| 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.
By that point you might as well just throw the Core Rulebook and the Beastiary out the window, and you might as well not call the game you're playing "Pathfinder" then.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Common sense says this should be possible, so I've made it possible" is the "monolithic common sense method" for the issue, even if the exact details differ due to table variance.
What should be possible isn't agreed upon though. At best we have 'it seems odd that only a few spells target objects' as agreement. There isn't even agreement on physically attacking items, as some have suggested Force Open is meant to cover it so I think it HIGHLY disingenuous to say there is a "monolithic common sense method" because there isn't even that for an exact starting point to get to one.
There isn't even agreement on physically attacking items, as some have suggested Force Open is meant to cover it so I think it HIGHLY disingenuous to say there is a "monolithic common sense method" because there isn't even that for an exact starting point to get to one.
The game is telling you not to do it unless you need to. You can do it, but the GM should figure out if it is a skill challenge or strike or whatever best fits the circumstances.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What should be possible isn't agreed upon though. At best we have 'it seems odd that only a few spells target objects' as agreement. There isn't even agreement on physically attacking items, as some have suggested Force Open is meant to cover it so I think it HIGHLY disingenuous to say there is a "monolithic common sense method" because there isn't even that for an exact starting point to get to one.What should be possible - breaking an object with a weapon - actually is as agreed upon as anything ever is in the TTRPG community though.
What you're talking about is how it should be possible, which is a different thing.
It's not disingenuous of me to say that when the rules say "can't smash a door with an axe" and "everybody" agrees that yes, you can smash a door with an axe, that is common sense which has brought us to that agreement.
Common sense even has "everyone" agreeing that dice and character traits should be involved in the process.
That numerous different, but all functional and fair, methods of resolution have come up is just details, not an invalidation of my other statements.
And that's where the problem lies. Outside of GM FIAT or houseruling, there's no way, in the rules as they are written, you're reaching the conclusion you're reaching (Objects can be struck with weapons). Which is what I'm having a problem with. I really should not have to GM FIAT or houserule a very integral and important part of the game just to make it work for my table when there are so many other GMs having to do the same, and may or may not be doing it differently than myself, so if a player is doing X at my table but is being told to do it in Y method at another's table, it becomes a problem because now a player I play with may become confused and unsure as to how the rules are supposed to work, or will misremember how we handle certain rules.
Sure, we can tell them that it's merely something done at the table and nothing more, but it still creates unwanted table variance that shouldn't belong there, because it wasn't there in the first place, back in PF1. So why is it here now?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like there is room for compromise here. I file "attacking" an object under the same scenario as any other check: Is there something at stake? If yes, invent a DC and have the character roll an "attack" against the object. If no, they simply damage the object.
I mean, do you make your players roll meaningless checks in your games? The only checks I call for my players to make, or make in secret, are ones that have consequences. In the specific case of attacking an object in a "safe" situation I wouldn't even call for a damage roll. I may just gate that activity off behind a certain amount of time.
Take cutting down a tree. In a vacuum, that is something I would just let a character do in a certain amount of time. Basic task with minimal stakes.
But add stakes to the situation and suddenly you should call for a more specific check. Say that tree wasn't just for firewood, and instead is meant to block a wagon rumbling down the road. Now the character has a time limit and the pressure is on. In this instance, I would invent a DC for the situation and perhaps have the character try to deal enough damage to the tree to fell it in time.
As to the OP's question, my answer is yes, so long as it makes sense for the situation I see nothing wrong with allowing a Ranger to Hunt an object. The archery competition is a good example. Why wouldn't a Flurry Ranger be able to leverage their skills in a straight competition to put more accurate arrows on a target faster than a Fighter? Why shouldn't a precision ranger be able to do that extra bit of damage to the chain holding up a chandelier?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...there's no way, in the rules as they are written, you're reaching the conclusion you're reaching (Objects can be struck with weapons).A bit of text on page 444 of the core book, plus the "I could hit an object with a weapon, why would my character not be able to?" question any person could ask disagrees.
It says, to paraphrase, that if the rules seem to be clearly wrong it is a rule to change them.
I really should not have to GM FIAT or houserule a very integral and important part of the game just to make it work for my table when there are so many other GMs having to do the same...It's not actually that integral or important, though. It is comparatively a rare occasion than an object be an obstacle, and only a subset of those occasions when attacking the object is the course of action the characters are wanting to take.
Also, tons of GMs out there are going to fly right through such a scenario, even assigning an AC to an object not given one by game materials, without it occurring to them that they have house-ruled anything. They aren't going to be so word-for-word familiar with the rules to realize that the Strike action doesn't say you can target objects - they're going to believe it does allow for that because, intuitively, anything a real person could swing a weapon at a game character could too.
it wasn't there in the first place, back in PF1. So why is it here now?That question applies to literally every element of the new edition that is new or different, and is thus a question without any actual purpose. The answer, though, in this case is "because humans can make mistakes, especially when writing something like a game where it can be very difficult to make a distinction between 'this passage of text is clear because I already know what it is supposed to convey to the reader' and 'this passage of text is clear because it is genuinely clearly written."
To which I would answer "Because the rules don't say you can, so you can't." The rules have always been expressly written to say what you can and can't do in terms of mechanics and affecting the game world. Striking an object that has no express wording or attributes means it's not possible for the characters or players to do, because that has always been the precedent, and nothing in this edition has changed that.
I mean, I guess I could pick an object up, go to a high distance, and destroy it via falling damage by dropping it, because unlike striking an object with a spell or weapon, there are actually more express rules for that than striking objects.
The fact there are better rules for objects taking damage from falling a distance than there are for striking or using spells on objects really shows me how poorly written the rules for traditionally destroying objects are, and they need to be written better to convey that concept.
Darksol...are you actually suggesting that you can't attack objects or is that hyperbole to state a flaw in the rules?
Either way, according the the page 444 sidebar and with a little bit of logic this all seems to be quite easy to resolve
an object has a AC based on its lack of beeing able to move and outter circumstances
alternetavely one could just say you don't need to roll for an attack on an inanimate object, especially if you don't have pressure to hit
furthermore an object has HP and Hardness depending on material and size which are within the rulebook
(and well, I already had my hunt prey statement before)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Darksol's point is that it's a big flaw in the rules, and instead of every GM making up their own rule of how to damage objects Paizo should release rules on how to do it themselves, for consistency's sake. Also for PFS. I have to imagine plenty of people are hitting objects in PFS, does every table do it differntly?
Their are places where the rules as written may be vague or uncertain. We might later realize the rules don't give the outcome that we (as individual play groups) like. That rule on Pg 444 suggest that you should feel free to rule as your prefer.
But this case in more an absence of rules in the first place. And while we could all come up with implementations we might think are fair, it'd be great if we didn't have to and Paizo gave us some.
Pg 444 is good for when the rules are incomplete or don't cover a corner case. It shouldn't be accepted to fall back to it when the rules are completely missing.
Pg 444 is good for when the rules are incomplete or don't cover a corner case. It shouldn't be accepted to fall back to it when the rules are completely missing.You appear to be trying to categorize the words "or object" not being present in the sentence "You attack with a weapon you're wielding or with an unarmarmed attack, targeting one creature (this is where those 2 words would go) with you reach..." as "the rules are completely missing"
Yes, this is something that should eventually be fixed via errata... it isn't, however, a game-breaking unsolveable issue or a reason to act like the writing team aren't perfectly capable in their jobs like some folks (not necessarily you) want to blow it out of proportion to be.
Uhhh...yeah. They're not written there, so missing.
GM's (and I) shouldn't have to infer something so basic as this.
Yes this problem is solvable, but it shouldn't need to be solved by each individual GM at their own tables, perhaps with many different implementations.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Darksol's point is that it's a big flaw in the rules, and instead of every GM making up their own rule of how to damage objects Paizo should release rules on how to do it themselves, for consistency's sake. Also for PFS. I have to imagine plenty of people are hitting objects in PFS, does every table do it differntly?
A single, defined set of rules for damaging objects would be so detrimental to PFS. This is much better left for GMs to decide whether or how to handle to ensure the table has a good time.
Darksol...are you actually suggesting that you can't attack objects or is that hyperbole to state a flaw in the rules?
Either way, according the the page 444 sidebar and with a little bit of logic this all seems to be quite easy to resolve
an object has a AC based on its lack of beeing able to move and outter circumstances
alternetavely one could just say you don't need to roll for an attack on an inanimate object, especially if you don't have pressure to hitfurthermore an object has HP and Hardness depending on material and size which are within the rulebook
(and well, I already had my hunt prey statement before)
I'm just going to say yes to that statement, because it's both.
Objects don't have AC unless the stat block says so. No AC? Can't hit it with abilities or activities that target AC. There's not going to be a stat block for a bookcase or an urn, so you can't attack it per the rules on objects and hazards. You can't damage it, either. Your best bet is to just throw it into a Bag of Holding and rupture it, destroying all contents inside (even invincible "objects") forever.
The fact you're proposing two ideas for attacking objects which have no basis for anything anywhere, and the fact you have to propose those ideas instead of it being hard-coded in the rules to begin with (which is what's needed to happen for your supposed "Page 444 sidebar gospel" to apply), is really only serving to support my ideal of "This really should've just been hard-coded to begin with for how common of a situation it comes up."
@GM Of Anything: I want you to explain to me how having a universal set of rules is bad for something as essential as world interaction with the destruction of objects, especially if the game might lead players to think the destruction of objects is crucial for the game's story or plot.
It's like this for combat, character generation, etc. There are optional or alternative rules, yes. But the point is that there should still be a starting point for this that the rules themselves provide. There's not that for striking objects, which is probably the largest and #1 primary source of being able to universally damage objects.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@GM Of Anything: I want you to explain to me how having a universal set of rules is bad for something as essential as world interaction with the destruction of objects, especially if the game might lead players to think the destruction of objects is crucial for the game's story or plot.
PFS tells a very diverse set of stories, by a diverse set of authors. Nailing down universal rules removes the ability for adjudicate creative solutions to the varied challenges PCs will face.
Any defined system is bound to be imperfect. It may work well for some cases, but will assuredly include edge cases that make less sense or possibly even opportunities for exploit.
For players, that means some things you want your character to do and think they should be able to do will be impossible by the defined rules. It cuts off possibilities for the aforementioned creative solutions and binds players into a single mode of thinking.
For GMs, defined rules can make it too easy for players to "break" scenarios if an author or developer doesn't remember to check for breakable objects as part of their editing pass.
And really who would even do an object pass over a scenario? 99% of the time it won't come up. Not over many players are prone to wanton object destruction. Doing it is a solid chunk of work for very little to no gain.
Overall, it is better for everyone involved (players, GMs, authors, developers) to leave object destruction undefined, to leave room for GMs to make their tables more awesome when it is warranted and rein in overly destructive impulses. Players wanting to target objects and GMs expecting players to target objects as part of a challenge should check in with each other to get a sense of how that will work for a particular circumstance. And the rules they come up with together will be much better for that particular circumstance than any universal rule could hope to be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For players, that means some things you want your character to do and think they should be able to do will be impossible by the defined rules. It cuts off possibilities for the aforementioned creative solutions and binds players into a single mode of thinking.
As much as I can relate to this line of reasoning, I think much of this is also related to a certain player mindset.
For example I as a player want to know how to do things before I actually do them and if possible also before having to ask the GM at every single opportunity. That is what basic game rules are for and I personally absolutely hate it when the GM has to make up his own basic rules because the game does not provide them.
I don't have to ask how to attack a monster in melee. I don't have to ask how to cast a spell. I don't have to ask how to move. So why should I have to ask how to break an object?
And don't get me wrong, I do not deal in absolutes. Even if there would be a basic rule GM and players alike can of course deviate from this rule if the do come up with a clever and creative solution.
So if I want to slide down a hand-rail, jump onto a chandelier, swing above the battlefield and make a superhero landing, this is stuff for the GM to adjucate, not if I can make a high-jump over an obstacle, because how to do this is clearly covered by existing rules.
For players, that means some things you want your character to do and think they should be able to do will be impossible by the defined rules. It cuts off possibilities for the aforementioned creative solutions and binds players into a single mode of thinking.
Isn't that the premise of this whole thread: something that pretty much everyone agrees you should be able to do, but is currently impossible by the defined rules?
You've been arguing up until now that GMs should just handwave the rule and make up numbers ad hoc, but here you seem to be coming to the exact opposite conclusion.
|
For players, that means some things you want your character to do and think they should be able to do will be impossible by the defined rules. It cuts off possibilities for the aforementioned creative solutions and binds players into a single mode of thinking.Isn't that the premise of this whole thread: something that pretty much everyone agrees you should be able to do, but is currently impossible by the defined rules?
It’s not though.
So you get the same scenario playing in two games that have the same genre, intend to have the same style, and claim to encourage the same kind of play... but in one system a player that says "I slide down the banister to the 1st floor, hopping off the end to land on the table and swipe at the invading orc with my scimitar" only has to calculate movement and make an attack roll, but in the other the rules tell the GM the DC of sliding on that banister is X because of the width, angle, and whether it's had something slippery spilled on it or not, the jump is DC X because of distance, and then there's the attack roll, so the player has to roll 3 checks that all succeed just to do something "cool" - sot he player actually learns to skip out on anything like that because the risk of failure isn't even kind of offset by some sort of benefit.
I do think that this is an issue that may very well never be solved as you will always have players that are more attracted to the wargame like elements of TTRPGs (which hark back to Chainmail and DnD), and who want more binding rules, and players that are more attracted to the free-flow narrative side of TTRPG's, who naturally want less binding rules.
For some players combat is a puzzle that needs solving, for others combat is a movie and your imagination is the limit.
To find balance is very difficult, especially for games like PF2 that do contain certain elements that indeed are striktly governed by rules and other elements where players and GM are more or less given free reign.
Darksol's point is that it's a big flaw in the rules, and instead of every GM making up their own rule of how to damage objects Paizo should release rules on how to do it themselves, for consistency's sake. Also for PFS. I have to imagine plenty of people are hitting objects in PFS, does every table do it differntly?A single, defined set of rules for damaging objects would be so detrimental to PFS. This is much better left for GMs to decide whether or how to handle to ensure the table has a good time.
Wait, I thought you were being sarcastic. Are you serious in this belief?
Because if so we have completely different ideas for the basis and goals of the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@GM Of Anything: I want you to explain to me how having a universal set of rules is bad for something as essential as world interaction with the destruction of objects, especially if the game might lead players to think the destruction of objects is crucial for the game's story or plot.PFS tells a very diverse set of stories, by a diverse set of authors. Nailing down universal rules removes the ability for adjudicate creative solutions to the varied challenges PCs will face.
Any defined system is bound to be imperfect. It may work well for some cases, but will assuredly include edge cases that make less sense or possibly even opportunities for exploit.
For players, that means some things you want your character to do and think they should be able to do will be impossible by the defined rules. It cuts off possibilities for the aforementioned creative solutions and binds players into a single mode of thinking.
For GMs, defined rules can make it too easy for players to "break" scenarios if an author or developer doesn't remember to check for breakable objects as part of their editing pass.
And really who would even do an object pass over a scenario? 99% of the time it won't come up. Not over many players are prone to wanton object destruction. Doing it is a solid chunk of work for very little to no gain.
Overall, it is better for everyone involved (players, GMs, authors, developers) to leave object destruction undefined, to leave room for GMs to make their tables more awesome when it is warranted and rein in overly destructive impulses. Players wanting to target objects and GMs expecting players to target objects as part of a challenge should check in with each other to get a sense of how that will work for a particular circumstance. And the rules they come up with together will be much better for that particular circumstance than any universal rule could hope to be.
I disagree. Universal rules means each table has to adhere to the same mechanics, which makes for unspoken fairer gameplay between tables, especially true for events like PFS. I shouldn't be at two different tables and have them play vastly different from one another because of a difference in rules, at the very least without agreeing to such a difference beforehand if I find the difference appreciable, or otherwise disagreeing with it and thereby politely leaving the table for another that is more to my liking. Parameters aren't just there to create arbitration and to limit people, they are likewise there to make sure all involved are being treated equally. And that works on both sides; players catching GMs running the rules wrong is a big step in accepting a social contract such as this one. If I can't trust the GM to run the game as the developers intended it to because he arbitrates "rules" like crap, then why am I at that table? Conversely, GMs having players being overly disruptive by trying to circumvent obviously placed rules in an attempt to cheese or trivialize a challenge raises the question of "Why did I let this player join my table?" Suggesting universal rules are bad, which this game has done way more compared to PF1, both for simplification and for ease of play, is counter-intuitive to what this edition was meant to accomplish.
As for potential exploits, it's much easier for GMs to shut them down than it is for PCs to ask if something can be done, or to just try to go ahead and do something. The Rarity rules is proof of this being the case, since a GM can just point to a universal rule like Rarity to shut players down from shenanigans like the Dervish Dance feat from PF1 (before it was nerfed, of course). I don't see why a GM can't likewise do the same here. You might argue "Well, the universal rules might be written horribly or misunderstood," in which case I'd like to point out that it's basically not any better than what it currently is. And even then I'd disagree because at least then I'd have rules backing my GM purview, whereas I'm just now making stuff up to deal with player shenanigans that I don't want to deal with, something that a lot of players view as bad GMing or rail-roading (which may technically be true, but sometimes it has to be done).
Even then, it's not so much that object destruction is undefined, it's more, rather, underdefined, which is really what my complaint is about. We already have rules for hardness and HP for common materials that objects may be made out of (such as a stone statuette or a ceramic urn), should we come across something specifically damaging to objects (such as dropping them from a high distance), but we're missing other rules like how striking them works, whether normal spells can target them, and so on. Suggesting that object destruction is completely undefined and should stay that way is both a misnomer and also completely false by it actually having some sort of definition to it in the book.
It's not, if you actually bothered to read the whole post and comprehended the paragraph as a whole, where a GM can reference a universal rule as to why something doesn't/shouldn't work, instead of a "Because I said so" non-argument about a player's strategy.
Because it boils down to the book being what the developers want the game to function as. I'm a GM, I'm not the developers. As such, I don't make the rules, they do; I look to the developers, AKA the rulebook, AKA the rules themselves, for how the game is intended to function when there is a dispute as to how something works. I might be able to glean some insight from some table addendum or something, and show that to the players, but unless the rules are there, I'm not going to just make stuff up and call it rules. It's houseruling at best, and at worst just being a dishonest, disingenuous GM to the players.
If I wanted to destroy an object, a GM may say I can't because of the rules (or lack thereof), or make up a rule that not every table follows. Maybe I automatically hit and just do damage. Maybe I still have to roll to hit it because it's a very durable or mobile object. Maybe I have to roll a skill check that I may or may not be proficient in to destroy the object instead. Or maybe the GM rules there is no AC and therefore you can't strike it per the hazard rules. There's plenty of ways it can be done, but depending on which way this is done determines what I can do at that table. And even then, the way a table handles each individual ruling may be different from another table, or even another instance of the same circumstances. I'd rather not have to memorize a dozen different ways to destroy an object when having one rules-written way is both simpler and more in-keeping with the intent of these rules being easier to apply and learn across all tables everywhere.
GMs can be reasonable to a player's rules query if the rule itself is specific enough. A very solid example I can provide is the "Resistance to All Damage" rule, where both groups I ran with were doing it differently from the written ruling and didn't realize that they were actually running the rule incorrectly from what the developers wanted the rule to run as, and the concise writing and example helped me, as a player, convey that intent to the GMs who went with the ruling I provided. To suggest rules not being specific enough with examples or concise statements is a bad thing for players is really only true if a player doesn't like what the rules actually support. In which case the player can at-best propose it as something for the GM to houserule. But if the player is expecting the GM to treat his ruling as the rule when the rules clearly express otherwise, he's just setting himself up for disappointment from the beginning when he, as a player, should know better than to think or behave that way at the table.