Aggravated Hardness

[Ker'ion]

:?


Does anyone have a page reference on if Lethal Hardness for armor covers Hardness for Aggravated damage?


I'm not finding anything on armor even having a Hardness versus Aggravated damage.


References please, not inferences.


Thank you for any assistance you can provide on this. :mrgreen:

 

[skafte]

I seem to remember reading about artifacts, or more probably chamrs what grant hardness and writes that they give aggravated hardness too, but I can't remember where I read it.


I assume that aggravated hardness is the same as lethal hardness as the 2 types of damage with works differently when they hit flesh.

 

[Brickwall]

It does not. Lethal hardness only applies to Lethal damage, and there is no exception made for the hardness of armor. Ignoring hardness would be one of many advantages of aggravated damage (who can really be fully inured against something that is anathema to their existence?).

 

[Haku1]

Ah... isn't aggravated damage soaked by lethal armor soak (really, the only thing that can't soak agg damage is stamina soak?). Which should mean that you should be able to have hardness vs agg with lethal.


Granted, there is no actual text that states so.

 

[MrMephistopheles]

Lethal Hardness works against agg.

 

[Brickwall]

The two above posters are not backed by the rules, merely by supposition. Please read what the OP asked for.

 

[MrMephistopheles]

The two above posters are not backed by the rules, merely by supposition. Please read what the OP asked for.

Missed that. Can anyone reference where it says that agg damage automatically ignores hardness, otherwise it's not backed by the rules, merely supposition.

 

[Arthur]

The two above posters are not backed by the rules, merely by supposition. Please read what the OP asked for.

No poster in this thread is.

 

[Brickwall]

I am. The rules do not say that Lethal hardness applies to Aggravated. It applies to Lethal, and does not apply to anything else. Armor does not change this fact. Aggravated hardness might exist, but nothing in any book provides it.

 

[MrMephistopheles]

The corebook also doesn't say armor's L value works against Agg. But it does, so...since nothing says that agg bypasses Hardness automatically...

 

[Arthur]

The rules do not say that Lethal hardness applies to Aggravated.

This is backed by the rules.

It applies to Lethal, and does not apply to anything else.

This is not. The core book doesn't say anything on the subject, so anything we can say about it is mere supposition.

 

[Ker'ion]

<.< >.>


I've rechecked everything and I'm still not finding anything either.

 

[MrMephistopheles]

And you are not going to. Agg has special soak related effects in regards to natural soak. It doesn't in regards to armor, and we know L soak applies to agg from a source that isn't explicitly unsoakable against armor. If all armor was supposed to do nothing against agg gee wouldn't you think a book might mention this.


Anywho, I wouldn't let rules lawyers like Brick convince you on the matter, but it's your game.

 

[Brickwall]

I entirely find it reasonable that Lethal Hardness could be applies to Aggravated. The rules provide nothing for Aggravated Hardness, though, so don't try to claim that they do.

 

[MrMephistopheles]

I entirely find it reasonable that Lethal Hardness could be applies to Aggravated. The rules provide nothing for Aggravated Hardness, though, so don't try to claim that they do.

Never did. Just the suggestion that it's a pointless assumption to think armor NEEDS a seperate agg Hardness stat. Go ahead and ask an errata question, but don't be surprised when I say I told you so.

 

[Arthur]

I personally think it shouldn't apply to Aggravated damage, but I don't have a page reference, because probably there isn't one.

 

[Virjigorm]

Since this entire thread is a rules question, it is by it's nature a legal debate and we are all rules lawyer-ing.


Here is what the rules (Exalted pg149) say: "Wounds classified as aggravated are innately supernatural..." and then: "Hardness is a rare form of protection...measured with a value for each damage type against which the hardness applies."


I'm generally not for the Twink's Motto (I can do it if it doesn't say I can't!), but in this case the rules clearly state that hardness is listed with regard to each damage type it works against, so if it does not list aggravated damage in the stat, it doesn't work against it. If the game designers meant for an item's hardness to work against aggravated damage, it would be listed as "Hardness: #B/#L/#A" or else they made a mistake in the stat write-ups for all armor and effects which grant hardness.


The "innately supernatural" aspect of aggravated damage further supports that rule, in that even if your armor soaks the damage, mere proximity to the source has a chance to hurt you.


Honestly, my gut had me agreeing with MrMeph, but I see a pretty clear rule here.


PS:

The corebook also doesn't say armor's L value works against Agg. But it does, so...since nothing says that agg bypasses Hardness automatically...

Actually, that's on page 149 also: "First, armor has an aggravated soak equal to its lethal soak rating, while natural soak does not."


There's a guy stabbing a dog on that page...that sentence is near his right foot.

 

[MrMephistopheles]

Actually, that's on page 149 also: "First, armor has an aggravated soak equal to its lethal soak rating, while natural soak does not."
There's a guy stabbing a dog on that page...that sentence is near his right foot.

Yeah found it on the second read through.

 

[Vanman]

I'm generally not for the Twink's Motto (I can do it if it doesn't say I can't!), but in this case the rules clearly state that hardness is listed with regard to each damage type it works against, so if it does not list aggravated damage in the stat, it doesn't work against it. If the game designers meant for an item's hardness to work against aggravated damage, it would be listed as "Hardness: #B/#L/#A" or else they made a mistake in the stat write-ups for all armor and effects which grant hardness.

Except that the book already says that armor gives soak against aggravated damage, so they may just assume the hardness works for aggravated damage as well. After all, they don't list aggravated damage with the soak values of the armor. The list for the hardness values is the same as the list for the armor values, in terms of damage type. Armor stops aggravated damage. It explicitly states that in the rulebook. So saying the hardness doesn't stop aggravated damage is sort of silly. If the armor stops the aggravated damage, it deals with the "innately supernatural" nature of the damage. Hardness is a rare form of protection. If armor soaks aggravated damage normally, why wouldn't hardness, which is a rare form of protection? Personally, I'd say hardness does apply to aggravated damage, for the reasons just presented. I think WW is just too lazy to print all of those stats when they already consider it covered under the armor rule.

 

[Virjigorm]

I tend to agree, on instinct. The OP, however, asked for real rules and references. I take that to mean he wanted real rules and references, not opinions and GM rulings. I have always used hardness against aggravated damage, but I never looked into it this well before. Regardless of our opinions, the rules on page 149 are what they are, and they look pretty clear.


I try not to assume that a small army of professional game designers are always wrong when I disagree with them, on account of the fact that they made the damn thing in the first place and probably know how it works. If they meant to give everything hardness against aggravated damage, the mistake lies in not printing the stat for it with the armors and effects, since the rule is clear that the Agg hardness should be listed if it has it. I just don't think they would make the rule so clear and then print everything with hardness wrong in every book they write.

 

[Vanman]

I see your error in judgment here. You believe WW has competent editors and that they never contradict themselves with each new book they release. They don't. They make assumptions and jerk us around so that debates like these are the norm, rather than the exception.


But I see what you're saying. I don't agree with it. I, like you, would apply hardness to aggravated damage, simply because armor's regular soak applies to aggravated damage - and this is regular armor, not artifact armor. But I see your point.

 

[Virjigorm]

Except that the book already says that armor gives soak against aggravated damage, so they may just assume the hardness works for aggravated damage as well. After all, they don't list aggravated damage with the soak values of the armor. The list for the hardness values is the same as the list for the armor values, in terms of damage type. Armor stops aggravated damage. It explicitly states that in the rulebook. So saying the hardness doesn't stop aggravated damage is sort of silly. If the armor stops the aggravated damage, it deals with the "innately supernatural" nature of the damage. Hardness is a rare form of protection. If armor soaks aggravated damage normally, why wouldn't hardness, which is a rare form of protection? Personally, I'd say hardness does apply to aggravated damage, for the reasons just presented. I think WW is just too lazy to print all of those stats when they already consider it covered under the armor rule.

Hardness is not soak, it's hardness. Based on you logic, they would not need to list hardness against lethal damage either, since it can be assumed that the bashing hardness works for the lethal and aggravated. The fact that it is specifically stated that each type must be listed makes that argument void. I'm not saying I like it, but that is the rule. Use it or change it.

I see your error in judgment here. You believe WW has competent editors and that they never contradict themselves with each new book they release. They don't. They make assumptions and jerk us around so that debates like these are the norm, rather than the exception.

I know they aren't perfect, but they do this for a living and are pretty competent. Historically, when they do make mistakes, it is due to vagary and failure to fully explain something. In this case, it's cut and dry.


As far as debates like this...If Jesus, Mohammed, and Buddah all showed up in person and told everyone that they all three agree and explained everything about human existence in detail, this crowd would still argue endlessly about it. That's why they are the norm.

 

[MrMephistopheles]

Except that the book already says that armor gives soak against aggravated damage, so they may just assume the hardness works for aggravated damage as well. After all, they don't list aggravated damage with the soak values of the armor. The list for the hardness values is the same as the list for the armor values, in terms of damage type. Armor stops aggravated damage. It explicitly states that in the rulebook. So saying the hardness doesn't stop aggravated damage is sort of silly. If the armor stops the aggravated damage, it deals with the "innately supernatural" nature of the damage. Hardness is a rare form of protection. If armor soaks aggravated damage normally, why wouldn't hardness, which is a rare form of protection? Personally, I'd say hardness does apply to aggravated damage, for the reasons just presented. I think WW is just too lazy to print all of those stats when they already consider it covered under the armor rule.

Hardness is not soak, it's hardness. Based on you logic, they would not need to list hardness against lethal damage either, since it can be assumed that the bashing hardness works for the lethal and aggravated. The fact that it is specifically stated that each type must be listed makes that argument void. I'm not saying I like it, but that is the rule. Use it or change it.

I see your error in judgment here. You believe WW has competent editors and that they never contradict themselves with each new book they release. They don't. They make assumptions and jerk us around so that debates like these are the norm, rather than the exception.

I know they aren't perfect, but they do this for a living and are pretty competent. Historically, when they do make mistakes, it is due to vagary and failure to fully explain something. In this case, it's cut and dry.


As far as debates like this...If Jesus, Mohammed, and Buddah all showed up in person and told everyone that they all three agree and explained everything about human existence in detail, this crowd would still argue endlessly about it. That's why they are the norm.

RAW, absolutely nothing about Agg damage suggests it bypasses any aspects of armor. And keep in mind, people had to be TOLD armor soaks agg damage back in the day. So I would hardly put this past ww.


If it was cut and dry these questions(and way too many others in Exalted) wouldn't happen in the first place.

 

[wordman]

I don't see a definitive answer.


What the rules actually say:


"...armor provides an aggravated soak equal to its lethal soak." (ex2e.149)


"Hardness is...measured with a value for each damage type against which the Hardness applies." (ex2e.149)


"First, armor has an aggravated soak equal to its lethal soak rating, while natural soak does not." (ex2e.149)


What the rules imply:


The pedantic reading is that there no listed values for "aggravated hardness", so by that second rule, there is no such thing. This however requires that "soak" in the first rule be read as meaning "the exact trait of armor called soak" rather than a more generic use of the word. It may also be taken as relevant that the third rule exists, while there is no similar rule in the section on hardness, above it. All of this would support the conclusion that aggravated damage ignores hardness.


The counterargument notices that a) there are no listed values for aggravated soak either and b) the use of the word "soak" in the first rule has a pretty good chance of being used generally, rather than as a specific trait. (In most games, this would be grasping at straws, but Exalted has a history of using the same words to mean both generic and specific things.) It also relies on a general principle that "armor 'works' against aggravated damage", so there is a strong implication that this should include hardness as well as soak. Lastly, ignoring hardness would be a massive advantage for aggravated damage, and you would think that would be worth calling to people's attention.


It sometimes also helps to look at 1E rules. These, of course, are not "binding" to 2E, but they often give insight to the mind of the designer, so you can sometimes infer what the intent was. 1E says "Magical healing and regeneration are ineffective against aggravated damage. Aggravated damage is otherwise the same as lethal damage, in terms of healing times and the protection that armor offers against such attacks." (core.231) This would tend to support the counterargument.


This question has been raised to the errata team, but has not been answered.


How I would rule it in my own game:


Even though the "legal case" for the "aggravated ignores hardness" is a bit stronger, I have a pretty strong suspicion that when (or, face it, if) the errata is answered it will rule that lethal hardness rating applies to aggravated damage. I also think that, comparing charm costs for those that ignore hardness vs. doing aggravated damage, it doesn't seem like the cost should supply such an advantage. Basically, armor providing "aggravated hardness" just feels more correct to me, so that's how I'd run it.

 

[Ker'ion]

Non-Artifact armor has no Hardness at all, so not all armor types have the Hardness 'tag'.