clikml wrote:You can either assume that the writing "deal damage to most objects just as they do to creatures," is stating something (i.e. posing creatures as something contrary to objects) or that it is is pointless text stating nothing.
It's pretty disingenuous to assume that rules specific text is stating absolutely nothing there, when the bias should be towards rules text actually meaning something.
If that bias means something the it is almost certainly setting up the comparison between objects having hardness and creatures not (as the only creatures that have hardness are objects).
No, as others have already pointed out, it could very easily and plausibly be aimed at the difference between acid/sonic and fire/cold/electricity, rather than the difference between creatures and objects. This objection is groundless.
clikml wrote:Likewise it is disingenuous to assume that "roll damage and apply it normally after a successful hit," implies that hardness is some normal feature that was meant to be included.
So you're arguing that if this paragraph didn't exist, we would assume by default that all energy types ignored hardness?
Hardness is a "normal feature" if it's something that you would include in your calculations, absent any rule to the contrary. This argument only works if you believe that hardness does
NOT apply to
ANY damage type unless you have a specific rule saying it
DOES. If that's the case, citing the rule that says that would be quite helpful.
If you're not saying that, then hardness is definitionally a "normal feature" and this objection is also groundless.
clikml wrote:I see how you are trying to twist each of those passages, Lehmuska, I just don't think it is worth deigning as a serious interpretation since you are required to assume too much and against the wrong bias.
You have totally ignored a bunch of legitimate arguments made against you, have chosen not to clarify what your position actually
is in light of the alternatives I posted, and are claiming that the
majority opinion in this thread is not even worth taking seriously, despite presenting no plausible arguments against it.
I, for one, find it rather annoying when a debater ends every statement by saying that anyone who disagrees with him must be an idiot. Especially when he's not even addressing his opponents' arguments.
I think you at least owe it to us to state exactly what interpretation you are arguing
for. Here are the possibilities I see:
(2) Acid and sonic ignore the hardness of objects, but
not the hardness of creatures. When they wrote that acid/sonic should apply to objects in the same way as creatures, they actually meant it should apply differently.
(3) Acid and sonic ignore the hardness of objects and creatures. When they wrote that acid/sonic should apply to objects in the same way as creatures, it was their intention to to
change the way in which acid and sonic apply to creatures.
(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].
If
none of those accurately represents your position, then we are sorely in need of clarification.