The rules for breaking an object using a Strength check don't seem to include what happens to the object if you succeed. Does the object gain the Broken condition, requiring another Strength check to fully destroy it? Is one successful check enough to completely destroy it? I'm inclined to believe the latter, but the rules don't actually spell out what condition an object is left in after a creature makes a successful Strength check to break it.
My initial thought was that it would gain the broken condition. Until I looked at the broken condition and saw this statement.
If the item does not fit into any of these categories, the broken condition has no effect on its use.
It's worth noting that the most common objects that a character might want to break via a strength check would be doors and/or bonds. These are not items that fit into any of the categories that the broken condition lists. So, if a door or lock gains the broken condition this has no effect on its use.
As a result, in order for the rules to fall in line with the situation it is most likely to come up in, the item must be destroyed by a successful strength check.
edit: I think part of the confusion comes from pathfinder using the term "broken" differently then what we mean by "broken" IRL. If I saw a sword with a crack down the middle I would call it "damaged" and if I saw a sword that was snapped in half I could call it "broken". Pathfinder uses the terms "broken" and "destroyed" respectively, instead.
The other popular thing to break with a Strength check is walls, which also doesn't fall into the list of objects with the Broken condition, so I'm inclined to agree with you.
|
edit: I think part of the confusion comes from pathfinder using the term "broken" differently then what we mean by "broken" IRL. If I saw a sword with a crack down the middle I would call it "damaged" and if I saw a sword that was snapped in half I could call it "broken". Pathfinder uses the terms "broken" and "destroyed" respectively, instead.
Pathfinder use of the terms means "broken but still somewhat useable" and "destroyed and totally useless.
To make an RL example, a hammer with a broken handle is broken in everyday speak, but I can still use it to hammer a nail if I grasp it by the head.A hammer that has put in a metal grinder and reduced to dust is destroyed and can't be used.
edit: I think part of the confusion comes from pathfinder using the term "broken" differently then what we mean by "broken" IRL. If I saw a sword with a crack down the middle I would call it "damaged" and if I saw a sword that was snapped in half I could call it "broken". Pathfinder uses the terms "broken" and "destroyed" respectively, instead.
Pathfinder use of the terms means "broken but still somewhat useable" and "destroyed and totally useless.
To make an RL example, a hammer with a broken handle is broken in everyday speak, but I can still use it to hammer a nail if I grasp it by the head.
A hammer that has put in a metal grinder and reduced to dust is destroyed and can't be used.
Unfortunately, your example doesn't add any clarity to the situation because tools are in the list for the broken condition. What's more, taking the pieces of a destroyed hammer and using it to perform a task is no different then using an improvised tool. Sure you can grab the hammer head and pound in a nail with it, but it's about the same level of awkwardness as grabbing a shot put and using it to drive the nail. In pathfinder using a broken tool conveys a -2 to the check. While using an improvised tool also conveys a -2 to the check. This prevents us from differentiating between what a "broken" tool looks like and what a "destroyed" tool looks like (in pathfinder terms) since both can be used to perform the task at a -2 penalty.
It does however, occur to me that if a character is using a masterwork tool that has the "broken" condition, the net penalty is -0. If I have two hammers, one is masterwork and the other isn't and both of them have the handles snapped off. It seems weird that when I use Hammerhead B I get a -2, but when I use Hammerhead A there is no penalty. This makes me think that the situation better describes a "destroyed" hammer then it does simply a "broken" one.
A "Broken" hammer (in Pathfinder terms) would be a hammer that has been warped along the handle/shaft, or the typically flat striking surface is chipped or dented. A hammer that has had the handle snapped off is "Destroyed" by Pathfinder terms - it's no longer a hammer. As LordKailas pointed out, though, using just the head of a hammer to do the same job could be argued as using an improvised tool, with the same penalty as if the hammer were just "Broken". I suppose the only mechanical distinction would be if - as LordKailas brought up - the hammer were Masterwork, in which case, snapping it in half would net you a -4 penalty (+2 bonus to a -2 penalty).
In any case, I'd like to readdress my original post, which would include tools and other objects that can have the broken condition, but also apply to other objects that are either fully functioning, or completely destroyed, with no middle ground (such as walls and doors). If you were to make a Strength check vs. such an object's Break DC and succeed, it would stand to reason that the object is completely destroyed (per the Pathfinder definition), correct? If so, would it also stand to reason that an object that CAN have the broken condition would skip said condition and go right to being destroyed if you were to apply the same successful Strength check vs. that object's break DC?
I'm inclined to say yes, and I'll use an example using common manacles, which have Hardness 10 and 10 hp, and also have a Break DC of 26. Removing 5 hp from the manacles would give it the Broken condition, which would probably translate to some chipped chain links between cuffs, or a loose joint in the cuffs themselves. Instead, I have the option to make a Strength check vs. the Manacles' Break DC, with the implication that succeeding will free me from them, especially since the Break DC is listed directly after the Escape Artist DC to slip free. If I'm for all intents and purposes free from "breaking" the manacles, I think we can all imagine the chain between the cuffs snapping, giving me full use of my hands and arms (barring any additional bonds). If a set of manacles were broken at the chain, they're effectively useless, and by Pathfinder's definition, destroyed.