3rd edition D&D, acid and hardness.

[Cynic]

No, I don't think it pretty clear that Animated Objects are considered creatures.

They have a creature type. It's "construct". Why would it be a construct (which are creatures) if it wasn't a creature?

because the type definition for construct states, again, -- A construct is an animated object or artificially constructed creature."

So the creature type of construct is either an object or a creature. So a creature that isn't a creature but an object which by rules necessity is a creature but maybe not.

as i said, it's a ridiculously stupid set of rules. If we want, we can houserule it either way.

[Roog]

because the type definition for construct states, again, -- A construct is an animated object or artificially constructed creature."

So the creature type of construct is either an object or a creature. So a creature that isn't a creature but an object which by rules necessity is a creature but maybe not.

What evidence is there that an "animated object" is an "object"? The rules appear not to define object, except for the implicit definitions included in the definition of creatures and in the rules on non-abilities.

creature: A living or otherwise active being, not an object. The terms “creature” and “character” are sometimes used interchangeably...

and

Wisdom

Any creature that can perceive its environment in any fashion has at least 1 point of Wisdom. Anything with no Wisdom score is an object, not a creature. Anything without a Wisdom score also has no Charisma score.

Charisma

Any creature capable of telling the difference between itself and things that are not itself has at least 1 point of Charisma. Anything with no Charisma score is an object, not a creature. Anything without a Charisma score also has no Wisdom score.

This would imply that an animated object is a creature and not an object.

[Kaelik]

Additionally, Animated Objects do not benefit from hardness at all

The fact that Animated Objects entry explicitly states that they still have whatever hardness they had before they were animated, I think we can safely agree that the writers intended them to benefit from it. At which point we're forced to assume that either creatures can have hardness or objects and creatures are not mutually exclusive. Which you decide doesn't really matter -- the result is the same.

So apparently I missed this but...

You are dumb.

The fact of the matter is that by the rules, Animated Objects do not get hardness if they are creatures, and acid and sonic bypass hardness pre Rules Compendium.

This is true because of the rules for hardness stipulate that only objects can benefit from hardness, creatures cannot.

When you say something utterly retarded like "I think we can safely agree that the writers intended them to benefit from it."

No. We can't safely agree that. Because we can't safely agree that the writers intended acid and sonic to bypass hardness.

We can either go with the actual rules, or we can go with 'intent.'

If you get to decide that they intended for X to be true, even though it explicitly isn't by the rules, then I get to decide that they intended for the spell glitterdust to instantly kill people who fail their will save because stuff in your eyes is bad for you.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Kaelik, if animated creatures gain no mechanical effect from the clause of 'benefitting from hardness', why was it even in there in the first place?

I can understand your dismay at the fact that the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doesn't, but the fact remains that the person who wrote that in there intended for something to happen with hardness.

[Kaelik]

Kaelik, if animated creatures gain no mechanical effect from the clause of 'benefitting from hardness', why was it even in there in the first place?

I can understand your dismay at the fact that the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doesn't, but the fact remains that the person who wrote that in there intended for something to happen with hardness.

And can understand your dismay that intend does not equal rules, but I can't understand why you think it does.

Intent is a giant black box, and once you start there, you can't stop.

Maybe they intended for Animate Objects to be Objects, as per the listing under construct type, and the fact that objects cannot be creatures.

It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter what they intended. It matters what the rules are. Because they also intended the color green to be banned from all games ever.

[RandomCasualty2]

Kaelik, if animated creatures gain no mechanical effect from the clause of 'benefitting from hardness', why was it even in there in the first place?

I can understand your dismay at the fact that the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doesn't, but the fact remains that the person who wrote that in there intended for something to happen with hardness.

Yeah. It's really rules lawyering of the worst kind when someone pulls some obscure rule from some never read section to try to contradict text that's directly written in there and claiming that the text is completely meaningless.

If somebody actually tried that at one of my games, I'd laugh for about 5 seconds, then look at the player and say "Wait, you were serious?", and then I'd be annoyed that they would even try to waste my time with crap like that.

[Lago PARANOIA]

And can understand your dismay that intend does not equal rules, but I can't understand why you think it does.

I'm not letting you wiggle out that easily. You have two contradictory rules: one which states that only objects benefit from hardness and another rule that states that a particular non-object creature is supposed to benefit from hardness.

So which interpretation do you go with? To me, it's pretty simple.

The person who did the writeup for animated objects intended for said object to get something out of hardness. The person who wrote the hardness rule obviously didn't communicate with his buddy correctly whether there can be exceptions; if he was aware that his friend was going to write a monster that benefited from hardness he would have either had the offending passage eliminated or would've clarified that rule in the hardness section.

Given that Jonathan Tweet worked on both books I seriously doubt the 'rogue Monster Manual writer' possibility is the case. It's just more likely that the Monster Manual guy thought a passage in the rules supported his vision. I really don't see why we can't give them a pass.

[Roog]

Given that Jonathan Tweet worked on both books I seriously doubt the 'rogue Monster Manual writer' possibility is the case. It's just more likely that the Monster Manual guy thought a passage in the rules supported his vision. I really don't see why we can't give them a pass.

The Staue spell is in the PHB and gives creatures hardness, so you do not even need to look at multiple books to find the same supposed contradiction.

[Data Vampire]

And can understand your dismay that intend does not equal rules, but I can't understand why you think it does.

I'm not letting you wiggle out that easily. You have two contradictory rules: one which states that only objects benefit from hardness and another rule that states that a particular non-object creature is supposed to benefit from hardness.

So which interpretation do you go with? To me, it's pretty simple.

For conflicting rules I'd quote the "ORDER OF RULES APPLICATION" rule on page 5 of the Rules Compendium.
Such as

For instance, a monster descrip-tion is more specific than any general rules about monsters, so the description takes precedence

[Absentminded_Wizard]

Actually, there is nothing that says creatures can't have 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

Clearly, the first sentence is the actual definition of hardness, while the rest of the paragraph tells you how to apply it. Saying that all objects have hardness doesn't preclude some creatures from also having hardness.

[Starmaker]

Actually, there is nothing that says creatures can't have hardness.

...Why? They look like proof to me.

Clearly, the first sentence is the actual definition of hardness...

Each object has hardness—a number that represents how well it [object] resists damage.

By this definition, hardness is the property of objects.

while the rest of the paragraph tells you how to apply it.

Whenever an object takes damage, subtract its hardness from the damage.

And if a creature somehow gains hardness (by way of monster entry, which might trump general rulings), it has no effect, because the rules on application do not state what happens to creatures. Compare:

When the ray of wackiness strikes an unattended fluffy purple object moving at 55.28 mph, the universe explodes.

[Kaelik]

I'm not letting you wiggle out that easily. You have two contradictory rules: one which states that only objects benefit from hardness and another rule that states that a particular non-object creature is supposed to benefit from hardness.

I don't see any non-object creatures with hardness.

I do see an object with hardness. If you want to play the intent game how do we know that Jonathon didn't intend for Animate Objects to be Objects not creatures.

I mean, the Construct type even spells it out:

1) Constructs are one of two things:
a) Animated Objects
or b) artificially constructed creature

Why should I assume that an Object is a creature not an Object?

Intent is a stupid game to play. I think that they intended for Animated Objects to be both Objects and Creatures, and I'll bet you Jonathon Tweet didn't write the definition of creature.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I don't see any non-object creatures with hardness.

What do you think the statue spell does, then?

It doesn't matter anyway; page 13 of the DMG states that animated objects gain the hardness of the object it was before it got animated. There would be absolutely no point in giving this monster a pre-defined hardness value because it's supposed to be variable. But look, there it is.

I do see an object with hardness. If you want to play the intent game how do we know that Jonathon didn't intend for Animate Objects to be Objects not creatures.

Because that's not written anywhere nor is there enough of an argument to support it. I don't think you can find any passage that states that it's possible for something to be a creature and an object at the same time.

Hardness doing something though is clearly there.

Intent is a stupid game to play. I think that they intended for Animated Objects to be both Objects and Creatures, and I'll bet you Jonathon Tweet didn't write the definition of creature.

You're playing the intent game, too. You have two contradictory rules and you're claiming that your interpretation is the correct one. Can you give me an explanation why we should go with your interpretation that doesn't rely on intent? The Monster Manual and the PHB are on the same hierarchy of correctness. In fact, Data Vampire showed you a passage stating that the MM has precedence. What's your position on that?

[Kaelik]

What do you think the statue spell does, then?

It turns you into a solid stone statue. Whenever you are in statue form, you are an object. When you change back, you are a creature.

But it doesn't matter, because I'm not the one claiming that the designers perfectly understood all the interactions of all their rules. That's you. I'm the one saying that they wrote a lot of extra text for no damn reason because their intent didn't match what they actually wrote.

It doesn't matter anyway; page 13 of the DMG states that animated objects gain the hardness of the object it was before it got animated. There would be absolutely no point in giving this monster a pre-defined hardness value because it's supposed to be variable. But look, there it is.

Yes. And that hardness value might matter if Animated Objects are Objects and not creatures. But if they are creatures, then they can have any damn well hardness they please and it doesn't matter what it is, because non-Objects cannot be protected by hardness.

Hardness doing something though is clearly there.

No. Hardness doing nothing at all for creatures is plainly there in the rules. It's really obvious. It's there. It's clear. Creatures do not benefit from hardness.

The fact that Animated Objects have hardness is also plainly there.

Therefore either:
a) Animated Objects are Objects, not creatures, and they benefit from hardness.
b) Animated Objects are creatures, and don't benefit from hardness.

You can't say "Intent matters when I like it, so we should just ignore the rules for hardness, but when I don't like it, intent doesn't matter, so we have to use the explicit definition of creature that prevents Animated Objects from being both."

You can't use intent, because if you do, you have to use all of it, and no one knows what half of it was.

You're playing the intent game, too. You have two contradictory rules and you're claiming that your interpretation is the correct one. Can you give me an explanation why we should go with your interpretation that doesn't rely on intent? The Monster Manual and the PHB are on the same hierarchy of correctness. In fact, Data Vampire showed you a passage stating that the MM has precedence. What's your position on that?

Once again. I'm not playing the intent game. I'm showing that once you start bringing in intent, there are a billion possibilities, and we have no way of distinguishing between them.

I'm claiming that if you can declare something obviously true based on intent, I can claim something obviously true based on intent, and I'm just as right as you, and it has nothing to do with anything, because the rules don't say "Except when you can tell we intended something else."

Yes, the MM entry on Animated Object has precedence over whether or not it has hardness.

The Animated Object has Hardness X.

No one cares. Because the MM entry doesn't say "This hardness applies even when hardness doesn't apply."

You go look at the hardness rules, and what do they say: "Hardness reduces damage whenever and object takes damage."

Do you also think that because a MM entry says "Bears have teeth." That it means "And these Teeth are made of adamantium and force a fort save against death whenever you touch them."

Yes, Animated Objects have hardness. That hardness is exactly like all other Hardnesses, in that it does not protect creatures unless they are also objects.

[Cynic]

The Statue spell lets you have all your stat block + hardness.

So, it has wisdom & charisma which inherently says it's not an object.


On a strange note, an awakened tree or plant is strangely powerful. as it lets you roll your mental stats along with having the physical stats of a sized animated object.

Beware the forest of Awakened plants. I see an entire adventure around this.

[Kaelik]

The Statue spell lets you have all your stat block + hardness.

As I recall, when in statue form you can take no actions and are immobile, except the free action to revert to human form.

It says that you are a statue with your normal HP, not a statue with your normal HP and stats.

[Cynic]

If you can see and hear and smell - I think that constitutes spot, & listen & maybe search checks.

stat block.

[Kaelik]

If you can see and hear and smell - I think that constitutes spot, & listen & maybe search checks.

stat block.

So if it makes specific exceptions to what you can do that normal statues cannot therefore every possible action is in play?

Is that a joke? You can't take actions. If you can't take actions you can't even take the free actions to spot and listen and ect.

You can still gain sensory information that does not derive from spot checks.

But even if you could spot, you can only spot as an exception to the rule that statues cannot spot as explicitly called out in the text.

[NativeJovian]

We can either go with the actual rules, or we can go with 'intent.'

This is retarded because it results in stupid shit like "there's no rule that says I can't take actions while dead!". Some common sense needs to be applied to the interpretation of the rules. Why the hell would they write hardness into a monster entry if they didn't intend that monster to have hardness?

This has gotten into hair-splitting and rules-lawyering of the worst kind. Seriously. We've delved into the realm of unwitting self-parody here. It's ridiculous.

[Data Vampire]

What do you think the statue spell does, then?

It turns you into a solid stone statue. Whenever you are in statue form, you are an object. When you change back, you are a creature.

The Statue spell never says that you become an object. The closest is comes to that is

A statue spell turns the subject to solid stone,

statue state

Fairly ironic considering you stated this earlier.

And can understand your dismay that intend does not equal rules, but I can't understand why you think it does.

[Kaelik]

Why the hell would they write hardness into a monster entry if they didn't intend that monster to have hardness?

Because they intended the monster to be an object.

This isn't hard.

The Statue spell never says that you become an object. The closest is comes to that is

A statue spell turns the subject to solid stone,

statue state

Oh, so Solid Stone Statues are creatures now? I'll keep that in mind next time I'm asked to destroy one, since it doesn't have hardness, being a creature.

[Quantumboost]

Oh, so Solid Stone Statues are creatures now? I'll keep that in mind next time I'm asked to destroy one, since it doesn't have hardness, being a creature.

Solid stone statues with Wisdom and Charisma scores - like people under the effect of a statue spell - are creatures. Solid stone statues without Wisdom and Charisma scores - like, say, a statue made from preexisting stone - are objects, as per the description of Wisdom and Charisma nonabilities.

Actually, there's nothing that says that creatures can't have hardness either - it just doesn't clarify what that actually does when a creature has hardness. And clearly creatures can have hardness, since an animated object is a creature (as per earlier argument) and DOES have hardness.

[NativeJovian]

Oh, so Solid Stone Statues are creatures now?

Yes, if they're people with the Statue spell cast on them. It specifically says that they can see/hear/smell normally, which means that they have a wisdom score ("Any creature that can perceive its environment in any fashion has at least 1 point of Wisdom"), which means that they're creatures ("Every creature has a Wisdom score" and "Anything with no Wisdom score is an object, not a creature").

By any reasonable interpretation, this would also show that objects and creatures are mutually exclusive (things with wis/cha are creatures, things without wis/cha are objects), but since it never actually says that all objects have no wis/cha (only that everything with no wis/cha is an object), you could read it as some objects have wis/cha and are also creatures, if you really wanted to.

[Data Vampire]

Why the hell would they write hardness into a monster entry if they didn't intend that monster to have hardness?

Because they intended the monster to be an object.

It doesn't matter what they intended. It matters what the rules are.

We can either go with the actual rules, or we can go with 'intent.'

Your own standard prevents intent from being used to define how the rules work.
Drop the double standard.

The Statue spell never says that you become an object. The closest is comes to that is

A statue spell turns the subject to solid stone,

statue state

Oh, so Solid Stone Statues are creatures now?

Do have any rules that state a statue is an object?
Or are we going to play the intent game?

[Kaelik]

Why the hell would they write hardness into a monster entry if they didn't intend that monster to have hardness?

Because they intended the monster to be an object.

It doesn't matter what they intended. It matters what the rules are.

We can either go with the actual rules, or we can go with 'intent.'

Your own standard prevents intent from being used to define how the rules work.
Drop the double standard.

I seriously can't tell if you are a lying asshole or an idiot. You have genuinely stumped me.

I am telling him the reason they wrote rules that do nothing at all is because they made a mistake. No part of "We should deal with the actual rules." prevents me from accepting designer incompetence as the reason something exists.

Solid stone statues with Wisdom and Charisma scores - like people under the effect of a statue spell - are creatures. Solid stone statues without Wisdom and Charisma scores - like, say, a statue made from preexisting stone - are objects, as per the description of Wisdom and Charisma nonabilities.

Affirming the Consequent.

it just doesn't clarify what that actually does when a creature has hardness.

It does clarify what happens. Nothing. Just like the fact that no statement explains whether or not a overlapping enhancement bonuses grant you immortality does not mean that overlapping enhancement bonuses are not clarified.[/url]