Dissipating Touch [Archive] - Wizards Community

Dissipating Touch [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
crizhII
03-01-07, 01:50 PM Forgive me if this has been covered before.

I can't find any hard ruling on Dissipating Touch and hardness.

I know lots of you will have opinions against, but what I'm looking for is something from SRD, Errata, Minds Eye or the like that gives a definitive ruling.

AFAIK when used on an object there are no rules to describe this powers effect.

It ain't a slashing/bludgeoning weapon and therefore doesn't use the sundering rules. It ain't really an energy attack so none of those rules apply either.

On the other hand acid isn't exactly a type of energy either...

From my POV the common sense approach would be treat it like sonic/acid. The hardness of a material has no obvious bearing on how difficult it is to teleport chunks of it away.

Obviously it's easier to use a sword to chip 10hp's from a glass object than from an Adamantine one as one is clearly more fragile than the other.

However an objects hp's are purely a function of its density and thickness. I can't see a reason why it would be harder to teleport 10hp's of Adamantine than 10hp's of paper.

Perhaps an object under the influence of Dimensional Anchor, or the like, might reasonably be immune...

So, any thoughts or links to rules I've missed?
Tempest Stormwind
03-01-07, 02:04 PM Smashing an Object (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/exploration.htm).

That's got everything on Hardness. Dissipating Touch, as written, isn't energy damage, but doesn't say it ignores hardness either.

I'd like to think that a diamond's molecules are so strongly bound that an individual one is very hard to yank away from the others, since those nearby hold the one you're trying to beam out in place. By induction, this is how you'd flavor-describe Dissipating Touch not bypassing hardness.

That said, I'd personally rule that effects like that would bypass hardness similar to sonic energy. I don't have a rule to back this up, though.
crizhII
03-01-07, 02:42 PM I'd like to think that a diamond's molecules are so strongly bound that an individual one is very hard to yank away from the others, since those nearby hold the one you're trying to beam out in place. By induction, this is how you'd flavor-describe Dissipating Touch not bypassing hardness

Not a bad theory...

Of course you would have to assume that such a resistive force would only be encountered at the boundary of the volume you were attempting to teleport and in a crystaline structure such as Diamond there would be a similar attractive force generate by the atoms in the interior of the removed volume.

I would imagine that these two forces would almost exactly cancel each other out. You'd be talking about the difference in the number of atoms in three nested spheres only 1 atom smaller than each other. Might be as small a number as one or two thousand bonds which is 'quantumly' insignificant compared to the number of atoms in even a few ounces of any material.

It which point my DM usually looks at me funny and sighs before saying "Shut up, it's a fantasy game...." for about the millionth time.
Doomed_Penguin
03-01-07, 04:09 PM Might be as small a number as one or two thousand bonds which is 'quantumly' insignificant compared to the number of atoms in even a few ounces of any material.

You have to consider that no where in the rules does it state that when you teleport, you are instead switching the positions of two equal portions of matter. For all you know, you are only moving the target to an area, not an object in same said area as well. And even if you were "swapping" matter, I would think that a solid (said diamond) and a gas (assumed air that would replace the diamond) would not have the same mass, especially at a similar volume. I say hardness doesn't apply.
Tempest Stormwind
03-01-07, 05:28 PM Even so, if you have to move molecules A through G away from molecules H from Z, it doesn't matter if you're transposing matter or simply moving it from one point to another -- you still have to break the bonds either way. That's a property of hardness.

I stand by my earlier conclusion, though.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
crizhII 03-01-07, 01:50 PM	Forgive me if this has been covered before. I can't find any hard ruling on Dissipating Touch and hardness. I know lots of you will have opinions against, but what I'm looking for is something from SRD, Errata, Minds Eye or the like that gives a definitive ruling. AFAIK when used on an object there are no rules to describe this powers effect. It ain't a slashing/bludgeoning weapon and therefore doesn't use the sundering rules. It ain't really an energy attack so none of those rules apply either. On the other hand acid isn't exactly a type of energy either... From my POV the common sense approach would be treat it like sonic/acid. The hardness of a material has no obvious bearing on how difficult it is to teleport chunks of it away. Obviously it's easier to use a sword to chip 10hp's from a glass object than from an Adamantine one as one is clearly more fragile than the other. However an objects hp's are purely a function of its density and thickness. I can't see a reason why it would be harder to teleport 10hp's of Adamantine than 10hp's of paper. Perhaps an object under the influence of Dimensional Anchor, or the like, might reasonably be immune... So, any thoughts or links to rules I've missed?
Tempest Stormwind 03-01-07, 02:04 PM	Smashing an Object (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/exploration.htm). That's got everything on Hardness. Dissipating Touch, as written, isn't energy damage, but doesn't say it ignores hardness either. I'd like to think that a diamond's molecules are so strongly bound that an individual one is very hard to yank away from the others, since those nearby hold the one you're trying to beam out in place. By induction, this is how you'd flavor-describe Dissipating Touch not bypassing hardness. That said, I'd personally rule that effects like that would bypass hardness similar to sonic energy. I don't have a rule to back this up, though.
crizhII 03-01-07, 02:42 PM	I'd like to think that a diamond's molecules are so strongly bound that an individual one is very hard to yank away from the others, since those nearby hold the one you're trying to beam out in place. By induction, this is how you'd flavor-describe Dissipating Touch not bypassing hardness Not a bad theory... Of course you would have to assume that such a resistive force would only be encountered at the boundary of the volume you were attempting to teleport and in a crystaline structure such as Diamond there would be a similar attractive force generate by the atoms in the interior of the removed volume. I would imagine that these two forces would almost exactly cancel each other out. You'd be talking about the difference in the number of atoms in three nested spheres only 1 atom smaller than each other. Might be as small a number as one or two thousand bonds which is 'quantumly' insignificant compared to the number of atoms in even a few ounces of any material. It which point my DM usually looks at me funny and sighs before saying "Shut up, it's a fantasy game...." for about the millionth time.
Doomed_Penguin 03-01-07, 04:09 PM	Might be as small a number as one or two thousand bonds which is 'quantumly' insignificant compared to the number of atoms in even a few ounces of any material. You have to consider that no where in the rules does it state that when you teleport, you are instead switching the positions of two equal portions of matter. For all you know, you are only moving the target to an area, not an object in same said area as well. And even if you were "swapping" matter, I would think that a solid (said diamond) and a gas (assumed air that would replace the diamond) would not have the same mass, especially at a similar volume. I say hardness doesn't apply.
Tempest Stormwind 03-01-07, 05:28 PM	Even so, if you have to move molecules A through G away from molecules H from Z, it doesn't matter if you're transposing matter or simply moving it from one point to another -- you still have to break the bonds either way. That's a property of hardness. I stand by my earlier conclusion, though.