
doctor_wu |

I have always seen animated objects as a tough fight at low levels for me and when I have Gmed and used animated objects. The fights seem to slow way down with the hardness at low levels and take a lot of time. Is power attack really the best way to stop this from degrading into long fights at low levels. Does anyone else have expirences like this?

Mr. Damage |

I have always seen animated objects as a tough fight at low levels for me and when I have Gmed and used animated objects. The fights seem to slow way down with the hardness at low levels and take a lot of time. Is power attack really the best way to stop this from degrading into long fights at low levels. Does anyone else have expirences like this?
Please edit for grammar and clarity.

Mr.Alarm |

And mobile enemies are easier to kill with ranged attacks, monsters with low will are open to save of die spells, and undead really don't like to be turned by clerics.
Most monsters have weaknesses to particular tactics, and for constructs its big swords. If nobody on your party if using one, its your DM's fault for putting it in the game.

Selgard |

I think he is saying that.. if no one in the group has specialized in something (such as being a big 2-handed bruiser) then the DM should be aware of that and modify encounters accordingly.
It isn't a challenge if you have no way to over come it, and the group shouldn't be forced to have some special type of person in it just to proceeed.
-S

Phneri |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, I understood what he's saying, I just think it's patently ridiculous.
If you have a party that can't do hit point damage to an object with an int of - that is set as a reasonable CR, there's a problem. Particularly when constructs are now vulnerable to crits and precision damage.
Blaming that problem on the GM when two to eight thinking adults sat down to create a group of adventurers that, you know, just might have to hit something big and tough really hard, is absurd.
Things don't cease to exist in my game just because they might point out a group's weakness. Adapt and overcome, run away, or die. Otherwise I might as well just chat with you about pie once a week and then level up your dude.

TheWhiteknife |

Otherwise I might as well just chat with you about pie once a week and then level up your dude.
Can I sign up for this campaign? I love pie! But in all seriousness, I agree 100% In my opinion, the game is supposed to be challenging! A good DM knows to exploit a party weakness every once in a while. Not all the time, mind you, but every 9th encounter or so.

doctor_wu |

To be clearer I do not think the problem is they are tough but they are annoying to fight. I just had trouble doing damage to all of that. I do not think this encounter is really fun. I still won the fight but it just takes too long. I do not like how the challenges with animated objects usually turn into wars of attrition lets roll dice to see if we do damage.
I like tough fights but wars of attrition tend not to be fun for most players I know.
Ah I forgot the constructs lost immunity to precision damage dang it. Argh I was thinking of oozes during the game time so did not do sneak attack damage and first time this GM was Gming pathfinder but he had 3.5 before. I usually GM and had not used constructs in PF.

![]() |

To be clearer I do not think the problem is they are tough but they are annoying to fight.
Sometimes, against a foe in which applying straight damage is proving problematic, combat maneuvers like grapple / pin or bull rush (down a staircase or off a ledge), etc. might be more useful, if the encounter area includes handy terrain features like that.
The rules for Hardness, on p 173-175, include some options for attack forms against which a particular object might be more vulnerable (taking double damage), or energy attacks that are more effective (fire vs. parchment, sonic vs. crystal). Depending on what the animated object is, you might get more mileage by switching weapon type (to slashing vs. an animated bearskin rug, to bludgeoning vs. a terra cotta warrior, etc.), but that's entirely in the hands of the GM to adjudicate (and he might choose to allow you to ignore half of the hardness, instead of doing double damage, or something).
Note that animated objects remain immune to critical hits, so don't count on that keen rapier to save your bacon.
Please edit for grammar and clarity.
He was clear.

james maissen |
Is power attack really the best way to stop this from degrading into long fights at low levels. Does anyone else have expirences like this?
When you are dealing with mindless opponents there are usually two ways to deal with them.
The first is to capitalize on your superior intellect.
The second is to get down and meet them at their level. This can be tedious and you need to have a decent thug if you're going to try to out-thug a thug.
-James

![]() |

Set wrote:Actually, based on the SRD, I see nothing that grants them immune to crits. They're classified as constructs, which are vulnerable to crits/sneak attack now.
Note that animated objects remain immune to critical hits, so don't count on that keen rapier to save your bacon.
*-
Check page 174, under Immunities. Animated objects are called out as immune to nonlethal damage and critical hits, despite being otherwise treated as creatures.

Phneri |
Interesting. The SRD classifies them as constructs, which are specifically not immune to crits/sneak attack in PF. Immune to nonlethal and other stuff constructs are, yes, but not crits.
Found the reference you mentioned. I'd be more inclined to go with the bestiary entry (animated objects are constructs and subject to crits/flank/sneak attack), given that it fits the construct bit more. Seems like fluff from 3.5 that carried over wrong, since it's listing nonlethal/crits in the same category there (as 3.5 did).

Phneri |
1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I think it also depends on how you treat the animated object as a creature. It is homogeneous? For example, is an animate skeleton simply an animated pile of bones, rendering arms, legs, etc. as vestigial parts, or are these necessary for motion?
Is the animated boulder just a boulder, or is it a series of boulders that forms a shape capable of movement?
Is the rug just a flying rug, or does it use its ability to bunch and stretch to move?
In each case movement joints could be exploited as weak spots to do extra damage.
I'd also be curious as to whether or not the object damage rule regarding type would apply here. Is an animated rug suddenly vulnerable to a hammer? An animated cage to stabbing? Reading the Bestiary entries this seems to be the case, but it kind of defies logic. Sure you can fluff a reason "your hammer hits a concentration of magic animating the rug," but it seems to be a purely mechanical adjustment for balance.
That's why I'm leaning to crits working on animated objects (mechanical adjustment alone), but I'd love a clarification for this. Or better yet, errata that reworked the animated object rules.

Mytrellavix |
1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I was wondering about animate objects according to the rules you add HD to Cp X 1000 to get gold amount. So if I wanted to purchase a medium chest and wanted to animate it then spend the 2 cp to give it flight and faster flight(speed 40). Could I then still cast arcane lock on it to lock it and use it to hold stuff?