Sword vs Door: Ineffectual Weapon?

[Stalker0]

When you hear talk of adamantine spoons scooping out walls and so forth it makes you wonder...how effective should most weapons at break things.

An axe is good at cutting wood, a hammer is good at pounding down a wall. Should a sword be able to do the same, or would you rule it as a weapon that deals half damage to objects

 

[mmu1]

All D&D weapons wielded by someone notably strong or someone with the Power Attack feat do damage to objects that is completely out of line with what's realistically possible.

Making house rules to have them do less damage if they're the wrong tool for the job is kind of like putting a bandaid on a gunshot wound - you're not addressing the main "problem". So unless you intend to revise significant portions of the D&D damage model as well, I think it's just wasted effort.

 

[AuraSeer]

I do consider swords to be less effective against a door. They're made for slicing meat, not for chopping into trees.

If the sword is really huge and choppy, like a cleaver, or the door is particularly thin and flimsy, I would probably allow full damage, but that's not the typical case.

 

[Aaron L]

Well, it it's an adamantine sword, I'd say it would work pretty well at slicing through the door. Not hacking it down like an axe, but you shouldn't have any problem cutting the door down piece by piece. That's the big benefit of adamantine weapons, after all. If this material can slice through stone, and I see no reason to remove this ability from this fantasy metal (remember Clash of the Titans when they dropped the sword and it sliced through the marble?) then why not a door?


Now a spoon is another story... but then again, what about the classic image of a prisoner digging a whole in his cell wall with a spoon?

But after thinking it over, I guess half damage after ignoring hardness wouldn't be too much of a problem. You could still cut through things, it would just take longer. Still, I really like the image of an adamantine sword cutting through iron bars in a single swipe...

 

[Deset Gled]

Depends on the sword, depends on the wall.

A good, well wieghted bastard sword would be able to make a nice slice in a thin, wood door, but wold have trouble making a usable hole. One of the 15 pound cast iron/steel immitations you find in malls these days would probably be more like using a baseball bat than a real sword, and could probably take out a wooden door without much problem.

If you're going for realism, the biggest problem I see is that the sword can actually be damaged a lot by this type of use. Sure, the character would be able to break down a door with a sword if they try hard enough, but they might need to get a new sword afterwards, especially if the door is metal or stone. D+D does a pretty poor job of modeling this.

 

[delericho]

I'm inclined to think that there should be some sort of rule about using a weapon against an item with greater hardness, wherein both are damaged (or perhaps just the weapon), and that constructs should have hardness rather than damage reduction. However, I'm not sure what that rule should be, or even if it would add anything to the game other than one more rule to keep track of.

And, while I agree that realistic swords would be poor weapons against realistic doors, I'm not sure complaining about realism in D&D is really sensible.

 

[Aaron L]

If you're going for realism, the biggest problem I see is that the sword can actually be damaged a lot by this type of use.

Oh heck yeah, a steel sword would be rendered useless by banging it against a door or a wall, but an adamantine sword shouldn't have much problem Twice as hard and durable, and even more so, I'd say, just because of it's ability to ignore hardness below 20. Steel, wood, stone; adamantine should cut through them like butter. It's magic fantasy metal, after all.

It's the metal designed to emulate all those always sharp swords in fantasy that can cut through anything. Why take that away?

Just look at Wolverine cutting through things. That's the idea I'd base it on.

I'm inclined to think that there should be some sort of rule about using a weapon against an item with greater hardness, wherein both are damaged (or perhaps just the weapon), and that constructs should have hardness rather than damage reduction. However, I'm not sure what that rule should be, or even if it would add anything to the game other than one more rule to keep track of.

And, while I agree that realistic swords would be poor weapons against realistic doors, I'm not sure complaining about realism in D&D is really sensible.

I also think that iron golems and the like should damage nonmagical swords and stuff used against them. I just houserule it and say the weapon takes the amount of damage it would have done (well, I would if it ever came up.)

I think that when using weapons made of real materials it should conform to reality as much as possible, but when using weapons made of fantastic materials it should have fantastic results. I like to keep things grounded in reality when there isn't a reason to make them fantastical. t makes the fantastic things stand out all that much more.

 

[Deset Gled]

Steel, wood, stone; adamantine should cut through them like butter. It's magic fantasy metal, after all.

It's the metal designed to emulate all those always sharp swords in fantasy that can cut through anything. Why take that away?

Just look at Wolverine cutting through things. That's the idea I'd base it on.

Problem is, adamantine isn't magic. Its mundane. And it can't be as hard as you describe here, or it would be impossible to forge into a weapon the first place. I do like the "Wolverine slash!" image a lot, but I think it needs to be a magic quality, not a mundane material property.

There was a weapon enhancement in Beyond Monks (IIRC) that made a weapon unbreakable, except by a wish or miracle. A sword with that quality should be much better at taking out a wall than an adamantine one.

 

[SlagMortar]

Problem is, adamantine isn't magic. Its mundane.

It's mundane, but it's fantasy mundane. Other things that are fantasy mundane include evasion and uncanny dodge and high level fighters swimming in lava.

 

[Plane Sailing]

The rules are quite clear in that the DM may rule certain weapons 'ineffective' at causing damage to a particular kind of object. The examples given are shoot a door down with arrows or bludgeon a rope in half.

I'm quite comfortable with ruling swords ineffective for chopping down doors. Want to break down a door in my campaigns? Use an axe. Want to hack through a wall? Use a pick.

Swords? cut rope and chop up monsters with em', but don't try to damage the scenery!