We recently had a situation where a wondrous magic item was destroyed using sunder. The item was brought to exactly zero hit points and so was destroyed. At least that was my interpretation of the rules during tonight's session, given plain common sense, that items don't have negative hit points or even Constitution scores. However, the rules dealing with this seem to be in conflict with the item damage rules described elsewhere in the core rule book and I really wonder what the intent was. Anyway here is the except dealing with sunder in the combat rules (page 201):
If an object has equal to or less than half its total hit points remaining, it gains the broken condition (see Appendix 2). If the damage you deal would reduce the object to less than 0 hit points, you can choose to destroy it. If you do not choose to destroy it, the object is left with only 1 hit point and the broken condition.
So, if you read it this way, the magic item instead seems to regain a hit point, if a choice is made to not to destroy it, is then not destroyed and has only the broken condition, with which I disagree. The rules elsewhere agree with me and contradict the rules for sunder (page 173 and 174):
An object’s hit point total depends on what it is made of and how big it is (see Table 7–12, Table 7–13, and Table 7–14). Objects that take damage equal to or greater than half their total hit points gain the broken condition (see Appendix 2). When an object's hit points reach 0, it’s ruined.
It's strange that the term ruined is used rather than destroyed. Anyhow the text later goes on to say:
A damaged object remains functional with the broken condition until the item's hit points are reduced to 0, at which point it is destroyed.
Unfortunately, three different pages of the rules had to be referenced to obtain an answer to this niggling little detail. As always, no matter what edition or roleplaying game, I think this points to the very clear lesson that it's the spirit of the rules not the letter of the rules which just has to prevail, and that more questions like these can be solved and that more time can be saved with just plain common sense.
4 comments:
Haha, It seems that Pathfinder (PF) suffers from rules bloat like so many other games these days. I did an in depth comparison of the Shadowrun (SR) initiative rules. The changed from about one-half of a page to almost three full pages. The problem I found with rules bloat over the years is that a simple situation that can be ruled with common sense, becomes a debate because rules are ambiguous, self-conflicting, or just plain misinterpreted. What's even more annoying is source books that supersede core rules. Esp when only certain people pick a source book. I think this is one of the biggest drawbacks to games now, the need to make a rule for everything and not allow the GM to control the game so that you have a smooth flowing story.
On a side note, I try to let players know that the argument "It doesn't say you can't" or "It doesn't say it doesn't" are not allowed. If they insist, I tell them their character dies as a result and then tell them "it doesn't say it doesn't" kill your character.
I agree. Rules bloat exists because gamers have just gotten dumber and need to have everything spelled out in black and white--games are now "programmed" for the lowest common denominator. What really irks me is when players insist on going by the "holy text" rather than just using their heads.
Frankly, we didn't need rules to resolve a lot of situations in classic AD&D since we had basic physics to fall back on.
You should never allow for a time when "player's insist". It's actually a chain of perception (events) that leads to these niggling details whereby perception a > perception b.
There is always another angle to see things, as a gm it falls upon you to a) bluff b) intimidate c) diplomacy in that order.
Cheers,
I have a definite strategy in mind for dealing with these issues in the future. ;)
Post a Comment