As far as I'm aware, the Barbarian 12th level Spell Sunder feat is the only way for a martial to target an object with a strike. Definitely kinda weird, considering there are plenty of spells that explicitly allow targeting of objects.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really don't understand why Strike can only target creatures and not objects. I was looking at Climbing Bolt and as far as I can tell you can't use them at all, unless there is a creature wearing plate armor on a wall you want to climb.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I remember correctly they said at some point that they intentionally left Sunder out of the playtest because their data says it wasn't a very popular tactic. Probably (spitballing here) in large part because it's one of the few tactics that can harm the entire party to use, since it can potentially destroy loot.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
There should definitely be rules for damaging unattended objects.
I am, however, 100% in favor of Sunder not being a thing and never being a thing.
I don't view sunder as a problem. In campaigns where a player used sunder a lot, I just spontaneously added more coins and gems to the post battle loot when item loot was destroyed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't view sunder as a problem. In campaigns where a player used sunder a lot, I just spontaneously added more coins and gems to the post battle loot when item loot was destroyed.
Some GMs, possibly many, definitely nearly if not literally every one in my group, and obviously PFS just in general, don't do spontaneous adjustments like that. Makes it a real trap option for anyone in such a game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pretty clear the Sunder (carried/worn objects) and Unattended objects are totally distinct issues.
As mentioned AoE damage currently has no reason to not affect carried/worn objects, ironically if protecting them is such huge concern.
Certainly AoEs can damage unattended objects, while weapon attacks cannot even when utterly appropriate (ax chopping door).
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
4E initially had this issue too. Its tragic to see how even simple 4E-isms like this is popping up in PF2. :(
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Didn't know that you couldn't strike an object. I let my players break down a door and just assumed it had a hardness of 5 and made a lot of noise (alerting monsters in the next room).
This is silliness of about the same magnitude as when your animal companion just sits there while it's master gets beaten to death.
By the rules couldn't you check for mimics by attempting a strike against all suspect objects, and if you can actually roll an attack, then it's really a disguised monster?
4E initially had this issue too. Its tragic to see how even simple 4E-isms like this is popping up in PF2. :(
Just because it was a problem in 4e doesn't mean it's a problem in PF2e. This could be working as deskgned.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the playtest you are obligated to run RAW if you want the feedback to Paizo to be meaningful.
And sure, you can houserules any game's short comings. Doesn't mean it's a good ruleset though
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've already harped on this a bunch... but Paizo has yet to fix it, so...
For the playtest you are obligated to run RAW if you want the feedback to Paizo to be meaningful.
And sure, you can houserules any game's short comings. Doesn't mean it's a good ruleset though
I would love to be the guy that ran the playtest 100% by the RAW. But Collete already demonstrated that doing so results in a 100% TPK rate, and they weren't even following the most egregiously broken rule.
Per the RAW, all hazards are explicitly noncreatures (per the defination of the Hazard Trait), and you can only Strike creatures... which means it is flat-out illegal to Strike Hazards, despite the rules clearly assuming that you are supposed to be able to attack them somehow.
Even with the 1.3 update it is still almost impossible to complete a typical adventure without the GM cheating or house-ruling something.
The fact that there are still a few spells which can target objects (Almost certainly oversights) is just plain insulting. I seriously wonder if anybody at Paizo actually bothered to read through the worthless drivel they had the gall to call the Pathfinder Playtest Rulebook.
For the playtest you are obligated to run RAW if you want the feedback to Paizo to be meaningful.
And sure, you can houserules any game's short comings. Doesn't mean it's a good ruleset though
RAW don't say that you can open a door by pulling its handle, so if you find a door with a handle you are screwed. Right?
Rules can't cover everything, and even in a playtest a GM should definitely apply common sense.
That said, I think we DO need some rules on this matter.
And tearing down walls will be downtime material so a character with an adamantine weapon can't play Minecraft anymore.
My first "for the party" purchases in PF1 was always a bag of holding and an adamantine hand axe. You have no idea how many times we just chopped through the hinges of locked doors and chests. We even tunneled around a door with a really nasty magic trap once.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the playtest you are obligated to run RAW if you want the feedback to Paizo to be meaningful.
And sure, you can houserules any game's short comings. Doesn't mean it's a good ruleset though
RAW don't say that you can open a door by pulling its handle, so if you find a door with a handle you are screwed. Right?
Rules can't cover everything, and even in a playtest a GM should definitely apply common sense.
That said, I think we DO need some rules on this matter.
Do you honestly see not being able to use class powers as the same thing as the rules not allowing door handles to be used? If you do you have completely missed the point.
Can a dominate spell allow you to control a door? No. Because it only targets creatures. Same logic applies to the strike action and other class powers.
For the playtest you are obligated to run RAW if you want the feedback to Paizo to be meaningful.
And sure, you can houserules any game's short comings. Doesn't mean it's a good ruleset though
RAW don't say that you can open a door by pulling its handle, so if you find a door with a handle you are screwed. Right?
Rules can't cover everything, and even in a playtest a GM should definitely apply common sense.
That said, I think we DO need some rules on this matter.Do you honestly see not being able to use class powers as the same thing as the rules not allowing door handles to be used? If you do you have completely missed the point.
Can a dominate spell allow you to control a door? No. Because it only targets creatures. Same logic applies to the strike action and other class powers.
I was just making a silly example because I think that rules can't cover everything; in this case I think that some ruling would be needed, but I have read that the developers decided to leave Sunder out of the playtest, so they probably cut out attacking objects in general.
That said, if you want to bash a door down, a GM saying "No, sorry, the rules don't say that you can" is a bad GM in my opinion. Just give your object a reasonable hardness and a few dents, and go for it.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
i believe that's what's called a strawman
It's an odd decision to leave something out of the game because it was unpopular in its previous incarnation. It's one of those things I would have liked to do in PF1 but felt would be a waste of effort since it didn't do enough to limit a creature, and didn't do anything against many creatures. Top that off with it requiring at least two feats for it to start working, and you've got a money pit of a feat chain. I'd prefer they look over sunder and figure out a way to make it interesting and useful rather than leave attacking objects out of the game entirely.
As a GM, what do you say when a player tells you he's going to try and break their enemies weapon or just smash through their armor? Table top isn't like an rpg where you can just ignore expressly taken actions. Their character tried it, now what happens?
Honestly, I think destructive attacks like that would be one of many ways to make combat feats that include a narrative feat as well. A feat line that tied sundering to safely destroying traps, attacking through light cover, and effortlessly wading through difficult terrain, would be pretty good.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to be able to break both attended and unattended objects. Smashing doors and sundering enemy equipment is too much fun.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, if a player really wanted to sunder an enemy weapon, I'd just have them make an attack roll and compare it to the enemy's reflex DC to see if it hits, then apply dent rules as normal.
I imagine if there's an outcry for attended sundering to be brought back, it probably will be. They mentioned removing it was an experiment, much like removing arcane armor failure.
That being said, they need to give us some rules for striking unattended objects no matter what, and I'd prefer if that didn't have to wait until the final product.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
it occurs to me that this is probably the work of some sort of cabal of liches--after all, you can't destroy their phylactery if you can't target it...
also plenty of media requires certain objects be dealt with to save the world/progress the plot, like the ring of power or that particularly bejeweled gauntlet. it would be very strange indeed to require straight up homebrew to allow for such tropes.
I've already harped on this a bunch... but Paizo has yet to fix it, so...
For the playtest you are obligated to run RAW if you want the feedback to Paizo to be meaningful.
And sure, you can houserules any game's short comings. Doesn't mean it's a good ruleset though
I would love to be the guy that ran the playtest 100% by the RAW. But Collete already demonstrated that doing so results in a 100% TPK rate, and they weren't even following the most egregiously broken rule.
Per the RAW, all hazards are explicitly noncreatures (per the defination of the Hazard Trait), and you can only Strike creatures... which means it is flat-out illegal to Strike Hazards, despite the rules clearly assuming that you are supposed to be able to attack them somehow.
Even with the 1.3 update it is still almost impossible to complete a typical adventure without the GM cheating or house-ruling something.
The fact that there are still a few spells which can target objects (Almost certainly oversights) is just plain insulting. I seriously wonder if anybody at Paizo actually bothered to read through the worthless drivel they had the gall to call the Pathfinder Playtest Rulebook.
That person went above and beyond just running Raw They Ran MURDER RAW. RAW Extreme or some such.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
it occurs to me that this is probably the work of some sort of cabal of liches--after all, you can't destroy their phylactery if you can't target it...
also plenty of media requires certain objects be dealt with to save the world/progress the plot, like the ring of power or that particularly bejeweled gauntlet. it would be very strange indeed to require straight up homebrew to allow for such tropes.
To be fair, the most notorious ring of power in need of destroying was just as immune to attacks as current objects seem to be. And besides that, Macguffins tend to be artifacts and thus tend to have unique destruction requirements far beyond simple sundering anyways. A la "cast into the lake of fire where it was first wrought" and the like.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That person went above and beyond just running Raw They Ran MURDER RAW. RAW Extreme or some such.
I think most of Collete's rulings were entirely reasonable for her GMing style, and legal per RAW (or even suggested). She has admited her style is more wargame-like, and there is nothing objectively wrong with that. The rules need to be able to handle all sorts of GMs. If they fall apart this quickly when used as written there is a serious problem with the rules as written.
That person went above and beyond just running Raw They Ran MURDER RAW. RAW Extreme or some such.I think most of Collete's rulings were entirely reasonable for her GMing style, and legal per RAW (or even suggested). She has admited her style is more wargame-like, and there is nothing objectively wrong with that. The rules need to be able to handle all sorts of GMs. If they fall apart this quickly when used as written there is a serious problem with the rules as written.
Yeah definitely on the harsh end, but I can't say I'd hate playing under that kind of GM. Certainly better than the opposite end.
That person went above and beyond just running Raw They Ran MURDER RAW. RAW Extreme or some such.I think most of Collete's rulings were entirely reasonable for her GMing style, and legal per RAW (or even suggested). She has admited her style is more wargame-like, and there is nothing objectively wrong with that. The rules need to be able to handle all sorts of GMs. If they fall apart this quickly when used as written there is a serious problem with the rules as written.
Collette running RAW and running a murder war game are completely separate issues. Finding holes in the RAW is useful, although I'd argue leveraging them mid-game when it clearly violates the intent probably isn't.
But the game doesn't "fall apart" under that style. It operates in a very unsurprising manner. When a GM is hell bent on killing the players, the players die. This is largely true in any game, but PF1 had enough ways a player could break it to make them punch way above their weight class. PF2 isn't trying to have that level of broken as a thing, and is based around running the a role playing game, not a war game. Which means not violating RAW in regards to stuff like monster tactics and actions being based on what the monster knows, not what the GM knows.
|
Since published adventures usually don't have the word count to give NPCs proper backup weapons (like a dagger or a masterwork sword etc.) my opinion on sunder has changed to the point where I would prefer not to see it again.
Edit: I recently got to cast resilient sphere on a player, it lists and AC so I am working under the assumption that Strikes are supposed to be able to target it.
doesn't that create a physical (well, force-ical) barrier/bubble on the target? i should certainly hope it can be targeted and/or damaged!
doesn't that create a physical (well, force-ical) barrier/bubble on the target? i should certainly hope it can be targeted and/or damaged!
By the logic of this thread, it would count as an object or a spell, neither of which you are explicitly allowed to Strike, and thus you could not do that.
doesn't that create a physical (well, force-ical) barrier/bubble on the target? i should certainly hope it can be targeted and/or damaged!By the logic of this thread, it would count as an object or a spell, neither of which you are explicitly allowed to Strike, and thus you could not do that.
no i mean the spell specifically calls on being able to attack it, as well as it taking dents on an initial success (as well as listing that it can be specifically targeted by a disintegrate spell, at which point it is instantly destroyed). at the very least a spell sunder barbarian would be explicitly able to target it as well.
on the bright side: it's only a minute duration, so you don't have to worry about suffocating even if it somehow does get ruled that you cant actually target/damage it for some reason.
