3rd edition D&D, acid and hardness.

[Lehmuska]

I've time and time again had to explain to people how acid does not bypass hardness. I'll put this here so I can link to it in case I have to have this discussion again. Also, I don't want to derail a certain thread.

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.

So what does this tell us. Firstly, it tells us that that acid and sonic deal damage to objects the same way they deal damage to creatures. This doesn't actually mean it ignores hardness, because creatures can have hardness too (animated object anyone), so this tells us nothing.

Secondly, it tells us that some energy types deal one half or one quarter damage to objects. It also tells us in which order to apply hardness and halving (or quartering) of the damage. So why doesn't acid or sonic get mentioned here? Simple, they don't get halved, so there's only one way to apply hardness and non-existent halving of damage.

Also, FAQ clarifies this for us. [Edit2]Removed FAQ. Note to self: never post anything after 2am again.[/Edit2]

[Kaelik]

If you have any intellectual honestly at all, I'd say just remove the FAQ part entirely from your argument.

The FAQ is 90% bullshit. All the FAQ entry does is interpret the same clause you already did in the same way.

The FAQ is a waste of time, if you can explain why the rules work, you don't need it, and if you can't, then it's wrong.

[Lehmuska]

Right. Let's try this again. This time without FAQ.

Acid deals damage to an object "just as they deal damage to creatures."

Nowhere does it state that creatures follow different rules regarding hardness.

Hardness normally is reduced from damage done.

Therefore, hardness applies to acid damage.

Edit: while this isn't definitely proof by itself, the game has multiple instances where acid and sonic attacks are stated to bypass hardness. Babau(or some other demon, can't remember), psionic energy [whatever] powers when used with sonic, but at the same time other acid and sonic effects in the same books don't have this statement about bypassing hardness (pick a monster at random, pick a psionic power at random that deals acid damage, chances are there's no mention of the effect bypassing hardness).

[Kaelik]

Right. Let's try this again. This time without FAQ.

I wasn't saying you were wrong, I was telling you that writing a good book report, then shitting on it, is a bad way to impress people.

When you try to use the FAQ as some sort of authority, you force yourself to either:

1) Be an intellectually dishonest scumbag. (This is the recommended option.)
2) Agree with every FAQ ruling in existence.

Since I have yet to meet a single person who actually does 2, I'd just suggest you never bring up the FAQ at all.

[Username17]

As it happens, I think you're wrong. I read it as Electricity and Cold and shit being reduced by hardness and acid not being reduced by hardness.

The presence or absence of an FAQ ruling supporting any particular reading means nothing at all.

-Username17

[erik]

They were not perfectly explicit when stating that you deal damage just as they do to creatures (i.e. not objects, most of whom have hardness); roll damage and apply it normally after a successful hit (i.e. normally creatures do not have hardness, so ignore hardness).

Yes, they could have been more explicit, but the amount of redundancy involved there, and the fact that the "creature" with hardness that you came up with is an object, animated... doesn't really lend much credence to the notion that yes, creatures when posed as a contrary must not be referring to non-objects who do not have hardness, as most objects do.

You have to grasp the idiot ball with both hands to buy that crap. I'm going to assume you were either trolling, being silly, or Trigger.

[Manxome]

I'm sure I'll regret posting anything, but if the quoted rules text is the only relevant passage, I think Lehmuska has the more defensible position.

Let's consider the following options:
(1) That sentence means that acid and sonic deal full damage to objects (unlike other energy types), but the damage is still reduced by hardness
(2) That sentence means that acid and sonic ignore the hardness of objects, but do not ignore the hardness of creatures that are not objects
(3) That sentence means that acid and sonic ignore the hardness of both objects and creatures
(4) That sentence means that acid and sonic should ignore any parameters that objects have but that creatures do not have; hardness, being one such property, is ignored.

Option (3) is turning reading between the lines into an art form; structurally, the sentence clearly doesn't say anything about how energy attacks damage creatures, it just says that however they work, they work the same way for objects. This requires supposing that the authors are comically inept at writing anything close to their intent.

Option (2) is clearly directly contradictory to the quoted rules, since they say to treat objects and creatures the same. They would need to have written almost the opposite of what they meant.

Option (4) technically requires that hardness is a property that creatures are categorically unable to have, which according to evidence presented so far is not the case. Even if animated objects count as both objects and creatures, it would still be a contradiction; they would need to not count as creatures in order for that to be consistent.

Still, let's say for the sake of argument that animated objects are a weird special case that the authors of this particular passage didn't know about, and they believed when they wrote this that creatures could never possibly have hardness, so there's no contradiction. Option 1 is still the more straightforward reading due to the paragraph structure. Each sentence gives a description of an energy's effect on objects, then gives an algorithm for applying that effect. Eletricity, fire, and cold say nothing about the hardness in the description, but all mention (off-handedly) that hardness is applied in the algorithm. This indicates that the authors consider hardness applying to be the default, and that the sentence ought to explicitly say that hardness is ignored if that's the case.

Even ignoring that, the printed sentence is an unnecessarily vague and convoluted way of saying that hardness is ignored unless there are several properties (relevant to resolving damage) that objects have but that creatures cannot. Are there any others?

The fact that some abilities inflicting acid/sonic damage explicitly ignore hardness and others do not also gives supporting evidence that at least one writer believed that acid and sonic do not ignore hardness by default. This could, of course, be an error, but unless we're going to assume that correctness in the rules is at least slightly more likely than error (a priori), there's no point in even looking at the rules in the first place.

Finally, I have yet to see anyone suggest any particular reason that option (1) is a bad interpretation. (The fact that it doesn't naturally read that way to you is not a reason; I've seen lots of cases where people have insisted that sentences obviously said things that they objectively did not say, and regardless, we have no reason to think your intuition is objectively better than someone else's contradictory intuition.)

[Data Vampire]

Option (4) technically requires that hardness is a property that creatures are categorically unable to have, which according to evidence presented so far is not the case. Even if animated objects count as both objects and creatures, it would still be a contradiction; they would need to not count as creatures in order for that to be consistent.

Psicrystals possess hardness.

[Lehmuska]

As it happens, I think you're wrong. I read it as Electricity and Cold and shit being reduced by hardness and acid not being reduced by hardness.

The presence or absence of an FAQ ruling supporting any particular reading means nothing at all.

-Username17

Would you explain your reasoning? It's pretty hard to figure out where you're coming from with this.

[Murtak]

As it happens, I think you're wrong. I read it as Electricity and Cold and shit being reduced by hardness and acid not being reduced by hardness.

The presence or absence of an FAQ ruling supporting any particular reading means nothing at all.

-Username17

Would you explain your reasoning? It's pretty hard to figure out where you're coming from with this.

It all depends on which parts you consider to be (incomplete) reminder text and which you consider to be the actual rules.

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.

Energy Attacks
Acid and sonic attacks deal damage to most objects just as they do to creatures. Electricity and fire attacks deal half damage to most objects. Cold attacks deal one-quarter damage to most objects.

Energy Attacks
Acid and sonic attacks deal damage to most objects just as they do to creatures. Electricity and fire attacks deal half damage to most objects. Cold attacks deal one-quarter damage to most objects. Note that hardness still applies in all cases.

Energy Attacks
When resolving acid and sonic attacks roll damage and apply it normally. Divide electricity and fire attacks by half then apply hardness. For cold attacks divide the damage dealt by 4 then apply hardness.

[MartinHarper]

When you try to use the FAQ as some sort of authority, you force yourself to either:

1) Be an intellectually dishonest scumbag. (This is the recommended option.)
2) Agree with every FAQ ruling in existence.

Or (3) believe that the FAQ is more often right than wrong, but is not always right.

[Murtak]

Q. What feats can I use as bonus Fighter feats?

A. Close-Quarters Fighting, Death Blow, Dual Strike, Expert Tactician, Hold the Line, Improved Overrun, Improved Sunder, Knock-Down, Off-Hand Parry, Pin Shield, Power Lunge, Prone Attack, Rapid Reload, Sharp-Shooting, Shield Expert, and Snatch Arrows.

Q. Can I use Circle Kick with multiple attacks in a round?

A. Circle Kick uses a full attack action. You make one attack, if this attack hits you get a second attack at the same attack bonus as the first.

Q. Does Dirty Fighting give me a bonus of 1d4 damage on each hit with multiple attacks in a round?

A. Dirty Fighting takes a full attack action and therefore can only be used once in a round. Nice for low level characters, but loses effectiveness once you gain multiple attacks in a round.

Q. Is Dirty Fighting effective against opponents that are immune to critical hits?

A. Nope. Dirty fighting is not effective against opponents not subject to critical hits.

Q. Does Dirty Fighting stack with a Rogue's Sneak Attack ability?

A. No, they both rely on the ability to hit in a vital area.

Q. Why can I make any partial action with Expert Tactician just because one of my opponents is denied his Dexterity bonus?

A. You can't, this feat was clarified in the Song and Silence sourcebook to allow you to make ONE extra melee attack (or anything that can be done as a melee attack) against ONE foe who is within melee reach and denied their Dexterity bonus against your melee attacks for any reason.

The Song and Silence version supercedes the version in the Sword and Fist and changes the prerequisits to Dexterity 13+, BAB +2, and Combat reflexes.

Q. Is the Bluff check for Feign Weakness a standard action or a free action?

A. It is a standard action just like a Bluff check for a feint (PHB pg 64), but you do get to make your attack immediately if you succeed.

Q. Close-Quarters Fighting allows you to add the damage you do to an opponent with a successful attack of opportunity to your grapple check to avoid being grappled. But according to the PHB pg 137 if the attack of opportunity deals damage the grapple attempt fails. Is this a useless feat?

A. If you get multiple attacks in a round you can attempt to start a grapple multiple times (at the next BAB), so you could use it against the next attempts.

The feat also allows you to make an attack of opportunity against opponents with the Improved Grab ability.

Q. If I have Knock-Down and I have 2 attacks and I hit with both doing 5 damage each time, does this bring Knock-Down into effect? Or do I have to do 10 damage on one hit?

A. 10 points of damage from one hit.

Q. If I use the Knock-Down feat to trip an opponent, can I get a free attack from my Improved Trip feat?

A. Nope. You have to use an attack to trip an opponent and then get an attack. You get a free action to trip your opponent with this feat (ie - you haven't given up an attack to trip them, you have already taken it, so you do not get another one).

Q. Can I use Cleave or Great Cleave to get an extra attack if I drop my opponent with Knock-Down?

A. Nope.

Q. How does Lightning Fists work with multiple attacks?

A. You add two attacks and all of your attacks are at a -5 penalty for the next round. ie - if you are able to make an Attack of Opportunity, it is also at a -5 penalty.

Q. Does Lightning Fists stack with Flurry of Blows?

A. Nope.

Q. Why would I take Pain Touch when I already have Stunning Fist to stun my opponent for a round?

A. Pain Touch has been clarified, opponents who fail their saving throw are stunned for one round and then nauseated the round after that.

Q. Stunning Fist is a prerequisite for Pain Touch, but it has a prerequisite of +8 BAB and Pain Touch only has a prerequisite of +2 BAB, why?

A. Monks may use their Stunning Attack class ability as a virtual feat.

Q. Can I use the Prone Attack feat to regain my feet as a free action even if there is nobody in my threatened range to attack?

A. Nope. However the official DnD FAQ does allow for you to use the strike an object rule to attack the floor and use that to get up if you hit (ie - don't roll a one). This would still leave you with a move action once you were up.

Q. Can I use the Snatch Arrows feat more than once in a round?

A. Nope.

Q. Can I use the Throw Anything feat to throw an arrow or a crossbow bolt?

A. Nope. Ammunition is not considered a "weapon". You can also not throw your bow or crossbow as a "weapon".

PRESTIGE CLASSES

Q. Why does the Cavalier gain Knowledge (Nobility and Royalty) without having to purchase it with skill points at first level, since they already have it to qualify for the Prestige Class?

A. This has been errata'd to be a +2 bonus on all checks using this skill.

Q. My Devoted Defender wants to use Deflect Attack, why is it a Reflex save against a static number (other than magic bonus' to attack)?

A. It has been errata'd to be an opposed attack roll with the bonus from Table 2-2 added in. If you beat the attacker, you deflect the blow.

Q. The Drunken Master has a prerequisite of Base Unarmed Attack Bonus +4, does that mean that only a Monk of 6th level or above can qualify?

A. The Sage has ruled that any character with a BAB of +4 and has the Improved Unamred Strike feat can qualify.

Q. Can I get six unarmed attacks with the Drunken Master if I'm a Monk 10/ Drunken Master 10?

A. No, the Drunken Master cannot attack more than 5 times per round, however your DM may rule differently if you apply feats such as Lightening Fists or Flurry of Blows.

Q. Does the Halfling Outrider really not advance their BAB?

A. They advance their BAB as a Fighter (+1 per level).

Q. Does a Lasher's Crack of Fate stack with Rapid Shot?

A. No, they are both full attack actions. "A full-round action consumes all your effort during a round.", PHB pg 121. "Full attack is a full round action.", PHB pg 124.

Q. Does a Lasher's Whip Sneak Attack stack with other Sneak Attack abilities (ie - from Rogue levels)?

A. Yes.

Q. How long does the Ravager's Aura of Fear last?

A. The Aura of Fear lasts for "as long as they remain in range". While a hard and fast duration is not stated, the fact that a Ravager would fight to the death means it would last as long as combat lasts, unless those affected managed to leave the range of the Aura of Fear. There is no saving throw.

Q. The Weapon Master PrC has a class skill called Knowledge (weaponry), but it is never explained further. What is it for?

A. Knowledge (weaponry) was removed from the Weapon Master skill list in the Oriental Adventures reprint, most likely it was left in Sword and Fist by accident.

TOOLS OF THE TRADE

Q. Bladed Gauntlet, what's up with that?

A. A Bladed Gauntlet now has a critical range of 19-20 and a multiplier of x2.

Q. Mercurial Longsword, what's up with that?

A. A Mercurial Longsword now does 1d8 damage and critical multiplier of x4.

Q. Mercurial Greatsword, what's up with that?

A. A Mercurial Greatsword now does 2d6 damage and critical multiplier of x4.

Q. Fullblade, what's up with that?

A. A Fullblade is now a Huge weapon, does 2d8 damage, and is too large for a medium creature to use at all.

Q. Orc Shotput, what's up with that?

A. No changes from the errata, it does only have a range increment of 10 feet and weigh 15 pounds (where are you storing them?). It is also a Large weapon, so a medium sized character must use a full round action to throw it (PHB pg 97).

Q. Bow of True Arrows, what's up with that?

A. It may seem overpowered, but it is a spell trigger item (like a wand), meaning that you need the spell on your spell list (ie - a Sorcerer or Wizard).

It also 1. Takes a standard action to activate it AND 2. You only get ONE attack at +20 the next round.

Q. Does a Ring of Shocking Blows give me an extra 1d8 + 3 damage on all my unarmed attacks in a round?

A. It has been errata'd so that the wearer can only make one touch attack each round.


MAY NEVER BE ANSWERED

Q. How many times can I use Feign Weakness on a single opponent?

A. According to the Sword and Fist Errata, you may only use it once per encounter as your opponent would be too wary after your first attempt.

According to the DnD FAQ, as many times as your DM allows it. The opponent should get a +5 bonus to their Sense Motive check for the successive attempts however.

Q. For the Order of the Bow Initiate's Ranged Sneak Attack ability the descriptive text lists the progression as every odd level (1st, 3rd, 5th, etc.), but the chart shows a different progression. Which is correct?

A. While there is no official ruling on this Table 2-14 shows the Ranged Sneak Attack at 1st, 3rd, and 5th following the progression of the text. The progression does break down at 7th level, as the table next shows Ranged Sneak Attack at 8th and 10th.

I would think that Banked Shot is the quintessential OotBI feat. That should probably be the 10th level Special, bumping the Ranged Sneak Attack progressions back to were the text places them and bumping Superior Weapon Specialization to 8th level. Note that the text does not state what levels the OotBI gets Superior Weapon Specialization or Banked Shot.

I don't have the time to actually check all of these, but at first sight, anything except extremely obvious answers seem to be at best hit-and-miss.

Edit: Found this on the wizards boards, I have no clue whether thisis actually the real FAQ.

[Kaelik]

Or (3) believe that the FAQ is more often right than wrong, but is not always right.

So in other words, 1) because no one actaully believes that, and even if they did, they would still be using an often wrong source as an authority.

Fine, you can use the FAQ to get what you want on some controversial issues. That has nothing at all to do with the fact that on literally every single controversial issue the FAQ makes up an answer directly contradictory to the rules text, and regularly tries to incorporates bullshit nerfs about stuff that isn't even controversial and everyone calls bullshit on them.

[erik]

You can either assume that the writing "deal damage to most objects just as they do to creatures," is stating something (i.e. posing creatures as something contrary to objects) or that it is is pointless text stating nothing.

It's pretty disingenuous to assume that rules specific text is stating absolutely nothing there, when the bias should be towards rules text actually meaning something.

If that bias means something the it is almost certainly setting up the comparison between objects having hardness and creatures not (as the only creatures that have hardness are objects).

Likewise it is disingenuous to assume that "roll damage and apply it normally after a successful hit," implies that hardness is some normal feature that was meant to be included.

If you take the first part to not be something totally ignored then the second
part is absolutely referring to dealing full damage, as one would do normally with creatures.

I see how you are trying to twist each of those passages, Lehmuska, I just don't think it is worth deigning as a serious interpretation since you are required to assume too much and against the wrong bias.

[mean_liar]

I'd agree with you, Lehmuska.

The statement's intent seems to list:

1. Energy attacks causing full damage (sonic, acid)
2. Energy attacks causing half damage (fire, electricity)
3. Energy attacks causing quarter damage (cold)

For #1, the direction is to apply the damage normally. With respect to objects, I'd argue that "normally" includes accounting for Hardness.

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

The inclusion of Hardness with respect to #2 and #3 seems to me to be there solely to indicate that damage should be halved or quartered prior to accounting for Hardness, rather than after.

[Manxome]

You can either assume that the writing "deal damage to most objects just as they do to creatures," is stating something (i.e. posing creatures as something contrary to objects) or that it is is pointless text stating nothing.

It's pretty disingenuous to assume that rules specific text is stating absolutely nothing there, when the bias should be towards rules text actually meaning something.

If that bias means something the it is almost certainly setting up the comparison between objects having hardness and creatures not (as the only creatures that have hardness are objects).

No, as others have already pointed out, it could very easily and plausibly be aimed at the difference between acid/sonic and fire/cold/electricity, rather than the difference between creatures and objects. This objection is groundless.

Likewise it is disingenuous to assume that "roll damage and apply it normally after a successful hit," implies that hardness is some normal feature that was meant to be included.

So you're arguing that if this paragraph didn't exist, we would assume by default that all energy types ignored hardness?

Hardness is a "normal feature" if it's something that you would include in your calculations, absent any rule to the contrary. This argument only works if you believe that hardness does NOT apply to ANY damage type unless you have a specific rule saying it DOES. If that's the case, citing the rule that says that would be quite helpful.

If you're not saying that, then hardness is definitionally a "normal feature" and this objection is also groundless.

I see how you are trying to twist each of those passages, Lehmuska, I just don't think it is worth deigning as a serious interpretation since you are required to assume too much and against the wrong bias.

You have totally ignored a bunch of legitimate arguments made against you, have chosen not to clarify what your position actually is in light of the alternatives I posted, and are claiming that the majority opinion in this thread is not even worth taking seriously, despite presenting no plausible arguments against it.

I, for one, find it rather annoying when a debater ends every statement by saying that anyone who disagrees with him must be an idiot. Especially when he's not even addressing his opponents' arguments.

I think you at least owe it to us to state exactly what interpretation you are arguing for. Here are the possibilities I see:

(2) Acid and sonic ignore the hardness of objects, but not the hardness of creatures. When they wrote that acid/sonic should apply to objects in the same way as creatures, they actually meant it should apply differently.

(3) Acid and sonic ignore the hardness of objects and creatures. When they wrote that acid/sonic should apply to objects in the same way as creatures, it was their intention to to change the way in which acid and sonic apply to creatures.

(4a) Acid and sonic would already ignore the hardness of creatures even if this rule didn't exist, based only on other rules [citation needed]. This rule says that they ignore the hardness of objects just like they already were ignoring the hardness of creatures.

(4b) The designers thought that acid and sonic could never be reduced by the hardness of creatures even if this rule didn't exist, and were attempting to extend this to objects. They were wrong, but we should ignore what they actually wrote and follow their original intention (even though it was based on false assumptions), which was to make acid and sonic ignore hardness. We can tell that this was their intention, despite the fact that there were far simpler, more obvious, and clearer methods of conveying that intention than what they actually wrote, because [your reasoning here].


If none of those accurately represents your position, then we are sorely in need of clarification.

[Kaelik]

Except you just ignored what he has been saying, because you are being a dick:

There are exactly zero creatures with hardness that are not also objects.

Therefore, since all creatures don't have hardness, and all objects do:

Applies to objects as it does to creatures could mean "Things that objects have that creatures don't are ignored by these energies."

[Lehmuska]

But creatures can't be objects by definition. If something has a wisdom and charisma score, it's a creature. If it doesn't, it's an object.

[NativeJovian]

Why is this even a big deal? From the way I read the RAW, hardness applies even to acid and sonic attacks. But if you think that's dumb, houserule it so it doesn't. It doesn't matter which way you want it, as long as you're clear and consistent about it.

[Username17]

Why is this even a big deal? From the way I read the RAW, hardness applies even to acid and sonic attacks. But if you think that's dumb, houserule it so it doesn't. It doesn't matter which way you want it, as long as you're clear and consistent about it.

It's open ended and readable either way. But seriously, whichever way you do it is fine as long as it's consistent.

-Username17

[Manxome]

Except you just ignored what he has been saying, because you are being a dick:

There are exactly zero creatures with hardness that are not also objects.

Therefore, since all creatures don't have hardness, and all objects do:

Applies to objects as it does to creatures could mean "Things that objects have that creatures don't are ignored by these energies."

Option 4a, then?

I have not ignored that. I specifically addressed it, in detail, in my first post. I presented specific reasons that I don't think this is a valid claim; Data Vampire also suggested a counter-example to disprove it (the validity of which I haven't bothered to personally investigate). I also presented other specific reasons that I think this is an inferior interpretation of the quoted paragraph even if this particular claim were granted for the sake of argument. Clikml responded to none of these points. So who's being a dick by ignoring whom?

In order for "use the normal procedure for damaging creatures" to imply "ignore hardness," it would need to be the case that hardness cannot even theoretically provide any defensive benefit to a creature, either because it is categorically impossible for any creature to ever have hardness, or because hardness would be ignored even if a creature did have it. I don't see anyone arguing that either of those is true by RAW; just that if you squint really hard it looks like that could possibly have been the general idea at some point before EBD kicked in. And even if that were the case, the rule they wrote is a phenomenally stupid way to try to convey that intent.

But even in the best of all possible worlds (for this argument), where there is a clear rule that actually says that the hardness of creatures is always ignored even if they have any, this objection just removes one reason to eliminate your proposed interpretation of the rules. It doesn't come within a million miles of showing that any other interpretation is stupid or unworkable; it doesn't even prove that this interpretation is valid, if there's another reason to shoot it down.

Why is this even a big deal? From the way I read the RAW, hardness applies even to acid and sonic attacks. But if you think that's dumb, houserule it so it doesn't. It doesn't matter which way you want it, as long as you're clear and consistent about it.

I don't give a rat's ass about how energy damage in D&D works, and I certainly don't care if someone out there is playing the game wrong.

I care about the fact that someone made a post presenting a perfectly reasonable interpretation of a rule--maybe even the only reasonable interpretation of that rule--and some asshole posted a response accusing him of being an idiot or a troll for even considering the possibility (while providing no remotely credible argument to the contrary, and barely even any objection to the positive arguments from the original post). Accusing someone who presented a reasonable argument of being a troll is like accusing them of being a witch. Lehmuska deserves a defender whether anyone cares about the underlying issue or not. You think there's anything Lehmuska could post in his own defense that would prove he's not a troll?

Plus, as a game designer and player, it really gets under my skin when people who suck at reading rules mock people who are better at reading rules. Writing clear rules is hard enough without idiots flaming anyone who disagrees with their unreflective intuition of how the rules ought to work.

If don't like the rule, and you want to houserule it, fine. I make houserules all the time. I even enthusiastically recommend them to other players. Just don't claim that your houserules are RAW.

[Kaelik]

Dude,

1) You are being the dick for calling him out for "ignoring what other peoples arguments are" when you are ignoring his.

2) No, not 4a, how about Creatures don't have hardness. Therefore, to say bypass hardness we say treat non creatures like creatures.

This isn't a reason why they shouldn't make the statement, and for god sakes shut your BS trap bullshit ass face about categorically impossible.

WotC wrote the rule. They also wrote every single creature. It is categorically impossible for a non object to have hardness if they choose to never give hardness to a non object. Just like it is categorically impossible for an Outsider to be native to the material plane if they don't write one.

See "Animated Object" which is, you know, and Object, and has hardness, like other objects. And does not have hardness like a creature, because it's an object.

[Manxome]

I see we've moved on to the "repeating objections that have already been countered, but with more ad hominem" phase of the discussion.

1) You are being the dick for calling him out for "ignoring what other peoples arguments are" when you are ignoring his.

No, that's the opposite of true. I've responded extensively to his argument. Multiple times. The fact that I don't agree with him doesn't mean that I'm ignoring him. Even if you think that everything I've said is pure, unadulterated bullshit, that would mean that I responded badly, not that I'm ignoring him. The fact that you are continuing to make this claim proves pretty conclusively that you are either trolling or wildly irrational, but I'll address your other points anyway because I'm such a good sport.

2) No, not 4a, how about Creatures don't have hardness. Therefore, to say bypass hardness we say treat non creatures like creatures.

That IS position 4a. If no creatures have hardness, then it is trivially true that you never consider hardness when applying damage to a creature.

WotC wrote the rule. They also wrote every single creature. It is categorically impossible for a non object to have hardness if they choose to never give hardness to a non object. Just like it is categorically impossible for an Outsider to be native to the material plane if they don't write one.

Yes. This is 100% true and I have no problem with any part of it.

See "Animated Object" which is, you know, and Object, and has hardness, like other objects. And does not have hardness like a creature, because it's an object.

The thing is, whether it's an object or not is irrelevant. I have already stated that it was irrelevant, and given a reason why, and no one has challenged my claim, except by the implication of repeating over and over that it's an object. Look here:

Option (4) technically requires that hardness is a property that creatures are categorically unable to have, which according to evidence presented so far is not the case. Even if animated objects count as both objects and creatures, it would still be a contradiction; they would need to not count as creatures in order for that to be consistent.

I've seen a variety of claims that they are creatures, and have not seen anyone disputing that. If you grant that claim, then at least one creature exists which has hardness, which makes your claim that no creatures have hardness untrue. Option 4a only works if creatures cannot be protected by hardness, not if creatures can only be protected by hardness in one special case where they count as something else in addition to being creatures.

Maybe there's some clear rule that says animated objects are not creatures and everyone who suggested otherwise is wrong. But if so, you should be citing that rule, not waving your hands and calling me names. And you certainly shouldn't be repeating ad nauseum a claim that has already been dismissed as obviously irrelevant.

Also, Data Vampire has submitted that Psicrystals also have hardness. I can only assume he thought this was relevant because he also believes that they are creatures and are not animated objects. I haven't investigated his claim since it can only support my arguments, but if you're intent on maintaining that no creatures have hardness, you ought to be trying to prove him wrong--and I can find no trace of any attempt to do so.


However, as I have stated multiple times, even if you're completely right about creatures never having hardness (despite all evidence to the contrary), that doesn't mean your interpretation of this rule about acid and sonic is correct. I have presented other reasons to doubt it totally independent of the creatures-have-hardness issue. So even if I was ignoring your argument about creatures not having hardness (which I'm not), I'm entitled, because I can make a case even if I fully endorse and agree with that argument, and I'm not obligated to discuss arguments that I'm not contesting.

[erik]

I am terribly sorry I am not willing to post by your schedule Maxnome and I certainly am not going to try to answer your legion of grievances against me. I was not responding to your posts because they rambled too long for my limited schedule to handle. In fact I still have not read them all the way through. Maybe some day Tiger when I am not having to post and read via iPod.

Mean liar's summary which came after my post was the most lucid and concise summary of a reasonable interpretation and I have been considering it. It does seem as though that interpretation has equal merit to my own. My own stance is that the reading implies that acid and sonic damage bypass hardness universally.

I feel no sorrow for finding fault in the presentation and argument of the original poster. As it was written it was based upon a specious claim that the first sentence was meaningless. I confess to getting a bit hung up on that opener.

Did I dabble in some over the top insult flinging? You betcha. I felt the initial arguments were weak at best. Others have made the case instead in my opinion.

[Psychic Robot]

Guys, can we lighten up a little bit? This argument about an inconsequential ruling doesn't need to turn into a flamefest. By the rules-as-written, it certainly seems that hardness applies to sonic and acid attacks. However, it is also a reasonable interpretation to say, "Hardness shouldn't apply to sonic/acid, and I think that's what the rules mean, so I'm ruling it that way." There's no need to go batshit on other posters.

You'd think this thread was about whether or not rogues need to have the prerequisites when choosing a bonus feat at tenth level or whether or not the deepwarden's Constitution bonus to AC is affected by maximum Dexterity bonus. (Personally, I believe that rogues do have to qualify for their bonus feats, and I believe that the deepwarden's Con bonus to AC is limited by an armor's maximum Dexterity bonus. But those are just my personal rulings on poorly-written rules.)