I've spent an inordinate amount of time parsing out the text in the Core Rulebook, and almost every time I've come upon an issue that seems vague, or flexible, I've managed to see some way to outline a set of expectations for my players on how I might rule it.
The big exception to this is Sabotage. (Rogue feat)
No matter how I see it, I just can't understand what the intention was with this skill. It seems very obvious to me that this skill is intended to "break" certain items, but which items are able to be "sabotaged" seems completely arbitrary to me.
I want to breakdown my thought process, and see if anybody else has anything thoughts they can add to help me, as a GM, create a mutually agreed upon and predictable ruling for my table.
Thought #1: The "moving parts" clause.
The only actual hint we have toward targetable objects for Sabotage is objects that have "moving parts". An example is given that a bow can be sabotaged, but not a sword. What about a bow makes it have "moving parts"? It is because the wood and string are flexible, and therefore it's general shape can be altered? Is it because the string could theoretically be "detached" from the wood? I don't see a clean way to extrapolate this example.
Thought #2: Dealing damage to the item.
While the flavor of the skill seems similar to "Disable Device", the actual mechanic implies actually striking the targeted item. This seems very strange, since this skill actually requires a free hand, and in fact, does NOT require any kind of weapon. So what are is the character doing with this free hand? Keep in mind this is a Single Action, so it doesn't seem plausible that we are doing anything fancy.
Thought #3: Durability of items.
Because weapons themselves don't have durability entries, all we have to look for is the materials table as a guideline for how much hardness and HP a weapon has. The only explicit example of a weapon that can be sabotaged that we have is a bow, and as it happens, this is maybe one of the most problematic weapons to figure this out. Does it count as "Thin Wood"? "Thin Leather"? Some unlisted entry for "String"?
Thought #4: Balance
In most of the vague issues I've encountered in the rulebook, it hasn't seemed like it would make too big of a difference in overall gameplay balance, but this one stands out to me. A "broken" item is no longer able to be used for its purpose, meaning, a broken weapon is no longer able to be used to make attacks. This seems insane, because we now have a situation where with certain enemies, a rogue can actually use a one action skill to eliminate certain enemies' primary source of damage permanently. Obviously, limits to Sabotage such as which items can be sabotaged or not mitigate this problem, but those limits, and the intention of those limits, are so vague, that it's hard to make a ruling as a GM without feeling like you are drastically affecting the balance of many encounters.
This was a long post... but it's pretty much the only glaring issue I have with the core rulebook after spending way too much time the past month or so going over it with a fine toothed comb. Any thoughts on the matter?
Wow. Thank you so much. That was actually incredibly helpful. I didn’t even notice sabotage had the incapacitation trait. I also really like your answer to thought number 1. Somehow that makes a lot of sense to me and makes me feel a lot better about it in general.
In the spirit of @Baarogue's point about more discussion...
I agree with the breakdown in responses. To add to the point about "moving parts"...
Thematically, given this is a single action activity, I think of this as using brains and trickery to overcome brawn. As has been pointed out, there's not much you can do to a sword beyond exceeding its hardness values. But anything that I think could reasonably be fluffed into an interact sort of action and that would naturally render it unusable, would be sufficient reason to allow it.
It's a potentially neat ability but will involve table variation.
So, going about this in a different way:
Is putting lantern oil on an enemies sword hilt a sabotage?
I'd say Thievery vs. Reflex DC would be the right check, but the results probably should be closer to Disarm, I think?
So, going about this in a different way:
Is putting lantern oil on an enemies sword hilt a sabotage?
I'd say Thievery vs. Reflex DC would be the right check, but the results probably should be closer to Disarm, I think?
No, because sabotage is about breaking the item. Seems like a disarm check to me.
It's a potentially neat ability but will involve table variation.
Absolutely. I love this concept of this ability. While I do think that some of the revelations in this thread help me considerably in adjudicating the use of it, I would be lying if I said I didn't wish the ruleset was a little more explicit in this case.
What? No.
You need a free hand so that you can use your fingers to manipulate objects to perform sabotage. You don't just need a free hand while you sabotage with a whip Crack from 10 ft away because some magical principle compels it.
No, because sabotage is about breaking the item. Seems like a disarm check to me.So, going about this in a different way:
Is putting lantern oil on an enemies sword hilt a sabotage?
I'd say Thievery vs. Reflex DC would be the right check, but the results probably should be closer to Disarm, I think?
Loosen the pommel so it falls mid-combat and the sword is off-balance.
have a laugh.