Did you houserule Hardness back?

[gribble]

Well, I don't really know if I'm going to create a houserule, but I am pretty dissatisfied with traps in general in 4e. My players quickly realised that it's not only safer, but also quicker, to "disarm" traps in 4e by attacking and destroying them from range than for a rogue to actually try to disable them using thievery.

And that just doesn't seem right to me...

I'm not a huge fan of houserules though - IME, they tend to introduce more problems than they solve, so unfortunately I think my "fix" is going to be to just not use any traps that can be attacked, which is a great shame given 4e's encounter design philosophy.

 

[wedgeski]

Can any of you guys that have not houseruled it say why? Has it not come up? Are you happy with weapons/fists cutting through walls or steel? Do you see the RAW as not implying that? I'd like to understand why I'm finding a need to houserule here, whereas most people apparently don't.

Look, I'm gonna be honest here. If my players ever waved the book in my face and tried to argue such lunacy, I'd show them the sharp end of my Rule Zero stick.

 

[korjik]

Can any of you guys that have not houseruled it say why? Has it not come up? Are you happy with weapons/fists cutting through walls or steel? Do you see the RAW as not implying that? I'd like to understand why I'm finding a need to houserule here, whereas most people apparently don't.

Why would you let them do seemingly strange things? The whole point of a DM is to take care of that sort of thing.

A vault is a good example. If they just can cut into the vault, then the vault designers can take that into account and just have the vault collapse if they just use brute force to get in. Have it collapse on them if you are feeling annoyed.

I feel that the DM is allowed to bring in just as many nonsensical situations as the players, he just isnt allowed to do it first. So, if someone starts powergaming and making deliberate problems, I will too. It may be something as simple as the bad guys actually react to the players trying to cut their way in, it may be as bad as random bolts of lightning. Generally, by the time it gets to the lightning, I will already have had a talk with the players tho.

 

[gribble]

Look, I'm gonna be honest here. If my players ever waved the book in my face and tried to argue such lunacy, I'd show them the sharp end of my Rule Zero stick.

I could be mistaken, but I don't think there *is* a Rule Zero in 4e. Or at least if there is, it isn't what you think it is - it's "allow whatever is fun - and by fun we mean whatever is fun for everyone, not just the DM"...

Ok, I'll admit the above is slightly tongue in cheek, but one of the parts of 4e design is "anything's possible, and if the players can think up a creative way to do something, and it's *fun* you should allow it" (aka, "say yes"). I'm not sure that Rule Zero - in the context you mean it - is really compatible with 4e...

 

[Victim]

Can any of you guys that have not houseruled it say why? Has it not come up? Are you happy with weapons/fists cutting through walls or steel? Do you see the RAW as not implying that? I'd like to understand why I'm finding a need to houserule here, whereas most people apparently don't.

Because weapons and fists will cut through walls with hardness too - it will just take longer.

And an indestructable, unchangeable except in specifically approved way, environment has annoyed me in numerous video games so I have little desire to repeat it in pen and paper games.

 

[The Little Raven]

Can any of you guys that have not houseruled it say why?

I can say why we haven't: because there's no need. Suggesting you can cut through a stone wall with a wooden spoon is silly, and that kind of silliness will get you a face-palm in our group.

Common sense uber alles, yo.

 

[Verdande]

Are you happy with weapons/fists cutting through walls or steel? Do you see the RAW as not implying that?

I like to imagine that a DM's job is to provide common sense to rules that may or may not make sense in every situation.

To put it another way, the rules don't say that your players can't fly whenever they feel like, or teleport by blinking their eyes. Does a lack of rules saying that they can't mean that they can?

Similarly, do you need a rule that specifically says that players can't punch through iron walls before you tell them that it's impossible?

 

[RefinedBean]

Well, I voted that I don't houserule and leave it as standard 4E, but I suppose on-the-spot adjudications are mini house-rules, when you get down to it.

As for people disabling traps through brute force or ranged attacks, they have to describe it in a VERY cool and unique manner for it to have any grand effect. "I'm going to shoot at the statue hurling boulders at us," is bad, but "I'm going to try to shoot an arrow into one of the gears controlling the statue; hopefully the arrowhead will jam things up," is good, I can set a higher Defense or DC if I want, and we all have fun.

If a player wants to hack out of a prison with a longsword, they can make Int checks to tell that this would alert the guards, who would then stand there, laugh and point, and not feed the prisoners until they get too hungry to lift weapons.

 

[Zsig]

Some relevant info:

Resist: Resistance means you take less damage from a specific damage type.

Petrified

• You have beren turned to stone
• You can't take actions
• You gain resist 20 to all damage
  ...
  ...

And finally:

Dart Trap,
Countermeasures:
*A suit of armor can be destroyed. Each has AC 12, 30 hp, and resist 5 to all damage.

If you go right to the rules about damaging objects you won't see it. But the books (and the rules to some extent) does support it. Just use your judgement.

 

[Filcher]

I can say why we haven't: because there's no need. Suggesting you can cut through a stone wall with a wooden spoon is silly, and that kind of silliness will get you a face-palm in our group.

Common sense uber alles, yo.

Ditto here.