Can We Fix the Rules on Breaking Things? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Can We Fix the Rules on Breaking Things? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
LonePaladin
06-20-07, 04:24 AM While they initially look innocent enough, the rules on breaking and damaging objects need some help.

Here's (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/exploration.htm#breakingAndEntering) a link to the rules from the SRD.

First, let's look at the rules for something straightforward, like breaking down a door. The person doing the breaking has to decide if they want to do it in a single action (using a Strength check) or flail away at it until it falls apart (inflicting damage). Here we run into the first hole in the rules: if someone smashes a door with, say, a warhammer, trying to break it open in one shot, shouldn't the attempt also inflict damage?

Now, the listed break DCs cover things like doors and chains. But people will target a lot more than that; they may want to try to snap a weapon in one swipe, or smash a padlock apart, or break a chair into splinters. You have to do a bit of guesswork to come up with a fitting DC — granted, that's part of being a DM, but they could've given some more examples.

Note also that the break DCs for objects don't take into account what you're trying to break the item with. Breaking a chain with your bare hands is just as difficult as it would be to take an axe to it. Also, some items should be more suited to breaking things all at once, especially adamantine weapons.

(To see this in action, play out a high-Strength fighter with an adamantine greataxe, and put him in front of a strong wooden door. If he tries to break it open with that axe, he has to make a DC 23 check, the same as anyone. If, however, he simply aims for doing damage with it, he can probably do 20 points of damage in one shot. Until he decides to go the damage route, the door stays unharmed, even though he's been whacking it with an axe.)

Any ideas on how to make this workable without overloading the game with paperwork and math? (Any more than it already is, at least.)

The other thing I have a problem with is the rules on energy attacks on objects. While the SRD says things like "fire attacks deal half damage to most objects", they don't give any exceptions. Since each energy type listed says "most" objects, what do you think would react differently?
Solo_Phoenix
06-20-07, 04:54 AM I believe the rules regarding single strength checks to break an item are representing bare hand brute strength, such as pulling a chain apart until it breaks, or forcing a door open with your shoulder. Any attack on objects with weapons is covered by the damage dealing rules.

As for things that react differently to fire, perhaps highly flammable items, such as paper, cloth and very dry wood.
jaelis
06-20-07, 08:42 AM Yes, I would say that if you try to "break" an object, you aren't using a weapon at all. For a door, you'd just be grabbing the handle and heaving with all your might.

Now, the listed break DCs cover things like doors and chains. But people will target a lot more than that; they may want to try to snap a weapon in one swipe, or smash a padlock apart, or break a chair into splinters. You have to do a bit of guesswork to come up with a fitting DC — granted, that's part of being a DM, but they could've given some more examples

I'd use the regular damage rules for all of that. But if you were actually holding a weapon and wanted to snap it or bend it, you would have to make up a DC. For a metal weapon like a sword, the iron bar sounds appropriate, with a 24 DC. For a wooden-hafted weapon like a spear, I'd probably reduce the DC by 5, by comparing an iron door to a good wooden door.

Anyway, the rules could be more complete, but I think if you limit the "breaking" action appropriately, it just doesn't come up all that often.

Also, I think the PHB specifically talks about things like paper taking full damage from fire.
VrecknidjX
06-20-07, 09:04 AM I'm not a big fan of wasting my players' time rolling dice in irrelevant circumstances. If a wooden door stands between the party and adventure, then I take a few seconds to guess how long it should take them to beat the door down, tell them how long it takes them, ask them what any of them do during the time that the brutes take apart the door, and move on.

I realize there are times when it matters. For instance, someone is trying to break open a chest to get to something important inside, and this is taking place during combat.

In that case, perhaps we need a cleaner mechanic as you suggest. Otherwise, ignore the books and go with what's fun.

So, on to the important cases...

Dave
lint trap
06-20-07, 10:03 AM I'm with VrecknidjX on this one; while there are certainly problems with breaking things in D&D, it's a small matter in most games. Most things break at the speed of plot, since there's no real reason to spend 2 minutes looking at tables to see just how many 6-second increments it takes to tunnel through a stone wall with an adamantine dagger.
Amaril
06-20-07, 10:04 AM I'm not a big fan of wasting my players' time rolling dice in irrelevant circumstances. If a wooden door stands between the party and adventure, then I take a few seconds to guess how long it should take them to beat the door down, tell them how long it takes them, ask them what any of them do during the time that the brutes take apart the door, and move on.

I realize there are times when it matters. For instance, someone is trying to break open a chest to get to something important inside, and this is taking place during combat.

In that case, perhaps we need a cleaner mechanic as you suggest. Otherwise, ignore the books and go with what's fun.

So, on to the important cases...

Dave
I disagree. I think it does matter, because things happen in those rounds. If there are creatures or NPCs in the area who were unaware of the presence before hand, now they know they are there with all the noise being produced. If there are creatures or NPCs on the other side of the door, then the players are really in trouble. It also adds the feeling of how tedious and time consuming using that approach can be. Otherwise, there's no need for other options such as Disable Device, Open Lock, or spells such as knock, transmute metal to wood, and stone shape.
Sarella Starshine
06-20-07, 11:31 AM Well when you use the brute strength, you are not going to be hacking at it with a weapon. You will be shouldering your way past that door, flexing your muscles in such a way to break that rope, using the sheer strength of your hands and arms to bust the bars, etc. Since any of those actions is a pass/fail action, it makes sence to use the DC method (either you bust open that door, break the ropes, bend the bars or you don't).

However, taking a warhammer to a statue requires a different mechanic, because that is not a pass/fail action. You are damaging that statue every time you hit it, til you do enough damage to it that it's nothing more than a pile of rubble. This requires a different ruleset besides a straight DC check. The smashing with weapons rules best reflect this (consider it a modified attack if you will).

For the most part, the brute strength usually leaves the item mostly intact ( a door that has been forced open using the break DC is *not* in splinters like a door that has been damaged by attacking it, but rather, unusable to do what a door does, which is, close off rooms) but unusable, while using the damage rules acctually totally destroys the item. So, once you get that image, it won't be that hard to realize that some weapons can be used for both damage and brute strength (warhammers, clubs, quarterstaffs, etc), some can be used for only damage (axes, swords, etc), some can't be used for either* (daggers, arrows, etc). It would also explain why some items (the crowbar and battering ram) can help you with the brute strength check.

Well, if you think about it, the things that people say are vulnerable to fire, usually have a low hardness/hp rating, so fire can easily damage it, so, its not so much a reflection of a vulnerability, but as a result of having little to none hardness and hps at work. The only things I can see that would react differently than normal to energy damage would be specially treated objects (paper that is coated to prevent buring would be immune to fire damage for example). And in a magical world, it would be much easier to get things treated to prevent damage.

*weapons in the 'can't be used' catagory are usually ammo and most piercing weapons (unless you have an adamatine piercer, *most* (but not all) piercing weapons won't do enough damage to get through the Hardness of *most* (but not all) objects a PC would use a weapon to destroy (such as doors, walls, statues, etc).
Kevtar
06-20-07, 12:23 PM I have a brawny barbarian PC in my campaign who dislikes doors. If the party comes up against a door, he steps to the forefront and tries a couple of different approaches. Here is how I referee these scenarios:

1. STR check. We make the strength check and notice the appropriate in-game time spent making the check. Thus, the BBEG on the other side can be surprised or buffed depending on how many STR checks it takes. Also, if the barbarian is having a abd day, he may get fatigued prior to battle by expending all his STR on the door. :D

2. Dmg to the door. Instead of useless rolls, we determine the mean average damage that the barbarian inflict upon the door (less hardness). We then take the total HP of the door and divide it by the average damage we determined. This tells us how many rounds the players have until the door breaks, and how many rounds the sorcerer lich can spend buffing and summoning nasty things.

For us, breaking things like doors, stone, etc... has not become a problem from a conceptual perspective or as a game-lagging process.
VrecknidjX
06-20-07, 05:25 PM I disagree. I think it does matter, because things happen in those rounds.Ah yes. I agree with you on this. I was thinking about circumstances when the characters are "out of initiative" and there isn't anything around to alert.If there are creatures or NPCs in the area who were unaware of the presence before hand, now they know they are there with all the noise being produced. If there are creatures or NPCs on the other side of the door, then the players are really in trouble.Agreed.It also adds the feeling of how tedious and time consuming using that approach can be.Right, but, there's no sense forcing the players to deal with tediousness to illustrate the characters suffering through tedium. So, I agree with you--if there's an in-game reason, then stick with the "per-round" method.Otherwise, there's no need for other options such as Disable Device, Open Lock, or spells such as knock, transmute metal to wood, and stone shape.Yep. All of those, of course, are much handier when there's a troll barbarian on the other side of the door, listening for someone to pound on the wood.

Dave
Amaril
06-20-07, 05:32 PM You can't really switching back and forth without the players knowing whether or not to expect something. Personally, I like keeping the suspense and the realistic caution; it adds more to that experience rather than cheapening it.
bongwater
06-20-07, 05:37 PM I thought we were better at breaking the rules on fixing things.
Vaelan
06-20-07, 08:18 PM Note also that the break DCs for objects don't take into account what you're trying to break the item with. Breaking a chain with your bare hands is just as difficult as it would be to take an axe to it. Also, some items should be more suited to breaking things all at once, especially adamantine weapons.
This is from the very page you linked...

Vulnerability to Certain Attacks
Certain attacks are especially successful against some objects. In such cases, attacks deal double their normal damage and may ignore the object’s hardness.

Also, you're confusing the two methods of breaking things.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
LonePaladin 06-20-07, 04:24 AM	While they initially look innocent enough, the rules on breaking and damaging objects need some help. Here's (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/exploration.htm#breakingAndEntering) a link to the rules from the SRD. First, let's look at the rules for something straightforward, like breaking down a door. The person doing the breaking has to decide if they want to do it in a single action (using a Strength check) or flail away at it until it falls apart (inflicting damage). Here we run into the first hole in the rules: if someone smashes a door with, say, a warhammer, trying to break it open in one shot, shouldn't the attempt also inflict damage? Now, the listed break DCs cover things like doors and chains. But people will target a lot more than that; they may want to try to snap a weapon in one swipe, or smash a padlock apart, or break a chair into splinters. You have to do a bit of guesswork to come up with a fitting DC — granted, that's part of being a DM, but they could've given some more examples. Note also that the break DCs for objects don't take into account what you're trying to break the item with. Breaking a chain with your bare hands is just as difficult as it would be to take an axe to it. Also, some items should be more suited to breaking things all at once, especially adamantine weapons. (To see this in action, play out a high-Strength fighter with an adamantine greataxe, and put him in front of a strong wooden door. If he tries to break it open with that axe, he has to make a DC 23 check, the same as anyone. If, however, he simply aims for doing damage with it, he can probably do 20 points of damage in one shot. Until he decides to go the damage route, the door stays unharmed, even though he's been whacking it with an axe.) Any ideas on how to make this workable without overloading the game with paperwork and math? (Any more than it already is, at least.) The other thing I have a problem with is the rules on energy attacks on objects. While the SRD says things like "fire attacks deal half damage to most objects", they don't give any exceptions. Since each energy type listed says "most" objects, what do you think would react differently?
Solo_Phoenix 06-20-07, 04:54 AM	I believe the rules regarding single strength checks to break an item are representing bare hand brute strength, such as pulling a chain apart until it breaks, or forcing a door open with your shoulder. Any attack on objects with weapons is covered by the damage dealing rules. As for things that react differently to fire, perhaps highly flammable items, such as paper, cloth and very dry wood.
jaelis 06-20-07, 08:42 AM	Yes, I would say that if you try to "break" an object, you aren't using a weapon at all. For a door, you'd just be grabbing the handle and heaving with all your might. Now, the listed break DCs cover things like doors and chains. But people will target a lot more than that; they may want to try to snap a weapon in one swipe, or smash a padlock apart, or break a chair into splinters. You have to do a bit of guesswork to come up with a fitting DC — granted, that's part of being a DM, but they could've given some more examples I'd use the regular damage rules for all of that. But if you were actually holding a weapon and wanted to snap it or bend it, you would have to make up a DC. For a metal weapon like a sword, the iron bar sounds appropriate, with a 24 DC. For a wooden-hafted weapon like a spear, I'd probably reduce the DC by 5, by comparing an iron door to a good wooden door. Anyway, the rules could be more complete, but I think if you limit the "breaking" action appropriately, it just doesn't come up all that often. Also, I think the PHB specifically talks about things like paper taking full damage from fire.
VrecknidjX 06-20-07, 09:04 AM	I'm not a big fan of wasting my players' time rolling dice in irrelevant circumstances. If a wooden door stands between the party and adventure, then I take a few seconds to guess how long it should take them to beat the door down, tell them how long it takes them, ask them what any of them do during the time that the brutes take apart the door, and move on. I realize there are times when it matters. For instance, someone is trying to break open a chest to get to something important inside, and this is taking place during combat. In that case, perhaps we need a cleaner mechanic as you suggest. Otherwise, ignore the books and go with what's fun. So, on to the important cases... Dave
lint trap 06-20-07, 10:03 AM	I'm with VrecknidjX on this one; while there are certainly problems with breaking things in D&D, it's a small matter in most games. Most things break at the speed of plot, since there's no real reason to spend 2 minutes looking at tables to see just how many 6-second increments it takes to tunnel through a stone wall with an adamantine dagger.
Amaril 06-20-07, 10:04 AM	I'm not a big fan of wasting my players' time rolling dice in irrelevant circumstances. If a wooden door stands between the party and adventure, then I take a few seconds to guess how long it should take them to beat the door down, tell them how long it takes them, ask them what any of them do during the time that the brutes take apart the door, and move on. I realize there are times when it matters. For instance, someone is trying to break open a chest to get to something important inside, and this is taking place during combat. In that case, perhaps we need a cleaner mechanic as you suggest. Otherwise, ignore the books and go with what's fun. So, on to the important cases... Dave I disagree. I think it does matter, because things happen in those rounds. If there are creatures or NPCs in the area who were unaware of the presence before hand, now they know they are there with all the noise being produced. If there are creatures or NPCs on the other side of the door, then the players are really in trouble. It also adds the feeling of how tedious and time consuming using that approach can be. Otherwise, there's no need for other options such as Disable Device, Open Lock, or spells such as knock, transmute metal to wood, and stone shape.
Sarella Starshine 06-20-07, 11:31 AM	Well when you use the brute strength, you are not going to be hacking at it with a weapon. You will be shouldering your way past that door, flexing your muscles in such a way to break that rope, using the sheer strength of your hands and arms to bust the bars, etc. Since any of those actions is a pass/fail action, it makes sence to use the DC method (either you bust open that door, break the ropes, bend the bars or you don't). However, taking a warhammer to a statue requires a different mechanic, because that is not a pass/fail action. You are damaging that statue every time you hit it, til you do enough damage to it that it's nothing more than a pile of rubble. This requires a different ruleset besides a straight DC check. The smashing with weapons rules best reflect this (consider it a modified attack if you will). For the most part, the brute strength usually leaves the item mostly intact ( a door that has been forced open using the break DC is not in splinters like a door that has been damaged by attacking it, but rather, unusable to do what a door does, which is, close off rooms) but unusable, while using the damage rules acctually totally destroys the item. So, once you get that image, it won't be that hard to realize that some weapons can be used for both damage and brute strength (warhammers, clubs, quarterstaffs, etc), some can be used for only damage (axes, swords, etc), some can't be used for either* (daggers, arrows, etc). It would also explain why some items (the crowbar and battering ram) can help you with the brute strength check. Well, if you think about it, the things that people say are vulnerable to fire, usually have a low hardness/hp rating, so fire can easily damage it, so, its not so much a reflection of a vulnerability, but as a result of having little to none hardness and hps at work. The only things I can see that would react differently than normal to energy damage would be specially treated objects (paper that is coated to prevent buring would be immune to fire damage for example). And in a magical world, it would be much easier to get things treated to prevent damage. weapons in the 'can't be used' catagory are usually ammo and most piercing weapons (unless you have an adamatine piercer, most* (but not all) piercing weapons won't do enough damage to get through the Hardness of most (but not all) objects a PC would use a weapon to destroy (such as doors, walls, statues, etc).
Kevtar 06-20-07, 12:23 PM	I have a brawny barbarian PC in my campaign who dislikes doors. If the party comes up against a door, he steps to the forefront and tries a couple of different approaches. Here is how I referee these scenarios: 1. STR check. We make the strength check and notice the appropriate in-game time spent making the check. Thus, the BBEG on the other side can be surprised or buffed depending on how many STR checks it takes. Also, if the barbarian is having a abd day, he may get fatigued prior to battle by expending all his STR on the door. :D 2. Dmg to the door. Instead of useless rolls, we determine the mean average damage that the barbarian inflict upon the door (less hardness). We then take the total HP of the door and divide it by the average damage we determined. This tells us how many rounds the players have until the door breaks, and how many rounds the sorcerer lich can spend buffing and summoning nasty things. For us, breaking things like doors, stone, etc... has not become a problem from a conceptual perspective or as a game-lagging process.
VrecknidjX 06-20-07, 05:25 PM	I disagree. I think it does matter, because things happen in those rounds.Ah yes. I agree with you on this. I was thinking about circumstances when the characters are "out of initiative" and there isn't anything around to alert.If there are creatures or NPCs in the area who were unaware of the presence before hand, now they know they are there with all the noise being produced. If there are creatures or NPCs on the other side of the door, then the players are really in trouble.Agreed.It also adds the feeling of how tedious and time consuming using that approach can be.Right, but, there's no sense forcing the players to deal with tediousness to illustrate the characters suffering through tedium. So, I agree with you--if there's an in-game reason, then stick with the "per-round" method.Otherwise, there's no need for other options such as Disable Device, Open Lock, or spells such as knock, transmute metal to wood, and stone shape.Yep. All of those, of course, are much handier when there's a troll barbarian on the other side of the door, listening for someone to pound on the wood. Dave
Amaril 06-20-07, 05:32 PM	You can't really switching back and forth without the players knowing whether or not to expect something. Personally, I like keeping the suspense and the realistic caution; it adds more to that experience rather than cheapening it.
bongwater 06-20-07, 05:37 PM	I thought we were better at breaking the rules on fixing things.
Vaelan 06-20-07, 08:18 PM	Note also that the break DCs for objects don't take into account what you're trying to break the item with. Breaking a chain with your bare hands is just as difficult as it would be to take an axe to it. Also, some items should be more suited to breaking things all at once, especially adamantine weapons. This is from the very page you linked... Vulnerability to Certain Attacks Certain attacks are especially successful against some objects. In such cases, attacks deal double their normal damage and may ignore the object’s hardness. Also, you're confusing the two methods of breaking things.