Post/Author/DateTime	Post
ralphdex 10-18-07, 01:18 PM	I thought that I read somewhere that acid bypasses hardness, but I cannot find it now. So, does acid (either ordinary or magical) bypass hardness? For example, would an acid fireball (due to Energy Substitution) bypass the hardness of an object? Thanks in advance!
CantripN 10-18-07, 01:25 PM	As per the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/exploration.htm#energyAttacks): 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 no, Acid doesn't ignore Hardiness, but it doesn't get reduced before that, either. Some psionic powers have such an effect for Sonic/Acid, but it's not the standard.
ralphdex 10-18-07, 01:39 PM	I saw that part of the SRD too... I guess I am remembering incorrectly! Thanks for your comment!
imakuni67 10-18-07, 01:44 PM	You could make a feat though to do that ;) Acid Master P: Spellcraft 8 ranks, able to cast at least one spell with the Acid Descriptor. Acid spells you cast ignore a a number of hardness of objects equal to your key spellcasting ability. You get a +2 insight bonus to save versus acid effects.
BW0222 10-18-07, 02:15 PM	Cantrip, 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. Unfortunately, that isn't that clear. It says "to most objects just as they do to creatures" and "roll damage and apply it normally after a successful hit." One could argue that normally does not include hardness and creatures normally do not have hardness. They also do not specifically say "after hardness" which all the other types of elemental attacks do. i.e. does normally mean that you apply damage a) as the spell damages a normal creature, b) as a weapon damaging a normal creature, or c) as a weapon normally damages an object. Unfortnately, "as they do to creatures" implies not using the rules for damaging objects (i.e. no hardness). They could be 100% clear and say "after subtracting hardness" instead of "normally" or they could be 100% clear and say "ignoring hardness" instead of "normally". You could read that either way. I agree that it is likely that they meant that acid and sonic damage does not ignore hardness, but the exact wording is pretty poor.
vorpo 10-18-07, 02:30 PM	Acid doesn't have anything to do with hardness. Acid eats through metal but is helpless against glass. And I will bet a million bucks that metal is harder than glass....
ArcTan 10-18-07, 02:37 PM	Objects "normally" *do* have hardness, though. It would be abnormal for an object not to have hardness. I mean, yes, they could've made it slightly clearer, but I'm sure that making acid bypass hardness was not their original plan, nor is it realistic.
BW0222 10-18-07, 02:51 PM	vorpo, Real world arguements rarely work in D&D, expecially when magic and fantasic creatures apply. ArcTan, Objects "normally" *do* have hardness, though. It would be abnormal for an object not to have hardness. I mean, yes, they could've made it slightly clearer, but I'm sure that making acid bypass hardness was not their original plan, nor is it realistic. Except it says to treat it like damaging a creature ("to most objects just as they do to creatures"). Most creatures do not "normally" have hardness. I agree they likely didn't intend to suggest to ignore hardness, but it really is that poorly worded that reading it that way is equally valid. As for realistic... I honestly don't know what is realistic about a black dragon breathing acid or a magical cone of intense sound to make any type of realistic comparisions with. I don't know if a sound burst spell can damage the surface of tile as easily as the surface of a board, or whether an acid arrow can disolve the surface of metal as easily as wood.
vorpo 10-18-07, 04:45 PM	vorpo, Real world arguements rarely work in D&D, expecially when magic and fantasic creatures apply. I don't care. The point is acid doesn't ignore hardness.
ralphdex 10-18-07, 04:48 PM	Our party is in the middle of a fight in the depths of a dungeon, so making a feat won't help me now!! The wording isn't very clear which led me to posting the question. I guess I'll have to do over come the hardness the old fashioned way!! Thanks to all of you!
BW0222 10-18-07, 05:42 PM	vorpo I don't care. The point is acid doesn't ignore hardness. First, says who? The rules are not clear on this. We suspect that they are just poorly worded, but one could argue either way based on how they are currently worded. Your stating something as an absolute fact, doesn't make it so. Second, if you are going to apply reality arguements to trump rules in a fantasy game, then I'm sorry to inform you than physics says that dragons can't fly, fireballs can't appear out of someone's hands, humans can't leap 30', firing multiple arrows with far shot equals supersonic arrows, etc. One ends up looking silly when you say, "It can't be that way because it isn't in real life." and then turning around seconds later with "I know it isn't possible in real life, but this is a fantasy setting." Why do the rules for acid in a fantasy world need to follow reality when the rules for flight do not? Third, hardness is a concept which doesn't exist in real life. Do they mean tensile strength, density, Mohs' scale, etc.? And of course different materials actual have different tolerances vs. deformation, shattering, scratching, heat, etc. In the specific case of acid, we know that different acids effect different materials vastly differently. There are acids which specifically eat through metals but not glass. Those which eat through ceramics but not wood. I.e. you can't prove that a vial of acid in real life can't eat through an inch or metal as easily as several inches of wood. I'm sure where are some out there which can. Forth, you have no idea of the real physical properties of a melf's acid arrow or black dragon's breath. Maybe they are extremely dense and travelling at high velocity? Fifth, you can't prove that a melf's acid arrow or a black dragon's breath has many more problems travelling through an inch of metal as several inches of wood. Unless you have a wizard or dragon in your basement? :) Real world arguments with D&D rules don't work. We are talking about unreal things.
ArcTan 10-18-07, 06:14 PM	This is a stupid argument. Okay, you want proof acid doesn't ignore hardness? Mundane acid, according to D&D, does 1d6 points of damage per round. If acid ignored hardness, it would do this much damage to *anything*, including the container you put it in, and it would be impossible to hold it in anything. Since you clearly can buy acid in flasks, obviously acid does *not* ignore all hardness, so that it's possible to make a flask with a high enough hardness so that acid doesn't do any damage to it. QED.
SunTzuWarmaster 10-18-07, 06:53 PM	As per the SRD: 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. Actually, this seemed pretty clear to me that acid DID ignore hardness. "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." Acid Flask - Ranged Touch Attack - 2d6 damage to object (ignores hardness) Now the trouble is the word "normally". However, please take note that they specifically state to "calculate damage before applying hardness". For acid and sonic damage you are not told to apply hardness.
BW0222 10-18-07, 09:49 PM	ArcTan Okay, you want proof acid doesn't ignore hardness? Mundane acid, according to D&D, does 1d6 points of damage per round. If acid ignored hardness, it would do this much damage to *anything*, including the container you put it in, and it would be impossible to hold it in anything. Wrong. You haven't proved that acid must ignore hardness. You've only proved that you are aren't following one rule (acid only does damage when thrown) and then using the silly results which that causes to try to assume that another rule must be interpreted. Even then, your arguements are completely flawed since flasks do not have enough hardness to avoid being destroyed by acid anyway. It might not mirror reality, but acid does not do any damage until after it leaves its flask. QED. 1. Rules say acid only does damage after it is thrown and scoring a hit. Therefore whether or not acid ignores hardness it does not damage its container. 2. Rules say that acid only does damage for 1 round. If damage applied before it was thrown to its container, the acid would become inert long before it could be thrown. Therefore acid does not damage its container. 3. Glass and ceramic vial only have a hardness of 1. Whether hardness applied to acid or not, the container would be destroyed. Because the container is not destroyed therefore the container takes no damage from the acid. Since acid does not damage its container... no conclusion can be drawn from the fact the container survives as to whether hardness applies against acid damage. QED.
ArcTan 10-18-07, 09:58 PM	A Wrong. You haven't proved that acid must ignore hardness. You've only proved that you are aren't following one rule (acid only does damage when thrown) and then using the silly results which that causes to try to assume that another rule must be interpreted. That's not a rule. Acid Effects Corrosive acids deals 1d6 points of damage per round of exposure except in the case of total immersion (such as into a vat of acid), which deals 10d6 points of damage per round.
imakuni67 10-18-07, 10:48 PM	Actually, this seemed pretty clear to me that acid DID ignore hardness. Me too, since on acid and sonic they refer to as if it's a creature and creatures don't have hardness! For the other elements they refer to damage as if damaging a normal object (like smashing something with an axe).
BW0222 10-18-07, 10:56 PM	ArcTan, That's not a rule. Of course it is... PHB 128, "A direct hit deals 1d6 points of acid damage." It doesn't say per round. If you allow it to do more than 1d6 points of damage... you are ignoring a rule. Corrosive acids deals 1d6 points of damage per round of exposure except in the case of total immersion (such as into a vat of acid), which deals 10d6 points of damage per round. How you get from a specific rule back to the general is beyond me? The rules in the PHB state that the acid only does 1d6 points of damage. The specific rule for the damage acid flasks do trumps all others. Same as an acidic weapon doesn't do continuous acid damage, that a melf's acid arrow only stays around X rounds, and that dragons breath only does a set amount of damage. In any case, your arguement is obviously wrong since glass and ceramic only have a hardness of 1 and (if a flask of acid damages its container) the acid would eat through the flask just as easily whether you rule it ignores hardness or not. Your "proof" that acid doesn't ignore hardness because it doesn't eat through its flask is nonsense, since flasks do not have enough hardness not to be eaten through in the first place. The only way to explain it that the acid doesn't do damage until after it is thrown. Which is what the rule says. Follow this rule and you don't have a problem.
imakuni67 10-18-07, 11:02 PM	In any case, your arguement is obviously wrong since glass and ceramic only have a hardness of 1 and (if a flask of acid damages its container) the acid would eat through the flask just as easily whether you rule it ignores hardness or not. That's because it is glass and it's different splashing acid over something than having it just sit there as far as the damage it deals goes. Also: Protective Slime (Su) A slimy red jelly coats the babau’s skin. Any weapon that touches it takes 1d8 points of acid damage from the corrosive goo, and the weapon’s hardness does not reduce this damage.
ArcTan 10-18-07, 11:04 PM	ArcTan, Of course it is... PHB 128, "A direct hit deals 1d6 points of acid damage." It doesn't say per round. If you allow it to do more than 1d6 points of damage... you are ignoring a rule. That's the rule for how much damage is done by an *acid flask*. Not *acid*, in general. How you get from a specific rule back to the general is beyond me? The rules in the PHB state that the acid only does 1d6 points of damage. That's a rule for *acid*. In general. Never mind the specific item called an "acid flask", whose specific composition we can't identify. There is a rule in the PHB (and SRD) for just plain *acid*. *Acid* does 1d6 damage per round of contact, whether it's found in the specific grenade-like weapon known as an "acid flask" in the Equipment section or in some other kind of container, like the "vat" mentioned in this rule. If acid ignored all hardness, it would be impossible to keep acid in *any* kind of container, whatsoever, by definition -- acid would be capable of destroying anything. In any case, your arguement is obviously wrong since glass and ceramic only have a hardness of 1 and (if a flask of acid damages its container) the acid would eat through the flask just as easily whether you rule it ignores hardness or not. It doesn't matter. Maybe the vats are made of iron. Maybe the vats are made of special glass with extra hardness. It still can't be the case that acid ignores *all* hardness, universally.
ArcTan 10-18-07, 11:05 PM	Also: Babau Slime actually cements my side of the argument. There'd be no need to make a special note of the fact that Babau Slime ignores hardness if that were the case for all acid damage in general.
Omen_of_Peace 10-18-07, 11:05 PM	I have always considered that acid bypassed hardness, but it's true that it's not very clear either way. Houserule time !
ArcTan 10-18-07, 11:18 PM	FWIW, if you put stock in the FAQ (I generally don't, but whatever) the FAQ says acid and sonic don't ignore hardness.
BW0222 10-19-07, 12:21 PM	ArcTan, That's the rule for how much damage is done by an *acid flask*. Not *acid*, in general. Never mind the specific item called an "acid flask", whose specific composition we can't identify. LOL. You brought up a flask of acid as an example - trying to say that it must be the hardness of the flask keeping the acid from eating through. Then when I disproved that, you tell me to forget the specific item you were using as an example. That's a great arguement. Just admit that your example was disproven and that it tells us nothing about whether acid does or does not ignore hardness. If acid ignored all hardness, it would be impossible to keep acid in *any* kind of container, whatsoever, by definition -- acid would be capable of destroying anything. Except, that doesn't explain how a flask of acid can survive with only a hardness of 1. Acid would obviously eat through that just as easily as whether it ignored hardness. Since it doesn't eat through the flask... the only conclusion you can draw is that it someone doesn't damage the flask. Thus, it isn't proof that it does or does not ignore hardness... merely proof that it is (for some reason other than hardness) not doing any damage to the flask. Babau Slime actually cements my side of the argument. There'd be no need to make a special note of the fact that Babau Slime ignores hardness if that were the case for all acid damage in general. That means little. There are lots of cases in the book where a specific description repeats an existing rule. They say that anti-life shell collapses when forced against a living creature. Does that mean that all other abjurations which hedge out creatures/objects do not collapse when forces against the creature/object? Nope. It just means they repeated it for reference. There was no need for them to repeat it... but they did. How many times in the MM does it say "A .... has a +8 racial bonus on any Swim check to perform some special action or avoid a hzard. It can always choose to take 10 on a Swim check, even if distracted or endangered. ..." Isn't that pointless because the movement swim rules in the MM always say all this? Again, they repeat it for reference. Same with improved grab, conditions (how many times do they remind us that concealment is 20%?), climb speeds, etc., etc. Again, I'm not saying that acid does ignore hardness. I believe the intent of the ruling was that it does not. However, I'm saying that the wording of it is so bad that one could honestly rule either way. The flask arguement doesn't even stand up to its own logic and to conclude because it says something under one monster means that the opposite must be true in all other cases completely faulty logic. The FAQ arguement is cetainly valid. FAQ are not proof, but it is about as close as you are going to get until they errata that section. I also take the FAQ with a grain of salt. However, it also shows that the passage can easily be misread to mean either.
vorpo 10-19-07, 01:03 PM	Acid eats through solids not because of hardness, but because of its composition. Even though it's a fantasy world, there are alchemist which can easily relate to modern day chemist as such, chemical analysis would be valid. From a chemical point of view, acid eats through matter because acid is a highly reactive material. Glass on the other hand, is a relatively inert (non-reactive material). Hardness has nothing to do with chemical reactivity. That's why a low hardness glass can hold acid but a harder metal container would not be able to because of its chemical reactivity.
CantripN 10-19-07, 02:09 PM	Which does nothing to explain why you can throw an acid flask at a window and eat through it... I think the D&D "Acid" is more like a reagent that works with Oxygen, seeing as it only works when exposed.
Eerongal 10-19-07, 02:16 PM	Acid doesn't have anything to do with hardness. Acid eats through metal but is helpless against glass. And I will bet a million bucks that metal is harder than glass.... Actually, standard glass has a (real world) hardness of 5.5-7 on the Mohs scale. By comparison iron is 4-5, platinum 4-4.5 and titanium is 6 Glass is quite hard, but it's VERY brittle :P (where's my million bucks? :P) On topic: Didn't 3.0 acid ignore hardness or am I just making up memories?
ArcTan 10-19-07, 02:50 PM	ArcTan, LOL. You brought up a flask of acid as an example - trying to say that it must be the hardness of the flask keeping the acid from eating through. Then when I disproved that, you tell me to forget the specific item you were using as an example. That's a great arguement. I mentioned flasks of acid as an example of "acid". Not all acid comes in flasks. Some of it comes in vats. Just admit that your example was disproven and that it tells us nothing about whether acid does or does not ignore hardness. Why? Except, that doesn't explain how a flask of acid can survive with only a hardness of 1. Who says a flask of acid is made out of ordinary glass? Acid would obviously eat through that just as easily as whether it ignored hardness. Since it doesn't eat through the flask... the only conclusion you can draw is that it someone doesn't damage the flask. Thus, it isn't proof that it does or does not ignore hardness... merely proof that it is (for some reason other than hardness) not doing any damage to the flask. Perhaps the flask is made out of iron, with a spring-loaded mechanism designed to make it burst on contact. You don't know that it isn't. That means little. There are lots of cases in the book where a specific description repeats an existing rule. They say that anti-life shell collapses when forced against a living creature. Does that mean that all other abjurations which hedge out creatures/objects do not collapse when forces against the creature/object? Nope. It just means they repeated it for reference. There was no need for them to repeat it... but they did. The rule I'm quoting is specifically *not* talking about acid in flasks. It's talking about acid as an *environmental* hazard. For instance, it tells you how much damage you take from being immersed in a vat of acid. Since the grenadelike "acid flask" doesn't contain nearly enough acid to immerse a Medium creature in it, it's clearly not just "repeating" that rule. Indeed, the other rule is a *subset* of this rule -- the next line goes on to talk about how acid *attacks* like an acid flask or acid spittle count as a "round of exposure" under this rule -- whereas acid that's just sitting there in the environment does round-by-round damage. There is acid that sticks around and does 1d6 damage per round, unlike the acid from an acid flask. Sometimes you find it in vats. Sometimes you find it in pools in the dungeon. The point still holds. Acid can't ignore all hardness or most of these containers would be steadily being destroyed by the acid.
ArcTan 10-19-07, 02:52 PM	Which does nothing to explain why you can throw an acid flask at a window and eat through it... I think the D&D "Acid" is more like a reagent that works with Oxygen, seeing as it only works when exposed. Except that this isn't true. You can be immersed in a vat of acid and take 10d6 damage per round, despite the fact that once you're fully immersed you're not exposed to oxygen anymore.
vorpo 10-19-07, 02:57 PM	Except that this isn't true. You can be immersed in a vat of acid and take 10d6 damage per round, despite the fact that once you're fully immersed you're not exposed to oxygen anymore. Acid increases oxydization. But acid is corrosive not just because of it.
ralphdex 10-19-07, 03:10 PM	Actually, standard glass has a (real world) hardness of 5.5-7 on the Mohs scale. By comparison iron is 4-5, platinum 4-4.5 and titanium is 6 Glass is quite hard, but it's VERY brittle :P (where's my million bucks? :P) On topic: Didn't 3.0 acid ignore hardness or am I just making up memories? Maybe that's where I remember it from!!! :)
ArcTan 10-19-07, 04:04 PM	Acid increases oxydization. But acid is corrosive not just because of it. In real life, acids corroding things has nothing to do with oxygen. That's not what "oxidation" means.
CantripN 10-19-07, 04:10 PM	In real life, acids corroding things has nothing to do with oxygen. That's not what "oxidation" means. While true, D&D's Acid has little to do with real world acids. It's far too active, quick acting and works by an entirely different set of rules.
redraven 10-19-07, 05:04 PM	Sometimes I wonder if people ignore the FAQ for the sole reason because they enjoy arguing about inane minutia for no reason. But, whatever: 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. I agree that the wording is sloppy, but that is part of the reason we have an FAQ in the first place. Technically, this is something that could be figured out from the wording of the Hardness ability and the Energy Attacks description: 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). 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. The blue is referring back to the red. While sloppy, it does cover the Hardness of objects and any Energy Resistances that the creature may have. I do not think anyone could claim that "apply it normally" means that acid damage bypasses Acid Resistance 5 or whatever, and Hardness is the same principle (except it applies to all damage).
tyrecian 10-19-07, 05:48 PM	I had asimilar predicament earlier in one of my campaigns with a 'lock. that dastardly gnome took the invocation "Vitriolic Blast" and "Flee the Scene", which made for a party of trap evading folk who made sewers through my dungeons. swiss and cheese. They would take hours treating the gnome 'lock as a slave working in mines, simply because he had no limit to his acidbath mining techniques. And of course as random encounters showed up, or the villians of the dungeon came forth, they met them in defensive positions they had created. Imagine a grip of contractors showing up at your house @ 6:00 AM and tearing down your house. When you indignantly start yelling at them, they swing a claymore, a pipe wrench and a flamethrower your direction. yeah... so hardness and acid, w00t.
ralphdex 10-19-07, 07:53 PM	Well, I guess Redraven answered my question once and for all! Thanks Redraven!
groveborn 10-20-07, 04:21 AM	Actually, standard glass has a (real world) hardness of 5.5-7 on the Mohs scale. By comparison iron is 4-5, platinum 4-4.5 and titanium is 6 Glass is quite hard, but it's VERY brittle :P (where's my million bucks? :P) On topic: Didn't 3.0 acid ignore hardness or am I just making up memories? You're right that glass is both hard, and brittle, but you seem to misunderstand what that means. Hardness is a property that measures how much a thing resists penetration (scratching). Brittleness shows how a thing resists bending. There's also one for resisting shearing, stretching, crushing, twisting (I think). While glass is very hard, and very brittle (which means it's hard to scratch, and impossible to bend at low temperatures) it also does not resist stress at all well. None of the energy types bypass hardness. It's a poorly worded rule, as the faq has said. As for ArcTan, you're horrible at arguing, even when you're right. Next time, just quote the source (faqs!)
ArcTan 10-20-07, 06:19 AM	As for ArcTan, you're horrible at arguing, even when you're right. Next time, just quote the source (faqs!) The FAQ is not a "source". It's just Skip Williams' opinion (and, these days, Andy Collins'). I'm loath to quote it because it would give the impression that I think he's right all the time, when he's really right no more often than any random forum poster is.
ArcTan 10-20-07, 06:22 AM	While true, D&D's Acid has little to do with real world acids. It's far too active, quick acting and works by an entirely different set of rules. It's still entirely and totally untrue that D&D acid only corrodes things when exposed to air, or that it only lasts for one round. The acid from a grenadelike item called an "acid flask" only lasts for one round, but the acid in a vat of acid that someone can fall into effectively lasts forever.
SiuiS 10-20-07, 06:45 AM	Wow, that seems to have degenerated quick. ArcTan, you seem to be missing the word "most" in "Acid and sonic attacks deal damage to most objects just as they do to creatures". Now doesn't it seem obvious that that vial to hold the acid would HAVE to be made of a material that could actually hold it? There's a hole in the bucket, dear Liza dear Liza... :P (the following will remain in print only because I went through all the trouble of frustratedly typingit out, and now I don't want to delete it. We appreciate your understanding) Anyway. It is, as far as my opinion goes, kind of common sense from the way that acid and sonic are portrayed (if not used) in the main rules throughout the game, that acid and sonic damage tend to ignore hardness. That was kind of one of the only things sonic had going for it; without being able to, you know, blow through damn near anything, it's really just an outsider killer. If acid didn't ignore hardness, how could a delver use it's acid to eat through stone? yes, I am aware that it specifically says how fast it can go through stone, but some of you folks need to try and see the spirit of the rules, instead of the letter. (and here, my ranting ended, and I decided to see if anyone found anything official, and they did.) Of course, the FAQ seems to say otherwise. Even if the writer of it isn't always right (although, how you can say the man who comes up with the rules comes up with them incorrectly... *shrug*) the way it was shown seems pretty concrete.
ArcTan 10-20-07, 08:58 PM	ArcTan, you seem to be missing the word "most" in "Acid and sonic attacks deal damage to most objects just as they do to creatures". Now doesn't it seem obvious that that vial to hold the acid would HAVE to be made of a material that could actually hold it? There's a hole in the bucket, dear Liza dear Liza... You always *can* say "This vial is an exception to the normal rules", yes. You don't *have* to if you don't rule that acid bypasses hardness, though. Anyway. It is, as far as my opinion goes, kind of common sense from the way that acid and sonic are portrayed (if not used) in the main rules throughout the game, that acid and sonic damage tend to ignore hardness. That was kind of one of the only things sonic had going for it; without being able to, you know, blow through damn near anything, it's really just an outsider killer. Sonic had going for it that most *creatures* didn't have resistance against it. Destroying objects is not actually a really huge factor in the game as I usually see it played, and if it does become important the usual weapon of choice is an adamantine weapon (which the rules specifically say *does* ignore hardness, and which doesn't run out, unlike energy damage). There are *specific* sonic effects that are really good at destroying objects -- the magic spell shatter and the various psychokinetic energy powers -- but those *specifically say* they ignore hardness. I wouldn't take it as a rule that sonic attacks ignore hardness in general -- any more than I'd generalize from the way Psychokinesis works that *all* cold energy effects target the Fort rather than Reflex save (sorry, cone of cold). If acid didn't ignore hardness, how could a delver use it's acid to eat through stone? yes, I am aware that it specifically says how fast it can go through stone, but some of you folks need to try and see the spirit of the rules, instead of the letter. This is the letter of the rules: A delver produces a mucuslike slime that contains a highly corrosive substance. The slime is particularly effective against stone. A delver’s mere touch deals 2d6 points of acid damage to organic creatures or objects. Against metallic creatures or objects, a delver’s slime deals 4d8 points of damage, and against stony creatures (including earth elementals) or objects it deals 8d10 points of damage. This is *special slime*. It's obviously *not* regular acid, which, by RAW, only does 1d6 damage per round against anything and doesn't discriminate in the dice type of its damage between creatures or metal or stone. A Delver is doing a base damage of 8d10 damage per round against stone. That's 44 average damage. If we *do* apply hardness for stone, which is an average of 8, that's 36 damage per round. Stone has 15 HP per inch of thickness. Thus, a Delver, applying RAW and using the rule that hardness applies to acid damage, destroys about two and a half inches of stone in any area it presses its slime against for each round (about 6 seconds). This matches the description we're given of the Delver's attack strategy -- that it hides inside a burrow with a thin stone cover of 1 or 2 inches and dissolves it when it pops out. If it were capable of dissolving stone at a faster rate, it wouldn't need to do this. Notice that its "burrow speed" is not the same thing as being able to instantaneously dissolve stone at the rate of 10 ft per round -- it represents the Delver's ability to naturally *physically* burrow through stone with its body parts. Actually being able to dissolve enough stone to allow a Huge creature to move forward 10 feet would be an enormous amount of stone -- in fact, a far *more* powerful ability than its stone shape ability that it can only use once per 10 minutes. I think you misinterpreted that bit of the monster entry. By the way, it seems that the "slime" of a Delver is actually a base, not an acid -- that's why the description says you should wash it off with a weak acid like vinegar. This goes with what Sean K. Reynolds has said -- that "acid damage" in D&D is any kind of chemical corrosion at the molecular level, whether an acid or a base or an enzyme or anything else. Of course, the FAQ seems to say otherwise. Even if the writer of it isn't always right (although, how you can say the man who comes up with the rules comes up with them incorrectly... *shrug*) the way it was shown seems pretty concrete. The Sage doesn't come up with the rules. The rules are written by large groups of people through a long development and editing process. Skip Williams, at best, worked on *some* of the books he comments on -- and his many mistakes indicate that he's not immune to forgetting stuff over time.
groveborn 10-21-07, 06:12 AM	I disagree with the "large number of people" bit ArcTan. I think the books were written by a handful of people each. They were likely play tested by many many more.