Yes, I Chopped Through The Wall (2002 thread)

[Corlon]

I I'm missing a rule somewhere, please tell me but...

It seems that with the current rules, given enough time, a character could chop through an adamantine wall with a sword. Wouldn't the sword get dull after a while?

Are there rules for dealing damage to weapons when they deal damage to other stuff, and wouldn't stuff like piercing weapons break easier than slashing swords, which would break esier than axes, which would break easier than a... club or somethin.

Anyone have ideas (or rules) on this idea.

thanx
--Corlon, Leader of the Lemurs of Rohan

 

[Umbran]

I don't know about any rules, but there's perhaps one decent rule of thumb - in a contest of hardness, the harder object wins.

If you use this, and attack a adamantine (hardness 20) wall with an iron (hardness 10) weapon, the weapon takes damage before the wall does.

Or, alternatively - both object take damage, and whoever runs out of hit points breaks first. Again, most steel weapons will break before getting through an adamantine wall...

You'd probably have to alter this for particularly well designed or massive weapons - you should still be able to whack down a gate with a large enough wooden battering ram.

 

[Sejs]

What's the hardness of a fist?

Do I take damage for punching a door?

What about a monk vs a stone golem?



Just my oppinion, but not all rules add to the game.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

PH p. 135: Under Damag to Objects
Ineffective Weapons, Vulnerability to certain attacks.

The gist of these sections is that some things just aren't going to work and that the DM will say so. For instance, you can't cut a rope with a club or hack down a door by shooting arrows at it. The upshot of this is that, as a DM, I would just say no to hacking through an adamantium wall with a sword. Not even if you can power attack for 7, have a strength bonus of 8, and therefore, in theory, could deal a single point of damage to the wall on a damage roll of 8.

Essentially the entire question of what is an appropriate weapon for attacking what object is a question for DM adjudication.

 

[Corlon]

What's the hardness of a fist?

Do I take damage for punching a door?

What about a monk vs a stone golem?



Just my oppinion, but not all rules add to the game.

it does add to the campaign, once you've seen some characters shield bash there way into an adamantine halfling war wagon, instead of looking for a trap door or something

I like the "both objects take damage," and for the battering ram, it wouldn't break because think of ALL the inches of thickness it has

 

[Umbran]

Just my oppinion, but not all rules add to the game.

Yes, well, in this case, you're missing one major point...

A monk's unarmed attacks are not blows from a normal fist.

Change the question a bit - Should a fighter without specific training in unarmed combat be able to hurt that golem with his bare hands?

The fighter's unarmed strikes normally do subdual damage, to which the construct is immune. If he takes the -4 penalty, he can do a d3 of "real" damage. But, since the golem has damage reduction, he's terribly unlikely to actually hurt the thing, as his fists aren't magical. Maybe he can get someone to cast Magic Fang on him - but then magic gets into the scene, and our thought of what is plausible must change.

As opposed to the monk, who didn't have to take the -4 penalty to do real damage, does far more damage (especially at higher level), and who at sufficient level has blatantly magic fists...

Note that again - the monk's fists are magic. Monks aren't normal

Let us remember that by the rules, you can eventually get through that adamantine wall with a non-magic wooden club, a simple stick, which is preposterous. Somewhere, you have to draw some lines of plausibility (note, I don't say "realism", there's a difference).

 

[Corlon]

Let us remember that by the rules, you can eventually get through that adamantine wall with a non-magic wooden club, a simple stick, which is preposterous. Somewhere, you have to draw some lines of plausibility (note, I don't say "realism", there's a difference).

hehe, yeah, if you say realism, someone will smack you down for it here on enworld !

But what about trees, are there rules for swords and axes getting "dull" or somethin?

 

[Jeph]

it does add to the campaign, once you've seen some characters shield bash there way into an adamantine halfling war wagon, instead of looking for a trap door or something

That was a +3 mithrall shield, I was using Power Attack for 10, Smite, and had Bull's Strength! That's perfectly reasonable!

(note: not holy smite, but the Templar's ability.)

 

[Crothian]

Re: Yes, I Chopped Through The Wall

I I'm missing a rule somewhere, please tell me but...

It seems that with the current rules, given enough time, a character could chop through an adamantine wall with a sword. Wouldn't the sword get dull after a while?

Well, I don't think you can chop though a wall with a sword. Least not easily. A long sword only does 1d8 damage, and one needs to do 20+ to hurt the wall. You can't crit the wall, so you';d needa lot of strnegth or other ways to greatly enhance one's damage.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

PH p. 135: Under Damag to Objects
Ineffective Weapons, Vulnerability to certain attacks.

The gist of these sections is that some things just aren't going to work and that the DM will say so. For instance, you can't cut a rope with a club or hack down a door by shooting arrows at it. The upshot of this is that, as a DM, I would just say no to hacking through an adamantium wall with a sword. Not even if you can power attack for 7, have a strength bonus of 8, and therefore, in theory, could deal a single point of damage to the wall on a damage roll of 8.

Essentially the entire question of what is an appropriate weapon for attacking what object is a question for DM adjudication.

I second that!

This is another horse-killer situation, and again I have to point out that every game has it's own personal DM who has Dice of Rule-Abuser Smiting.