Items and hardness [Archive] - Wizards Community

Items and hardness [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Reverend_Copernicus
03-12-07, 09:27 AM Alright, I've got a serious issue with my DM. I'm hoping that somebody here can resolve it.

Basically, we just had an arguement of sorts over item hardness. Correct me if I'm wrong, but item hardness is *always* applied, regardless as to the source of damage.

Here's the thing: He ruled that item hardness for weapons/armors does NOT apply in instances of acid. On the surface, it may make sense, but here me out. Hardness is supposed to be a representation of a material's molecular composition and density. Now, real world chemistry test. Take two vials of identical, medium grade acid in two test tubes. In one vial, drop a one inch cube of aluminum, and in the other, a one inch cube of steel. Now, the aluminum will dissolve relatively quickly, whilst the steel will dissolve much slower, or possibly, not at all depending on the strength. This is a representation of it's chemical and molecular density. HARDNESS.

So anyway, the thing is, that he threw a group of 16th level characters (under-equipped, mind you) against a century worm, which is a challenge rating of 19. So, it would make it's bite attack, and immediately make a free grapple, to "swallow whole". Basically, two rounds of it's acid wiped out virtually ALL of the items in the party. All that is left of my gear, for instance, is a vorpal dagger +3. My losses include my goggles of night, my ring of protection +2, my amulet of protection +2, my adamantine longsword +2, my studded leather armor +3. Other stuff was lost, but I don't feel like catalouging all the stuff I lost here. I was not alone. In all, we lost 150k gold worth of regular use equipment, fully 80% of the stuff that was equipped over the entire party, even though nobody was in the belly of the beast for longer than two rounds.

Well, Wizards community...what's your take on this?
Prator_the_Legendary
03-12-07, 11:33 AM I think that
First, you're right about the hardness,
Second, don't magic items get saving throws against this sort of thing?
Third, your DM (I hope) evidently had some reason to want you to lose most of your gear, and you should ask him what that reason was before you go any further with this.
Cthulhu3125
03-12-07, 11:54 AM Hardness is supposed to be a representation of a material's molecular composition and density. Now, real world chemistry test. Take two vials of identical, medium grade acid in two test tubes. In one vial, drop a one inch cube of aluminum, and in the other, a one inch cube of steel. Now, the aluminum will dissolve relatively quickly, whilst the steel will dissolve much slower, or possibly, not at all depending on the strength. This is a representation of it's chemical and molecular density. HARDNESS.

No.

Hardness is a material property; the tendency of something to dissolve in acid is a function of its chemical reactivity (in your experiment, surface area is constant). Are you really suggesting that low-grade iron will dissolve faster than a toughened steel of essentially the same composition? (Fe plus a few alloying agents). Furthermore, a cube of lead will dissolve much slower than a cube of titanium in your experiment - is lead harder?

This is one of those times where, once again, applying logic to D&D just doesn't work.

However, the SRD states:

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).

Acid: 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. An attack with acid, such as from a hurled vial or a monster’s spittle, counts as a round of exposure.

So, my guess is that hardness *does* apply to acid damage.
calvinNhobbes
03-12-07, 01:00 PM 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.
Still somewhat ambiguous. I would assume that since creatures don't have hardness and the text does not specify applying hardness, that acid and sonic do indeed bypass hardness.

EDIT: However, magic items should still get saving throws.
Magic items always get saving throws. A magic item’s Fortitude, Reflex, and Will save bonuses are equal to 2 + one-half its caster level. An attended magic item either makes saving throws as its owner or uses its own saving throw bonus, whichever is better.
However, being swallowed whole usually does automatic acid damage and does not allow a saving throw.
Once inside, the opponent takes 2d8+12 points of crushing damage plus 8 points of acid damage per round from the worm’s gizzard.
Flan
03-12-07, 02:11 PM Basically, we just had an arguement of sorts over item hardness. Correct me if I'm wrong, but item hardness is *always* applied, regardless as to the source of damage.

No. Adamantium weapons will ignore hardness. Acid, which is what you're really asking, doesn't, PHB 165
PhaedrusXY
03-12-07, 02:12 PM Still somewhat ambiguous. I would assume that since creatures don't have hardness and the text does not specify applying hardness, that acid and sonic do indeed bypass hardness.I agree, and I don't think it is that ambiguous at all. Acid and Sonic damage ignore hardness.
calvinNhobbes
03-12-07, 02:20 PM I agree, and I don't think it is that ambiguous at all. Acid and Sonic damage ignore hardness.
Ambiguous in the sense that it doesn't come right out and say, "acid ignores hardness". But I agree, the intent is clear even if the phrasing is not.
EDIT: Note the FAQ does not agree with this interpretation, but the FAQ are not official rules and constantly contradicts itself and other rules.
Prator_the_Legendary
03-12-07, 04:01 PM I'm still wondering why the DM put the players in a situation that he had to have known would result in a destruction of a lot of valuable property...
calvinNhobbes
03-12-07, 04:15 PM Maybe he's planning for the party to find a long lost treasure with replacement kick ass items.
Or maybe he's just a jerk DM.
ArcTan
03-12-07, 04:55 PM Alright, I've got a serious issue with my DM. I'm hoping that somebody here can resolve it.

Basically, we just had an arguement of sorts over item hardness. Correct me if I'm wrong, but item hardness is *always* applied, regardless as to the source of damage.

No, energy damage, like fire or acid, is not the same as "damage", in D&D. It's a problem with legacy terms. Everyone knows when a creature has damage reduction it's automatically "bypassed" by energy damage, right, and that energy resistance and damage resistance are two separate things? Same here -- "hardness" is just DR for objects.

Here's the thing: He ruled that item hardness for weapons/armors does NOT apply in instances of acid. On the surface, it may make sense, but here me out. Hardness is supposed to be a representation of a material's molecular composition and density. Now, real world chemistry test. Take two vials of identical, medium grade acid in two test tubes. In one vial, drop a one inch cube of aluminum, and in the other, a one inch cube of steel. Now, the aluminum will dissolve relatively quickly, whilst the steel will dissolve much slower, or possibly, not at all depending on the strength. This is a representation of it's chemical and molecular density. HARDNESS.

It has nothing to do with its density and everything to do with its chemical reactivity, as people have pointed out. Wood is both much less dense and much less hard than metal, and yet metal corrodes much faster in acid than wood does.

So anyway, the thing is, that he threw a group of 16th level characters (under-equipped, mind you) against a century worm, which is a challenge rating of 19. So, it would make it's bite attack, and immediately make a free grapple, to "swallow whole". Basically, two rounds of it's acid wiped out virtually ALL of the items in the party. All that is left of my gear, for instance, is a vorpal dagger +3. My losses include my goggles of night, my ring of protection +2, my amulet of protection +2, my adamantine longsword +2, my studded leather armor +3. Other stuff was lost, but I don't feel like catalouging all the stuff I lost here. I was not alone. In all, we lost 150k gold worth of regular use equipment, fully 80% of the stuff that was equipped over the entire party, even though nobody was in the belly of the beast for longer than two rounds.

Well, Wizards community...what's your take on this?

He's wrong. It's explicitly for this reason that very few attacks damage items while still being held by characters in D&D. Call it unrealistic or stupid or anything you want to call it, but as long as the item's in your equipment, *you* take the damage, not any of your equipment. It's the only balanced way to handle this kind of situation, given how item-dependent most high-level D&D characters are. (If you want to rationalize it, rationalize it as part of your items being "magical" and "attuned" to you.) By D&D RAW, the items wouldn't've started to take damage at all until you were dead.
Reverend_Copernicus
03-12-07, 08:46 PM Alright, so my experiment was flawed. I realized this just shortly after making my post. However, I forgot to explain the rest of it to you. Our DM completely ignored our item HP, and instead, if an item failed it's saving throw, it was destroyed, point blank.

As far as reasons to drop us down a peg or three, there aren't any. Virtually everything he puts us up against have a base attack bonus of twenty or higher, which means, we never get missed. Ever. Our party's highest AC is 24. We don't have anything terribly overpowered, and that vorpal dagger +3 is more than likely the best item we have got adventuring.

Well, anyhow...I'm about to take this as my cue to finish building my campaign, so myself and my regular gaming group doesn't have to deal with this terrible DM.
primemover003
03-12-07, 09:07 PM No. Adamantium weapons will ignore hardness. Acid, which is what you're really asking, doesn't, PHB 165
Not quite accurate... Adamantine ignores hardness up to 20. You can magically treat things like walls to grant them extra strength and push their hardness up past 20.

Also each "+" of magical enhancement to a weapon/shield ups it's hardness by 2 and hit points by 10, so a +5 sword of steel will have a hardness of 20, a Mithril shield +5 will have a hardness of 25!!!

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Reverend_Copernicus 03-12-07, 09:27 AM	Alright, I've got a serious issue with my DM. I'm hoping that somebody here can resolve it. Basically, we just had an arguement of sorts over item hardness. Correct me if I'm wrong, but item hardness is always applied, regardless as to the source of damage. Here's the thing: He ruled that item hardness for weapons/armors does NOT apply in instances of acid. On the surface, it may make sense, but here me out. Hardness is supposed to be a representation of a material's molecular composition and density. Now, real world chemistry test. Take two vials of identical, medium grade acid in two test tubes. In one vial, drop a one inch cube of aluminum, and in the other, a one inch cube of steel. Now, the aluminum will dissolve relatively quickly, whilst the steel will dissolve much slower, or possibly, not at all depending on the strength. This is a representation of it's chemical and molecular density. HARDNESS. So anyway, the thing is, that he threw a group of 16th level characters (under-equipped, mind you) against a century worm, which is a challenge rating of 19. So, it would make it's bite attack, and immediately make a free grapple, to "swallow whole". Basically, two rounds of it's acid wiped out virtually ALL of the items in the party. All that is left of my gear, for instance, is a vorpal dagger +3. My losses include my goggles of night, my ring of protection +2, my amulet of protection +2, my adamantine longsword +2, my studded leather armor +3. Other stuff was lost, but I don't feel like catalouging all the stuff I lost here. I was not alone. In all, we lost 150k gold worth of regular use equipment, fully 80% of the stuff that was equipped over the entire party, even though nobody was in the belly of the beast for longer than two rounds. Well, Wizards community...what's your take on this?
Prator_the_Legendary 03-12-07, 11:33 AM	I think that First, you're right about the hardness, Second, don't magic items get saving throws against this sort of thing? Third, your DM (I hope) evidently had some reason to want you to lose most of your gear, and you should ask him what that reason was before you go any further with this.
Cthulhu3125 03-12-07, 11:54 AM	Hardness is supposed to be a representation of a material's molecular composition and density. Now, real world chemistry test. Take two vials of identical, medium grade acid in two test tubes. In one vial, drop a one inch cube of aluminum, and in the other, a one inch cube of steel. Now, the aluminum will dissolve relatively quickly, whilst the steel will dissolve much slower, or possibly, not at all depending on the strength. This is a representation of it's chemical and molecular density. HARDNESS. No. Hardness is a material property; the tendency of something to dissolve in acid is a function of its chemical reactivity (in your experiment, surface area is constant). Are you really suggesting that low-grade iron will dissolve faster than a toughened steel of essentially the same composition? (Fe plus a few alloying agents). Furthermore, a cube of lead will dissolve much slower than a cube of titanium in your experiment - is lead harder? This is one of those times where, once again, applying logic to D&D just doesn't work. However, the SRD states: 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). Acid: 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. An attack with acid, such as from a hurled vial or a monster’s spittle, counts as a round of exposure. So, my guess is that hardness does apply to acid damage.
calvinNhobbes 03-12-07, 01:00 PM	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. Still somewhat ambiguous. I would assume that since creatures don't have hardness and the text does not specify applying hardness, that acid and sonic do indeed bypass hardness. EDIT: However, magic items should still get saving throws. Magic items always get saving throws. A magic item’s Fortitude, Reflex, and Will save bonuses are equal to 2 + one-half its caster level. An attended magic item either makes saving throws as its owner or uses its own saving throw bonus, whichever is better. However, being swallowed whole usually does automatic acid damage and does not allow a saving throw. Once inside, the opponent takes 2d8+12 points of crushing damage plus 8 points of acid damage per round from the worm’s gizzard.
Flan 03-12-07, 02:11 PM	Basically, we just had an arguement of sorts over item hardness. Correct me if I'm wrong, but item hardness is always applied, regardless as to the source of damage. No. Adamantium weapons will ignore hardness. Acid, which is what you're really asking, doesn't, PHB 165
PhaedrusXY 03-12-07, 02:12 PM	Still somewhat ambiguous. I would assume that since creatures don't have hardness and the text does not specify applying hardness, that acid and sonic do indeed bypass hardness.I agree, and I don't think it is that ambiguous at all. Acid and Sonic damage ignore hardness.
calvinNhobbes 03-12-07, 02:20 PM	I agree, and I don't think it is that ambiguous at all. Acid and Sonic damage ignore hardness. Ambiguous in the sense that it doesn't come right out and say, "acid ignores hardness". But I agree, the intent is clear even if the phrasing is not. EDIT: Note the FAQ does not agree with this interpretation, but the FAQ are not official rules and constantly contradicts itself and other rules.
Prator_the_Legendary 03-12-07, 04:01 PM	I'm still wondering why the DM put the players in a situation that he had to have known would result in a destruction of a lot of valuable property...
calvinNhobbes 03-12-07, 04:15 PM	Maybe he's planning for the party to find a long lost treasure with replacement kick ass items. Or maybe he's just a jerk DM.
ArcTan 03-12-07, 04:55 PM	Alright, I've got a serious issue with my DM. I'm hoping that somebody here can resolve it. Basically, we just had an arguement of sorts over item hardness. Correct me if I'm wrong, but item hardness is always applied, regardless as to the source of damage. No, energy damage, like fire or acid, is not the same as "damage", in D&D. It's a problem with legacy terms. Everyone knows when a creature has damage reduction it's automatically "bypassed" by energy damage, right, and that energy resistance and damage resistance are two separate things? Same here -- "hardness" is just DR for objects. Here's the thing: He ruled that item hardness for weapons/armors does NOT apply in instances of acid. On the surface, it may make sense, but here me out. Hardness is supposed to be a representation of a material's molecular composition and density. Now, real world chemistry test. Take two vials of identical, medium grade acid in two test tubes. In one vial, drop a one inch cube of aluminum, and in the other, a one inch cube of steel. Now, the aluminum will dissolve relatively quickly, whilst the steel will dissolve much slower, or possibly, not at all depending on the strength. This is a representation of it's chemical and molecular density. HARDNESS. It has nothing to do with its density and everything to do with its chemical reactivity, as people have pointed out. Wood is both much less dense and much less hard than metal, and yet metal corrodes much faster in acid than wood does. So anyway, the thing is, that he threw a group of 16th level characters (under-equipped, mind you) against a century worm, which is a challenge rating of 19. So, it would make it's bite attack, and immediately make a free grapple, to "swallow whole". Basically, two rounds of it's acid wiped out virtually ALL of the items in the party. All that is left of my gear, for instance, is a vorpal dagger +3. My losses include my goggles of night, my ring of protection +2, my amulet of protection +2, my adamantine longsword +2, my studded leather armor +3. Other stuff was lost, but I don't feel like catalouging all the stuff I lost here. I was not alone. In all, we lost 150k gold worth of regular use equipment, fully 80% of the stuff that was equipped over the entire party, even though nobody was in the belly of the beast for longer than two rounds. Well, Wizards community...what's your take on this? He's wrong. It's explicitly for this reason that very few attacks damage items while still being held by characters in D&D. Call it unrealistic or stupid or anything you want to call it, but as long as the item's in your equipment, you take the damage, not any of your equipment. It's the only balanced way to handle this kind of situation, given how item-dependent most high-level D&D characters are. (If you want to rationalize it, rationalize it as part of your items being "magical" and "attuned" to you.) By D&D RAW, the items wouldn't've started to take damage at all until you were dead.
Reverend_Copernicus 03-12-07, 08:46 PM	Alright, so my experiment was flawed. I realized this just shortly after making my post. However, I forgot to explain the rest of it to you. Our DM completely ignored our item HP, and instead, if an item failed it's saving throw, it was destroyed, point blank. As far as reasons to drop us down a peg or three, there aren't any. Virtually everything he puts us up against have a base attack bonus of twenty or higher, which means, we never get missed. Ever. Our party's highest AC is 24. We don't have anything terribly overpowered, and that vorpal dagger +3 is more than likely the best item we have got adventuring. Well, anyhow...I'm about to take this as my cue to finish building my campaign, so myself and my regular gaming group doesn't have to deal with this terrible DM.
primemover003 03-12-07, 09:07 PM	No. Adamantium weapons will ignore hardness. Acid, which is what you're really asking, doesn't, PHB 165 Not quite accurate... Adamantine ignores hardness up to 20. You can magically treat things like walls to grant them extra strength and push their hardness up past 20. Also each "+" of magical enhancement to a weapon/shield ups it's hardness by 2 and hit points by 10, so a +5 sword of steel will have a hardness of 20, a Mithril shield +5 will have a hardness of 25!!!