This is what happens when one expects the rules to be written in such a way as to not rely on the GM to read them and understand their purpose, but rather in such explicit, specific, and flawlessly-executed language as to not require any thought.
It's NOT "in such a way" but actually reading the words on the page: full stop. You can add whatever you want in addition to those words but they can't be by definition the rules. I'm all for houseruling things but don't houserule and call it actually following the rules.
You get someone thinking the rules say you can't swing a weapon at an object even though they think that should be a possible action to take.
Yeah, darn those people ACTUALLY reading and understand the words written in the core book. Bad people for taking the rules at their word... I mean who'd think that when the rules say creature they actually a creature and instead don't read the hidden between the line meaning of 'target whatever you like, we really didn't mean what we said'... Again, if you don't like what's in the rule, it's fine for you to change it but don't try to shame someone for thinking the rules are actually there to be followed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You get someone thinking the rules say you can't swing a weapon at an object even though they think that should be a possible action to take.
Pretty sure no one's saying that you can't use Strikes on objects (or at least, the rules don't say you can, but everyone's in agreement that you should be able to).
The problem is spells.
How much damage does a Fireball do to a trap?
Does the trap get a reflex save? If so, what's its bonus?
So, just out of curiosity, to Graystone:
Say, as a Hypothetical, your game had some kind of malevolent storm-like force, a magical Hazard one could say, tied to a cursed urn of some sort. The party manages to figure out, hey, the storm currently throwing all sorts of bad juju at us comes from that urn, so the Barbarian says "I smash the urn with my Mace." What would you say is the correct response here?
A) Tell them "You can't, there are no rules for Striking objects with weapons."
B) Tell them "Okay, roll Attack" and treat it as a normal Strike.
C) Improvise a Sunder Maneuver using Athletics like all the Maneuvers seem to do in PF2e.
D) Something Else.
If you pick option D, please explain. Don't necessarily have to go into detail, but the scenario seems explained enough it should be possible to determine at least a simple response.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Remember that other post of your own from today where you told someone "context"?
Sure... Where is the explicit context? None that I can see. Having AC and hp is covered by spells that target objects. Where does it mention physical attacks on hazards/traps and not just using generic attacking terms.
"If there’s a physical component that a character could break, you’ll need to determine the hazard’s AC, Fortitude save, and Reflex save, using the extreme, high, and low values (preceded by E, H, or L on the table) as well as its Hardness, HP, and Broken Threshold (BT).": nothing requires a physical attack.
"Normally an item takes damage only when a creature is directly attacking it—commonly targeted items include doors and traps.": nothing about physical attacks.
"Rather than trying to carefully disable a hazard, a character might just smash it. Damaging a mechanical trap or another physical hazard works like damaging objects: the hazard reduces the damage it takes by its Hardness. In most cases, hitting the hazard also triggers it, as explained in Attacking a Hazard below.": still nothing suggests a physical attack. My Hydraulic Push or Force Bolt smashes traps just fine.
So the context isn't in the rules so I have to infer that they are from your common sense on what you should be able to do instead of anything in the book.
Just apply that same thing to the rules.
Done. Still don't agree. Though please point out the context that allows you to override explicit targeting rules and instead use what you think makes more sense.
Also, "house-rules that are actual universal because no one thinks it's actually reasonable to rule differently" and "actually following the rules" are - in this case at least - a distinction without a difference.
There IS a difference if they aren't universal: can you REALLY say that 100% of everyone that plays the game rules attacking objects the way you do? If you can't, you can't claim universality. If you think every one does, I'm here to tell you you're wrong.
Pretty sure no one's saying that you can't use Strikes on objects (or at least, the rules don't say you can, but everyone's in agreement that you should be able to).
I am. "You attack with a weapon you’re wielding or with an unarmed attack, targeting one creature within your reach (for a melee attack) or within range (for a ranged attack)." It's pretty clear.
So, just out of curiosity, to Graystone:
Say, as a Hypothetical, your game had some kind of malevolent storm-like force, a magical Hazard one could say, tied to a cursed urn of some sort. The party manages to figure out, hey, the storm currently throwing all sorts of bad juju at us comes from that urn, so the Barbarian says "I smash the urn with my Mace." What would you say is the correct response here?
Reads Strike... "You attack with a weapon you’re wielding or with an unarmed attack, targeting one creature within your reach (for a melee attack) or within range (for a ranged attack)."
So the correct response by the rules is 'where is the creature?'. So A. Now I'd prefer that a DM allow B but that'd be a houserule and I wouldn't think he was a horrible person for doing A.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really disagree with this. Every adventure I've run, it's been valuable to read the whole thing before starting off...Secondly, how can you not read the whole thing?Thank the both of you for proving my point that even if you've read the whole thing, you still need the relevant information to be put where you need it or you're not going to remember it.
Because my post was nowhere near the length of an adventure, and you both somehow managed to miss an important detail - I said I read the whole thing. What I said I shouldn't have to do is any more than that to be 100% ready to run the adventure.
You said you want a quick read-through to be enough. So when the players decide to go left when the adventure expects them to go right, and you flip ahead ten pages and see a trap marked "Moderate 3" and the players are only level 1... isn't that a pretty clear sign that the PCs really aren't supposed to be there?
This particular problem that we keep coming round to could have been fairly easy spotted in advance. But on the whole, I still don't agree that a quick read-through is enough.
Printed APs save me a lot of time because the time it takes me to read it carefully, is still an order of magnitude less than it takes me to write an adventure myself.
A) Tell them "You can't, there are no rules for Striking objects with weapons."
B) Tell them "Okay, roll Attack" and treat it as a normal Strike.
C) Improvise a Sunder Maneuver using Athletics like all the Maneuvers seem to do in PF2e.
D) Something Else.
Last post was getting a bit long so I broke this off. Playing in different virtual tables, I've seen A, B and C in play so there is quite a bit of difference in how people run damage on objects. IMO, the whole section need fleshed out with actual guidance on how objects are meant to be damaged. Most objects don't have a way to figure out stats even if there was a built in way to damage them without spells. It's total Dm fiat how many acid splashes it takes to get through a boulder without an AC to determine damage let alone how many times you have to hit it with a dagger.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pretty sure no one's saying that you can't use Strikes on objects (or at least, the rules don't say you can, but everyone's in agreement that you should be able to).
The problem is spells.
How much damage does a Fireball do to a trap?
Does the trap get a reflex save? If so, what's its bonus?
Except for magical traps and haunts (none of which had HP that I saw), all of the hazards I checked on Archives of Nethys have a Reflex save listed. The hazard creation rules in the GMG also have a section on the trap's saves as well, so it should be part of the stat block.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
After careful read :
It seems there has been a great change with PF2, you can attack object and equipment (as well as hazard) with almost anything now, with some rules : "Normally an item takes damage only when a creature is directly attacking it—commonly targeted items include doors and traps." (core p272)
If it wasn't the case why put these rules :
"Object Immunities
Inanimate objects and hazards are immune to bleed, death effects, disease, healing, mental effects, necromancy, nonlethal attacks, and poison, as well as the doomed, drained, fatigued, paralyzed, sickened, and unconscious conditions. An item that has a mind is not immune to mental effects. Many objects are immune to other conditions, at the GM’s discretion. For instance, a sword has no Speed, so it can’t take a penalty to its Speed, but an effect that causes a Speed penalty might work on a moving blade trap." (core 273)
Per the rules you can cast sleep on a door, you can cast heal on a chest it's immune but you can ;)
But more importantly you can cast entangle on a moving blade trap and it work... (it's the example given in the paragraph)
It seems there has been a great change with PF2, you can attack object and equipment (as well as hazard) with almost anything now, with some rules : "Normally an item takes damage only when a creature is directly attacking it—commonly targeted items include doors and traps." (core p272)
I'm not sure where you got "almost anything": the only thing that says it targets objects are a list of spells.
If it wasn't the case why put these rules :
"Object Immunities
Inanimate objects and hazards are immune to bleed, death effects, disease, healing, mental effects, necromancy, nonlethal attacks, and poison, as well as the doomed, drained, fatigued, paralyzed, sickened, and unconscious conditions. An item that has a mind is not immune to mental effects. Many objects are immune to other conditions, at the GM’s discretion. For instance, a sword has no Speed, so it can’t take a penalty to its Speed, but an effect that causes a Speed penalty might work on a moving blade trap." (core 273)
List of object targeting spells.
Per the rules you can cast sleep on a door, you can cast heal on a chest it's immune but you can ;)
But more importantly you can cast entangle on a moving blade trap and it work... (it's the example given in the paragraph)
Currently you can't cast most spells on them but some do work. For instance, polar ray hits objects and normally causes drained 2 but those immunities prevents that for an object. Other spells can cause blinded, dazzled, persistent damage, ect. So I disagree on the entangle on a trap. Currently it'd be for future proofing for a spell that causes a speed penalty AND targets objects. Those quotes don't change what makes a valid target.
<snipped for space>Outside this forum, I can pretty much guarantee you that folks playing the game are going to run through situations like a hazard or door or any other kind of object existing and a player saying something like "I'm gonna hack it to bits with an axe" without even stopping to check what the rules happen to say about targeting - they are going to believe the rules allow this because there is no reason that would occur to them why that wouldn't be how it works.
I'm not sure why this matters at all as we're talking about that the rules say and imply: what you think the rules should do doesn't impact what the rules actually allow. I don't think I should be able to toss a 250 pound 1/2 orc over my halflngs shoulder and walk away like it's nothing but no matter how illogical it seems, those are the rules. You're are conflating what makes sense to you and what the rules say: they don't have to be the same thing.
As for the context you don't see: it's the context that everyone besides you in this thread sees - rules outside of the one you're latched onto the specific wording off sure seem to imply that strikes aren't intended to be limited to creature-only targeting.
So no actual context then. The text IMPLIES objects can be attacks. It tells you what attacks actually can do that. You don't like that list so you claim the context is greater than it is. AGAIN, please point out the text that implies a PHYSICAL attack with a weapon instead of general attack language. Without that I can't see how you can claim an implication of a particular type of attack in those sections of rules. Quote what sections do not fit a magic attack that explicitly targets objects.
There you go, that's the context. You've finally seen it.
Ah... You said "rules outside of the one you're latched onto the specific wording off sure seem to imply that strikes aren't intended to be limited to creature-only targeting." NOTHING implies Strikes are allowed so I don't understand the victory dance. I've ALWAYS said objects could be attacked. This isn't a new revelation and it ISN'T an inference but an explicit rule. None of this impacts Strikes in the least. "The text IMPLIES objects can be attacks" isn't the same as 'the text implies objects can be attacked by anything including Strikes'.
You don't like that so you claim the context is lesser than it is, to borrow your own phrasing.
I'm STILL not seeing your context: NOTHING suggests strikes hit objects. What I don't like doesn't matter. I honestly don't like that Strikes can hit them but this isn't about my likes or dislikes.
SO, once again... what implies a strike or other physical attack can hit an object... I'm still waiting on that.
Which Mental spell can you cast on an object with mind with your rules ? O_o
Oh and you can't cast most of your spell on a green slime or Brown Mold now too with your rules... since they are no longer creatures...
Which Mental spell can you cast on an object with mind with your rules ? O_o
I don't understand the question at all. Mental: "It has no effect on an object or a mindless creature." Also it's not my rule but what's in the book. Where do you see a mental spell with a target of object? O_o
Oh and you can't cast most of your spell on a green slime or Brown Mold now too with your rules... since they are no longer creatures...
Yep, the game specifically made them objects: "object immunities". And once again, not my rules.
"Some spells allow you to directly target a creature, an object, or something that fits a more specific category. ": object not the same as a creature
"If you choose a target that isn’t valid, such as if you thought a vampire was a living creature and targeted it with a spell that can target only living creatures, your spell fails to target that creature.": so you CAN cast sleep on a door but because it's not a valid target it fails.
"A spell that has an area but no targets listed usually affects all creatures in the area indiscriminately.": note these spells do NOTHING to objects without DM fiat.
All Core Rulebook pg. 304 and not my rules. You seem to be making a lot of fuss over the immunities but they are just there for effects that combine different things. For instance, a spell could come out that blasts someone for damage and has a mental affect if you fail a save: if it allowed objects as a target then the object could take the damage but would be immune to the mental part. Just because the text is future proofed doesn't mean you throw out the target rules.
That and "Normally an item takes damage only when a creature is directly attacking it" in no way changed target rules. "commonly targeted items include doors and traps" doesn't mention HOW you target them so you have to look at targeting and most things target creatures.
An item that has a mind is not immune to mental effects. core p273
An item that has a mind is not immune to mental effects. core p273
Yes, "Since they have their own minds, intelligent items might be subject to mental effects that require a Will save." Gamemastery Guide pg. 88... might. You JUST have to find a spell that can target them... "Intelligent items have Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores, though as inanimate objects, they don’t have Strength, Dexterity, or Constitution entries." Note the bolded word. No where does it say they are ever treated as creatures. I'd say a specific section on intelligent items is a more specific source than a blurb under object immunities.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know if you want to take it like this the I can say you can't cast any spell on a Hazard since it's not an object, their type are either Traps, Environmental Hazards, or Haunts, having object immunities does NOT make them objects, same as having Fire Immunity does not make one a fire, they're Hazard and no spell can target Hazard... ;)
Umm, is this really topic for rules on how striking hazard or object works?
Well if you want to know if Hazards are overpowered the first things to know are the rules... If you can blast them with spells it's a lot easier to deal with them... ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Umm, is this really topic for rules on how striking hazard or object works?
Yes. It's unknown whether strikes or spells or other forms of attacks can reasonably affect objects without rules explicitly telling us they do, especially when the rules make distinctions between creatures and objects and game terms purposefully exclude one (objects) but not the other (creatures). And because of the level of player-interactive-exclusion from objects compared to creatures, greatly increases how deadly hazards (which are special kinds of objects) can be.
And as it stands, there are specific rules for dealing with individual hazards which would trump any sort of typical approach to other objects, meaning unless the hazard says you can strike the hazard, you can't actually strike the hazard. Because hazards being more specific than objects means all rules applying to objects don't really apply to hazards.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Graystone, out of curiosity, in your interpretation can I use the Strike action to attack into an empty square where there is no creature?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Umm, is this really topic for rules on how striking hazard or object works?Yes. It's unknown whether strikes or spells or other forms of attacks can reasonably affect objects without rules explicitly telling us they do, especially when the rules make distinctions between creatures and objects and game terms purposefully exclude one (objects) but not the other (creatures). And because of the level of player-interactive-exclusion from objects compared to creatures, greatly increases how deadly hazards (which are special kinds of objects) can be.
And as it stands, there are specific rules for dealing with individual hazards which would trump any sort of typical approach to other objects, meaning unless the hazard says you can strike the hazard, you can't actually strike the hazard. Because hazards being more specific than objects means all rules applying to objects don't really apply to hazards.
That's really just an absurd interpretation. They have all of the relevant combat stats to be attacked exactly like Creatures. I have no argument with the fact that the wording is bad, but I have absolutely no doubt that you can attack a Hazard with anything that you can use to attack a Creature.
Good thing Paizo knew they weren't perfect and included a rule for this exact instance.
Ambiguous Rules
Sometimes a rule could be interpreted multiple ways. If one
version is too good to be true, it probably is. If a rule seems
to have wording with problematic repercussions or doesn’t
work as intended, work with your group to find a good
solution, rather than just playing with the rule as printed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To borrow something someone else said that I agree with (If you lurk here deaddmwalking, thanks for this little spiel you gave on traps), traps work best as one of a few different categories that allow a lot of interactivity with the group. One is the puzzle trap, the obvious trap you need to succeed to get past, ones that can be succeeded with either skill checks or maybe common sense solutions (Maybe not the latter because of Tomb of Horrors). Another is the trap that takes a long time to kill you. This is you room filling with water, your moving walls trap, your boulder chasing you etc. Give the group multiple possible solutions, set up a ticking clock, maybe have some enemies inside the trap that they have to fight while trying to stop the trap from going of. Another is traps with a reward, traps that have some kind of reward for disabling them or successfully passing them beyond not getting hit for damage. Like say a pit trap that if you notice and descend down has a door to a lower level in the dungeon/castle/wherever the group is.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just gonna throw some rules of my own digging (mostly through the index) here to try to add a new angle to the "can you Strike a Hazard" idea.
For starters I think Graystone has pretty well hammered home that the official "Target" for Strikes is "a Creature" so I'm not gonna re-quote that one. Anyways...
creature An active participant in the story and world. This includes monsters and nonplayer characters (played by the Game Master) and player characters (played by the other players).
So here we have the definition of "Creature". An Active participant in the story and world. It includes, but does not say is limited to, NPCs and PCs.
Now I believe this was brought up before and someone countered with Hazards don't "Act" they "React". But I know for a fact that some Hazards (Complex Hazards) have to be dealt with in proper Encounter mode, rather than merely being 1 and done. And in these cases...
For complex hazards, the reaction may also cause the hazard to roll initiative, either starting a combat encounter or joining one already in progress, and the hazard continues to pose a threat over multiple rounds.
So these Hazards roll for Initiative. So let's look at Initiative:
initiative At the start of an encounter, all participants involved roll for initiative to
determine the order in which they act.
Most notable part here: "in which they act". If it has Initiative then it must at some point act. If it Acts by extension it is Active. Thus at the very least a Hazard that is in Encounter Mode and has Initiative must by definition be Active. And it is obviously within the Story and World. Ergo, such a Hazard is "an Active participant in the story and world." Ergo, such a Hazard would, by definition, be a Creature.
Okay so what about those that are single-shot and thus don't usually require a full shift into Encounter mode (AKA Simple Hazards)? Well those are a fair bit less clean, but let's still look at some things.
To start off with, these Hazards all (as far as I can tell) still operate off of Reactions. So let's look at Reactions:
reaction An action you can use even if it’s not your turn. You can use 1 reaction per round.
So a Reaction is still an Action. So if it is using a Reaction, it is still Acting. And, as mentioned earlier, if it is Acting it is by extension Active, and as it is within the Story or World, that means...
drumroll please...
A Simple Hazard is, still, by definition, a Creature.
All that said, not every Hazard can be smashed by Strikes still. Some Hazards do not have a listed HP, and as the rulebook does say:
Hazards’ AC, applicable saving throw modifiers, Hardness, HP, and BT are listed in their stat blocks. A hazard that doesn’t list one of these statistics can’t be affected by anything targeting that statistic.
Also you still can't Strike objects that are not themselves Active. So you could Strike the cursed Urn in my hypothetical up there- as the source of the Hazard it is Acting on Initiative in every round- but you couldn't Strike a Mundane or even Magical Urn incapable of Acting of its own accord. But as soon as an Object becomes capable of Acting it becomes a Creature and ergo a valid target of a Strike.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I follow your logic, but if I have to follow your logic in order to make the game functional, that logic should be spelled out in the rules. i.e. "Hazards can be targeted [by spells/abilities] as if they were creatures." Or similar.
But even WITH that logic, one can still not break down a door with an axe.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I follow your logic, but if I have to follow your logic in order to make the game functional, that logic should be spelled out in the rules. i.e. "Hazards can be targeted [by spells/abilities] as if they were creatures." Or similar.
But even WITH that logic, one can still not break down a door with an axe.
One can break down a door with an ax, but not by striking it. It would be the force open action and the GM would decide if using an axe in that fashion provided a circumstance bonus.
For that kind of stuff I think the PF2 rules simplify things quite a bit (why waste time having the person roll to strike over and over again, just use a fail forward mechanic to decide how long it takes.
For active hazards and traps, I think it is pretty intuitive that if they have ACs and such they are meant to be targeted like creatures, but adding a line somewhere explaining that wouldn't hurt.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd be more in favor of the first rule if I didn't see it used to excuse changing literally anything about he game at any time. Hello 50 HP level 1 Orc, how ya doing. Or the amount of godawful fights I've gotten with players used to their GM's version of 5e's stealth rules.
As is I'm still going to raise my objection that active traps like arrow traps as they are typically used are essentially nothing but attrition tools that in some cases can one-shot a player. From a narrative perspective obvious traps as a sign of narrative threat still do not differ from monsters, which you can usually put in places where it's plausible the players can see them but they can't see the players back, and do not have the unintended consequence of sniping the wizard.
So we are now discussing if a party can or not attack an Hazzard when there is already rules about that? Check Core page 521
And those rules say that yes they can be attacked.
And i also really do not understand the talk about not being able to destroy a door by hitting with an axe...
Because well the same rules also refer that items can be damaged, check page 272 on the Core book, in there it even says something like "commonly targeted items include doors and traps".
So our common Door would have Hardness 5, 20HP and a BT of 10
(check page 577).
So we do not need to get into the area of we as GM decide, it's already there...
Also for good reading:
Hazards are immune to anything an object is immune to unless specifically noted otherwise, and they can’t be targeted by anything that can’t target objects. Some hazards may have additional immunities, as well as resistances or weaknesses.
Inanimate objects and hazards are immune to bleed, death effects, disease, healing, mental effects, necromancy, nonlethal attacks, and poison, as well as the doomed, drained, fatigued, paralyzed, sickened, and unconscious conditions. An item that has a mind is not immune to mental effects. Many objects are immune to other conditions, at the GM’s discretion. For instance, a sword has no Speed, so it can’t take a penalty to its Speed, but an effect that causes a Speed penalty might work on a moving blade trap.
So this still has space to use many things right?
So for instance let's check some spells:
Acid Splash= Hits creatures and objects
Cone of Cold= Says it hits creatures
Magic Missile= Creatures (and sometimes the Darkness if you are feeling jolly)
Fireball= Anything in the area! Crispy!!!
Lightning Bolt= Anything!
Chain Lightining? Creatures
For me the rules do not say that Objects are immune to spells, they are immnune to certain things, and they say that.
So it just a question to check each spell, the traits, target and so on.
I'm STILL not seeing your context: NOTHING suggests strikes hit objects. What I don't like doesn't matter. I honestly don't like that Strikes can hit them but this isn't about my likes or dislikes.
SO, once again... what implies a strike or other physical attack can hit an object... I'm still waiting on that.
Really? I think the rules are clear on that, reading page 272 is clear to me, one can indeed strike a door....
"An item can be broken or destroyed if it takes enough damage. Every item has a Hardness value. Each time an item takes damage, reduce any damage the item takes by its Hardness. The rest of the damage reduces the item’s Hit Points. Normally an item takes damage only when a creature is directly attacking it—commonly targeted items include doors and traps. "
So in the rule regarding items it clearly says they can be attacked, your only argument is what? The definition of strike?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also for good reading:
Hazards are immune to anything an object is immune to unless specifically noted otherwise, and they can’t be targeted by anything that can’t target objects. Some hazards may have additional immunities, as well as resistances or weaknesses.
Apparently this escaped your notice:
Also for good reading:
Hazards are immune to anything an object is immune to unless specifically noted otherwise, and they can’t be targeted by anything that can’t target objects. Some hazards may have additional immunities, as well as resistances or weaknesses.
STRIKE [one-action]
ATTACK
You attack with a weapon you’re wielding or with an unarmed
attack, targeting one creature within your reach (for a
melee attack) or within range (for a ranged attack). Roll the
attack roll for the weapon or unarmed attack you are using, and
compare the result to the target creature’s AC to determine the
effect. See Attack Rolls on page 446 and Damage on page 450
for details on calculating your attack and damage rolls.
And THAT'S why its being discussed.
So we just ignore this rules right?
"DAMAGING A HAZARD
Rather than trying to carefully disable a hazard, a character might just smash it. Damaging a mechanical trap or another physical hazard works like damaging objects: the hazard reduces the damage it takes by its Hardness. In most cases, hitting the hazard also triggers it, as explained in Attacking a Hazard below. If a hazard’s Hit Points are reduced to its Broken Threshold (BT) or lower, the hazard becomes broken and can’t be activated, though it can still be repaired. If it’s reduced to 0 HP, it’s destroyed and can’t be repaired. (See page 272 in Chapter 6 for more information on damaging objects.)
Hazards’ AC, applicable saving throw modifiers, Hardness, HP, and BT are listed in their stat blocks. A hazard that doesn’t list one of these statistics can’t be affected by anything targeting that statistic. For example, a hazard that has HP but no BT can’t be broken, but can still be destroyed. Hazards are immune to anything an object is immune to unless specifically noted otherwise, and they can’t be targeted by anything that can’t target objects. Some hazards may have additional immunities, as well as resistances or weaknesses.
Attacking a Hazard
If someone hits a hazard—especially if it’s a mechanical trap—they usually trigger it, though you might determine otherwise in some cases. An attack that breaks the hazard might prevent it from triggering, depending on the circumstances. If the hazard has multiple parts, breaking one part might still trigger the trap. For example, if a trap has a trip wire in one location and launches an attack from another location, severing the trip wire could still trigger the attack. Destroying a trap in one blow almost never triggers it. These rules also apply to most damaging spells or other effects in addition to attacks.
So in the Hazards it is really clear that a PC can just smash a hazzard, but we are discussing the wording on the strike action?
When it is clear that a Hazard (and a object) can be attacked?
It refers in there to smash it! Attacks! Spells! If someone hits a hazard!
But we are going to just ignore that? awesome....
Apparently this escaped your notice:
Also for good reading:
Hazards are immune to anything an object is immune to unless specifically noted otherwise, and they can’t be targeted by anything that can’t target objects. Some hazards may have additional immunities, as well as resistances or weaknesses.
And THAT'S why its being discussed.STRIKE [one-action]
ATTACK
You attack with a weapon you’re wielding or with an unarmed
attack, targeting one creature within your reach (for a
melee attack) or within range (for a ranged attack). Roll the
attack roll for the weapon or unarmed attack you are using, and
compare the result to the target creature’s AC to determine the
effect. See Attack Rolls on page 446 and Damage on page 450
for details on calculating your attack and damage rolls.
Escaped your notice the part where i refere to the page where it says that Items can be damaged by attacks? Or you just quote something missing the whole of the text?
Items can be damaged by attacks
By attacks, such as casting Acid Splash, which can target objects, but not by using a Strike, which can only target creatures.
Unless the GM applies common sense to fix this issue.
Wow, this just amazes me, really! Because the rules are not perfect but in this case for me in my campaign a player can use a axe on a door! And what amazes me (i am much amazed today it seems), it is just this argument of trying to deny what is in the rules because of the wording on the strike when all that is in the Hazards and Items prove that a Pc can indeed attack objets and hazards.
And people say that is not clear that it can be attacked by something like an axe?
Really? I am amazed! Gonna change my user name to the Amazed Demonknight (hmmm, there is a good movie title in there).
Ok, i am going to leave this thread and just read it and roll my eyes while doing it.
Amazing!
(Yes i have a sense of humor and if someone felt ofended for my 3 strikes of arguments me so sorry!).
Graystone, out of curiosity, in your interpretation can I use the Strike action to attack into an empty square where there is no creature?
You can try but if there isn't a creature there the strike fails. For instance, if you thought there wa an invisible creature in a square and tried to hit it, you could try but fail if there isn't anything there: it just turned out to not be a viable target.
And what amazes me (i am much amazed today it seems), it is just this argument of trying to deny what is in the rules because of the wording on the strike when all that is in the Hazards and Items prove that a Pc can indeed attack objets and hazards.
"they can’t be targeted by anything that can’t target objects". Now a DM may houserule something to allow other attacks to work, but it's invariably going to differ from one table to another. One might allow strikes or another might make a different action that actually targets objects. This is especially true for basic objects like a door where you don't an AC or saves and then try to strike it or cast spells at it.
The ability of the DM to fix or make up rules doesn't make RAW retroactively appear. It's just a houserule to patch things up... So, what the DM does in this area inevitably has a impact on how strong a trap/hazard is as it impacts how you can deal with it so it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So we just ignore this rules right?
"DAMAGING A HAZARD
Rather than trying to carefully disable a hazard, a character might just smash it. Damaging a mechanical trap or another physical hazard works like damaging objects:
We're not, see bolded section. Oops.
Wow, this just amazes me, really! Because the rules are not perfect but in this case for me in my campaign a player can use a axe on a door!
He says to someone that once complained (in another game) that they couldn't throw grenades at the floor to deny enemies their dodge roll (because only the primary target of a grenade got said dodge roll (think about having to always center a fireball on one target and everyone else in the area was not allowed to roll reflex, and oh also, the primary target's reflex save moved the center before it went off)).
And yes, the moment someone suggested it, the devs went "no, you explicitly cannot do that thing" to which I sarcastically replied that all my future characters would have an intense hatred of chairs and would throw grenades at them at every opportunity.
Is it dumb that the rules say that strikes only targets creatures?
Yes. Yes it is.
My point is not to say "you can't do that" but to say "this is dumb, but its what the rules say." The vague contradictions don't really help because they all refer back to the "how does objects damage?" which says that the effect needs to target objects first.
Its super dumb and everyone agrees its super dumb.
But them's the rules (as communicated by the words on the page).
(Yes i have a sense of humor and if someone felt ofended for my 3 strikes of arguments me so sorry!).
Its all good man :)
Remember that the force open activity is an attack action, so players attempting to force open a door are attacking it, and as a GM, I would probably give a circumstance bonus to a character using an Axe to break down the door rather than attempting to chop it down with a dagger, but that is all left up to the GM in this edition.
I what world would it make more sense to swing wildly at a door three times with attacks designed for attacking a living opponent than it would trying to find the weak point on the door and apply force directly to it?
But that is exactly what you are encouraging if you let players sit around striking at an inanimate object without consequence, expecting them to overcome the hit points and hardness without an attack roll (items don't usually have ACs).
Now personally, as a GM, I think active hazards, especially ones that are posing a threat to the players, are given an AC specifically because attacking them with strikes is supposed to be a last ditch option for the player that has no better way to overcome the hazard, and I do allow players to make a strike with a weapon against one, because it keeps the tension high in encounters with hazards, giving the players a quick and obvious "thing to try" if they otherwise have no idea what to do, but I recognize that is my choice as a GM and I wouldn't demand other GMs do the same.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just wanted to drop in and say I'm really enjoying this argument - and the hilarious images it brings to mind.
So in this game-world, axes can't be used to attack/damage objects. You can probably chop down a tree, because a tree is a Plant which is a creature type (I think). But once that tree is down, it's dead and therefore an object, so you can't chop it into smaller pieces.
And that's why chimneys are so tall. So you can lower the tree in from the top, then burn it from the bottom.
(Wait...does fire in a fireplace damage objects...)
|
I think that the general issue here is that there is a distinct lack of a "break" Athletics Skill Usage in the rules.
As others have noted the rules for using Strikes CANNOT by RAW target Objects which heavily suggests that there is another option by which one can "attack" Objects in general, be the attended or not.
If you try to attack a chair using your weapon it's going to automatically fail because it isn't a valid target, and frankly, I think that's probably working as intended with the exception that there isn't any printed Action that guides how a PC can intentionally damage objects outside of a small number of spells and the Sabotage Feat which has its own rules that dictate that the object needs to both be Attended by a Creature and also having moving parts.
For what it's worth, I do NOT think it's appropriate to use a Weapon to Attack objects, they are simply put, not designed to harm objects. There is a reason why demolition specialists use tools that are specifically suited for the task. In the same way, the use of one of these demolition tools/techniques are suited to breaking things they would almost certainly be ineffective as real Weapons. You wouldn't use a crowbar/demo sledge to fight in combat just like how you wouldn't use a sword (or even an axe) to break down a wall. Would it eventually work? Yeah, but it would CERTAINLY be less effective than if you had equipment suited for this function.
I feel like this is one of those things that just HAPPENED because they had so many people with different assumptions working on different sections of the rules. The people designing the Strike Action rules probably assumed that Breaking/Attacking Objects would be handled by the people working on Skill Uses and likewise, that team probably assumed it wasn't needed because the team writing the general "Attack/Strike" rules had damaging Objects in mind.
The only fix this really needs is a new Athletics Skill untrained Skill Usage.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You wouldn't use a crowbar/demo sledge to fight in combat
Gordon Freeman would like a word.
Wow, this just amazes me, really! Because the rules are not perfect but in this case for me in my campaign a player can use a axe on a door! And what amazes me (i am much amazed today it seems), it is just this argument of trying to deny what is in the rules because of the wording on the strike when all that is in the Hazards and Items prove that a Pc can indeed attack objets and hazards.
And people say that is not clear that it can be attacked by something like an axe?Really? I am amazed! Gonna change my user name to the Amazed Demonknight (hmmm, there is a good movie title in there).
Ok, i am going to leave this thread and just read it and roll my eyes while doing it.
Amazing!
(Yes i have a sense of humor and if someone felt ofended for my 3 strikes of arguments me so sorry!).
I would very much like to invite you (and anyone else who is interested) to participate in a discussion over here in my thread.
You wouldn't use a crowbar/demo sledge to fight in combatGordon Freeman would like a word.
They got rid of the crowbar in Half-Life: Alyx though. Guess they realized their mistake. :P