D&D 4E 4e -- Is The World Made Of Cheese?

[Mal Malenkirk]

This is also one of my disappointments.

I am, however, tempted to head to the next local RPGA, and start bashing walls down once we start.

You probably should. You'll see a DM in action adjudicate the situation.

You'll then see how there is in fact no problem.

---

Do note how the breaking object table concerns objects, like bottle or statues. Door and Walls are adressed specifically and require break DC. Obviously, this is meant to take place within a round framework, during an encounter.

If you undertake something that is bound to take hours, I would make it a skill challenge, assuming I accept that he PCs have the tools for the job.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Lizard, have you ever considered 4e might not be the game for you?

3.5 had a pretty strong DM's fiat section about destroying objects too, something about not letting certain weapons such as arrows be used if the DM thinks it's not appropriate. On that basis one could make a good case for not permitting the PAing barbarian to break walls with his greatsword though my DMs always allowed it, I think they hadn't read that section. Hmm.. mind you, what if was a magic greatsword? Damn, don't know what to think, need crunchy rules to tell me what to do.

 

[ZappoHisbane]

By the same token, if 'speed of plot' is all that matters, why are there rules for object hit points at all, based on size and material construction? You need to break down a statue. You can't do it in combat, and, out of combat, you do it if you have the tools. End. Put in one paragraph to this effect, and replace the page on attacking objects with a Random Prostitute table.

Because you *might* need to break down a door during an encounter, or smash open the statue hiding the MacGuffin inside (or to disrupt the ritual, whatever). So for the statue, I would have preferred rules that say 'fists can't break stone', but I'm comfortable with applying common sense. Arrows aren't going to do the trick, nor light weapons like quarterstaves, rapiers, etc. Blades, let's say 1/2 damage against stone. Heavy blunt weapons and picks work fine.

Would I prefer rules? Yup. Was the above all that difficult? Nope.

 

[Doug McCrae]

So stop thinking too hard about philosophy.

Seriously, this is an incredibly deep and intelligent post. About half of all philosophy is effectively saying this, Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations for example.

<-- MA (Hons) Philosophy

 

[vagabundo]

Found it, page 189 DMG 4e

Object  	  	  	Resistance (All)  
Rope (1 inch diam.) 	  	0 	
Simple wooden door 	  	5 	
Small chest 	  	  	  5 	
Good wooden door 	  	5 	
Treasure chest 	              5
Strong wooden door 	       5
Masonry wall (1 ft. thick) 	8
Hewn stone (3 ft. thick) 	8
Chain 	                          10
Manacles 	                10 
Masterwork manacles 	      	10 	
Iron door (2 in. thick) 	10

Seriously though, I have never used the hardness rules. I believe it was very niche (before there is an outcry, enworlders are different!!). I've never had reason to slow down my game to get them out.

I'm a fan of introducing some 3e rules into 4e that suit your playstyle. Although I'll probably be playing 4e neat. A 4e core+combat with 3e class and fiddly rules might be to a more sim orientated DM's taste.

 

[Lizard]

Found it, page 169 DMG 4e

Uhm...page 169 in my DMG is the Hand of Vecna.

And as a general note: The issue isn't "Well, why can't you just make up numbers?" Of course I can. Duh. In less time than it takes to write this message, I can "solve" the problem. The issue is: I shouldn't *have* to, any more than I should have to make up how much damage a dagger does, or the hit points of an orc, or the DC of an "Easy" skill check for a fifth level character. No one has articulated why removing hardness (but leaving a formula for object hit points by size and construction) is a net gain.

There is, almost by definition, no problem which cannot be "solved" by DM fiat -- but DM fiat creates problems. It can be inconsistent -- my memory ain't what it used to be. It varies from DM to DM. Our group runs two weekly 3.5 games, one of which I run, one of which someone else (who is a player in my game) runs. Two sets of house rules for a *common* *occurence* is annoying. (Yes, we could agree on one set -- but once more, why should we have to, any more than we should need to harmonize on how drowning works or any other basic rule?)

 

[hong]

There is, almost by definition, no problem which cannot be "solved" by DM fiat -- but DM fiat creates problems. It can be inconsistent -- my memory ain't what it used to be.

So tell your players to stop thinking too hard about fantasy.

It varies from DM to DM. Our group runs two weekly 3.5 games, one of which I run, one of which someone else (who is a player in my game) runs. Two sets of house rules for a *common* *occurence* is annoying. (Yes, we could agree on one set -- but once more, why should we have to, any more than we should need to harmonize on how drowning works or any other basic rule?)

See, the trick is to realise that carving your way through walls as a matter of course is a very odd occurrence indeed.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

"Apply common sense" really doesn't work here

Sorry, I just don't see this. What amazing insight was required to come up with the claim that a wooden spoon won't dig through a stone wall? If you can come up with this idea while writing a post, you can come up with it during a game.

 

[kromelizard]

So tell your players to stop thinking too hard about fantasy.



See, the trick is to realise that carving your way through walls as a matter of course is a very odd occurrence indeed.

So is stabbing folks with swords, yet there's what, 50 pages of rules for that, not counting the power lists? D&D characters do a whole lot of unusual things.

 

[hong]

So is stabbing folks with swords, yet there's what, 50 pages of rules for that, not counting the power lists? D&D characters do a whole lot of unusual things.

To be precise, stabbing folks with swords is not an odd occurrence within the context of the fantasy genre, whereas routinely carving your way through walls is.

This should not need to be stated.