Anyone else disappointed objects still have hit points?

[tafkamhokie]

This was always something that bugged me about 3e. You look up how to break an object, and it has a break DC. Fine.

But then, it also had a hardness and hit points. So technically I can take my longsword or warhammer and chisel my way through a 6 ft thick stone wall in just a few rounds using the two-handed weapon power attack rules. Blech.

So 4e comes out and they have the exact same system, only now there is no hardness. If you are sealed in a room by a 10ft thick stone block and the only tool you have is a longsword, you are out of there in a few minutes since it is only going to have 500-1000 hp.

I'm sorry, but if all you have is a longsword and a 10ft thick stone block or an adamantine door is in your way, you need to get creative and find some other options.

I like the break DC's for objects, but hit points for objects have always bothered me. Technically, you can break an adamantine door into pieces using a quarterstaff if given a few minutes. Boooo.

With hit points now explicitly representing stamina, luck, and overall heroness, why do objects even have hit points?

 

[Rith the Wanderer]

Yeah I agree with you, though the 3.5 system didn't bug me much. What does bug me is that the average naked villager is going to punch through an adamantine door in about 10 minutes. I think the best option is just to stick with break DC's only unless there is some reason to allow a hack away type attack.

 

[Tale]

If the DM isn't comfortable with this, he should just apply some basic Newton to the situation. See which lasts, the sword or the wall.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I like the break DC's for objects, but hit points for objects have always bothered me. Technically, you can break an adamantine door into pieces using a quarterstaff if given a few minutes. Boooo.

Not in 3.x, you can't, if the DM uses the ineffective weapons rule. Doesn't 4E have a similar such rule?

 

[Doc Eldritch]

Am I bothered that objects have a rules system attached for destroying them? Not at all. Did I like the Hardness rules from 3e better? Yes indeedy!

The key to 4e though, is common sense. If I had a player try to break down a stone wall with their quarterstaff (and they were not some kind of godling or titan), I would tell them, "I'll get back to you" and go on to the other players, coming back several minutes later with "Ok, after several minutes of work, you have managed to chip a small piece of stone from the wall with your repeated poundings, rubbed your hands raw, and are worn out. Mark off a healing surge. That wall looks like it is not going anywhere. Perhaps you need better tools than a stick?"

Ok, perhaps not that snarky (it depends on the player though ), but you get my point. No GM in their right mind is going to allow you to break a stone wall with a quarterstaff. You just have to apply some common sense to the rules.

 

[thegrizz]

Even back in 3rd ed I had a pretty simple rule on breaking through things like walls. Unless you had the right equipment (such as a pick or something similar) YOu were not going to break out of a room. Also even if you could damage the wall with your longsword I figured the longsword would take damage and eventually break itself.

That is how I handled it.

 

[lukelightning]

Yeah, I totally house-ruled that you can't power attack objects in 3.5. Of course you are trying to hit the door as hard as possible, that's a given.

A solution, of course, is for the DM to just use common sense, but still be a bit flexible. Sure, I can't bash down a stone wall with a staff. But what about Agathorn the Mighty, Level 15 ranger?

 

[Plane Sailing]

Not in 3.x, you can't, if the DM uses the ineffective weapons rule. Doesn't 4E have a similar such rule?

I was amazed how often people didn't use that rule in 3e; even if it isn't spelt out in 4e you can bet that I'm still going to be using it!

Cheers

 

[Boarstorm]

Objects still have hardness, its just determined by the DM without a handy-dandy chart.

So if you think that stone wall needs Resist All: 15, it has resist all 15. This is spelled out... well, somewhere. Don't have my books on hand for easy flipping, but it's easy to see in all the published adventures and such -- any time an object is listed that could conceivably be the target of destructive PCs, a resist is mentioned.

 

[Obryn]

This was a huge discussion a week or two back.

I vastly prefer 3.5's hardness rules, minus the adamantite wonkiness, to 4e's multiplier rules.

Still, I plan to make it pretty clear that only the right tools have a chance of getting the job done. Now, I will probably still have greataxe- or maul-wielding dwarves trying to break down doors and interior walls... But the 4e rules are at least passable for that.

-O