| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Targeting a square with an alchemical weapon instead of leaving the possibility of a critical miss that doesn't deal splash actually is houserule/table interpretation territory in this edition. You'll need to ask your GM instead of a forum, because of that.
Some Super RAW hardliners even say that because the Strike action targets a creature it's never possible to attack something else, like an object. I'm not fond of reading that legalistically in my game, but my answer has no weight at anyone else's table.
I'd disallow the example from the Web spell, because it's not referring to a square per se, but instead to a square full of web.
That said, there are rules for attacking objects, so 'the ground' would be valid. Ranged AC? Well, I'd probably put it at 5 for adjacent, but without any 5' squares around me to test I'd just eyeball it as AC 15 to 'hit' a nonadjacent square. So assuming proficiency with your bomb and a +0 bonus to Dexterity, and that you're aiming at a square 25' away, you'll have +3 to hit. So a 12 will hit and do damage to the square (important if you care, but normal ground has a LOT of HP for this purpose), and a 3 is the limit to not automatically critfail.
Honestly, I'm not sure if it's legal or not, but being able to throw a flask of alchemist fire at the floor to splash your "target" make sense.
They're also sacrificing damage potential by targeting the ground to get the splash damage to be virtually guaranteed.
Throw me in the "Why not?" camp. Usually, you're probably better off just targeting the enemy, but if you are afraid of that Crit Miss, then yeah, why shouldn't you be able to use a splash weapon at the opponents feet? Mostly useful for triggering weaknesses or turning off regeneration, but it gives you an option for when you don't like your odds of hitting an enemy directly.
|
If you're allowed to target location itself then you're targeting, for lack of a better term, an object. Objects are not valid targets for strikes or attacks at large and for GOOD REASON, sunder was stripped from the rules by-and-large because they were always unfair, unfun, and all-around mean-spirited effects that were far FAR more impactful on the actual balance of the game than pretty much anything else which could be done with minimal training and only a Standard Action.
If you can target an object with a strike you can destroy obstacles, traps, walls, equipment, armor, weapons, and pretty much any other thing in the system that is full-stop not built to handle being targeted by strikes.
The RAW answer here is a resounding "No, you cannot do that." Strikes target opponents or creatures specifically. If your GM wants to let you do it that's in their wheelhouse but that comes down to them making the call because the RAW itself does not support this.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry TheMetricSystem, but it simply doesn't make sense that you can't throw a splash weapon near someone instead of at them.
Maybe there should be more rules involved than simply targeting AC 5 of square, if that's even what the rules indicate (I don't think it really is), but the idea that you simply can't do it is complete rubbish and non-sense to me.
Just like it's non-sense that I can't try to break down a door with weapons. It might not be easy or effective, but the lack of rules shouldn't mean "can't be done" but rather that are no rules currently to tell us how to handle it.
Also, it appears you favorited your own post...which is unusual.
|
|
As to the OP, targeting an intersection was a "thing" in 1e but I am not sure if it is in 2e.
Looking for "object" I find 894 instances of the word.
A spell can target and object. (page 304)
Objects also have Hit Points. (page 459)
When a character dies, they become an object. (page 460)
"You usually can't attack an attended object (one a creature's person)." (page 461)
A dropped object takes falling damage. (page 464)
Objects can be "sensed" (page 465)
Several actions can be done to or with Objects. (See the Actions section)
Objects has a size (page 473)
An alchemical bomb attack is a weapon attack against the target's AC. (page 544)
Outside of spells, I don't see anything stateing that objects are invalid targets. From RAW, a golem is an object, but also a creature. Nor do I find anything that specifically says you have to attack a creature. All I find is that you declare your target and attack it.
Very much a fuzzy area for me right now!
|
|
You must be able to target a square for anything, because there may or may not be an invisible enemy there at any time.
What you are doing is targeting the Hidden "thing" in the square and thus making a DC11 flat check to target it. Attacking a square is a 1e thing that is not in 2e, as far as I can find.
|
|
I'm sorry TheMetricSystem, but it simply doesn't make sense that you can't throw a splash weapon near someone instead of at them.
Maybe there should be more rules involved than simply targeting AC 5 of square, if that's even what the rules indicate (I don't think it really is), but the idea that you simply can't do it is complete rubbish and non-sense to me.
Just like it's non-sense that I can't try to break down a door with weapons. It might not be easy or effective, but the lack of rules shouldn't mean "can't be done" but rather that are no rules currently to tell us how to handle it.
Also, it appears you favorited your own post...which is unusual.
Good call on favoriting the post, I tend to write and edit afterward several times upon rereading and it looks like I clicked the funny little plus this time.
Targeting a Square is indeed absent from the rules entirely and I'll be honest it was a surprise to me as well but I am CONFIDENT that it was by design, it's just too big of a thing to overlook especially since the quest has been asked around here many times to utter silence on all FAQs and Errata, it's gotta be by design.
The fact that the rules are written in a way take makes it impossible to use Strike to break down a door with a Weapon is ABSOLUTELY by design, I am 1000% confident of this because otherwise if you really can just wail on objects to deal damage to break them with singular actions that have literally 0 chance of failing and an 80%+ chance of critically hitting then you have a situation where it is literally faster for any non-Wizard to Break/Destroy a door than it is to use the doorknob even when it's unlocked. This doesn't even begin to touch on how Thievery for picking locks is made completely useless if anyone can just pull out their dagger and get a near-automatic crit 2 or 3 times a round on the lock/frame/door itself.
Allowing any PC to make Strikes on Objects, in general, makes walls, floors, doors, and traps all meaningless because you can just plink away at them in Exploration mode without risking anything at all and ALSO saving time while you're at it. This is especially egregious with Bombs because even a VERY simple (and FREE) super weak Alchemist Fire, when thrown at the floor, will crit almost EVERY time and also do enough damage to actually break the entire 5 ft square of floor if you assume you should use the meager stats that are provided to the GM to estimate Hardness and HP of objects, after all most floors (that aren't themselves part of the earth/planet itself) are a meager 1-3 inches thick at the most and even then that's only in areas where there is structural support, in most floors you're looking at less than an inch.
The crux of my point is this:
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 and Damage for details on calculating your attack and damage rolls.
... The rules do not permit a Strike to target anything other than creatures.
Allowing "Strike" Actions to EVER target Objects, in general, is probably one of the biggest cans of worms that could ever be opened on the system and it has no RAW support at all.
One maybe way to think about this is they're targeting a 0'x0' "thing" (essentially the same as targeting the intersection of gridlines back in PF1). So not the floor itself (not that I'd have an issue...tentatively speaking), but rather a point in space. Once it hits the space, adjacent squares get hit, so only 4 in this case because which squares are adjacent is determined by the initial target (which doesn't have its own square in this instance).
That approach seems like it avoid the issues of not being able to throw an explosive without a creature present (which would be silly), floors (et al) being too vulnerable (or even non-targetable in some opinions), and unforeseen shenanigans (since giving up 1 target + 8 squares to get no main target + 4 squares seems difficult to exploit).
Just a brainstorm.
But you can target it even not knowing its there. Which means you can target any square always.You must be able to target a square for anything, because there may or may not be an invisible enemy there at any time.What you are doing is targeting the Hidden "thing" in the square and thus making a DC11 flat check to target it. Attacking a square is a 1e thing that is not in 2e, as far as I can find.
Citing this part as a rules argument gets you to a weird place, since targeting an invisible creature targets that creature's AC. An AC is never assigned to the square.
Good call on favoriting the post, I tend to write and edit afterward several times upon rereading and it looks like I clicked the funny little plus this time.I'm sorry TheMetricSystem, but it simply doesn't make sense that you can't throw a splash weapon near someone instead of at them.
Maybe there should be more rules involved than simply targeting AC 5 of square, if that's even what the rules indicate (I don't think it really is), but the idea that you simply can't do it is complete rubbish and non-sense to me.
Just like it's non-sense that I can't try to break down a door with weapons. It might not be easy or effective, but the lack of rules shouldn't mean "can't be done" but rather that are no rules currently to tell us how to handle it.
Also, it appears you favorited your own post...which is unusual.
Understandable, but I've seen some people favorite a post to try to influence others to agree with them, especially when saying something controversial.
I don't believe that is what you intended, and you've removed it now, but it took me by surprise as I often look at posts that are favorited to see whom is on various sides during an argument. It helps me evaluate positions based on my opinion of those representing the positions (sometimes). Sometimes it simply curiosity.
Targeting a Square is indeed absent from the rules entirely and I'll be honest it was a surprise to me as well but I am CONFIDENT that it was by design, it's just too big of a thing to overlook especially since the quest has been asked around here many times to utter silence on all FAQs and Errata, it's gotta be by design.
The fact that the rules are written in a way take makes it impossible to use Strike to break down a door with a Weapon is ABSOLUTELY by design, I am 1000% confident of this because otherwise if you really can just wail on objects to deal damage to break them with singular actions that have literally 0 chance of failing and an 80%+ chance of critically hitting then you have a situation where it is literally faster for any non-Wizard to Break/Destroy a door than it is to use the doorknob even when it's unlocked. This doesn't even begin to touch on how Thievery for picking locks is made completely useless if anyone can just pull out their dagger and get a near-automatic crit 2 or 3 times a round on the lock/frame/door itself.
Allowing any PC to make Strikes on Objects, in general, makes walls, floors, doors, and traps all meaningless because...
Perhaps it is intentional and by design, perhaps the designers fear it causes things to break down.
And if that is the case, it's simply another reason for me not to support PF2 and to continue not playing it. Even if those are the intended rules, I think they're terrible. IMO, it should be something that is possible without question. And avoiding it because it might (or does) cause problems means you've written a rules system that doesn't work on some fundamental and basic levels.
The fact that the rules are written in a way take makes it impossible to use Strike to break down a door with a Weapon is ABSOLUTELY by design, I am 1000% confident of this because otherwise if you really can just wail on objects to deal damage to break them with singular actions that have literally 0 chance of failing and an 80%+ chance of critically hitting then you have a situation where it is literally faster for any non-Wizard to Break/Destroy a door than it is to use the doorknob even when it's unlocked. This doesn't even begin to touch on how Thievery for picking locks is made completely useless if anyone can just pull out their dagger and get a near-automatic crit 2 or 3 times a round on the lock/frame/door itself.Allowing any PC to make Strikes on Objects, in general, makes walls, floors, doors, and traps all meaningless because...
..why can't you just batter down a door? And there's a bit in the core rulebook about how you can just smash a hazard to pieces. AON says it's on page 521, '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.)
Citing this part as a rules argument gets you to a weird place, since targeting an invisible creature targets that creature's AC. An AC is never assigned to the square.But you can target it even not knowing its there. Which means you can target any square always.You must be able to target a square for anything, because there may or may not be an invisible enemy there at any time.What you are doing is targeting the Hidden "thing" in the square and thus making a DC11 flat check to target it. Attacking a square is a 1e thing that is not in 2e, as far as I can find.
While it is true that there is no standard AC for flat ground, outside of the aforementioned "Web" spell, that doesn't mean that there can't be. This is where the GM has to step in and assign a fair "AC" for the check based on whatever circumstances they see fit.
I could see assigning a reasonably high AC to a flat stretch of ground under specific circumstances. Say the thrower is taking cover behind a wall and is basically lobbing their bomb over said wall. Or the target is elevated, meaning that the alchemist doesn't have a direct line of site to the targeted square.
Both circumstances represent times where throwing the bomb accurately is slightly harder than normal so a higher dc would be justified.
But that is well into the realm of GM House ruling a specific scenario, not specifically how the rules say to handle such an event. Which is to say that they really do not say how to handle such an event.
|
|
But you can target it even not knowing its there. Which means you can target any square always.You must be able to target a square for anything, because there may or may not be an invisible enemy there at any time.What you are doing is targeting the Hidden "thing" in the square and thus making a DC11 flat check to target it. Attacking a square is a 1e thing that is not in 2e, as far as I can find.
No. Reading the rules, it is clear that you only able to Target the hidden creature AFTER you make the DC 11 flat check. If you don't make it, you can't Target it. At no time are you Targeting the square.
Please understand that I am being very specific in my use of the words Target and Targeting. Yes, in play, a character will likely say "I think the creature in in that square so I want to target it." (note not using a capital 'T'). Mechanically, by the rules, they are not targeting the square.
|
|
The crux of my point is this:
Strike Action wrote: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 and Damage for details on calculating your attack and damage rolls.
... The rules do not permit a Strike to target anything other than creatures.
On Page 521, the rules talk about "Attacking a Hazard".
On Page 272, the rules talk about "Item Damage".
I am beginning to think that the use of the word "creature" in the Attack action may be incorrect.