D&D 3E/3.5 Hardness. Dumbest rule in 3E?

[Spatzimaus]

Barbarians, Dwarven Defenders, etc. have DR X/-.

I always rationalize the Stone Golem vs. Wall thing as, when you hit a golem with a really magical but weak weapon, you're not trying to cut through the material itself, you're trying to disrupt the enchantment animating the thing.

Now, it'd be nice if there were some graduated scale. That way they wouldn't need the all-or-nothing DR on golems.
Something like DR X meaning +0 gets reduced by X, +1 by 4X/5, +2 by 3X/5, +3 by 2X/5, +4 by X/5, and +5 or higher unaffected.
I actually have a few monsters IMC that have this, and it's been nice. There's no longer the feeling of "I've got a +3 weapon, so I don't NEED any higher."

 

[Apok]

I find nothing great about the rule. All I see is complete inconsistency. I see that an average Joe with a +5 dagger can stab and hurt the most vile of creatures up to and including the Gods themselves (assuming he hits). Yet that same average Joe cannot do a damn think to a Hardness 10 steel door with his +5 dagger no matter how many eons you give him to beat on it.

An interesting point.

Obviously, +5 Weapons are far too powerful when they can evoke this kind of statement. "Hey, it's a +5 Sword! I should be able to cut through the Empire State building in one swing with this!"

Yeah, right.

Personally, I think that +X weapons are waaaaay overhyped and their overall effectiveness (other than adding to attack/damage rolls) should be reduced. In other words, change the DR system. Instead of having DR X/+Y, just have DR X/Enhanced Weapon, meaning that you need a weapon with some enhancement bonus (the exact number is irrelevant) to get through. This deglorifies (is that even a word?) the concept of the +5 Weapon being allmighty and it meshes with the new concept of special material DR.

Back to the topic at hand, I do think that they should have given golems Hardness (which is basically flat DR) instead of what they have now. It would make them much more difficult to defeat, but it would maintain internal rules consistency. I wonder if 3.5e will address this issue?

Of course, that's just my opinion.

 

[Anabstercorian]

New Weapon Enchantments, cause I can

Shattering
A Shattering weapon ignores the first 5 points of hardness when damaging objects.
+1 equivalent, requires Shatter spell to craft

Destructive
A Destructive weapon can inflict critical hits on inanimate objects.
+1 equivalent, requires Sound Burst to craft

 

[JacktheRabbit]

I didnt say he should cleave the steel door in half with one swipe of his +5 dagger. I do think though that when he slashes at it he should leave a nice deep groove and with repeated hits he should carve his way through the door.

There is also the other logical problem with hardness.

If 1/2" of steel has say a hardness of 5 (numbers I am making up to make a point) then why don't I get a hardness bonus for my fighter running around wearing full plate armor? What? ITs not thick enough? OK, why doesnt my stone giant wearing full plate (that sutff must be an inch thick at least) not get a hardness rating for his armor?

At most in my opinion hardness should be a weak version of DR and as such should never exceed 3. It should also be rendered useless by magic weapons OR anything weapon made of a material with a hardness value greater than the target.

An interesting point.

Obviously, +5 Weapons are far too powerful when they can evoke this kind of statement. "Hey, it's a +5 Sword! I should be able to cut through the Empire State building in one swing with this!"

Yeah, right.

Personally, I think that +X weapons are waaaaay overhyped and their overall effectiveness (other than adding to attack/damage rolls) should be reduced. In other words, change the DR system. Instead of having DR X/+Y, just have DR X/Enhanced Weapon, meaning that you need a weapon with some enhancement bonus (the exact number is irrelevant) to get through. This deglorifies (is that even a word?) the concept of the +5 Weapon being allmighty and it meshes with the new concept of special material DR.

Back to the topic at hand, I do think that they should have given golems Hardness (which is basically flat DR) instead of what they have now. It would make them much more difficult to defeat, but it would maintain internal rules consistency. I wonder if 3.5e will address this issue?

Of course, that's just my opinion.

 

[Number47]

One) Armor is not an all-encompassing sheath. There are vulnerable spots beneath which are squishy bits.

Two) Hardness is Extraordinary, DR is Supernatural. I would not want people to be able to cut through walls like paper because of anti-magic.

Three) A wall cannot be cut through with a dagger that can hurt a golem a tiny bit because the golem is walking around and doing things. It may be a stone knee you stab, but it is a knee needed for walking all the same.

Four) I don't want people going through iron doors with daggers. I just don't.

Five) The new DR rules will seem to fix a bunch of these complaints, anyways.

 

[Stalker0]

I think this whole point can be reconsiled by looking at the differences in construction between a stone golem and a stone wall.

A stone wall is a thick square slab of stone. Its has no flaws, inherent weakness, however, it is very easy to hit, and those who have the str can always do damage to it.

While a stone golem is also made of strong stone, it has to move, the stone has to be flexible, the creature has to have joints etc. Just look at plate mail armor. While the hardness of the chest plate is high, the hardness of the joint areas is nill. Its the same with the stone golem and why high DR is used instead of hardness, the hardness isn't consistant along the whole of the golem. His chest might be 10' thick of solid stone, but his elbow joint might be 2' of weaker, pliable stone.

But on the other token, the stone golem is much harder to hit because it moves. So while the stone golem has weaknesses a stone wall doesn't, you have to be able to hit those weaknesses or else you won't do any damage at all.

I think this is fairly logical explanation, no?

 

[Henry]

I see that an average Joe with a +5 dagger can stab and hurt the most vile of creatures up to and including the Gods themselves (assuming he hits). Yet that same average Joe cannot do a damn think to a Hardness 10 steel door with his +5 dagger no matter how many eons you give him to beat on it.

Flesh bends. Even godly flesh. A stone wall does not. I don't see a problem with hardness, because plausibly I COULD NOT take down a stone wall with a battle axe, no matter how hard I tried. I would have to wear it away.

Damage resistance is concept wise totally different from hardness. Hardness is a measure of unbreakability. DR is a mix of many factors, two of which are instant healing and toughness.

I don't see any problem with a dagger or sword, no matter how magically enchanted, breaking inanimate material. In fact, I suggest you apply the damage to the weapon and its hardness as well, to reflect that you can't bring down a wall with an axe, and still have an axe left.

 

[WizarDru]

What it comes down to is a concession of reality versus mechanical soundness. You COULD model reality well enough to reflect these various factors (stone wall vs. stone golem, and how a wooden and steel weapon would/could damage it...and what damage it, in turn, would take from the wall). But it would be slow, math intensive...and NOT FUN.

If you view a straight +5 dagger as a mega-weapon, then I can see the disconnect. But if you see it as a weapon magically powered to hit, but not necessarily to do supernatural damage, as I do, then it's not such a reach. If the dagger possessed additional abilities, such as a +2 shattering, destructing dagger (to use someone's earlier idea), then I might see it.

Generally, most locked or bolted doors have a break DC against strength, and may be unlocked using the appropriate skill. In those cases, you're not destroying the door, just unlocking it or destroying the bar or hinges securing it. The door itself is relatively unharmed. Hacking it to pieces is difficult and time-consuming, and not something I want an elaborate system to moderate. YMMV.