spearing a ship until it sinks

[TerraDave]

I still think you're not reading this rule correctly.


Also don't forget the part that talks about damage not necessarily meaning the object is destroyed, only no longer functional.

So in the case of your ship, the ship doesn't sink, the rigging is fouled, and the sails are full of holes, etc.

Of course your interpretation is better then the RAW. But when it comes to the rules, what am I misreading? Weapons remove hps, ship has hps. Also, I think AV says "destroyed".

To be fair, RC does have some fudging language. "At the DMs discretion, any power that targets one or more creatures can target one or more objects", so yes, the DM override is there (though so is "any power"). RC also says destroyed or functionally ruined, so yes, I can, technically per raw, rule that the ship is stopped or just starts sicking and is not destroyed.

The RC still bugs me as it does go into some detail, so that I can caclulate that a wood wagon has: HP 40 AC/Ref 4 Fort 12 wereas if it was metal it would have 120 hp and still AC 4, but I don't find that info to really be that usefull.

 

[Dausuul]

At which point it becomes and extended skill challange or the roof comes down on them.

Or, more likely, the DM institutes a house rule along the lines of, "No, you can't tunnel through stone and knock down walls with a sword. Deal with it."

I think my approach would be to have two opposing attributes: Hardness and shatter. To damage an object, you need to attack it with something whose shatter value equals or exceeds the object's hardness. If you do, you deal full damage and can break the object if you hit it enough. Otherwise, your implement is simply not up to the job.

A "destructible" object would have hardness 0; you can break it with anything. Solid wood might have hardness 1, stone would have hardness 2, iron would have hardness 3, and adamantine would have hardness 4. On the other side of the ledger, most weapons and spells would have shatter 0. Axes, maces, fire, and maybe thunder have shatter 1. For shatter 2+, you mostly need acid, siege engines, mining gear, or disintegrate-type magic.

I think this would be easier to remember than 3E-style hardness, and would address the problem of increasing PC damage output, while at the same time providing a concise way of saying, "This magic item/spell/whatever is extra good at breaking stuff."

 

[Joshua Randall]

Yeah, right up until the point where the PCs start doing it with every dungeon they come to. Then it rapidly becomes dumb.

Players abusing the system is not a flaw of the game system. It is a flaw of the players.

If your players are abusive jerks, get better players.

 

[Dausuul]

Players abusing the system is not a flaw of the game system. It is a flaw of the players.

If your players are abusive jerks, get better players.

Ah, yes, the "You're abusing the system because you're playing by the rules as presented!" approach to DMing. Attacking inanimate objects is perfectly fine up until some secret magic threshold; then it becomes abuse and you get smacked down for it.

I'm not interested in making the players try to guess my level of tolerance. If the PCs knocked down a dungeon with their bare fists once, it's entirely reasonable for them to figure they can do it again. I much prefer a system where the PCs can't do stupid stuff like this in the first place.

(Also, I'm gonna revise my earlier statement that knocking down dungeons bare-fisted is awesome until the PCs do it with every dungeon they come to. I don't think it's awesome the first time, either.)

 

[Peraion Graufalke]

To clarify I don't want to head off discussion of alternatives...which could include:

-reintroducing hardness/resistance
-just upping the AC and HP
-dropping ship stats and using a skill challenge or a narative approach. (sheesh, ninjaed)

For the second of these, an AC of say 18 (to allow for deflection) and more like 500-800 hp (maybe with fire vulnrability) might work. Might.

For the third, it becomes very conditional. Sabotaging a ship vs a sea monster attack vs dueling ships all might need different frameworks.

The vehicle stats in AV have bugged me for some time, actually. Mostly the abysmal AC/Ref defenses and lack of ship weapons. Let's try the homebrew approach. Some ideas how I might rule it:

1) Increasing vehicle defenses

Add 10 to AC. If the vehicle is moving, also add the pilot's level to AC and Reflex.
(Alternatively, just add 10 + the pilot's level to AC/Ref.)


2) Use categories for the effectiveness of attacks

Category A (ideal weapons)
Siege weapons (catapult, shot ballista, cannon), attacks by creatures of huge or gargantuan size. These deal full damage.

Category B (effective weapons)
Axes, hammers, maces (preferably two-handed ones), ballistas, burning arrows & bolts, attacks by large creatures. These deal half damage.

Category C (ineffective weapons)
Everything else (light blades, heavy blades etc.). For these, use the vehicle's Fortitude as damage resist.

Spell effects and enchantments:
You could categorize spells by damage type and usage (AW/E/D). For example:
Fireball as category A (Daily, fire damage),
Scorching Burst as B or C (At-will, fire damage),
Chilling Cloud as C (At-will, cold damage).

Certain enchantments could improve your weapon's category, e.g. a dagger with the Force Weapon or Flaming Weapon enchantment would be category B instead of C.

 

[KahnyaGnorc]

Seems to me, it should be Strength (or Athletics) checks with bonus (axes, bludgeoning weapons) or penalties (piercing, non-axe slashing weapons) based on tools used, instead of Basic Melee attacks (or even melee powers).

However, barbarian hurling a Flaming Maul with the Arcing Throw power at a ship loaded with black powder, Alchemist Fire, or other explosive/flammable cargo would be awesome to take down that ship! (just as an example)

 

[malraux]

A lot of "rules" have limits on the extent of the situations that they cover. Newtonian mechanics works until you start dealing with large speeds or gravities. Euclidian geometry works for driving across town, but not for large distances on the surface of a sphere (at least not very elegantly).

4e rules about attacking stuff most applies to fights with monsters. The rules are pretty clear that while you can run the numbers for attacking things like ships but it's at the edge of their domain where they start to break down.

 

[Solvarn]

Skill challenge

Per RAW I don't think this was covered well as a combat situation, although I think this type of activity would be best used during a skill challenge.

 

[pclaw8]

As far as attacking a dungeon goes, why does the entire dungeon have to share the stats? If this dungeon has a support beam in one of the rooms, the pcs take this beam out. This would possibly collapse the ceiling in this room and maybee the floor above it. I find it hard to see a situation where the pcs could take out the entire place by punching a wall.

Sent from my Samsung Captivate using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Cyronax]

So ... basically I'm just echoing most of the points here, but will add a personal anecodote. This thread reminded me a 4e campaign I ran from dec-08 to aug-09. It was based heavily around rules for the 4e airships.

I took the rules quite literally and that made the battle between airships pretty lethal.

I did add special qualities for defense, speed, offense, and utility for certain airships, but the mainline airship was straight from AV1.

In retrospect, that model failed the campaign because the PCs were usually only on one airship -- their own. They on more than one occaision had to fight off air-pirates on multiple attacking airships.

About half-way into the campaign, I realized that the seeming elegance and simplicity of 4e's vehicle combat system was funked. It required a lot of ad hoc DMery.

I had started to tinker with a system based on Star Wars SAGA rules at the time, but the campaign abruptly ended.

My new campaign's going much better. Sep-09 to present.

C.I.D.