Hunt Prey:
You designate a single creature as your prey and focus your attacks against that creature. You must be able to see or hear the prey, or you must be tracking the prey during exploration.
I imagine the answer is no, but for pathfinder does the definition of creature include an inanimate object? In this case, can you designate an archery target as prey for purposes of abilities like hunter's edge: flurry, hunted shot, etc.
Additional examples might be a lock you are trying to break open, or a trap you are trying to destroy.
At this point, that is basically up to your DM. There is no consensus on these boards about that.
If you are involved in an Archery contest that involves you making Strikes to hit a Target, then yes I would let you Hunt it.
However, there are those on the boards who would argue that you can't even make a Strike against an Archery Target, as it's not a Creature, even if you give it AC, HP, Saves, and even Initiative.
Interesting. I suppose that is about what I'd expect.
Although I can't imagine anyone claiming you couldn't strike an archery target outside of one of those "Look how silly the rules are if you take them to literal extremes". Somewhat akin to claiming you could not see the sun because of the distance penalties to perception.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Strictly by RAW, no an object isn't a creature.
As a GM i'd probably let you do it for an archery contest.
But I probably wouldn't let you do it against a random lock or trap you come across in the middle of a dungeon and want to destroy.
But I probably wouldn't let you do it against a random lock or trap you come across in the middle of a dungeon and want to destroy.
Mmmh... I don't understand... For spells to target and damage object there's still a doubt, the rules are not clear with Spells and Objects and Hazard... There's also this entry in the Areas entry of the Core p456 "The GM determines any effects to the environment and unattended objects."
But for weapon attack there's little to no doubt :
Core p272 Item Damage : "Normally an item takes damage only when a creature is directly attacking it—commonly targeted items include doors and traps."
And Core p521 Disabling a Hazard : "The most versatile method for deactivating traps is the Disable a Device action of the Thievery skill, though most mechanical traps can also simply be smashed, and magical traps can usually be counteracted."
How can you say you can't attack a door or a trap ?
But I probably wouldn't let you do it against a random lock or trap you come across in the middle of a dungeon and want to destroy.Mmmh... I don't understand... For spells to target and damage object there's still a doubt, the rules are not clear with Spells and Objects and Hazard... There's also this entry in the Areas entry of the Core p456 "The GM determines any effects to the environment and unattended objects."
But for weapon attack there's little to no doubt :
Core p272 Item Damage : "Normally an item takes damage only when a creature is directly attacking it—commonly targeted items include doors and traps."
And Core p521 Disabling a Hazard : "The most versatile method for deactivating traps is the Disable a Device action of the Thievery skill, though most mechanical traps can also simply be smashed, and magical traps can usually be counteracted."
How can you say you can't attack a door or a trap ?
To be clear, I don't say that. Other people do.
To be clear, I don't say that. Other people do.
Yeah they maybe right with the Strike action, but you can use another action to attack object :
Core p462 : "Other Actions
Sometimes you need to attempt something not already covered by defined actions in the game. When this happens, the rules tell you how many actions you need to spend, as well any traits your action might have. For example, a spell that lets you switch targets might say you can do so “by spending a single action, which has the concentrate trait.” Game masters can also use this approach when a character tries to do something that isn’t covered in the rules."
With this you can make an Attack Object action... ;)
But I probably wouldn't let you do it against a random lock or trap you come across in the middle of a dungeon and want to destroy.Mmmh... I don't understand... For spells to target and damage object there's still a doubt, the rules are not clear with Spells and Objects and Hazard... There's also this entry in the Areas entry of the Core p456 "The GM determines any effects to the environment and unattended objects."
But for weapon attack there's little to no doubt :
Core p272 Item Damage : "Normally an item takes damage only when a creature is directly attacking it—commonly targeted items include doors and traps."
And Core p521 Disabling a Hazard : "The most versatile method for deactivating traps is the Disable a Device action of the Thievery skill, though most mechanical traps can also simply be smashed, and magical traps can usually be counteracted."
How can you say you can't attack a door or a trap ?
Who said you couldn't attack them?
I was answering the OP's original question, and was saying I wouldn't let you get your Hunt Prey bonus. Those are two very different things.
The target dummy at least simulates a creature. Hunt Prey does specify creatures in its wording.
A lock or a trap don't even simulate a creature.
Edit: Did you intend to quote Aratorin instead of me? Or perhaps misunderstand the context of my statement?
Edit: Did you intend to quote Aratorin instead of me? Or perhaps misunderstand the context of my statement?
Sorry, yeah, wrong quote I intended to answer to Aratorin saying some people says that, by RAW, you can't attack object... ;)
You can't Strike object but you can attack them :p
Who said you couldn't attack them?
I was answering the OP's original question, and was saying I wouldn't let you get your Hunt Prey bonus. Those are two very different things.
The target dummy at least simulates a creature. Hunt Prey does specify creatures in its wording.
A lock or a trap don't even simulate a creature.
Your logic doesn't hold up. A circular archery target doesn't simulate a creature...at all. So trying to allow it for a target is recognizing how silly it is rule that Ranger feats designed for "hunting" to be completely worthless when practicing hunting.
Does Flurry and Precision work against animate object? As such, there's no reason not to let it work on a lock, trap, door, or any other object that requires the Ranger roll an attack to hit it. If you put an invisible lock at the center of the bullseye/dummy, whatever, and you're letting Flurry work on the bullseye, then it's obviously working to increase the Ranger's accuracy at hitting the invisible lock.
If you read Hunt Prey, it's about "focus" and nothing to do with understanding what you're attacking. Hunt Prey works on things you have no idea what they are. Same with Flurry. You're trained to unleash lots of attacks. It is totally irrelevant if you know what the creature is or anything about it.
The same rationale applies to the Precision edge as it lets you find "weak points" despite having no idea what it is you're attacking. As such, it should apply to an inanimate object unless it is immune to precision damage, and having just checked, it is not.
PF2, more so than PF1, eschews silly formalism when it comes to the rules. There's no reason for the GM not to allow attack abilities to work at attacking things unless that thing is specifically coded against the attack type.
Look, I'm trying to be generous. If you want the correct answer, it's that they're s!@@ out of luck. No object is a creature, and so they don't qualify for Hunt Prey.
But since it doesn't make much sense for an archer to become worse at shooting a target then it does for them to shoot a creature, as a GM I would be generous.
Mmmh... I don't understand... For spells to target and damage object there's still a doubt, the rules are not clear with Spells and Objects and Hazard... There's also this entry in the Areas entry of the Core p456 "The GM determines any effects to the environment and unattended objects."
There isn't any doubt on spells: those that can target objects list them in the target section. With other spells, you are just as able to target objects as you can weapons: if the DM houserules it, you can.
But for weapon attack there's little to no doubt :
Core p272 Item Damage : "Normally an item takes damage only when a creature is directly attacking it—commonly targeted items include doors and traps."
And Core p521 Disabling a Hazard : "The most versatile method for deactivating traps is the Disable a Device action of the Thievery skill, though most mechanical traps can also simply be smashed, and magical traps can usually be counteracted."
How can you say you can't attack a door or a trap ?
I agree there is little doubt but I don't come to the same conclusion. Nothing in item damage and disabling a hazard points to physical damage:both of those can be covered by spells that target objects so I don't see them as proof of weapon attacks being able to be used on objects. Now the DM can invent an action that does that, but that by definition is a houserule. "Game masters can also use this approach when a character tries to do something that isn’t covered in the rules.": can doesn't mean must, so it's outside the written rules to say you can attack objects outside the few spells that target them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But I probably wouldn't let you do it against a random lock or trap you come across in the middle of a dungeon and want to destroy.Mmmh... I don't understand... For spells to target and damage object there's still a doubt, the rules are not clear with Spells and Objects and Hazard... There's also this entry in the Areas entry of the Core p456 "The GM determines any effects to the environment and unattended objects."
But for weapon attack there's little to no doubt :
Core p272 Item Damage : "Normally an item takes damage only when a creature is directly attacking it—commonly targeted items include doors and traps."
And Core p521 Disabling a Hazard : "The most versatile method for deactivating traps is the Disable a Device action of the Thievery skill, though most mechanical traps can also simply be smashed, and magical traps can usually be counteracted."
How can you say you can't attack a door or a trap ?
Per the rules, Strikes can only be used on creatures, nothing else. While people argue that the game term for creatures could apply to inanimate objects and hazards that have "an active role in the story," I find it to be overly ambiguous because that could be literally anything. Does that mean that my imagination is now a creature because it is what I am using to dictate my character's decisions, thereby making it have an active role on the story? Does that mean enemies may now strike the player's imagination? I don't think so. It is ambiguous because they wanted to create a catch-all to future-proof things that may be considered as (but aren't actually) creatures.
You can't tell me a jail cell is a creature because it's what's needed to be destroyed/defeated for the PCs to break out and advance the plot, making it an "active participant in the game's story" for the PCs to overcome. It's ridiculous because it doesn't exhibit traits most creatures possess. Maybe if the jail cell was actually the stomach of some ancient beast that swallowed the PCs, it might be more convincing and actually more interesting/entertaining for the story. But a typical artificial prison constructed of metal bars? Nah. Not a creature.
In my opinion, the PF1 rules regarding creatures versus objects or traps/hazards was handled better, even if it was a bit more of a stickler about it (such as redundant identical spells like Charm Person versus Charm Monster, but that's something the current edition already addressed anyway with the spell revisions), and is more apt to properly define what a creature is; living, sentient, animate, existing with purpose and being a source of causality instead of a result of causality. These are things that creatures are, either entirely or a subset of. This is a much better definition to what most people would consider to be creatures.
So, I cannot strike the noose suffocating me because it's an object. I cannot strike the wall because it's an object. I cannot strike the pit fall because it's a hazard (and wouldn't do me any good anyway). There's plenty of other examples, but really, I've conveyed my point, which is striking objects or hazards is not really a thing unless the object or hazard says you can, in which case it uses its own rules in place of whatever rules for Striking we have. And most hazards/objects are very poor in this regard, or can't be done at all if they are attended by a creature.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah they maybe right with the Strike action, but you can use another action to attack object :
Core p462 : "Other Actions
Sometimes you need to attempt something not already covered by defined actions in the game. When this happens, the rules tell you how many actions you need to spend, as well any traits your action might have. For example, a spell that lets you switch targets might say you can do so “by spending a single action, which has the concentrate trait.” Game masters can also use this approach when a character tries to do something that isn’t covered in the rules."With this you can make an Attack Object action... ;)
That section actually refers to actions specific to spells and abilities that define what the additional actions can do. As the example they gave us states, spells that state we can spend an action to either change targets like with Flaming Sphere or expand an aura's radius like with Bless have this covered in their own descriptions.
Which really only reinforces my point of "Hazards and Objects can only be broken/destroyed if the Hazard or Object says it can." So, needless to say, artificial walls (not ones made by spells, they are actually junk) are some of the strongest forms of defense. Screw using shields and armor, just give me a wall and I can't be stopped!
I think we all understand how RAW works but for the sake of gameplay I'm sorry but you can't expect anyone to say that any unattended object or natural/crafted wall is totally invulnerable to say a warrior wishing to attack it with his axe.
So you are saying a Dwarf with an adamintine pick can't attack the wall of a building to distroy it but the same Dwarf can "mine/dig" through solid stone according to the rules. Don't you see how rediculous that sounds?
I had a situation in game where the players snuck up to a barrier set up 3 barrels of blackpowder with an alchemest fire on top and then from 100' away the ranger hunted the alchemest fire and hunted shotted it to set off the blackpowder. According to raw his arrow should have bounced harmlessly off or never been able to hit it. I don't think so.
As pointed out, 'strict RAW' is that you can't even attack the target in the first place. So trying to hide behind that doesn't mean much.
I'm not attempting to hide behind strict RAW.
There's a huge difference between saying "No one can attack objects" and saying "The Ranger's Hunt Prey ability doesn't work on objects, because it specifies creatures".
The first is insane. The second is...annoying but not completely unreasonable.
In first edition the equivalent was Favored Enemy. you got bonuses to attack and damage because...you knew their weak points, or some s+%# like that. But of course it didn't apply to inanimate objects. Heck it only applied to specific groups of creatures (sometimes sub groups).
So saying "Maybe for some reason Hunt Prey doesn't apply to objects" isn't an absurd or unreasonable position.
If they wanted Hunt Prey to apply generally to everything it should have been written like this:
You designate a singlecreaturetarget as your prey and focus your attacks against thatcreaturetarget. You must be able to see or hear the prey, or you must be tracking the prey during exploration.
I think we all understand how RAW works but for the sake of gameplay I'm sorry but you can't expect anyone to say that any unattended object or natural/crafted wall is totally invulnerable to say a warrior wishing to attack it with his axe.
The issue is, HOW. What is the AC: without it you can't figure out what's a hit, crit or a miss. What is it's saves? Without that, how do you figure out the degrees of success? At least traps/hazards have those but a random terrain feature? Not so much.
So attacks on objects have a LOT of issues past the actions needed to attack them. IMO, the easiest houserule is to allow an action to attack things like walls that just involves rolling the damage vs them [no rolls so no crits or misses] out of combat. Then maybe a trickshot action for combat or hitting small targets based on size and other factors [like movement]. It's tricky because the LAST thing you want is foes walking up and destroying your armor or sword easier than it is hitting you.
According to raw his arrow should have bounced harmlessly off or never been able to hit it. I don't think so.
It wouldn't have hit at all because by RAW alchemest fire doesn't have an AC to target and even if it did, there isn't a physical attack that can target it. You can't GET to the stage where it bounces off.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is such a dumb conversation. I can't believe it keeps happening.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is such a dumb conversation. I can't believe it keeps happening.
Thats the exact kind of discussion you will have when rules-centric players meet an edition that is (at least in their opinion) not covering all the relevant basics but instead heavily relies on some "make up your own rules" GM band-aid.
Note that above statement is in no way to be considered as derogatory to neither players nor system, but to describe what is happening here, and I have to admit that I also found myself at a point where I thought to myself: "Well, they could really have worded this section or rule quite better."
This is such a dumb conversation.
I think everyone thinks it's dumb... There is just a difference of opinion on what's dumb. :P
I can't believe it keeps happening.
Well, IMO it's not hard at all to imagine with how the rules are written... Myself, I'm surprised it doesn't come up MORE often.
I think we all understand how RAW works but for the sake of gameplay I'm sorry but you can't expect anyone to say that any unattended object or natural/crafted wall is totally invulnerable to say a warrior wishing to attack it with his axe.The issue is, HOW. What is the AC: without it you can't figure out what's a hit, crit or a miss. What is it's saves? Without that, how do you figure out the degrees of success? At least traps/hazards have those but a random terrain feature? Not so much
It would be super handy to have some kind of chart to make up the AC/DCs for this kind of stuff. Maybe something that gave you DCs by level, or by Difficulty?
Oh wait, I found one. It's on page 503.
I think we all understand how RAW works but for the sake of gameplay I'm sorry but you can't expect anyone to say that any unattended object or natural/crafted wall is totally invulnerable to say a warrior wishing to attack it with his axe.The issue is, HOW. What is the AC: without it you can't figure out what's a hit, crit or a miss. What is it's saves? Without that, how do you figure out the degrees of success? At least traps/hazards have those but a random terrain feature? Not so muchIt would be super handy to have some kind of chart to make up the AC/DCs for this kind of stuff. Maybe something that gave you DCs by level, or by Difficulty?
Oh wait, I found one. It's on page 503.
Cool... So what's the level of a wall vs a barrel vs a vial of alchemest fire vs a suit of armor vs a door. I can't see anything as useless as a chart without a viable way to read it. Random items have as much information on it's level as it has on it's AC and saves... That chart and pulling a level out of the air and just pulling a DC out of the air are the same thing. :P
They are not generally written to be exhaustive. It takes minmal brain power to recognize that an ability that works on an animate object should also work on on inanimate object...unless it's clear from the ability that it wouldn't work because of physiology or the nature of the magic. That's not the case here.
Yes, a ability to track down prey is a perfect ability to track down the wily and tricky wall as it tries to hide from you... It's even better if you Outwit it so you can get a circumstance bonus to Deception checks vs walls, Intimidation checks vs walls, Stealth checks vs walls, and any checks to Recall Knowledge vs walls, and a circumstance bonus to AC vs walls. It seems to check out. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I resent the assertion that it takes "minimal brain power to know" that this ability should work against inanimate objects.
As written it doesn't. I really don't have an explanation for why. Based on the way Favored Enemy worked in PF as an analogous ability their is precedent that it shouldn't.
I would be okay with rewriting the ability to replace instance of the word creature with target.
But I'm not letting the writers off the hook for bad wording. That's the exact reasoning s&&@ happened in PF1 that took lots of FAQs and arguing to solve.
I'm not going to assume the words they selected are wrong or meaningless.
They're isn't really much justification in how Hunt Prey functions to go off of otherwise.
There is another layer to this I just thought about. Say a Ranger uses Hunt Prey on a Wizard. That Wizard escapes the Ranger and casts Illusory Disguise, impersonating some other random person, going so far as to disguise their mannerisms and scent, all the things that Illusory Disguise itself doesn't alter (for arguments sake).
Would the Ranger automatically know that this "new" random person is his prey? If drawn into a conflict, not knowing that this new person is the Wizard that was their prey, would the Ranger gain their Prey bonuses against that new person, even if they were not aware that this person was their prey?
Similarly, say that same Wizard has a paid Doppelganger of some description. Maybe even a twin brother or some such. The Ranger is in conflict with Both the Wizard and their doppelganger at once some time after having declared the Wizard as their Prey.
Would the Ranger gain his Prey benefits against Both creatures, only the original target, or neither? This is assuming that the Ranger fails any check to distinguish between the two targets.
Say that same Ranger gets duped into attacking a Mannequin that has been cunningly disguised as their Prey. They completely believe that said mannequin is their target. Would they get their bonuses in that situation?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Creature is not a better use of wording because this is a hunting ability. It wouldn't be poorly worded to say target instead, I simply outright disagree here.
I continue to assert that if they had intended for the ability to affect objects that they could have written the word target instead and it would read and flow just as well.
We shouldn't rely on GM's to "reasonably determine", when we can write clearly to avoid it.
Insulting me by insinuating I don't have a brain because I don't share your opinion is tactless and you have done it multiple times in this thread.
I understand the context of the rules, and it is in my opinion a completely reasonable position to state Hunt Prey doesn't work against things that are not creatures.
You animate object situation is a strawman. An animate object is always a creature, regardless of it's moving or not. An immobile animate object does not become an inanimate object or not a creature.
The end of the story here is that the rule is written poorly if it intended to be used against anything, and I will attempt to hold people responsible for what they've written, even if it just means getting an FAQ that says "Yes, we wrote it poorly, we meant it to include objects as well as creatures".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is such a dumb conversation. I can't believe it keeps happening.
A conversation about what the rules as written actually let you do is much better compared to the horror stories of jerk GMs that tell you you can't do this because "the rules say so" or noob GMs that tell you the PCs can do anything because the players trick the GM into thinking that's how the game is supposed to be ran. Stuff like this is precisely why people only use the "GM decides" concept as a final resort, and even that has bad fallouts.
So fine. Mock the whole "Hurr durr the rules don't technically let you do this" argument all you want, but there was a damn good reason for rules to have consistency and specific definitions compared to the "using common sense" that most people seem to think is always there but actually isn't, and that's all left in the ashes of PF1. What PF1 lacked in uniformity and balance it surely made up for with rules depth and real-world consistency. I wanted to destroy an urn? There were rules for that. I wanted to break down a door or break open a chest? There were rules for that. I wanted to just throw a fireball in the room and fry the flammable papers? Rules for that too.
Here? I don't have rules for striking an object unless it's animated (and therefore is treated as a creature similar to a golem), or breaking a trap, or destroying a door or chest. They're gone. What's a GM to do when players decide to go off the beaten path? Other than tell them "Yeah, I didn't plan for you guys to do that, so I'm just going to railroad you guys and say you can't do that, you gotta go down X route," he's got nothing other than adhoc shenanigans that no one GM will agree upon. A major problem in PFS scenarios when stuff like this happens. While it was still a problem in PF1, it's now magnified more in PF2.
There is another layer to this I just thought about. Say a Ranger uses Hunt Prey on a Wizard. That Wizard escapes the Ranger and casts Illusory Disguise, impersonating some other random person, going so far as to disguise their mannerisms and scent, all the things that Illusory Disguise itself doesn't alter (for arguments sake).
Would the Ranger automatically know that this "new" random person is his prey? If drawn into a conflict, not knowing that this new person is the Wizard that was their prey, would the Ranger gain their Prey bonuses against that new person, even if they were not aware that this person was their prey?
Similarly, say that same Wizard has a paid Doppelganger of some description. Maybe even a twin brother or some such. The Ranger is in conflict with Both the Wizard and their doppelganger at once some time after having declared the Wizard as their Prey.
Would the Ranger gain his Prey benefits against Both creatures, only the original target, or neither? This is assuming that the Ranger fails any check to distinguish between the two targets.
Say that same Ranger gets duped into attacking a Mannequin that has been cunningly disguised as their Prey. They completely believe that said mannequin is their target. Would they get their bonuses in that situation?
If any or all of this happens either before the Ranger designates a new Prey, or before his Daily Preparations, then yes, he knows exactly which Creature is his Prey, regardless of appearance. He doesn't even have to ever see a Creature to Hunt it in the first place. Just finding Tracks is good enough.
So I think the senerio of a ranger at an archery tourniment is a perfect situation that demonstrates why sometimes you can "hunt" objects.
So said ranger with a longbow can "hunt" a rabbit say which is a small moving target at between 30-299' away and fire with no penelty.
Same ranger trys to hit a stationary archery target at 101' away with a -2 penelty even though you would imagine he practiced with said targets to get good enough to "hunt" the rabbit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They didn't write it poorly. They wrote it expecting GMs to make rationale adjustments to the rules, not simply apply blind formalism.
The end of the story here is that the rule is written poorly if it intended to be used against anything, and I will attempt to hold people responsible for what they've written, even if it just means getting an FAQ that says "Yes, we wrote it poorly, we meant it to include objects as well as creatures".
They didn't write it poorly because they did not write it at all. The correct procedure would be to have rules for attacking objects and if they do not fit GMs could easily go from there. What we have instead are rules for attacking creatures and the expectation that for the purpose of attacking objects GMs will go from there. However those two approaches, how similar they may appear at first glance, are not the same.
One is building on or modifying an existing, specific rule, the other is transfering a specific rule for one case to another, equally specific problem.
And while both methods can and will yield workable results - given a sensible GM - I expect way more inconsistency (table variation) when trying to transfer rules instead of modifying existing rules, simply because having a common core to build on is usually much easier and consistent than having to use an analogy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you're attacking something that can't moving and avoid your attacks, I agree with Graystone, the only thing you should be rolling is damage. However, I can see a situation where a PC/NPC is in combat and wants to cut a rope across the room and the GM calls for an attack roll. Suddenly you're having to make a ranged Strike against an object. It stands to reason that anything that would improve your accuracy/damage when making a Strike, should apply, unless there is a real obvious reason it shouldn't e.g. I would probably not allow a Monster Hunter roll to apply to an object.
This is basically all you need to do to handle attacking objects. The steps are:
1) determine if this object has parts that allow it to be crit. A wall doesn't, but a complex machine might. If those parts are small and/or hard to target, then you may need to figure out an AC.
2) If you came up with an AC, make an attack role. If you didn't, just roll damage.
3) Compare the damage to the most relevant material hardness and HP example out of the core rules.
Yes, the rules don't tell you how to do this, but it is just so darn easy to figure out. The one thing that might be useful is a set of simple DCs for "marksmanship," probably within the weapon's first range increment. Something like:
Untrained: hitting a target.
Trained: hitting the bullseye of a target.
Expert: Hitting a rope of a chandelier.
Master: splitting an arrow already in a target, shooting an alchemist fire out of the air.
Legendary: shooting an arrow out of the air.
But again, coming up with that on my own wasn't hard, and you'd rarely need it anyway. I can get wanting the rules to be clearer on how to do this, but the degree of helplessness people seem to have without them is weird. It is like you were given a recipe and couldn't get one of the ingredients, but you have something that could be substituted just the same, and then you can't figure out how to work the substitute into the recipe. And then you go and complain all over the internet about it even though other people have already explained how to fill in the gap.
Also, this thread has made me agree with N N 959 about Ranger stuff. Truly these are the end times.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But again, coming up with that on my own wasn't hard, and you'd rarely need it anyway. I can get wanting the rules to be clearer on how to do this, but the degree of helplessness people seem to have without them is weird. It is like you were given a recipe and couldn't get one of the ingredients, but you have something that could be substituted just the same, and then you can't figure out how to work the substitute into the recipe. And then you.
This is entirely not about how hard it is (note: it isn't), or if people are or are not having their own ideas. It's about variation.
To provide an example of working with a given rule versus working with an analogous rule.
Player: "I want to break down this door using my axe!"
GM1: "Well this is simple. Just make a DC20 athletics check as per the force open action in order to break down the wooden door. You get a +2 circumstance bonus for using an axe."
GM2: "Well this is simple. The wooden door has AC10, 40HP and is not especially immune to critical hits. Hack away!"
Both solutions are perfectly easy, perfectly valid and work perfectly fine until your character that did well on table 2 doesn't have athletics as a trained or better skill and has a high chance of miserably failing at table 1.
Our (admittely still PF2 inexperienced) group already had this exact discussion in an official AP where we encountered a cabinet that only had its Pick a Lock and Force Open DCs listed and we consequently had a huge debate with our GM why we could not simply shatter the cabinet doors using weapons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The end of the story here is that the rule is written poorly if it intended to be used against anything, and I will attempt to hold people responsible for what they've written, even if it just means getting an FAQ that says "Yes, we wrote it poorly, we meant it to include objects as well as creatures".They didn't write it poorly. They wrote it expecting GMs to make rationale adjustments to the rules, not simply apply blind formalism. Your whole entire argument is based on the belief there should be some arbitrary distinction between this stone statue being animated or not. The very fact you want to say it works in a contest is PF2 thinking. The fact that you want to stop it from working to beneift the player in combat...is PF1 thinking.
This is PF2.
There are not arbitrary distinction between creatures and objects. There are very real distinctions between them. Especially since objects lack a lot of rules for interacting with. GMs shouldn't have to extrapolate.
As for wanting it to work, that's because I want my players have fun and use abilities they have. It's not fun to say "Sorry, it actually doesn't work because the rules are bad".
But the rules are bad if they meant for it to work on objects as well as creatures.
Unless hidden someone there is a "You can treat objects as creatures" rule.
If you're attacking something that can't moving and avoid your attacks, I agree with Graystone, the only thing you should be rolling is damage. However, I can see a situation where a PC/NPC is in combat and wants to cut a rope across the room and the GM calls for an attack roll. Suddenly you're having to make a ranged Strike against an object. It stands to reason that anything that would improve your accuracy/damage when making a Strike, should apply, unless there is a real obvious reason it shouldn't e.g. I would probably not allow a Monster Hunter roll to apply to an object.This is basically all you need to do to handle attacking objects. The steps are:
1) determine if this object has parts that allow it to be crit. A wall doesn't, but a complex machine might. If those parts are small and/or hard to target, then you may need to figure out an AC.
2) If you came up with an AC, make an attack role. If you didn't, just roll damage.
3) Compare the damage to the most relevant material hardness and HP example out of the core rules.
Yes, the rules don't tell you how to do this, but it is just so darn easy to figure out.
You can't attack objects unless the rules say you can, though. It's a permissive exception of "Unlike most objects this one can be attacked," not an exclusive one of "This object cannot be attacked." There are plenty of in-game rules which are purposefully blank, telling the GM "Hey, they can't do this." Hazards without AC, HP, or Saving Throws is precisely the case of not being able to affect them with strikes or spells as a whole, and if the GM is supposed to just adhoc what those values are, you'll get plenty of table variation, a bad thing to have when you're arguing rules consistency.
All I can say is that the object rules are garbage and unrefined, and with two books perfectly capable of defining and/or fixing them (CRB and GMG) failing a proper application of object rules, you might as well just make up some hocus pocus junk and hope the players don't just throw their dice at you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can't attack objects unless therulesGM says you can, though.
Fixed that for you.
I came in here for a discourse about hunt prey and walked into a discussion if you can hit objects...wtf?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I came in here for a discourse about hunt prey and walked into a discussion if you can hit objects...wtf?
To be fair exactly that was OP's original question, respectively if hunt prey could be applied to objects.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I came in here for a discourse about hunt prey and walked into a discussion if you can hit objects...wtf?To be fair exactly that was OP's original question, respectively if hunt prey could be applied to objects.
Yeah, did not realize quite how much of a hornets nest that question would stir up. I was somewhat hoping for a pretty definitive paizo answer, but yikes.
Yeah, did not realize quite how much of a hornets nest that question would stir up. I was somewhat hoping for a pretty definitive paizo answer, but yikes.I came in here for a discourse about hunt prey and walked into a discussion if you can hit objects...wtf?To be fair exactly that was OP's original question, respectively if hunt prey could be applied to objects.
I can see that. I feel kind of sorry *hands out a pack of balm for hornet stings*
imo you should be able to use hunt prey on objects if they are, let call it 'relevant prey' - like an archery target for example
(I would also like to note here that archery targets as stationary objects have a low, non-increasing ac and should have 'ac ranges' for the different colored rings. also flurry is probably not useful since you often have enough time to aim that you dont need map, while precision is not useful since damage is irrelevant)
or as different example - a rope that dangles something above an enemies head. Ready to spend an action to target the rope? sure why not
Also: my girlfriend commented that the people who actually say that you can't attack objects are like a bad parody of me
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They didn't write it poorly. They wrote it expecting GMs to make rationale adjustments to the rules, not simply apply blind formalism.
The end of the story here is that the rule is written poorly if it intended to be used against anything, and I will attempt to hold people responsible for what they've written, even if it just means getting an FAQ that says "Yes, we wrote it poorly, we meant it to include objects as well as creatures".
"We wrote this rule thinking you would understand what this was meant for you to do in any situation!"
Literally the worst writing expectation I've ever seen, especially considering this game has always been a case of permissions (rules and abilities telling you what you can do, not what you can't do), specifics (the whole Specific Trumps General thing), and being of its own unique definitions separate from the original English language (Strikes now being a separate thing from just simply attacking).
The fact we're now hinging actual rules on pure GM FIAT and not using it as the fail-safe it was meant to be is the biggest thing that I absolutely despise having at a given table.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can't attack objects unless theFixed that for you.rulesGM says you can, though.
Not really a 'fix.' You could add that to any comment anyone has made about any rule in the game because that's how the rules and table variance works.
Trying to be cute doesn't help the discussion any.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can't attack objects unless theFixed that for you.rulesGM says you can, though.Not really a 'fix.' You could add that to any comment anyone has made about any rule in the game because that's how the rules and table variance works.
Trying to be cute doesn't help the discussion any.
A single rule for attacking objects would inevitably lead to problems, whether it be too easy or too difficult for the story some group is trying to tell.
It's way better to leave it for a GM to decide when it comes up, because it's not likely to arise often and everyone will be happier if the solution is tailor-made for the game at hand.