", despite the instructions being part of the same sentence structure.

The "problem" is taking the line in context, not in vacuum?

Problem 3: Hardness is a property of Objects, as detailed in the Breaking and Entering section of the SRD. It is not a common property of Creatures, and thus treating it as attacking a Creature and dealing damage normally would mean it doesn't benefit from Hardness.

Even if creatures don't benefit from hardness (and nothing says animated objects aren't both objects and creatures, as far as I know), it still doesn't mean you get to ignore hardness on actual objects: if hardness would benefit creatures, it would reduce damage from sonic and acid attacks.

Problem 3a: Some have offered the rebuttal that some creatures (specifically Animated Objects and Psi-crystals) possess Hardness as a special ability, meaning that the treating them as Creatures doesn't mean you ignore an Object's Hardness score.

Re-Rebuttal: Hardness on creatures is a defined ability of that creature. To say that because SOME creatures possess Hardness as Objects means that treating it as a nondescript Creature means it retains Hardness is akin to saying it also has Fire Immunity because some creatures do, or to say that it could Mind Blast because some creatures have that defined ability. In the context it is presented in, it seems clear that it is telling you to treat it as you would any creature, thus ignoring the Object's Hardness.

So creatures can have hardness. If they do, it reduces the sonic and acid damage. If they don't, the damage is not reduced. Where's the problem?

You treat the objects as creatures. Grand. If the objects have hardness, they have hardness.

Additionally, the argument of Problem 3a requires you to assume the rule-text is poorly written and redundant, calling out to treat the Object as a Creature only to treat it as an Object normally (creating a redundant circle that makes no sense).

It's not a huge assumption, and prior experience makes it seem positively likely.

[Ashiel]

I'm pretty sure there's a FAQ ruling somewhere that states that Acid and Sonic ignore hardness, too, if that makes you happy. It's indeed less than reliable.
The line about treating the objects as creatures could be taken to just mean that the damage from those energy types is not halved or quartered. Anyway, making sense is not a requirement for D&D rules.
The "problem" is taking the line in context, not in vacuum?
Even if creatures don't benefit from hardness (and nothing says animated objects aren't both objects and creatures, as far as I know), it still doesn't mean you get to ignore hardness on actual objects: if hardness would benefit creatures, it would reduce damage from sonic and acid attacks.
So creatures can have hardness. If they do, it reduces the sonic and acid damage. If they don't, the damage is not reduced. Where's the problem?

You treat the objects as creatures. Grand. If the objects have hardness, they have hardness.
It's not a huge assumption, and prior experience makes it seem positively likely.

So your argument is to assume the rules are written badly, instead of taking it the way that they actually function? More specifically, drawing a connection to a separate section of book that does not pertain to the clause where it's discussing how to apply Acid and Sonic damage?

Whereas it instructs to treat the Objects "as creatures" instead of Objects, and deal damage normally, and despite being written in the same sentence structure was not written to include Hardness.

Acid and Sonic deal full normal damage to Objects, despite Hardness. You have to intentionally create an error within the writing to suggest otherwise; hence you are creating a problem where this is none.

Can you prove otherwise?

EDIT:

The "problem" is taking the line in context, not in vacuum?

That's an interesting note from someone who jumps out of a sentence clause to assume that it's speaking of something two paragraphs back, rather than what it's saying right there in the sentence.

[olentu]

So your argument is to assume the rules are written badly, instead of taking it the way that they actually function? More specifically, drawing a connection to a separate section of book that does not pertain to the clause where it's discussing how to apply Acid and Sonic damage?

Whereas it instructs to treat the Objects "as creatures" instead of Objects, and deal damage normally, and despite being written in the same sentence structure was not written to include Hardness.

Acid and Sonic deal full normal damage to Objects, despite Hardness. You have to intentionally create an error within the writing to suggest otherwise; hence you are creating a problem where this is none.

Can you prove otherwise?

Er you assume that there is no error and thus should anyone say that the way that the rules are written creates an error you seem to believe that they must be deliberately trying to create an error. I would say that this position is not such a good one for determining what the rules actually say as it precludes the possibility that the rules could contain an error.

Is there any reason why the rules could not contain an "error" as it were. If that can not be presented then a persons argument can not be dismissed just because it causes the rules to act in a fashion that you find nonsensical.

Now that is not to say that he is necessarily right or wrong just that you do need to prove it with more then just assuming that there can not be an error.

[Ashiel]

Er you assume that there is no error and thus should anyone say that the way that the rules are written creates an error you seem to believe that they must be deliberately trying to create an error. I would say that this position is not such a good one for determining what the rules actually say as it precludes the possibility that the rules could contain an error.

Is there any reason why the rules could not contain an "error" as it were. If that can not be presented then a persons argument can not be dismissed just because it causes the rules to act in a fashion that you find nonsensical.

Now that is not to say that he is necessarily right or wrong just that you do need to prove it with more then just assuming that there can not be an error.

Emphasis mine. The fact of the matter is that if you read it one way, then there is no error. If you read it the other way it creates an error. Choosing to read it in the way that both conflicts with the way it is written, and creates an error, is what we call doing it wrong.

The entire argument that Acid and Sonic doesn't ignore hardness hinges on the assumption that the rules are in error; or are redundant; or are circular; or are some-how messed up. The way of reading it that way is also incorrect; going back two paragraphs and connecting that with "deal damage normally" as opposed to the instructions in the actual sentence clause. It also ignores the pattern and structure of the directions.

In short, one way functions. The other doesn't. The other is wrong. Clinging to the other means you are intentionally creating a problem where one does not exist. If you can show me otherwise, then do so.

Even if creatures don't benefit from hardness (and nothing says animated objects aren't both objects and creatures, as far as I know), it still doesn't mean you get to ignore hardness on actual objects: if hardness would benefit creatures, it would reduce damage from sonic and acid attacks.

Immunities
Objects are immune to nonlethal damage and to critical hits.

Even animated objects, which are otherwise considered creatures, have these immunities because they are constructs.

[olentu]

Emphasis mine. The fact of the matter is that if you read it one way, then there is no error. If you read it the other way it creates an error. Choosing to read it in the way that both conflicts with the way it is written, and creates an error, is what we call doing it wrong.

The entire argument that Acid and Sonic doesn't ignore hardness hinges on the assumption that the rules are in error; or are redundant; or are circular; or are some-how messed up. The way of reading it that way is also incorrect; going back two paragraphs and connecting that with "deal damage normally" as opposed to the instructions in the actual sentence clause. It also ignores the pattern and structure of the directions.

In short, one way functions. The other doesn't. The other is wrong. Clinging to the other means you are intentionally creating a problem where one does not exist. If you can show me otherwise, then do so.

Yes there is no error since you are extending the rules. If you remove these extensions then you might have a case but you are still extending the rules.

Also I am not arguing against acid or sonic bypassing hardness I am arguing against the way in which you are arguing. I feel that you make assumptions and extensions of the rules. Remove those and it will be fine with me but as of yet you do not seem to have done so.

One way in which you extend the rules is that you derive some requirement that the rules must always function in a reasonable and maximally efficient way. You base arguments on this and this is from what I have been presented not actually part of the rules.

So it is you that are intentionally creating the problem since you are saying that there must be a problem when the rules act in a rather nonsensical way. If you did not have a problem with this as apparently others do not then there would be no problem.

And again just because the rules are acting in a way that involves redundancy or useless text that does not mean that the position is wrong. So it does not matter if the argument that hardness is or is not bypassed requires loops, redundant rules, or rules that mean nothing what matters is what the rules say unless of course you are not actually discussing what the rules say and if that is the case then I would request notification as to this fact since we would then be discussing different things.

[Ashiel]

Yes there is no error since you are extending the rules. If you remove these extensions then you might have a case but you are still extending the rules.

Also I am not arguing against acid or sonic bypassing hardness I am arguing against the way in which you are arguing. I feel that you make assumptions and extensions of the rules. Remove those and it will be fine with me but as of yet you do not seem to have done so.

One way in which you extend the rules is that you derive some requirement that the rules must always function in a reasonable and maximally efficient way. You base arguments on this and this is from what I have been presented not actually part of the rules.

So it is you that are intentionally creating the problem since you are saying that there must be a problem when the rules act in a rather nonsensical way. If you did not have a problem with this as apparently others do not then there would be no problem.

And again just because the rules are acting in a way that involves redundancy or useless text that does not mean that the position is wrong. So it does not matter if the argument that hardness is or is not bypassed requires loops, redundant rules, or rules that mean nothing what matters is what the rules say unless of course you are not actually discussing what the rules say and if that is the case then I would request notification as to this fact since we would then be discussing different things.

Ok. So let's say that Animated Objects don't benefit from Hardness; which I noted was a literal interpretation in my first post; and the piece discussing it for use was ignorable for the subject at hand.

Saying that, what exactly am I extending?

[olentu]

Ok. So let's say that Animated Objects don't benefit from Hardness; which I noted was a literal interpretation in my first post; and the piece discussing it for use was ignorable for the subject at hand.

Saying that, what exactly am I extending?

Off the top of my head you then say that because of that creatures can not have hardness. You say that since hardness is not a general property of creatures objects must loose their hardness when treated as creatures. You assume that the rules can not have unresolved loops, ambiguity, or useless rules. This is not necessarally everything as I may not be remembering everything but it is a start.

And then there are some things that you will have to bring up in this thread before I can discuss them.

[Ashiel]

Off the top of my head you then say that because of that creatures can not have hardness. You say that since hardness is not a general property of creatures objects must loose their hardness when treated as creatures. You assume that the rules can not have unresolved loops, ambiguity, or useless rules. This is not necessarally everything as I may not be remembering everything but it is a start.

And then there are some things that you will have to bring up in this thread before I can discuss them.

So provide some proof. You seem to be arguing that the rules must be wrong. Nothing I'm saying is contradicting the rules, and is purely an interpretation of the rules; an interpretation that is not only clear and concise, but doesn't rely on mis-reading the rules.

Are you seriously saying that the default assumption should be that the rules are screwed up?

[olentu]

So provide some proof. You seem to be arguing that the rules must be wrong. Nothing I'm saying is contradicting the rules, and is purely an interpretation of the rules; an interpretation that is not only clear and concise, but doesn't rely on mis-reading the rules.

Are you seriously saying that the default assumption should be that the rules are screwed up?

Er any extension of the rules is not the rules. That does not mean that it contradicts the rules but then again I can make up some sort of extension of the rules that does not contradict the rules and thus "prove" basically anything that the rules do not explicitly deny. For that reason I am not talking about things that are extensions of the rules since to do so is meaningless given that we would just be making up whatever we like so long as it is not explicitly prohibited. You can talk about that if you want but as I said we would be discussing different things.

Also the default assumption should be that the rules say what the do and if that happens to be crazy well the writers were human and sometimes they happened to mess things up. I am however against the assumption that the publishers were perfect and there could not possibly be any problems or strange interactions in the rules.

[Ashiel]

Er any extension of the rules is not the rules. That does not mean that it contradicts the rules but then again I can make up some sort of extension of the rules that does not contradict the rules and thus "prove" basically anything that the rules do not explicitly deny. For that reason I am not talking about things that are extensions of the rules since to do so is meaningless given that we would just be making up whatever we like so long as it is not explicitly prohibited. You can talk about that if you want but as I said we would be discussing different things.

Also the default assumption should be that the rules say what the do and if that happens to be crazy well the writers were human and sometimes they happened to mess things up. I am however against the assumption that the publishers were perfect and there could not possibly be any problems or strange interactions in the rules.

What is an extension of the rules exactly? I've not contradicted them, I've only read them, and then explained them. How did I explain them? That's simple. I pointed out that "normally" doesn't refer to something two paragraphs back, and instead refers to the actual subject matter in the sentence; and I've added nothing.

Show me what I added, because all I've done, to my knowledge, is read the rules. You keep saying I'm adding to them, but you don't say how. Unless it's because I'm saying that treating the objects as creatures means they get no Hardness reduction; but since the rules don't say Creatures get hardness reductions, only says Hardness applies to Objects, and says to treat Objects as Creatures instead under this circumstance - which is exactly what the damn rules say.

The only thing that I could have added was included with a note saying that it wasn't 100% according to the rules but was an assumption based on what appeared to be the case of Hardness with animated objects.

So explain yourself.

[olentu]

What is an extension of the rules exactly? I've not contradicted them, I've only read them, and then explained them. How did I explain them? That's simple. I pointed out that "normally" doesn't refer to something two paragraphs back, and instead refers to the actual subject matter in the sentence; and I've added nothing.

Show me what I added, because all I've done, to my knowledge, is read the rules. You keep saying I'm adding to them, but you don't say how. Unless it's because I'm saying that treating the objects as creatures means they get no Hardness reduction; but since the rules don't say Creatures get hardness reductions, only says Hardness applies to Objects, and says to treat Objects as Creatures instead under this circumstance - which is exactly what the damn rules say.

The only thing that I could have added was included with a note saying that it wasn't 100% according to the rules but was an assumption based on what appeared to be the case of Hardness with animated objects.

So explain yourself.

Well now that you have said it sort of I can discuss it. It being where in the rules do they day say that objects stop counting as objects when they are counted as creatures. Now that is not to say that most creatures are also objects since they are not said to be objects in the first place. However in this case the objects are by definition objects already and while they may be treated as creatures I see no reason why they can not be treated as both. They would need to also loose their objectness for the hardness rules not to give a benefit. It is for this reason that I tried to always include the caveat that creatures only gain no benefit if they can not also be called objects.

[Ashiel]

Well now that you have said it sort of I can discuss it. It being where in the rules do they day say that objects stop counting as objects when they are counted as creatures. Now that is not to say that most creatures are also objects since they are not said to be objects in the first place. However in this case the objects are by definition objects already and while they may be treated as creatures I see no reason why they can not be treated as both. They would need to also loose their objectness for the hardness rules not to give a benefit. It is for this reason that I tried to always include the caveat that creatures only gain no benefit if they can not also be called objects.

Creature: A living or otherwise active being, not an object. The terms "creature" and "character" are sometimes used interchangeably.

More specifically: "not an object". You are treating it as a creature, "not an object". Capiche?

Furthermore, that doesn't change the fact it tells you to "treat it as a creature; roll damage and apply it normally on a successful hit"; thus ignoring hardness since you are applying it normally and not applying Hardness.

[olentu]

More specifically: "not an object". You are treating it as a creature, "not an object". Capiche?

Furthermore, that doesn't change the fact it tells you to "treat it as a creature; roll damage and apply it normally on a successful hit"; thus ignoring hardness since you are applying it normally and not applying Hardness.

Well there you go that in addition to accepting that creatures can not benefit from hardness was what I was trying to get you to say the whole time since as I said I was not arguing against sonic and acid bypassing hardness but rather the way in which you were arguing. I mean really if you had just listed those rules in the first place we would not have had to have such an involved discussion but then again I was not going to do the work for you. Well now assuming that you do accept that creatures can not ever benefit from hardness I am for the moment satisfied (barring rules not yet presented).

[JaronK]

There is NO FAQ or errata ruling that Hardness is bypassed by Acid and Sonic damage. In context, the rule is quite clear... fire, cold, and electrical damage are halved or quartered when attacking objects, but Acid and Sonic damage effect objects normally. That's it... they do full damage. But affecting them normally means hitting hardness. Hardness is only bypassed by things that actually say they bypass hardness, such as certain martial strikes, or certain psionic attacks that say they do as much (one of which is sonic and yes, it has a specific mention that it will bypass). Without that, no dice.

Think about it... many effects actually say they bypass hardness. They say it nice and clearly, so as to prove an exception to the general rule. And yet, Acid and Sonic damages do not say this. Why? Because they follow the general rule, and the general rule is that hardness applies.

JaronK

[Ashiel]

There is NO FAQ or errata ruling that Hardness is bypassed by Acid and Sonic damage. In context, the rule is quite clear... fire, cold, and electrical damage are halved or quartered when attacking objects, but Acid and Sonic damage effect objects normally. That's it... they do full damage. But affecting them normally means hitting hardness. Hardness is only bypassed by things that actually say they bypass hardness, such as certain martial strikes, or certain psionic attacks that say they do as much (one of which is sonic and yes, it has a specific mention that it will bypass). Without that, no dice.

Think about it... many effects actually say they bypass hardness. They say it nice and clearly, so as to prove an exception to the general rule. And yet, Acid and Sonic damages do not say this. Why? Because they follow the general rule, and the general rule is that hardness applies.

JaronK

Can you explain how the rules say that? I've shown how they say otherwise. Because as it is, there are a lot of errors in reading it that way, no errors reading it the other way, and as I've shown - much evidence both in the way the rules are worded, their context, and even proved that RAW creatures don't benefit from Hardness (which actually makes me feel a little dirty), which in turn means Acid and Sonic bypass Hardness because they damage the Object as a creature and "roll damage normally".

What else do you have?

PS: Hey JaronK. Big fan here.

[lesser_minion]

This should be clear-cut. Acid and sonic damage do not ignore hardness.

There has never been a rule against creatures having a hardness score, so arguing that an attack ignores hardness "damages the object as if it was a creature" is meaningless.

The rules mention applying hardness in the case of energy damage that isn't acid or sonic because the order of effects is important - objects all have the property of taking reduced damage from fire, electricity, and cold, and this is taken into account first.

If there was ever any plan for acid or sonic to ignore hardness, then they would say "acid and sonic ignore hardness".

It's also worth bearing in mind that there's no good reason for acid and sonic to ignore hardness - they are already good enough at damaging objects as it is, and different objects should resist damage differently.

If you feel that an object is particularly vulnerable to acid or sonic, then you're expected to ignore hardness - but that's explicitly noted as an exceptional step, not something that happens as a matter of course for all objects -- "... or even ignore the object's hardness."

Ignoring hardness is always the exception -- never the rule.

[olentu]

and even proved that RAW creatures don't benefit from Hardness

Now now don't take all the credit for that it took me basically a whole thread derail before I saw you agree with that position I espoused.

[Ashiel]

This should be clear-cut. Acid and sonic damage do not ignore hardness.

There has never been a rule against creatures having a hardness score, so arguing that an attack ignores hardness "damages the object as if it was a creature" is meaningless.

The rules mention applying hardness in the case of energy damage that isn't acid or sonic because the order of effects is important - objects all have the property of taking reduced damage from fire, electricity, and cold, and this is taken into account first.

If there was ever any plan for acid or sonic to ignore hardness, then they would say "acid and sonic ignore hardness".

It's also worth bearing in mind that there's no good reason for acid and sonic to ignore hardness - they are already good enough at damaging objects as it is, and different objects should resist damage differently.

If you feel that an object is particularly vulnerable to acid or sonic, then you're expected to ignore hardness - but that's explicitly noted as an exceptional step, not something that happens as a matter of course for all objects -- "... or even ignore the object's hardness."

Then why does 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"? Hmmm? This is it saying acid and sonic ignore hardness. It's telling you to deal damage normally (normally = no reductions); as opposed to saying "roll damage normally before applying hardness"; more in line with the other 3 explanations for unusual attack types.

You say it doesn't, but you don't offer proof. I've presented a lot of evidence that Acid and Sonic do in fact ignore hardness; so do you have anything in the rules that backs up your claim that it doesn't?

[lesser_minion]

Now now don't take all the credit for that it took me basically a whole thread derail before I saw you agree with that position I espoused.

How would you even conclude that?

"Each object has a hardness score..." isn't even "hardness is a property of objects...".

It's not exclusive in the slightest.

Then why does 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"? Hmmm?

You say it doesn't, but you don't offer proof. I've presented a lot of evidence that Acid and Sonic do in fact ignore hardness; so do you have anything in the rules that backs up your claim that it doesn't?

Hardness is non-exclusive to objects -- most creatures do not have an ability to take half damage from an energy attack, which is the actual ability that acid, sonic, piercing, slashing, and bludgeoning damage have.

Where sonic damage ignores hardness, such has been specified. If it was unnecessary to do so, it would not have been specified.

[olentu]

How would you even conclude that?

"Each object has a hardness score..." isn't even "hardness is a property of objects...".

It's not exclusive in the slightest.

Being that the rule "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" only referrers to objects and no one has presented any evidence to the contrary. Not that such evidence must not exist but that how hardness and creatures work has not yet been presented in the discussion and until it is I would say that it must be taken as not to exist.


So creatures can have hardness but they gain no benefit.

[Ashiel]

How would you even conclude that?

"Each object has a hardness score..." isn't even "hardness is a property of objects...".

It's not exclusive in the slightest.

Because technically Hardness only applies to Objects as per the rules as they are written. That's not something I set out to prove, so I don't really give a darn who takes credit for that. If creatures benefit from Hardness, then creatures can benefit from Hardness enhancing spells and abilities, because RAW only Objects benefit from Hardness. It's potentially implied otherwise, but Otelu didn't care to discuss RAI.

But yeah. As far as I can tell, english says they ignore hardness. All arguments to the contrary require twisting the rules into something that does not fit.

[lesser_minion]

Because technically Hardness only applies to Objects as per the rules as they are written. That's not something I set out to prove, so I don't really give a darn who takes credit for that. If creatures benefit from Hardness, then creatures can benefit from Hardness enhancing spells and abilities, because RAW only Objects benefit from Hardness. It's potentially implied otherwise, but Otelu didn't care to discuss RAI.

But yeah. As far as I can tell, english says they ignore hardness. All arguments to the contrary require twisting the rules into something that does not fit.

Erm... no. I don't see how you've justified this in the slightest, and you still haven't approached the issue that all cases of acid and sonic damage ignoring hardness explicitly ignore hardness -- if nothing else, that should be pretty clear.

The fact that the rules consider ignoring hardness an exceptional step should also be a pretty big clue.

This interpretation does not conflict with any of the written rules, nor requires the written rules to be redundant, or leave anything out, while also working perfectly during play.

It forces all of the spells and effects that explicitly state that they deal acid or sonic damage that ignores hardness to be redundant.

[Saph]

Can you explain how the rules say that? I've shown how they say otherwise.

I've been reading this argument for a while now, and I don't think you have. Unless you can find a line somewhere specifically saying that acid and sonic ignore hardness, you don't have a good enough argument to override the FAQ answer and the general rule in the "Hardness" paragraph.

It's not enough to just say that the FAQ has a "history of being wrong" - if you're trying to discredit it, you need something solid to point to. It's not enough to say that the rules are sort of vague and could conceivably be interpreted the other way. In this case, as JaronK says, the rules aren't even particularly vague. Objects have hardness. Acid and sonic deal damage normally, ie applying hardness.

For comparison purposes, take a look at the psionic power Energy Missile and scroll down to where it says "Sonic". It reads: "A missile of this energy type . . . ignores an object’s hardness."

Now, let's ask ourselves the question: why is that line there? According to you, sonic attacks always ignore hardness. So why does it specifically say that this sonic attack ignores hardness?

Because sonic attacks don't all ignore hardness. Energy Missile is an exception, and that's why it's called out in the rules. Just like Energy Ball, and Energy Burst, and Energy Cone, and Energy Push, and Energy Ray, and Energy Stun, and various others that I'm not going to list here.

Conclusion, based on the simplest and most logical reading of the SRD: acid and sonic attacks do not, by default, ignore hardness.

[olentu]

Eh that seems to be a derivation from something that is not said to set a general case. I mean it is perfectly reasonable that WotC just missed something and so put in a bunch of extra notes about things bypassing hardness. On the other hand it is also reasonable that there is some rule to the contrary but in that case it would need to be presented.

[lesser_minion]

Eh that seems to be a derivation from something that is not said to set a general case. I mean it is perfectly reasonable that WotC just missed something and so put in a bunch of extra notes about things bypassing hardness. On the other hand it is also reasonable that there is some rule to the contrary but in that case it would need to be presented.

Even if the rules as written are a little unclear, the intent should be obvious enough -- there is simply no good reason to make acid and sonic damage any more effective against objects than they already are through not being halved, because some objects are particularly resilient.

And as Saph pointed out, the FAQ is good enough, in the absence of any clear indication in the rules themselves.

The rules on objects even imply that ignoring an object's hardness is an exceptional step, that should only be used for specific objects that are exceptionally vulnerable to particular kinds of damage.

That doesn't sound like something that's always true of acid or sonic for every conceivable object, does it?

[olentu]

Even if the rules as written are a little unclear, the intent should be obvious enough -- there is simply no good reason to make acid and sonic damage any more effective against objects than they already are through not being halved, because some objects are particularly resilient.

And as Saph pointed out, the FAQ is good enough, in the absence of any clear indication in the rules themselves.

The rules on objects even imply that ignoring an object's hardness is an exceptional step, that should only be used for specific objects that are exceptionally vulnerable to particular kinds of damage.

That doesn't sound like something that's always true of acid or sonic for every conceivable object, does it?

Pff the FAQ is not the rules and I see no good reason not to have acid and sonic more or less useful in damaging objects barring the rules. In fact I am not as a whole attempting to argue for one side or the other though arguing against arguments I find improperly supported will have me seem to be doing one or the other at times. However I am most assuredly trying not to be discussing intent but rather what the rules say.

But then again if you do wish to discuss intent rather then what the rules say just say so and I will know that we are talking about different things.

[JaronK]

Can you explain how the rules say that? I've shown how they say otherwise. Because as it is, there are a lot of errors in reading it that way, no errors reading it the other way, and as I've shown - much evidence both in the way the rules are worded, their context, and even proved that RAW creatures don't benefit from Hardness (which actually makes me feel a little dirty), which in turn means Acid and Sonic bypass Hardness because they damage the Object as a creature and "roll damage normally".

What else do you have?

If you've proved that RAW creatures don't benefit from hardness... is this a bad time to mention Animated Objects? But seriously, you've got a general rule (the one that says Hardness reduces damage to objects). Specifically, page 165 of the PHB states that "Whenever an object takes damage, subtract its hardness from the damage." You'd need a specific rule to override that. But the Acid and Sonic rules simply don't have that rule.

Basically, what you've got here is a context problem. You're taking the line out of context. The bit about Acid and Sonic doing damage to objects as they do to creatures is in the context of a paragraph that's saying that electricity and fire do half damage and cold does one quarter damage. Note that Animated Objects, which are creatures, do indeed have hardness, so saying you do damage as you would to creatures does not mean you ignore hardness.

Note that there is a line about ignoring hardness in these rules: the Vulnerability to Certain Attacks rule. It lists lighting curtains on fire, chopping trees down with axes, and so on. In this one case, it mentions that, at the DM's discretion, you can ignore hardness. This is the only time such a rule is mentioned in this section. Acid and Sonic would say something like this if that was their rule, but it's not.

So, to be clear: "deal damage to most objects just as they do to creatures" doesn't mean ignore hardness, because for one thing some creatures have hardness anyway. It means the damage isn't divided as it is for Fire, Cold, and Electricity. All attacks that bypass hardness, such as certain Martial Strikes and specific attacks an object is vulnerable to, specifically state they bypass hardness. You need that special rule to override the general rule.

Note that some Psionic attacks that use sound do bypass hardness, but again they specifically state as much.

PS: Hey JaronK. Big fan here.

Huh. I'm flattered. Thank you.

And by the way, while reviewing the FAQ for more information (I thought Acid and Sonic were mentioned there) I actually found the entry that says you can TWF with unarmed strikes on page 68, which will help with a debate on another thread. Nifty. I didn't find anything on this though. Rules debates can be so useful for learning the game when we actually research them...

JaronK

[olentu]

If you've proved that RAW creatures don't benefit from hardness... is this a bad time to mention Animated Objects? But seriously, you've got a general rule (the one that says Hardness reduces damage to objects). Specifically, page 165 of the PHB states that "Whenever an object takes damage, subtract its hardness from the damage." You'd need a specific rule to override that. But the Acid and Sonic rules simply don't have that rule.

Basically, what you've got here is a context problem. You're taking the line out of context. The bit about Acid and Sonic doing damage to objects as they do to creatures is in the context of a paragraph that's saying that electricity and fire do half damage and cold does one quarter damage. Note that Animated Objects, which are creatures, do indeed have hardness, so saying you do damage as you would to creatures does not mean you ignore hardness.

Note that there is a line about ignoring hardness in these rules: the Vulnerability to Certain Attacks rule. It lists lighting curtains on fire, chopping trees down with axes, and so on. In this one case, it mentions that, at the DM's discretion, you can ignore hardness. This is the only time such a rule is mentioned in this section. Acid and Sonic would say something like this if that was their rule, but it's not.

So, to be clear: "deal damage to most objects just as they do to creatures" doesn't mean ignore hardness, because for one thing some creatures have hardness anyway. It means the damage isn't divided as it is for Fire, Cold, and Electricity. All attacks that bypass hardness, such as certain Martial Strikes and specific attacks an object is vulnerable to, specifically state they bypass hardness. You need that special rule to override the general rule.

Note that some Psionic attacks that use sound do bypass hardness, but again they specifically state as much.



Huh. I'm flattered. Thank you.

And by the way, while reviewing the FAQ for more information (I thought Acid and Sonic were mentioned there) I actually found the entry that says you can TWF with unarmed strikes on page 68, which will help with a debate on another thread. Nifty. I didn't find anything on this though. Rules debates can be so useful for learning the game when we actually research them...

JaronK

Eh I did outline my argument as to why given only the rules presented creatures (barring exceptions that make them objects) gain no benefit from hardness even though they can have hardness. Though I did choose to only work from the rules presented since I could not off the top of my head remember any other relevant rules as to how creatures treat hardness so given my lack of searching they could quite possibly exist.