Acid vs. Locks [Archive] - Wizards Community

Acid vs. Locks [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
IronMouse
03-11-07, 07:33 PM Okay...there is a "Doorbuster Kit" in Dungeonscape. It's description says that you can "melt" locks if you can't pick them, obviously referring to the 4 flasks of acid that are included in the kit.
Now, acid deals 1d6 damage but iron has hardness 10.
SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/exploration.htm#smashinganObject)
Hardness: "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."
Acid 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."

So we have maximum damage 6 vs. hardness 10, and I can't find anything that says that acid damage ignores hardness, so how is this "melting locks" supposed to work?
Am I missing something or what?
primemover003
03-11-07, 08:27 PM According to the SRD:

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.

So at the DM's discretion some attacks like pouring a flask of acid into a lock's mechanisms (not just on the lock) can deal double the damage AND ignore the hardness...
IronMouse
03-12-07, 08:34 AM Still, I can't find anything that says that metal is "vulnerable to acid" and I think locks are iron from outside AND inside, so this would be a houserule I guess...
Naderion
03-12-07, 12:39 PM It's page 165 of the PHB 3.5e. It explains much about attacking objects.
tarkin
03-12-07, 02:03 PM This is not a house rule.

It is an unclear description in Dungeonscape.

I would reword it as follows.

Change Acid to

Lock Acid.

This special acid does all of it's damage to the surface, never penetrating far. While it still does only 1d6, and does not ignore hardness, it effectively disables mechanical devices if applied directly to the fine details. Normally used to break locks. Hence, it's name.
calvinNhobbes
03-12-07, 02:32 PM Creatures do not have hardness. You apply acid and sonic damage as you would to a creature. Therefore, you apply acid and sonic damage without hardness.
In conclusion, acid and sonic damage bypass hardness. Problem solved.
EDIT: Note, the FAQ doesn't agree with this interpretation, but the FAQ are not official rules and contradict themselves constantly.
Fireclave
03-12-07, 02:55 PM Creatures do not have hardness. You apply acid and sonic damage as you would to a creature. Therefore, you apply acid and sonic damage without hardness.
In conclusion, acid and sonic damage bypass hardness. Problem solved.
EDIT: Note, the FAQ doesn't agree with this interpretation, but the FAQ are not official rules and contradict themselves constantly.
Hardness still applies to energy attacks against objects. The "damage as you would a creature" line refers to the fact that most energy damage is reduce when applying to objects. Acid and sonic damage, otoh, isn't.

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.
calvinNhobbes
03-12-07, 03:02 PM Hardness still applies to energy attacks against objects. The "damage as you would a creature" line refers to the fact that most energy damage is reduce when applying to objects. Acid and sonic damage, otoh, isn't.
However, note that for acid and sonic it does not say to apply hardness at all. An oversight? Perhaps, but that leaves it up to DM interpretation. The Sage rules one way, I the other. The FAQ are the interpretations of one person, not the RAW.
Goreg Skullcrusher
03-12-07, 03:19 PM However, note that for acid and sonic it does not say to apply hardness at all. An oversight? Perhaps, but that leaves it up to DM interpretation. The Sage rules one way, I the other. The FAQ are the interpretations of one person, not the RAW.

No, Fireclave has it right. The "does damage normally" simply means that the damage isn't divided before application. If it did indeed ignore hardness it would state so specifically, it being a considerable rules exception.

It's worthwhile noting that complete submersion in acid does 10d6 damage. Your DM might allow you to apply this to locks as a house rule if you pooled several vials of acid together.
calvinNhobbes
03-12-07, 03:23 PM No, Fireclave has it right. The "does damage normally" simply means that the damage isn't divided before application. If it did indeed ignore hardness it would state so specifically, it being a considerable rules exception.
No, he does not have it "right". You and Fireclave may agree on your interpretation of the sentence. But the fact remains, the sentence does not define "normally".
HellflameArcanite
03-12-07, 04:33 PM I would rule that acid deals normal damage. It attacks matter directly, it does not rely on hitting vulnerable areas, stabbing flesh, or causing a concussion. Acid Orb is a touch attack, ignoring armor completely, why should other acids pay any attention to metal's protection?
primemover003
03-12-07, 04:49 PM Because attacking a creature with an Energy is different than attacking or better put, damaging an object.

In the case of applying acid to help break a lock however the DM is free to rule that the Acid does double damage AND bypasses the hardness. Ironmouse that quote I gave you from the SRD/PHB is as close as you're going to get to anything saying that metal is vulnerable to acid.
calvinNhobbes
03-12-07, 05:01 PM Because attacking a creature with an Energy is different than attacking or better put, damaging an object.
Which is why the mentioning of "creature" in the rules on acid damage for objects is odd, and results in multiple interpretations of the rule. Other inconsistencies pop up as well.

Example, read the gelatinous cube description. The acid does 1d6 and specifies that it does not damage stone or metal. Why did they feel the need to specify that? 6 damage is well below the hardness of all metals and even stone. Perhaps as a special case since acid "normally" bypasses hardness.

Another example, being swallowed whole. Stomach acid does 8 points of acid damage usually. Was 8 acid damage chosen so that it would not damage stone or metal? Perhaps.

And then of course we have the current example.
Goreg Skullcrusher
03-12-07, 05:09 PM No, he does not have it "right". You and Fireclave may agree on your interpretation of the sentence. But the fact remains, the sentence does not define "normally".

Really, that's a matter of semantics. There was even an FAQ article that lends credence to it.

If you feel like it somehow makes you inferior, by all means, I concede. You can win.
Pandaemoni
03-12-07, 06:33 PM However, note that for acid and sonic it does not say to apply hardness at all. An oversight? Perhaps, but that leaves it up to DM interpretation. The Sage rules one way, I the other. The FAQ are the interpretations of one person, not the RAW.

It's not an oversight. If you read the passage in the DMG you'll see that there is a section labeled "Hardness" and then below it there is a section labeled "Hit Points." The Hardness section says nothing about acid bypassing hardness. The Hit points section contains the reference to acid doing damage "normally." In context, it seems more likely that "normally" means "does not cause reduced damage like other energy types."

If that "normally" were intended to mean "bypassing hardness" that rule should have been referenced in the Hardness section.

The FAQ, in this case, does not contradict the text, it merely clarifies it for those people who are simply misreading that text.
calvinNhobbes
03-12-07, 07:03 PM Really, that's a matter of semantics.
Any discussion of rules/laws is semantics. If there was only one meaning of the statement there would be no discussion. If don't believe there can be an interpretation besides your own, well that's your problem.

There was even an FAQ article that lends credence to it.
Which if you had read my post, I mention. However, the FAQ are just the opinion of one person, they are not official rules. The Sage is often blatantly wrong and even contradicts himself.

If you feel like it somehow makes you inferior, by all means, I concede. You can win.
Inferior? To you? I don't think so. Not sure what I won, but whatever.
CrimsonDeath
03-12-07, 07:08 PM I know it's going outside Core, but in the Expanded Psionics Handbook (and later in Complete Psionic), every single power that can do sonic damage is described as being able to ignore hardness. But then, that could be interpreted as a function of each individual power itself, as opposed to the nature of sonic damage.

It may also be worth noting that, when describing special rules regarding damage to objects, "acid and sonic" is the only entry that does not specifically mention applying hardness. Electric, fire, and ranged attacks (other than siege weapons) are halved before applying hardness. Cold is quartered before applying hardness. Acid and sonic, on the other hand, is simply applied normally. Since hardness is never mentioned with respect to applying sonic or acid damage, that may indicate that hardness never applies. Or, it may have been added to the other categories simply to clarify when the damage is halved-- before applying hardness rather than afterward.
calvinNhobbes
03-12-07, 07:19 PM It's not an oversight. If you read the passage in the DMG you'll see that there is a section labeled "Hardness" and then below it there is a section labeled "Hit Points."
I assume you mean PHB pg 165 (if not please reference which page of the DMG you speak of). In addition, the section I think you are talking about has already been quoted from the SRD (which is word for word from the PHB pg 165).

The Hardness section says nothing about acid bypassing hardness. The Hit points section contains the reference to acid doing damage "normally."
Actually that is not the Hitpoints section either. The italicized sections are special exceptions to the generalized bolded sections on Hardness and Hitpoints. In addition, "normally" for energy attacks is never defined.

In context, it seems more likely that "normally" means "does not cause reduced damage like other energy types."
I disagree, then why compare to "creatures" at all? For creatures, energy attacks bypass any kind of physical damage reduction. To me it could also mean it bypasses hardness. If hardness was meant to be applied, then why not specify it like was done for the other energy types? The statement is ambiguous. You may think you are 100% right, but I would disagree. It is definitely open to interpretation.

If that "normally" were intended to mean "bypassing hardness" that rule should have been referenced in the Hardness section.
As mentioned above, it is not in the Hitpoints section either. All the italicized sections are special cases. They cover both hardness and hitpoints.

The FAQ, in this case, does not contradict the text, it merely clarifies it for those people who are simply misreading that text.
I did not say the FAQ contradicts the text in this case, but the Sage does contradict himself sometimes. However, to imply I am misreading the text when it is obvious the text is ambiguous makes you just a little arrogant.
calvinNhobbes
03-12-07, 07:24 PM Very well said CrimsonDeath.
Pandaemoni
03-13-07, 01:18 AM Sorry, I did mean the PHB.

I think I see why you are confused. The italicized headings are subheadings of the bold "Hit Points" provision, not general provisions that apply to both prior sections (except as expressly noted).

Without listing every single example, that is a common convention used in the PHB and in many written works. In the PHB see, for example, pages: 23 (bold heading "Class Table" followed by italicized subheadings applicable only to that heading), 24 (bold heading "Class Features" followed by italicized subheadings), 29-30 (bold heading "Bardic Music" followed by italicized subheadings showing types of Bardic Music), 45 (bold heading "Paladin's Mount Basics" followed by italicized subheadings), 50-51 (bold heading "Special Abilities" followed by italicized subheadings), 52-53 (bold headings (i) "Familiar Basics" and (ii) Familiar Ability Descriptions followed by italicized subheadings), the skills provisions (which use the bold heading "Check" and frequently use italicized subheadings for particular kinds of checks or for checks under particular circumstances), 112-113 (bold heading "Melee and Ranged Weapons" followed by italicized subheadings for particular categories of weapons), 113 (bold headings "Light, One-Handed and Two-Handed Melee Weapons" and "Weapon Size" followed by italicized subheadings), 125 (bold headings "Shield, Heavy, Wooden or Steel" and "Shield, Light, Wooden or Steel" followed by italicized subheadings), 134 (bold heading "Strength Bonus" followed by italicized subheadings), 136 (bold heading "Other Modifiers" followed by italicized listing particular modifiers), 137 (bold heading "Threatened Squares" followed by italicized subheading about how many squares reach weapons threaten), plus 139 (Unarmed Attacks), 140 (Shooting or Throwing into Melee), 140-141 (Touch Spells in Melee), 146 (Dealing Non-Lethal Damage), 163 (Modes of Movement), 171 (Bringing Back the Dead), 171-172 (Stacking Effects), 175-176 (Effect), and many other places.

The convention is also used in the DMG (though less frequently).

The FAQ's interpretation is consistent with that "bold heading, italicized subheading" convention, and is why I think it states:

"Page 165 in the Player’s Handbook is sometimes misinterpreted to suggest that hardness doesn’t apply to acid and sonic damage; in fact, the phrase “apply [damage] normally after a successful hit” simply means that the damage isn’t halved or quartered, as other energy damage is."(emphasis mine). Other than in the one possible reading you suggest, I don't see any other section of the PHB that uses italics in the way your readong suggests. While two of the subheadings do mention hardness (though not the one at issue) those expressly state their effects on hardness rather than merely implying such as effect, as you are reading the "Energy Attacks" subheading to do). In every other case I see, italics are clearly subheadings.
Pezix
03-13-07, 10:03 PM So I dont know if anyone has said it yet but I think the reason for the acid in the kit is so that the DC for lock decreases which makes it easier to open!?!? I mean it seems pretty obvious......

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
IronMouse 03-11-07, 07:33 PM	Okay...there is a "Doorbuster Kit" in Dungeonscape. It's description says that you can "melt" locks if you can't pick them, obviously referring to the 4 flasks of acid that are included in the kit. Now, acid deals 1d6 damage but iron has hardness 10. SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/exploration.htm#smashinganObject) Hardness: "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." Acid 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." So we have maximum damage 6 vs. hardness 10, and I can't find anything that says that acid damage ignores hardness, so how is this "melting locks" supposed to work? Am I missing something or what?
primemover003 03-11-07, 08:27 PM	According to the SRD: 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. So at the DM's discretion some attacks like pouring a flask of acid into a lock's mechanisms (not just on the lock) can deal double the damage AND ignore the hardness...
IronMouse 03-12-07, 08:34 AM	Still, I can't find anything that says that metal is "vulnerable to acid" and I think locks are iron from outside AND inside, so this would be a houserule I guess...
Naderion 03-12-07, 12:39 PM	It's page 165 of the PHB 3.5e. It explains much about attacking objects.
tarkin 03-12-07, 02:03 PM	This is not a house rule. It is an unclear description in Dungeonscape. I would reword it as follows. Change Acid to Lock Acid. This special acid does all of it's damage to the surface, never penetrating far. While it still does only 1d6, and does not ignore hardness, it effectively disables mechanical devices if applied directly to the fine details. Normally used to break locks. Hence, it's name.
calvinNhobbes 03-12-07, 02:32 PM	Creatures do not have hardness. You apply acid and sonic damage as you would to a creature. Therefore, you apply acid and sonic damage without hardness. In conclusion, acid and sonic damage bypass hardness. Problem solved. EDIT: Note, the FAQ doesn't agree with this interpretation, but the FAQ are not official rules and contradict themselves constantly.
Fireclave 03-12-07, 02:55 PM	Creatures do not have hardness. You apply acid and sonic damage as you would to a creature. Therefore, you apply acid and sonic damage without hardness. In conclusion, acid and sonic damage bypass hardness. Problem solved. EDIT: Note, the FAQ doesn't agree with this interpretation, but the FAQ are not official rules and contradict themselves constantly. Hardness still applies to energy attacks against objects. The "damage as you would a creature" line refers to the fact that most energy damage is reduce when applying to objects. Acid and sonic damage, otoh, isn't. 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.
calvinNhobbes 03-12-07, 03:02 PM	Hardness still applies to energy attacks against objects. The "damage as you would a creature" line refers to the fact that most energy damage is reduce when applying to objects. Acid and sonic damage, otoh, isn't. However, note that for acid and sonic it does not say to apply hardness at all. An oversight? Perhaps, but that leaves it up to DM interpretation. The Sage rules one way, I the other. The FAQ are the interpretations of one person, not the RAW.
Goreg Skullcrusher 03-12-07, 03:19 PM	However, note that for acid and sonic it does not say to apply hardness at all. An oversight? Perhaps, but that leaves it up to DM interpretation. The Sage rules one way, I the other. The FAQ are the interpretations of one person, not the RAW. No, Fireclave has it right. The "does damage normally" simply means that the damage isn't divided before application. If it did indeed ignore hardness it would state so specifically, it being a considerable rules exception. It's worthwhile noting that complete submersion in acid does 10d6 damage. Your DM might allow you to apply this to locks as a house rule if you pooled several vials of acid together.
calvinNhobbes 03-12-07, 03:23 PM	No, Fireclave has it right. The "does damage normally" simply means that the damage isn't divided before application. If it did indeed ignore hardness it would state so specifically, it being a considerable rules exception. No, he does not have it "right". You and Fireclave may agree on your interpretation of the sentence. But the fact remains, the sentence does not define "normally".
HellflameArcanite 03-12-07, 04:33 PM	I would rule that acid deals normal damage. It attacks matter directly, it does not rely on hitting vulnerable areas, stabbing flesh, or causing a concussion. Acid Orb is a touch attack, ignoring armor completely, why should other acids pay any attention to metal's protection?
primemover003 03-12-07, 04:49 PM	Because attacking a creature with an Energy is different than attacking or better put, damaging an object. In the case of applying acid to help break a lock however the DM is free to rule that the Acid does double damage AND bypasses the hardness. Ironmouse that quote I gave you from the SRD/PHB is as close as you're going to get to anything saying that metal is vulnerable to acid.
calvinNhobbes 03-12-07, 05:01 PM	Because attacking a creature with an Energy is different than attacking or better put, damaging an object. Which is why the mentioning of "creature" in the rules on acid damage for objects is odd, and results in multiple interpretations of the rule. Other inconsistencies pop up as well. Example, read the gelatinous cube description. The acid does 1d6 and specifies that it does not damage stone or metal. Why did they feel the need to specify that? 6 damage is well below the hardness of all metals and even stone. Perhaps as a special case since acid "normally" bypasses hardness. Another example, being swallowed whole. Stomach acid does 8 points of acid damage usually. Was 8 acid damage chosen so that it would not damage stone or metal? Perhaps. And then of course we have the current example.
Goreg Skullcrusher 03-12-07, 05:09 PM	No, he does not have it "right". You and Fireclave may agree on your interpretation of the sentence. But the fact remains, the sentence does not define "normally". Really, that's a matter of semantics. There was even an FAQ article that lends credence to it. If you feel like it somehow makes you inferior, by all means, I concede. You can win.
Pandaemoni 03-12-07, 06:33 PM	However, note that for acid and sonic it does not say to apply hardness at all. An oversight? Perhaps, but that leaves it up to DM interpretation. The Sage rules one way, I the other. The FAQ are the interpretations of one person, not the RAW. It's not an oversight. If you read the passage in the DMG you'll see that there is a section labeled "Hardness" and then below it there is a section labeled "Hit Points." The Hardness section says nothing about acid bypassing hardness. The Hit points section contains the reference to acid doing damage "normally." In context, it seems more likely that "normally" means "does not cause reduced damage like other energy types." If that "normally" were intended to mean "bypassing hardness" that rule should have been referenced in the Hardness section. The FAQ, in this case, does not contradict the text, it merely clarifies it for those people who are simply misreading that text.
calvinNhobbes 03-12-07, 07:03 PM	Really, that's a matter of semantics. Any discussion of rules/laws is semantics. If there was only one meaning of the statement there would be no discussion. If don't believe there can be an interpretation besides your own, well that's your problem. There was even an FAQ article that lends credence to it. Which if you had read my post, I mention. However, the FAQ are just the opinion of one person, they are not official rules. The Sage is often blatantly wrong and even contradicts himself. If you feel like it somehow makes you inferior, by all means, I concede. You can win. Inferior? To you? I don't think so. Not sure what I won, but whatever.
CrimsonDeath 03-12-07, 07:08 PM	I know it's going outside Core, but in the Expanded Psionics Handbook (and later in Complete Psionic), every single power that can do sonic damage is described as being able to ignore hardness. But then, that could be interpreted as a function of each individual power itself, as opposed to the nature of sonic damage. It may also be worth noting that, when describing special rules regarding damage to objects, "acid and sonic" is the only entry that does not specifically mention applying hardness. Electric, fire, and ranged attacks (other than siege weapons) are halved before applying hardness. Cold is quartered before applying hardness. Acid and sonic, on the other hand, is simply applied normally. Since hardness is never mentioned with respect to applying sonic or acid damage, that may indicate that hardness never applies. Or, it may have been added to the other categories simply to clarify when the damage is halved-- before applying hardness rather than afterward.
calvinNhobbes 03-12-07, 07:19 PM	It's not an oversight. If you read the passage in the DMG you'll see that there is a section labeled "Hardness" and then below it there is a section labeled "Hit Points." I assume you mean PHB pg 165 (if not please reference which page of the DMG you speak of). In addition, the section I think you are talking about has already been quoted from the SRD (which is word for word from the PHB pg 165). The Hardness section says nothing about acid bypassing hardness. The Hit points section contains the reference to acid doing damage "normally." Actually that is not the Hitpoints section either. The italicized sections are special exceptions to the generalized bolded sections on Hardness and Hitpoints. In addition, "normally" for energy attacks is never defined. In context, it seems more likely that "normally" means "does not cause reduced damage like other energy types." I disagree, then why compare to "creatures" at all? For creatures, energy attacks bypass any kind of physical damage reduction. To me it could also mean it bypasses hardness. If hardness was meant to be applied, then why not specify it like was done for the other energy types? The statement is ambiguous. You may think you are 100% right, but I would disagree. It is definitely open to interpretation. If that "normally" were intended to mean "bypassing hardness" that rule should have been referenced in the Hardness section. As mentioned above, it is not in the Hitpoints section either. All the italicized sections are special cases. They cover both hardness and hitpoints. The FAQ, in this case, does not contradict the text, it merely clarifies it for those people who are simply misreading that text. I did not say the FAQ contradicts the text in this case, but the Sage does contradict himself sometimes. However, to imply I am misreading the text when it is obvious the text is ambiguous makes you just a little arrogant.
calvinNhobbes 03-12-07, 07:24 PM	Very well said CrimsonDeath.
Pandaemoni 03-13-07, 01:18 AM	Sorry, I did mean the PHB. I think I see why you are confused. The italicized headings are subheadings of the bold "Hit Points" provision, not general provisions that apply to both prior sections (except as expressly noted). Without listing every single example, that is a common convention used in the PHB and in many written works. In the PHB see, for example, pages: 23 (bold heading "Class Table" followed by italicized subheadings applicable only to that heading), 24 (bold heading "Class Features" followed by italicized subheadings), 29-30 (bold heading "Bardic Music" followed by italicized subheadings showing types of Bardic Music), 45 (bold heading "Paladin's Mount Basics" followed by italicized subheadings), 50-51 (bold heading "Special Abilities" followed by italicized subheadings), 52-53 (bold headings (i) "Familiar Basics" and (ii) Familiar Ability Descriptions followed by italicized subheadings), the skills provisions (which use the bold heading "Check" and frequently use italicized subheadings for particular kinds of checks or for checks under particular circumstances), 112-113 (bold heading "Melee and Ranged Weapons" followed by italicized subheadings for particular categories of weapons), 113 (bold headings "Light, One-Handed and Two-Handed Melee Weapons" and "Weapon Size" followed by italicized subheadings), 125 (bold headings "Shield, Heavy, Wooden or Steel" and "Shield, Light, Wooden or Steel" followed by italicized subheadings), 134 (bold heading "Strength Bonus" followed by italicized subheadings), 136 (bold heading "Other Modifiers" followed by italicized listing particular modifiers), 137 (bold heading "Threatened Squares" followed by italicized subheading about how many squares reach weapons threaten), plus 139 (Unarmed Attacks), 140 (Shooting or Throwing into Melee), 140-141 (Touch Spells in Melee), 146 (Dealing Non-Lethal Damage), 163 (Modes of Movement), 171 (Bringing Back the Dead), 171-172 (Stacking Effects), 175-176 (Effect), and many other places. The convention is also used in the DMG (though less frequently). The FAQ's interpretation is consistent with that "bold heading, italicized subheading" convention, and is why I think it states: "Page 165 in the Player’s Handbook is sometimes misinterpreted to suggest that hardness doesn’t apply to acid and sonic damage; in fact, the phrase “apply [damage] normally after a successful hit” simply means that the damage isn’t halved or quartered, as other energy damage is."(emphasis mine). Other than in the one possible reading you suggest, I don't see any other section of the PHB that uses italics in the way your readong suggests. While two of the subheadings do mention hardness (though not the one at issue) those expressly state their effects on hardness rather than merely implying such as effect, as you are reading the "Energy Attacks" subheading to do). In every other case I see, italics are clearly subheadings.
Pezix 03-13-07, 10:03 PM	So I dont know if anyone has said it yet but I think the reason for the acid in the kit is so that the DC for lock decreases which makes it easier to open!?!? I mean it seems pretty obvious......