Infinitely Opening Locks and Bashing Doors

[kreynolds]

Fine. If you can't hold a civil conversation, no problem. I'll stop trying. You astound me with your infancy, Weeble. What a sad, sad man (boy), whatever. *shrug*

 

[Weeble]

Fine. If you can't hold a civil conversation, no problem. I'll stop trying. You astound me with your infancy, Weeble. What a sad, sad man (boy), whatever. *shrug*

You will notice that the drop in civility started with you, no problem, you'll stop trying. You astound me with your personal attempts to argue for no reason. Its posters like you who try to rack up hundreds of posts just for the number and then bash anyone with few posts, grow up.

 

[kreynolds]

You will notice that the drop in civility started with you

Nope. I tried to be civil, but you decided to behave like a child.

You astound me with your personal attempts to argue for no reason.

Nope.

Its posters like you who try to rack up hundreds of posts just for the number and then bash anyone with few posts.

Nope.

grow up.

Wow. Nice comeback. Did you come up with that all by yourself?

 

[Weeble]

Nope.
Nope.
Nope.
Wow.

Good job.

 

[kreynolds]

Good job.

Thanks!

 

[doktorstick]

The problem I have is when you have a door that has a hardness of X and the fighter can do a maximum of X+1 damage and wants to beat on it until it breaks.

At higher levels, there are no standard doors that a fighter cannot break through. "What? Adamantite door? Bah. I'll go through it. Piece of cake. Just let me borrow your dagger and I'll hack the door down." You have to start making the doors "embued with a wall of force" or have some other totally, non-practical door. There are clever ways to handle them, however, they seem contrived to deal with the fighter-basher if used frequently.

(I do realize that roaming monsters and such will come to the noise. Or creatures on the other side of the door will setup defenses.)

Perhaps WotC did this on purpose so parties without rogues could still get through the doors albeit with more pain. Eventually, though, the DM just relegates himself to boredom saying "Don't roll. You get through in an hour. Let's move on."

/ds

 

[kreynolds]

Perhaps WotC did this on purpose so parties without rogues could still get through the doors albeit with more pain. Eventually, though, the DM just relegates himself to boredom saying "Don't roll. You get through in an hour. Let's move on."

/ds

Exactly. Besides, a smart fighter wouldn't hack through the adamantine door. He'd hack through the stone wall next to it.

 

[gpetruc]

I see nothing bad in the fact that every fighter can break down a door with an axe and a lot of time, making a lot of noise.
I think that this is more realistic than the fact that after a few tries he cannot retry any more.

Anyway i'll add that if you try to damage a strong object every hit deals some damage to your weapon related to the materal hardness. For example smashing a wooden door (hard 5) with a metal (hard 10) axe wont be a problem, but if a giant with str+20 and a huge wooden greatclub tries to smash adamantite (hard 30 or something similar) he will probably break the club.

Let's say: the weapon takes one quarter of the damage you would have dealt to the object ignoring his hardness. this damage is then reduced and possibly negated by the weapon hardness
(might require some tweaking: this is only an idea)

 

[doktorstick]

Anyway i'll add that if you try to damage a strong object every hit deals some damage to your weapon related to the materal hardness. For example smashing a wooden door (hard 5) with a metal (hard 10) axe wont be a problem, but if a giant with str+20 and a huge wooden greatclub tries to smash adamantite (hard 30 or something similar) he will probably break the club.

This is not a rule. If it is, please point me to the book and page. (If it was one, it would apply to Sunder as well.)

/ds

 

[kreynolds]

This is not a rule. If it is, please point me to the book and page.

No need. It's a house rule, and not one that I'm rather fond of, but that's just my opinion. YMMV.

(If it was one, it would apply to Sunder as well.)

Exactly. If you used that type of rule, you would then need to apply the same type of damaging/abuse system to armor, ranged weapon ammunition, boots, socks, pants, undergarments, etc, etc, etc...