3rd edition D&D, acid and hardness.

[Data Vampire]

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

[edit]Neither I made an error and thought you where using that statement as an offer of prove of your assertion that animated objects, psicrystals and creatures under the effects of the stature spell where objects rather than creatures.

So I made a mistake. However, it raises the question of what evidence are you offering of the above. The only thing I can find is bald assertions, but no proof.[/edit]

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.

Your misusing the fallacy. The rules stating that if something has Wisdom and Charisma then it is a creature not an object has been linked and posted serveral times. Because of the rules say if A then B and A is true then B.

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.

That would be within the rules.

[Lago PARANOIA]

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.

Do you think that the person who wrote this monster entry wanted an animated block of ice to be easier to defeat than an animated block of steel of the same size? If your answer is yes, then you have accepted the design intent of this rule; then the question remains, what is your objection to monsters benefiting from hardness other than intransigence or lack of coordination between writers?

[Absentminded_Wizard]

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.

Prove to me that saying "all objects have hardness" is the same as saying "creatures never have hardness." Particularly in the context of this SRD section we're quoting. All these quotes we've been arguing about are part of a section on how to break an object. Each paragraph details something you have to consider when trying to do that. It's not presented as an exhaustive list of the differences between an object and a creature.

[Kaelik]

Do you think that the person who wrote this monster entry wanted an animated block of ice to be easier to defeat than an animated block of steel of the same size? If your answer is yes, then you have accepted the design intent of this rule; then the question remains, what is your objection to monsters benefiting from hardness other than intransigence or lack of coordination between writers?

I accept that the designers intended things that are not in the rules.

I do not accept that we should attempt to divine their intent and play by it instead of the actual rules.

[NativeJovian]

I accept that the designers intended things that are not in the rules.

I do not accept that we should attempt to divine their intent and play by it instead of the actual rules.

So it doesn't matter if my HP is -72, I'm still in the fight because there's no rule that says you can't take actions while dead, right?

[Kaelik]

So it doesn't matter if my HP is -72, I'm still in the fight because there's no rule that says you can't take actions while dead, right?

"When your nonlethal damage exceeds your current hit points, you fall unconscious. While unconscious, you are helpless."

You have 0 non lethal damage. That is greater than your current HP, therefore you are unconscious and Dead and Helpless.

This means you cannot act, and you cannot be magically healed.

Suck it people who can't read rules.

[NativeJovian]

"When you take nonlethal damage, keep a running total of how much you’ve accumulated." That means before you take any nonlethal damage, you don't have zero nonlethal damage, your nonlethal damage is "none", similar to the distinction between ability scores and nonabilities. -72 isn't less than N/A, so you can still act while dead.

If you don't take the writer's intent into account when interpreting the rules, then you end up with logically valid but utterly retarded interpretations.

[RandomCasualty2]

I accept that the designers intended things that are not in the rules.

I do not accept that we should attempt to divine their intent and play by it instead of the actual rules.

But there's no telling what the actual rules are. I mean, you're saying the hardness for animated objects, the statue spell, and psicrystals are all wrong, and some obscure passage you pulled from somewhere is correct. But you can't actually know that. It could be that passage that you're using that's in need of errata.

It's in these cases where intent should be the deciding factor. Alternately, you can use a preponderance of the evidence. But you're not using intent, you're not even using a preponderance of the evidence, you're just using whatever interpretation best at the time.

Seriously, why does some general passage automatically suppress specifics in a monster entry? Specific usually trumps general. It's like if there's a passage in an outsider entry that says, "This creature doesn't have the usual darkvision" and then you saying that the text means nothing because in the definition of outsider, it says that all outsiders have darkvision, therefore this creature has to get darkvision too.

Your argument is total bullshit.

[Psychic Robot]

This is probably the most pointless argument I've ever seen. It's less bad than that Uranium Katana nonsense, but it's pretty darn bad.

[Starmaker]

Absentminded_Wizard:

By itself, All objects have hardness =/= No creatures have hardness, that's a fallacy right there.

In the context of the SRD quotes, if we accept the following as the definition of hardness (1st sentence, slightly reworded):
"hardness is a number that represents how well objects resist damage" -
then hardness is a property of objects, not creatures, like color is a property of light, not sound. By that definition, all objects have hardness. It can be 0, but it'll be hardness = 0, not hardness = N/A.

But it's not the defining property of objects (the lack of Wis and Cha is, per another quote entirely: "Anything with no Wisdom score is an object, not a creature"). So the devs can go ahead and write some hardness on a creature, which was presumably done in the case of animated objects, and if specific trumps general (apparently, it does), it won't even be a case of giant frog.

(Un)fortunately, the rules don't come out and say how hardness affects creatures. If the sentence on application or the Hardness (Ex) line in monster entries said something like "hardness is subtracted from damage taken", then it in fact would apply. Currently, it doesn't, which in no way prevents us from introducing house rules.

Concerning acid, the line that it affects objects as it does creatures currently means that hardness is ignored (because hardness on a creature doesn't function when it's present).

NativeJovian, I don't follow.

Damage (whether lethal or nonlethal) is dealt to valid targets, regardless of how much damage they currently have. Hp and the nonlethal running total are continuously monitored (vs. checked on certain triggers), and if these parameters exceed certain thresholds, stuff happens. So not having nonlethal damage does not prevent you from taking some (being immune to nonlethal damage does).

Now, a question:
Are corpses considered objects or creatures? If they are objects, raise dead does not work, if they are creatures, giant frog happens as almost everything is suddenly a creature or a part thereof.

[NativeJovian]

NativeJovian, I don't follow.

It says "When you take nonlethal damage, keep a running total of how much you've accumulated." Since it says that you only keep track of how much nonlethal damage you have when you take nonlethal damage, when you haven't taken any, you don't keep track of it. Therefore it's not "zero nonlethal damage" it's "N/A", because you're not tracking it at all, just like you don't track the con score of an undead creature or the int score of a mindless one.

Of course, this is ridiculous. Deliberately so. But by reading the words exactly as written, rather than applying a little bit of common sense and understanding what that sentence was intended to mean, you come to this silly conclusion.

It's an attempt to show Kaelik how common sense and writer's intent are important in interpreting rules, though admittedly I don't have much confidence in convincing him, given that he seems determined to live in his own special world where writers never make mistakes and it's completely impossible to figure out what someone was trying to accomplish with any given ruling.

This is probably the most pointless argument I've ever seen.

And how.

[Kaelik]

given that he seems determined to live in his own special world where writers never make mistakes

Fuck you. I'm not going to bother dealing with you if you are just going to lie.

[Crissa]

I would assume, since it does not say otherwise, normally damage must go through hardness, so therefor, 'as normal' means use hardness.

The fact that creatures normally don't have hardness seems irrelevant.

-Crissa

[Kaelik]

I would assume, since it does not say otherwise, normally damage must go through hardness, so therefor, 'as normal' means use hardness.

The fact that creatures normally don't have hardness seems irrelevant.

But the actual definition of what hardness does is "when an object takes damage reduce damage."

So whenever anything that is not an object takes damage, you don't reduce it.

Just like "when targeted, make a saving throw" means that things not targeted need not make saving throws.

[Psychic Robot]

This entire debate is somewhat embarrassing for TGD. What will people think when they see four pages of mouth-frothing based on whether or not acid ignores hardness according to the rules-as-written? Come on. Just accept that the rules are poorly written and move on. If you're going to let hardness apply to acid in your game, so be it. If you're not, then so be it.

Again, I think that the RAW supports hardness applying against acid. I also think that's pretty stupid, so I'd house rule it to be otherwise.

[schpeelah]

Yeah, I think most people play by "acid does full damage minus hardness and sonic ignores hardness".

[Lago PARANOIA]

As long as we're opening up the 'stop lying, liar' can of worms, I would just like to say that your shrill brinksmanship is why no one likes to talk to you, Kaelik. Like ever.

[Kaelik]

As long as we're opening up the 'stop lying, liar' can of worms, I would just like to say that your shrill brinksmanship is why no one likes to talk to you, Kaelik. Like ever.

Well then perhaps people should avoid claiming that I believe things which are directly contradictory to what I have said repeatedly?

[Absentminded_Wizard]

What will people think when they see four pages of mouth-frothing based on whether or not acid ignores hardness according to the rules-as-written? Come on. Just accept that the rules are poorly written and move on.

This may be themost sensible thing you've ever said on TGD. However you interpret these rules, it's obvious the designers had no coherent idea what they wanted.