3rd edition D&D, acid and hardness.

[Data Vampire]

Well here's the most recent rules from the Rules Compendium page 106.

HARDNESS
Each object has hardness- a number that represents how well it resists damage. Whenever an object takes damage, subtract its hard-ness from that damage. Only damage in excess of its hardness is deducted from the object's hit points [snip]

Energy
Acid and sonic attacks deal damage to most objects just as they do creatures. Electricity and fire damage attacks deal half damage to most objects. Cold attacks deal on-quarter damage to most objects.

Notice that the lines for when to apply hardness are removed from the energy section.

[Kaelik]

No, that's the opposite of true. I've responded extensively to his argument.

You responded extensively to a strawman. And in your strawmanning, you whined about how he was not addressing the actual argument. Since he quoted and posted a response to the actual argument, I'm going to assume you were whining because he "got it wrong."

That IS position 4a. If no creatures have hardness, then it is trivially true that you never consider hardness when applying damage to a creature.

No you assface. 4a was "Creatures do have hardness but the designers thought they didn't and meant something different than what they said."

You never even addressed for a single second the idea that creatures might not have hardness. Because you are a lying assface. Assface.

The thing is, whether it's an object or not is irrelevant. I have already stated that it was irrelevant, and given a reason why, and no one has challenged my claim, except by the implication of repeating over and over that it's an object.

You never made a damn claim. You fucking decided that creatures have hardness, and I explicitly challenged your fucking claim in three different ways:

1) By pointing out that the example creature with hardness is an object.
2) By pointing out that you ignored the issue of it being possible for creatures to not have hardness by being a weasel and setting up your fake versions of clickml's argument under the assumption that he thinks creatures have hardness, even though he explicitly stated he didn't.
3) By explicitly stating "No creatures have hardness" as a premise of clickml's argument that you are ignoring, in those exact words.

So now that I have made myself expressly clear, how about instead of waving your cock around like a dumbfuck, you actually provide some evidence for your assertion with no fucking evidence of any kind?

I've seen a variety of claims that they are creatures, and have not seen anyone disputing that. If you grant that claim, then at least one creature exists which has hardness, which makes your claim that no creatures have hardness untrue. Option 4a only works if creatures cannot be protected by hardness, not if creatures can only be protected by hardness in one special case where they count as something else in addition to being creatures.

Once again, no one is arguing 4a, because 4a takes as a fundamental premise that creatures have hardness, which is fucking stupid.

Once again, "I've seen a variety of claims that Manxome is a retarded monkey, and have not seen anyone disputing that. If you grant that claim then Manxome is a retarded monkey, which makes your claim that you are not a retarded monkey untrue."

Yes, you can restate a premise over and over like a broken record but never present any evidence.

That's great. Suck a cock and die. Or how about you present evidence for your premise.

Maybe there's some clear rule that says animated objects are not creatures and everyone who suggested otherwise is wrong. But if so, you should be citing that rule, not waving your hands and calling me names. And you certainly shouldn't be repeating ad nauseum a claim that has already been dismissed as obviously irrelevant.

Hey assface. How about if you have a premise that is fundamental to your argument you provide evidence for it? Since you have presented absolutely zero evidence that they are creatures, how the fuck am I supposed to refute you? The claim that Animated Objects are objects and not creatures is not irrelevant. It's the entire damn fucking point.

Also, Data Vampire has submitted that Psicrystals also have hardness. I can only assume he thought this was relevant because he also believes that they are creatures and are not animated objects. I haven't investigated his claim since it can only support my arguments, but if you're intent on maintaining that no creatures have hardness, you ought to be trying to prove him wrong--and I can find no trace of any attempt to do so.

So once again, I should prove that things aren't creatures which no one has yet proved are creatures, because the default position when you haven't presented any argument at all is apparently "Oh fuck, I'm always right by default!"

No assface.

If you want to make a claim, IE that animated objects or psicrystals are creatures, back up your damn claim.

about creatures never having hardness (despite all evidence to the contrary),

Shut your lying assface mouth. There is no evidence to the contrary, because you haven't presented any. Present some damn fucking evidence.

that doesn't mean your interpretation of this rule about acid and sonic is correct.

It's not my interpretation of this rule. I don't have an interpretation of this rule because I can't find the definition of creature on the SRD and no one will fucking back up their reams of bullshit with actual evidence.

I can't have any interpretation at all until someone presents some evidence besides an assertion one way or the other that animated objects are or are not creatures.

This applies to clickml too, but he isn't being hypocritical, begging the question, and lying about the mountains of evidence he has presented, so I don't need to call him on anything.

[Quantumboost]

That IS position 4a. If no creatures have hardness, then it is trivially true that you never consider hardness when applying damage to a creature.

No you assface. 4a was "Creatures do have hardness but the designers thought they didn't and meant something different than what they said."

You never even addressed for a single second the idea that creatures might not have hardness. Because you are a lying assface. Assface.

(4a) Acid and sonic would already ignore the hardness of creatures even if this rule didn't exist, based only on other rules [citation needed]. This rule says that they ignore the hardness of objects just like they already were ignoring the hardness of creatures.

(4b) The designers thought that acid and sonic could never be reduced by the hardness of creatures even if this rule didn't exist, and were attempting to extend this to objects. They were wrong, but we should ignore what they actually wrote and follow their original intention (even though it was based on false assumptions), which was to make acid and sonic ignore hardness. We can tell that this was their intention, despite the fact that there were far simpler, more obvious, and clearer methods of conveying that intention than what they actually wrote, because [your reasoning here].

4b was the one with "Creatures do have hardness but the designers thought they didn't and meant something different than what they said." Manxome seems to consider "creatures don't have hardness, bitch" to fall under "hardness doesn't apply when you damage creatures", so his claim that your argument was 4a is reasonable. Your claim that it isn't, because it isn't... what was listed in 4B, is just stupid. Seriously, your complaints here are completely baseless.

The thing is, whether it's an object or not is irrelevant. I have already stated that it was irrelevant, and given a reason why, and no one has challenged my claim, except by the implication of repeating over and over that it's an object.

You never made a damn claim. You fucking decided that creatures have hardness, and I explicitly challenged your fucking claim in three different ways:

1) By pointing out that the example creature with hardness is an object.
2) By pointing out that you ignored the issue of it being possible for creatures to not have hardness by being a weasel and setting up your fake versions of clickml's argument under the assumption that he thinks creatures have hardness, even though he explicitly stated he didn't.
3) By explicitly stating "No creatures have hardness" as a premise of clickml's argument that you are ignoring, in those exact words.

So now that I have made myself expressly clear, how about instead of waving your cock around like a dumbfuck, you actually provide some evidence for your assertion with no fucking evidence of any kind?

1) proves nothing. If an animated object is a creature, it's a fucking creature regardless of if it happens to also be an object. If it's a creature with hardness, there are creatures with hardness. If you fail to acknowledge that then you're just spouting off on emotion and totally disregarding logic.

Edit: removing extraneous line at the start of the post

[Lehmuska]

I can't have any interpretation at all until someone presents some evidence besides an assertion one way or the other that animated objects are or are not creatures.

Animated objects have a charisma score. They also have a wisdom score. Therefore they are creatures, and not objects.

Why this matters:

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.

[Kaelik]

@Lehmuska, the only person with apparently any brains at all:

Neither of those are statements that all things with wisdom scores are creatures, and animated objects are explicitly still objects.

Those statements further present an object/creature opposition.

If you have an actual definition of creature, or something that states everything with a wisdom score is a creature, that would be a lot better.

@Quantumboost.

Just to be clear why you are a fucking tool, but it's Maxome's fault for being an even bigger tool:

"Last edited by Manxome on 01 Sep 2009 01:10 am; edited 1 time in total"

Guess which post that applies to. Yes he edited 4(a) like an hour before my post to something totally different in attempt to counter my repeated statements of not 4a. Yes neither 4a nor 4b say what they previously did.

Yes neither 4a nor 4b addresses the actual argument:

1) It is impossible for creatures to have hardness.
2) Statement says "Treat objects like creatures"
Therefore: 3) Treat Objects like they don't have hardness.

Because he's still making arguments that this rule does not specifically say what it contends it says, and is just assuming that creatures have hardness.

You'll note that both 4a and 4b assume the existence of creatures with hardness, which is directly fucking contradictory to the first premise of the argument actually in question from the beginning.

[Quantumboost]

@Lehmuska, the only person with apparently any brains at all:

[...]

If you have an actual definition of creature, or something that states everything with a wisdom score is a creature, that would be a lot better.

@Quantumboost.

Just to be clear why you are a fucking tool, but it's Maxome's fault for being an even bigger tool:

"Last edited by Manxome on 01 Sep 2009 01:10 am; edited 1 time in total"

Guess which post that applies to. Yes he edited 4(a) like an hour before my post to something totally different in attempt to counter my repeated statements of not 4a. Yes neither 4a nor 4b say what they previously did.

Yes neither 4a nor 4b addresses the actual argument:

1) It is impossible for creatures to have hardness.
2) Statement says "Treat objects like creatures"
Therefore: 3) Treat Objects like they don't have hardness.

Because he's still making arguments that this rule does not specifically say what it contends it says, and is just assuming that creatures have hardness.

You'll note that both 4a and 4b assume the existence of creatures with hardness, which is directly fucking contradictory to the first premise of the argument actually in question from the beginning.

*sigh*. Alright, from the top, using FULL FORMALIZATION ACTION:

Animated objects come in all sizes, shapes, and colors. They owe their existence as creatures to spells such as animate objects or other similar supernatural abilities.

1) Animated Objects are creatures.

Hardness (Ex): An animated object has the same hardness it had before it was animated (see Table 9-9 and Table 9-11, page 166 of the Player's Handbook, for the hardness of some common substances and objects).

2) Animated Objects have hardness.

3) From 1 and 2, Animated Objects are creatures which have hardness.

4) From 3, there exist creatures which have hardness.

Ergo, item 1) from your stated argument above is false. Ergo, the argument is unsound due to untrue premises, and its conclusion cannot be held to be proven true from that argument.

That is what was to be demonstrated.

[Kaelik]

Yes. So when I asked 18 damn times for someone to provide evidence for animated objects being creatures, why didn't anyone just do that?

I mean, Data showed with the Rule Compendium text that hardness applies to both types already. Can someone give me a damn definition of creature at all?

[Quantumboost]

Yes. So when I asked 18 damn times for someone to provide evidence for animated objects being creatures, why didn't anyone just do that?

I don't see a single instance of actually asking about evidence about animated objects until the first post I responded to. Didn't see anything about animated objects "being creatures" until your response to that. Just asserting repeatedly that there were no creatures with hardness, and that Animated Objects were objects. That might imply that it should maybe be responded to possibly, but it doesn't qualify as asking in any sense of the word.

I mean, Data showed with the Rule Compendium text that hardness applies to both types already. Can someone give me a damn definition of creature at all?

creature: A living or otherwise active being, not an object. The terms “creature” and “character” are sometimes used interchangeably.
creature type: One of several broad categories of creatures. The
creature types are aberration, animal, construct, dragon, elemental,
fey, giant, humanoid, magical beast, monstrous humanoid, ooze,
outsider, plant, undead, and vermin. (See the Monster Manual for full
descriptions.)

So, a creature is anything with a creature type, and is not an object. That means everything which could have a monster writeup.

[Lehmuska]

I haven't found a definition for a creature. The only thing that I've found that all creatures must have, are wisdom and charisma scores.

(possible house rule alert!)

This is why in my games I define a creature as a thing that has wisdom and charisma, and an object as a thing that doesn't have them.

Edit: But it appears I don't read my PHB carefully enough.

[Kaelik]

It appears even more so that the rules contradict themselves a bit.

Since this again emphasizes the object/creature opposition, even though animated objects are creatures and objects, same for psicrystals and intelligent items.

Way to go WotC.

[Quantumboost]

It appears even more so that the rules contradict themselves a bit.

Since this again emphasizes the object/creature opposition, even though animated objects are creatures and objects, same for psicrystals and intelligent items.

Way to go WotC.

Where is it actually specified that animated objects are objects? Or psicrystals, or intelligent items?

[Cynic]

Yes. So when I asked 18 damn times for someone to provide evidence for animated objects being creatures, why didn't anyone just do that?

I don't see a single instance of actually asking about evidence about animated objects until the first post I responded to. Didn't see anything about animated objects "being creatures" until your response to that. Just asserting repeatedly that there were no creatures with hardness, and that Animated Objects were objects. That might imply that it should maybe be responded to possibly, but it doesn't qualify as asking in any sense of the word.

I mean, Data showed with the Rule Compendium text that hardness applies to both types already. Can someone give me a damn definition of creature at all?

creature: A living or otherwise active being, not an object. The terms “creature” and “character” are sometimes used interchangeably.
creature type: One of several broad categories of creatures. The
creature types are aberration, animal, construct, dragon, elemental,
fey, giant, humanoid, magical beast, monstrous humanoid, ooze,
outsider, plant, undead, and vermin. (See the Monster Manual for full
descriptions.)

So, a creature is anything with a creature type, and is not an object. That means everything which could have a monster writeup.

But we then diverge to the srd which when defining the Construct type says "Construct Type
A construct is an animated object or artificially constructed creature."

The MM says the same thing.

EDIT: While we may say that if it has a Creature type then it is a creature, the specific exception in this case says that the Construct type applies to Animated Objects or Artificially constructed creature.

We go further back to pg 306 which says that a creature is a "living or otherwise active being, not an object."

SO if the creature type says it can be a creature or an object, we have a logical Snake biting its tail.

[Manxome]

@Quantumboost.

Just to be clear why you are a fucking tool, but it's Maxome's fault for being an even bigger tool:

"Last edited by Manxome on 01 Sep 2009 01:10 am; edited 1 time in total"

Guess which post that applies to. Yes he edited 4(a) like an hour before my post to something totally different in attempt to counter my repeated statements of not 4a. Yes neither 4a nor 4b say what they previously did.

Yes, you caught me. I edited my post where I originally defined what option "4a" was one minute after I published the post in the first place, before anyone responded, so that I could respond to your future post by saying that I had anticipated and covered your argument. It certainly was not to correct a minor grammar error that I caught on a re-read or anything of the sort.

We'll just ignore the fact that even if I completely changed every single word in my post during that edit, it was all done before anyone else posted anything further, and thus would still be just as legitimate as if it was part of the original post.

Yes. So when I asked 18 damn times for someone to provide evidence for animated objects being creatures, why didn't anyone just do that?

Because you didn't do that. You asked for evidence for the first time in your post at the top of page 2, after my last post (until this one).

I don't own a single D&D book, so I'm working with the facts that have been given. Lehmuska said that animated objects are creatures and that they have hardness in the first damn post, as a central point of his argument. No one contested this fact. I've re-checked every instance of the word "animated" in this thread just in case I somehow missed it, and no one has actually claimed that animated object are "not creatures" or that they do not have hardness. Not you, not clickml, not Frank, no one. Not once, in the entire thread. There were claims that animated objects were objects, and that they were a special case, but nothing saying they were not creatures. Thus, I assumed that this assertion was not being contested.

So apparently this objection that you've been so angry that I'm "ignoring" is one that no one actually made. Which might explain why I ignored it.

[Roog]

But we then diverge to the srd which when defining the Construct type says "Construct Type
A construct is an animated object or artificially constructed creature."

The MM says the same thing.

EDIT: While we may say that if it has a Creature type then it is a creature, the specific exception in this case says that the Construct type applies to Animated Objects or Artificially constructed creature.

We go further back to pg 306 which says that a creature is a "living or otherwise active being, not an object."

SO if the creature type says it can be a creature or an object, we have a logical Snake biting its tail.

Is an object that has bee animated (by use of animate objects or craft construct, etc) still an object?

In this particular case, is an animated object an animated "object" or an "animated object"?

[Quantumboost]

Is an object that has bee animated (by use of animate objects or craft construct, etc) still an object?

In this particular case, is an animated object an animated "object" or an "animated object"?

It actually doesn't matter which breakdown of the sentence you use. Either it's an object that's been animated (in which case it's had animate objects cast on it and is turned into the "animated object" monster) or it's the "animated object" monster. Which are the same thing.

There are two possible interpretations of the Construct type description - animated objects are no longer objects, or animated objects are objects. One of them is consistent with how the PHB defines "creature type" and "creature", and the other isn't. The reasonable thing to do at that point is use the one that doesn't result in a contradiction.

[NativeJovian]

It's pretty clear that an animation object is considered a creature. It can also be reasonably assumed that objects and creatures are mutually exclusive, and the process of animating an animated object turns it from an object to a creature (the same way turning a corpse into a zombie or turning a pile of clay into a golem turns them from objects to creatures).

What isn't clear is why the fuck this matters, given that an animated object (which is actually a construct-type creature) explicitly retains its hardness, thus proving that a creature can have hardness. So, the argument that acid or sonic damage would ignore hardness because they deal damage to objects "just as they do to creatures", and creatures have no hardness, is wrong, because creatures can have hardness.

What this means is that acid and sonic effects deal full damage to objects, though that damage is reduced by hardness, as opposed to fire and electricity (whose damage is divided in half before being reduced by hardness), or cold (whose damage is cut to a quarter before being reduced by hardness). However, animated objects are creatures, so damage of all energy types deal full damage before being reduced by hardness.

This was all spelled out in the first three posts of the damn thread and I have no idea why it's still even an issue.

[mean_liar]

Because sometimes pedantry is its own intellectual reward.

[Cynic]

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

The rules are muddled and retarded. This is a case of an exception to the rule that is the issue.

--

Attacking this whole thing from another angle -- I could have sworn that somewhere there was core text stating that while X element specifically acts like this on Substances, there are Y exceptions in Substances where it acts differently.

For example - Fire and wood. A man with a thrown firebrand can set fire to a simple wooden structure.

The wood has 20 hardness in this case and the firebrand legally only does 1d6 damage a round. So it should never burn but it does nonetheless due to there being Y exceptions. At least this was how the rule was shown to me a long time ago.

[Lehmuska]

Setting wood on fire is not the same as dealing damage to wood.

[hogarth]

Attacking this whole thing from another angle -- I could have sworn that somewhere there was core text stating that while X element specifically acts like this on Substances, there are Y exceptions in Substances where it acts differently.

You mean like:
"Vulnerability to Certain Attacks
Certain attacks are especially successful against some objects. In such cases, attacks deal double their normal damage and may ignore the object’s hardness. "
?

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/exploration.h ... ainAttacks

By the way, most wooden houses (hardness 5) are not as hard as adamantine (hardness 20).

[Lehmuska]

Here's a pre-emptive argument for why fire shouldn't be especially succesful against wood.

A club is roughly the same as a piece of firewood. A club has hardness 5 and 5 hit points. when a character catches fire, it takes 1d6 fire damage per round. I think it's reasonable to assume objects work the same way as creatures in this case (except for the reflex save part)

An object takes half damage from fire. If it instead took double damage from fire, a club could burn completely in a round. Normal firewood takes a lot more time to burn.

Then again, if fire dealt double the half damage (ie. normal damage) to wood, a club (or a piece of firewood, whatever) lasts about three minutes. This feels quite fast too, but is perhaps the closest one to reality, if we assume wood is vulnerable against fire.

If fire would ignore wood's hardness, a club would last one or two rounds on average against fire, depending on whether it would deal double damage (2d6) or double halved damage (1d6).

Anyway, I think that fire rules try to represent what happens on the short term, in a few rounds or so. The fact that wood does not take damage from normal fire is all right, because a club, or a piece of firewood, or a torch for that matter does not burn up in a time frame measured in rounds.

[NativeJovian]

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?

[Absentminded_Wizard]

Here's my nice, simplistic take on the subject. We have the following definition of "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

Since hardness is a property that kicks in any time an object takes damage, then the rules for an attack form must specify that the attack bypasses hardness. And since there doesn't appear to be a concrete definition of "creature" in the SRD, saying the attack damages objects "just like creatures" isn't specific enough.

[Kaelik]

Well, if we want to get super technical:

1) The definition of hardness is that X damage is reduced "whenever an object takes damage."
2) As per multiple instances including the definition of creature: Creatures and objects are mutually exclusive.
3) When a creatures that is not an object takes damage, hardness does not reduce it. (per 1)
4a and b) Animated Objects are either a) creatures or b) objects, per 2. Make your argument either way.

5a) If Animated Objects are creatures, they can have hardness infinity, it never comes into play, since an object is not taking damage.
6a) Statement "deal damage to objects as they do to creatures" means bypassing hardness, because when damaging creatures with hardness, all things bypass hardness.

5b) If animated Objects are not creatures, then we still have no creatures with hardness, not that it matters because:
6b) "deal damage to objects as they do to creatures" means bypass hardness, because hardness does not protect creatures.


So ultimately, the phrase "deal damage to objects as if they are creatures" does mean bypass hardness, because as per definition of hardness, damage is reduced when an object takes damage.

Additionally, Animated Objects do not benefit from hardness at all, unless you make them objects, which requires something being an object and creatures simultaneously, which requires throwing away the PHB definition of creature.

[NativeJovian]

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.