|
Could still improvised weapon the bow
I wouldn't count using a bow as an improvised weapon as using a bow for the sake of the feat.
Also, using a strung bow as a bludgeoning weapon will severely damage the bow and no self respecting archer would ever do that unless it was a VERY desperate situation. I would personally make the bow take damage every time it was used in such a way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't count using a bow as an improvised weapon as using a bow for the sake of the feat.
I would: it says strike with the bow, not a ranged strike with one.
Also, using a strung bow as a bludgeoning weapon will severely damage the bow and no self respecting archer would ever do that unless it was a VERY desperate situation. I would personally make the bow take damage every time it was used in such a way.
Since it's impossible to intentionally damage a weapon [you can't even Strike an axe to a bow laying on the ground], it seems WAY out of line to be able to damage a weapon by hitting it against something. Pathfinder and reality are pretty far apart. Second, you NEVER have to make an attack with the bow to flank: you just have to be able to. So even if it exploded on impact in melee, it wouldn't matter.
There is also an argument to be made that stances with specific strikes required don't prohibit you from making other strikes but just cause you to drop out of the stance if you use those other strikes: hence you would be able to flank with your normal unarmed attack as you'd be able to melee.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, using a strung bow as a bludgeoning weapon will severely damage the bow and no self respecting archer would ever do that unless it was a VERY desperate situation. I would personally make the bow take damage every time it was used in such a way.
I think that's reasonable for your home game, but I don't know that you'd have a big fan club.
|
|
I wouldn't count using a bow as an improvised weapon as using a bow for the sake of the feat.I would: it says strike with the bow, not a ranged strike with one.
Also, using a strung bow as a bludgeoning weapon will severely damage the bow and no self respecting archer would ever do that unless it was a VERY desperate situation. I would personally make the bow take damage every time it was used in such a way.Since it's impossible to intentionally damage a weapon [you can't even Strike an axe to a bow laying on the ground], it seems WAY out of line to be able to damage a weapon by hitting it against something. Pathfinder and reality are pretty far apart. Second, you NEVER have to make an attack with the bow to flank: you just have to be able to. So even if it exploded on impact in melee, it wouldn't matter.
You can't damage wielded weapons unless you have an ability that specifically targets them. You can totally damage a weapon on the ground because it's just an Object, and there are rules for damaging objects.
There is also an argument to be made that stances with specific strikes required don't prohibit you from making other strikes but just cause you to drop out of the stance if you use those other strikes: hence you would be able to flank with your normal unarmed attack as you'd be able to melee.
I have literally never heard anyone make that argument. These stances explicitly state "The only strikes you can make are X". If the requirement stated you can't make other strikes, it doesn't actually stop you but using them would cause you to drop out of the stance in accordance to the Stance Rules. The requirements of a Stance and the Effects of a Stance are completely different things.
Also, using a strung bow as a bludgeoning weapon will severely damage the bow and no self respecting archer would ever do that unless it was a VERY desperate situation. I would personally make the bow take damage every time it was used in such a way.I think that's reasonable for your home game, but I don't know that you'd have a big fan club.
I think when I pull out my actual bow and explain how it works people would completely understand where I'm coming from. To me it sounds like if you smashed someone over the head with a chair and the GM said it breaks in the process, you would argue with them over it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think when I pull out my actual bow and explain how it works people would completely understand where I'm coming from. To me it sounds like if you smashed someone over the head with a chair and the GM said it breaks in the process, you would argue with them over it.
I'll be convinced by this argument when you explain how magic works in real life and therefore how it should be run in the game. How easy it is to break a bow irl is completely irrelevant to the game mechanic.
That being said, I believe you're correct about an unattended item being able to be attacked directly and potentially destroyed. And, if a GM wanted to say that I can't use a bow for an improvised weapon without it taking damage or breaking, then I wouldn't complain as long as they mentioned it before I attacked. However, by RAW it isn't an issue.
Also, let's not forget the strongest point made that you quoted but for some reason didn't comment on:
I wouldn't count using a bow as an improvised weapon as using a bow for the sake of the feat.
I would: it says strike with the bow, not a ranged strike with one.
You can't damage wielded weapons unless you have an ability that specifically targets them. You can totally damage a weapon on the ground because it's just an Object, and there are rules for damaging objects.
You need that specific attack: you CAN'T Strike one as Strike can't target an object, attended or unattended. So what attack, exactly, are you using to damage that item on the ground? As far as I know, only a handful of spells may target items. Yes the game has rules for damaging items but lacks even the most basic way to damage them with physical attacks. You literally can't Strike a bow laying on the ground with an axe without Dm fiat...
I have literally never heard anyone make that argument.
Then you haven't been looking very well. There are several threads on how to end a stance and one way suggested has been to make an non-specified attack. It says if you break a restriction [lower case r] and not breaks the Restrictions [capital R]: as Restriction isn't a key word, it's ambiguous as it's completely correct to say 'you are required to use these specific strikes' when using casual speech. I can see the argument on both sides but would tend to go with a non-specific strike knocking you out of a stance as it makes more sense to me.
I think when I pull out my actual bow and explain how it works people would completely understand where I'm coming from.
LOL You're on a world where people can fall from orbit and take no damage from the fall and basic attacks can't target objects... I know I would be buying what you're selling. Real life physics and PF2 physics aren't in the same zip code.
|
|
You need that specific attack: you CAN'T Strike one as Strike can't target an object, attended or unattended. So what attack, exactly, are you using to damage that item on the ground? As far as I know, only a handful of spells may target items. Yes the game has rules for damaging items but lacks even the most basic way to damage them with physical attacks. You literally can't Strike a bow laying on the ground with an axe without Dm fiat...
So I guess you can't Damage a Hazard? Then why did they write rules for it if you can't Strike them? No sane GM would say you can't attack items because Striking only mentions Creatures.
LOL You're on a world where people can fall from orbit and take no damage from the fall and basic attacks can't target objects... I know I would be buying what you're selling. Real life physics and PF2 physics aren't in the same zip code.
The rules are quite simplistic on physics because making them accurate would make the book at least 50x longer. Canonically Golarion is in the same universe as Earth, so applying physics to the game isn't a stretch by any means. I'm not talking about magic I'm talking about something I have a personal experience with and know more about than the average person due to my experience. If I DID have experience with magic and something in this game about magic didn't make sense I would use my experience to try to make sense of it. As much as a LOATHE the argument that you can use a bow as an improvised melee weapon there's no rules against it, I was just saying that based on my personal experience with the weapon, I would personally rule that doing so damages the bow.
Also, let's not forget the strongest point made that you quoted but for some reason didn't comment on
I just clicked the quote button and didn't really go through the whole thing, otherwise I would have removed that part.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Canonically Golarion is in the same universe as Earth, so applying physics to the game isn't a stretch by any means.
It has a place CALLED earth: nothing in that means physics are the same. Marvel, DC, star trek, ect have earth in them but I wouldn't say because of that that physics works the same [like picking up a battle ship and NOT having it snap in 1/2].
I'm not talking about magic I'm talking about something I have a personal experience with and know more about than the average person due to my experience.
And PF2 regularly shows that things DO NOT WORK the same as real life does. My personal experience would say that patching up a wound in 2 seconds is impossible but because it's NOT REAL LIFE it's ok. Real life I can't get shot, stabbed, mauled by a dragon, poisoned, burned and knocked out and be totally fine after my pal patches me up [with MUNDANE means] in 10 min... How about kaiju sized monsters that violate square–cube law?
If I DID have experience with magic and something in this game about magic didn't make sense I would use my experience to try to make sense of it.
Remove magic 100% from PF2: it still violates real life physics on a regular basis.
As much as a LOATHE the argument that you can use a bow as an improvised melee weapon there's no rules against it, I was just saying that based on my personal experience with the weapon, I would personally rule that doing so damages the bow.
And I'm saying that you experience with a real life bow in meaningless. I can fire a bow well but the firing an arrow every 2 seconds at full accuracy is impossible. I can fire a crossbow but I can't reload a heavy one in 4 seconds... My personal experience tells me the game items don't match real life ones.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only rule I can find on improvised weapons breaking when used to strike is as the critical success effect of Improvised Pummel; normally, not even a vase breaks if you use it to bash someone in the head. It's possible that there's supposed to be a Fragile property somewhere that doesn't exist since there aren't any real weapons that have it yet, in which case the GM could adjudicate that improvised weapons that should break when used (such as a base or, indeed, a bow) would have that trait.
So I guess you can't Damage a Hazard?
No*sigh* hazards are not objects: they can be damaged like objects but they aren't treated as an object and have their own rules.
Then why did they write rules for it if you can't Strike them?
They HAD to write rules SPEFICALLY for hazards so that you could Strike them BECAUSE without that they couldn't. I'll flip that question round and ask 'why did they specify Strikes can only target creatures if they wanted you to be able to hit objects'.
To answer you though, we have ALREADY agreed that there ARE attacks that can attack objects so that there is enough reason to explain why there are rules for damaging objects. NOTHNG requires Strikes to be allowed: you have attacks and a way to resolve them so it makes sense without Strike.
No sane GM would say you can't attack items because Striking only mentions Creatures.
No sane Dm actually follows the rules? WOW I didn't know there where so many insane DM's currently running games.
The only rule I can find on improvised weapons breaking when used to strike is as the critical success effect of Improvised Pummel; normally, not even a vase breaks if you use it to bash someone in the head. It's possible that there's supposed to be a Fragile property somewhere that doesn't exist since there aren't any real weapons that have it yet, in which case the GM could adjudicate that improvised weapons that should break when used (such as a base or, indeed, a bow) would have that trait.
Yes even shoddy items work fine and items like fruit, quills, bottles, mugs, ect are listed as improvised weapons and are only listed as damaged [usually break] in specific ways.
Also, let's not forget the strongest point made that you quoted but for some reason didn't comment onI just clicked the quote button and didn't really go through the whole thing, otherwise I would have removed that part.
I mean, whether you meant to quote it or not, you still didn't mention it despite it being a strong argument that directly quotes the rules. "It says strike with the bow, not a ranged strike with one." So... No response, then?
|
|
I mean, whether you meant to quote it or not, you still didn't mention it despite it being a strong argument that directly quotes the rules. "It says strike with the bow, not a ranged strike with one." So... No response, then?Also, let's not forget the strongest point made that you quoted but for some reason didn't comment onI just clicked the quote button and didn't really go through the whole thing, otherwise I would have removed that part.
As much as a LOATHE the argument that you can use a bow as an improvised melee weapon there's no rules against it
|
|
So I guess you can't Damage a Hazard?No*sigh* hazards are not objects: they can be damaged like objects but they aren't treated as an object and have their own rules.
Then why did they write rules for it if you can't Strike them?They HAD to write rules SPEFICALLY for hazards so that you could Strike them BECAUSE without that they couldn't. I'll flip that question round and ask 'why did they specify Strikes can only target creatures if they wanted you to be able to hit objects'.
To answer you though, we have ALREADY agreed that there ARE attacks that can attack objects so that there is enough reason to explain why there are rules for damaging objects. NOTHNG requires Strikes to be allowed: you have attacks and a way to resolve them so it makes sense without Strike.
Nothing in Hazards says you can Strike it, only Attack it. Hazards aren't Creatures, so according to your very own argument you would not be able to Strike a Hazard. The number of Attack actions that target objects specifically can be counted on one hand.
No sane GM would say you can't attack items because Striking only mentions Creatures.No sane Dm actually follows the rules? WOW I didn't know there where so many insane DM's currently running games.
To claim one can't Strike a door or a vase sitting on a pedestal just because the Strike action is poorly worded is just ridiculous.
Nothing in Hazards says you can Strike it, only Attack it. Hazards aren't Creatures, so according to your very own argument you would not be able to Strike a Hazard. The number of Attack actions that target objects specifically can be counted on one hand.
Yep, you're right. This is what happens when you play with houserules. Looks like RAW, AC is for spells like Withering Grasp only.
To claim one can't Strike a door or a vase sitting on a pedestal just because the Strike action is poorly worded is just ridiculous.
It's not ridiculous to state what is literally written in strike: if anything is ridiculous, it's it's what you call the "poorly worded" action. It's 1000% reasonable and expected to read "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)" and come to the conclusion that it really, really did mean "targeting one creature within your reach" when it said that and didn't have some hidden meaning that allows you to ignore that and add words into it that just aren't there. It would also be "just ridiculous" to expect everyone to houserule a basic action of the game right off the bat as if it's the default assumption instead of what it is: a houserule.
Strike is what it is. You don't have to like it's wording [I don't], but don't tell me it says what it clearly doesn't. If they wanted to change it, they've had 3 errata to do so.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is actually something ridiculous here. You can take the targeting of the Strike action as absolute, and say that Strike can't be used on an unattended object, and not be ridiculous (just be following a ridiculous rule).
HOWEVER, extrapolating from that to say that it is impossible to use a weapon to damage an unattended object, as though the actions listed in the CRB were ever a comprehensive list of everything that is possible for a character to do (or intended to be, or presented as such) is actually ridiculous. When a character attempts to perform an action that is reasonable within their capability and no defined mechanic quite fits, treating that as though the action is impossible, instead of adjudicating how the action should work is not a reasonable way to run a TTRPG.
The argument that they've done erratas and haven't changed the wording of strike assumes that the authors are aware of a subset of the community that doesn't allow non-creatures to be attacked via a strike under any circumstances and actively made the choice not to change that. Now, I'm not saying that it can be used on non-creatures. I'm not going to get into the arguments for and against that. My point is simply that a lack of an errata doesn't prove that they intended that. An errata doesn't come out because staff re-read the entire core rulebook looking for ambiguity or errors and decided to change things. It comes out because of a backlog of issues or unclear wording that they've noticed or the community has brought to their attention.
There is actually something ridiculous here. You can take the targeting of the Strike action as absolute, and say that Strike can't be used on an unattended object, and not be ridiculous (just be following a ridiculous rule).
HOWEVER, extrapolating from that to say that it is impossible to use a weapon to damage an unattended object, as though the actions listed in the CRB were ever a comprehensive list of everything that is possible for a character to do (or intended to be, or presented as such) is actually ridiculous.
I never said "it is impossible to use a weapon to damage an unattended object": any attack that has a target of object can do so. There just aren't any weapon based attacks currently in the game that I know of. The fact that you SHOULD be able to attack an item with a weapon in no way, shape or form means the current rule set suddenly and spontaneously spawns a means to do so.
When a character attempts to perform an action that is reasonable within their capability and no defined mechanic quite fits, treating that as though the action is impossible, instead of adjudicating how the action should work is not a reasonable way to run a TTRPG.
Sure, a DM can houserule anything they think is reasonable. That however IS a houserule and NOT part of the original rule set. This means that if I have 2 DM that allow weapon attacks on objects, how it works might be completely different as they are making it out of thin air, because it's a houserule.
The argument that they've done erratas and haven't changed the wording of strike assumes that the authors are aware of a subset of the community that doesn't allow non-creatures to be attacked via a strike under any circumstances and actively made the choice not to change that.
I'm not sure how they wouldn't. They are quite aware of an issue with damaging objects: they specifically removed objects as targets of several spells as the damage was enough to blow through objects. It was also brought up in a thread during the playtest where a dev was posting.
My point is simply that a lack of an errata doesn't prove that they intended that.
I was just pointing out they they had opportunities to alter the rule if they thought it was an issue, as they took those opportunities for other attacks that targeted objects. To me, it seems clear that they are fine with mostly ignoring attacks to damage to objects and are happy to give the bare minimum to DMs so they can build their own rules if they wish.
|
|
Sure, a DM can houserule anything they think is reasonable.
Then I don't know why you started arguing about things I said I would personally do in my games. Almost like you just wanted to start an argument again for no good reason.
As a GM, I find it totally reasonable for items to take damage when smashed into creatures in ways they weren't intended to do. Would they break? Not necessarily, as they have hardness and could easily survive, as Arachnofiend mentioned with the Vase example. But it's also entirely possible that smashing a vase on someone's head can cause it to shatter.
Is it in the rules? No, I never claimed for it to be. Is it reasonable? Yes, completely so. As long as it's explained properly to the players there should be no issues with it.
Then I don't know why you started arguing about things I said I would personally do in my games. Almost like you just wanted to start an argument again for no good reason.
Note what you quoted: I didn't think what you suggested was reasonable and stated why.
Is it in the rules? No, I never claimed for it to be. Is it reasonable? Yes, completely so. As long as it's explained properly to the players there should be no issues with it.
Several posts of your seemed to be stating facts and we've been talking about more things than JUST damaging your bow.
As to what you and your players do, I don't care. I have no influence in your game: what's reasonable is an opinion and they aren't true or false. What I think is reasonable in general doesn't matter in your game. It might be valuable to others thought by by bringing up the reason why I think that way and you think your way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since it's impossible to intentionally damage a weapon [you can't even Strike an axe to a bow laying on the ground], it seems WAY out of line to be able to damage a weapon by hitting it against something.
This quote definitely reads as saying that it is impossible.
Now, while it is true that 2 GMs could use a different approach adjudication of the attempt to, say, take an axe to a bow that's lying on the ground, the principle that characters can attempt to do things that don't quite fit with the text of a defined action is absolutely core to the rules. So the "impossible to intentionally damage a weapon" statement doesn't actually work without assuming an absurd caricature of a GM. That's why I draw a line between "Strike doesn't allow targeting objects" and "intentionally hitting objects is impossible". The first is a true statement about how an action was written. The second carries an unsupported assumption.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This comment is not directed at individuals, but at all of us to appreciate the logical levity of our community:
You see if you really want to understand if you can get a flanking bonus while wielding a ranged weapon, you have to determine if creatures can use the strike action to break objects, or if that is an extension of the athletics skill.
|
|
Then I don't know why you started arguing about things I said I would personally do in my games. Almost like you just wanted to start an argument again for no good reason.Note what you quoted: I didn't think what you suggested was reasonable and stated why.
What matters is that I find it reasonable for my games. I was not imposing my rules on anyone else just stating what I would do. Do you go arguing on the internet with people about their religious or political beliefs that you don't find "reasonable"?
Is it in the rules? No, I never claimed for it to be. Is it reasonable? Yes, completely so. As long as it's explained properly to the players there should be no issues with it.Several posts of your seemed to be stating facts and we've been talking about more things than JUST damaging your bow.
You're the one stating a that you can't intentionally damage opjects, and when faced with evidence that that wasn't the game designer's intent you started backpedaling. Oh and a side note, Withering Grasp isn't even an attack, so it's irrelevant to the conversation.
As to what you and your players do, I don't care. I have no influence in your game. What I think is reasonable in general doesn't matter in your game. It might be valuable to others thought by by bringing up the reason why I think that way and you think your way.
The way you replied was hostile and non-constructive. You mentioned nothing about game balance in your initial rebuttal to me, and called my way of thinking "WAY out of line". You basically went way out of your way to just say I was wrong on every count.
If you want to have a constructive discussion about game mechanics don't go calling people's interpretations of the rules wrong, but explain how the interpretation could have a negative effect on the game's mechanics and the player's enjoyment.
This comment is not directed at individuals, but at all of us to appreciate the logical levity of our community:
You see if you really want to understand if you can get a flanking bonus while wielding a ranged weapon, you have to determine if creatures can use the strike action to break objects, or if that is an extension of the athletics skill.
Yes we got way off course here. I initially just wanted to contribute a situation I believed would fit in with the initial presumptions of OP. This tangent should be ended here.
This quote definitely reads as saying that it is impossible.
If there is no current way in the rules to do so, there are no current ways to do so in the game. The RAW in no way changes that a DM can always houserule things. This and that are different things.
Now, while it is true that 2 GMs could use a different approach adjudication the attempt to, say, take an axe to a bow that's lying on the ground, the principle that characters can attempt to do things that don't quite fit with the text of a defined action is absolutely core to the rules.
Sure nothing stops a characters attempt, nothing says they can actually do that they attempt. I can attempt to shoot my bow and hit the sun but no matter what the attempt is doomed to failure.
So the "impossible to intentionally damage a weapon" statement doesn't actually work without assuming an absurd caricature of a GM.
It's literally what is said. "Damaging an unattended item usually requires attacking it directly" and Strike: "You attack with a weapon you're wielding or with an unarmed attack, targeting one creature" can only be added together to get that conclusion. Now if you step outside the actual rules and make a houserule, that's different but then we are, by definition, no longer talking about the established rules.
|
|
Regardless of what the RAW say, if I swung my axe at a piece of wood lying on the floor and the GM said I couldn't do that because Strike specifically states "creature," I'm fairly certain I wouldn't have to concern myself over any future actions at that table. I'm hoping that no one, including graystone would deny someone said action because of the text.
What matters is that I find it reasonable for my games. I was not imposing my rules on anyone else just stating what I would do. Do you go arguing on the internet with people about their religious or political beliefs that you don't find "reasonable"?
You opened up for public consumption and I disagreed with it: nothing in that was telling you to change your rules or was an effort to impose my opinions on you: My disagreeing and stating why was just that.
You're the one stating a that you can't intentionally damage opjects, and when faced with evidence that that wasn't the game designer's intent you started backpedaling. Oh and a side note, Withering Grasp isn't even an attack, so it's irrelevant to the conversation.
I've NEVER EVER backpedaled that the game currently has no way to intentionally damage an object with a weapon. Second I've NEVER seen any stated or implied designer intent. Third, Withering Grasp is a melee spell attack roll vs AC on an unattended object.
The way you replied was hostile and non-constructive. You mentioned nothing about game balance in your initial rebuttal to me, and called my way of thinking "WAY out of line". You basically went way out of your way to just say I was wrong on every count.
I just don't get this statement. I don't see how I've had a different tone than anyone else here. #2 I stated why I disagreed with your opinion ["Yes even shoddy items work fine and items like fruit, quills, bottles, mugs, ect are listed as improvised weapons and are only listed as damaged [usually break] in specific ways."] #3 I don't recall ever mentioning balance as a reason. #4 I WOULD think you running that way when I was a player was "WAY out of line". #5 when I said "it seems", it was once again my opinion. I didn't say it WAS out if line. as in seems: it appears that way to me.
If you want to have a constructive discussion about game mechanics don't go calling people's interpretations of the rules wrong, but explain how the interpretation could have a negative effect on the game's mechanics and the player's enjoyment.
I think you're reading WAY too much into my posts. I've explained everything I said, often multiple times. Secondly, if it looks like there is only one correct reading of a rule, I'll say so. Now if it's what I see as an ambiguous rule, we can get into shades of interpretations. In this case, I just see no way that the current rule set allows you to attack an object with a weapon: there isn't an interpretation of the rules that I can see to allow that. Now, we can talk about a houserule to allow it: and again, once we're talking about houserules we're talking about opinion as there are no objective rules to say something is right or wrong.
RE: Twilightknight, I see at least a couple of different ways that could reasonably be ruled.
GM 1 could say "Oh, Strike doesn't target objects, so I need to resolve this as an Other Action" and use Strike anywawy, with modified targeting and an assigned AC.
GM 2 could say "Oh, Strike doesn't target objects, so I need to resolve this as an Other Action" and say "ok no need for an attack roll or possibility of a crit here, just roll damage and take MAP on other attacks this round, but I'd have you roll to hit if you were trying to do the Robin Hood 'shoot the gallows rope' trick or something else difficult".
GM 3 who says "Strike doesn't work so that's impossible without you pointing to a printed action because I don't accept ruling on Other Actions as being part of the rules" is the only one that's actually being really weird, here.
Even GM 4 overcomplicating things to themselves and asking for an Athletics check against a reasonable break DC wouldn't be too out there (whether or not I think it would be the best resolution).
Regardless of what the RAW say, if I swung my axe at a piece of wood lying on the floor and the GM said I couldn't do that because Strike specifically states "creature," I'm fairly certain I wouldn't have to concern myself over any future actions at that table. I'm hoping that no one, including graystone would deny someone said action because of the text.
I don't disagree they SHOULD be able to: It disappointing that the game doesn't tell you how to do such a basic action. I can see a reason why a Dm might not want attacks on objects though as the current item HP's and hardness are quite light and would cause normal items to just explode if attacked with strikes. It doesn't take long before a barbarian can quickly tunnel right through Stone and Iron plate wall with a single round of attacks and there isn't a way to buff these totals. So if you allow Strike on objects you then have to start modifying item stats too. It's a mess. You give a barbarian a pick against a low AC [it's not moving] and now you're rolling a pile of dice as you crit and crit...
RE: Twilightknight, I see at least a couple of different ways that could reasonably be ruled.
LOL I've seen all those and more. I've even seen a custom athletic roll with set of scaling DCs dealing multiples of the base weapon damage as a 3 action activity.
Tunneling through thick, sturdy walls does at least run into the page 515 sidebar:
Demolishing
A character might want to smash their way through
a door, a window, or certain walls. The Hardness, Hit
Point, and Broken Threshold values provided in the table
below are based on the material the structure is typically
made out of, so a portcullis made of iron, for example,
has a higher Hardness than one of wood. For more on
damaging objects, see page 272.Strong walls, such as well-maintained masonry
or hewn stone, can’t be broken without dedicated
work and proper tools. Getting through such walls
requires downtime.
That can feel like an unfair distinction, with the Wall hardness and Break DCs listed directly underneath... but when the HP are in the neighborhood of 1 inch thick wall created by a Wall of Stone spell, establishing a thicker wall as being too much to burst through with a few chops isn't so unreasonable feeling at all.
|
|
I don't expect the game to specifically tell me every possible action that can come up during a game nor how to adjudicate them. They have rules for weapons attacks and damage. They have rules for item hardness and hit points. I can easily make an educated guess how many HP an item has based on its construction. I don't think they need to create a specific set of rules and actions that only apply to inanimate objects. We have enough to work with to resolve this issue.
This harkens back to the passive-aggressive argument that came up at a con years ago when a GM made some kind of fiat ruling because the text did not specifically allow a player's action. The player snapped and said, the rules don't specify how I'm supposed to cook my food, eat it, and s@#! it back out so I guess I cannot do any of this either and my PC has died of malnutrition and toxic backup. It still makes me chuckle. YMMV
That can feel like an unfair distinction, with the Wall hardness and Break DCs listed directly underneath... but when the HP are in the neighborhood of 1 inch thick wall created by a Wall of Stone spell, establishing a thicker wall as being too much to burst through with a few chops isn't so unreasonable feeling at all.
This is true [that's what I meant by "there isn't a way to buff these totals"] but that leads to a weird situation you have an arbitrary depth where the wall changes from super easy to tunnel through to completely immune to damage. It also lead to the question on what's dedicated work and proper tools, what the activity is, ect. So it's another thing you'd have to create. :P
I don't expect the game to specifically tell me every possible action that can come up during a game nor how to adjudicate them.
I don't think that's fair: attacking an object isn't a super niche action. It's not like expecting them to stat out a 'planting seeds' action.
They have rules for weapons attacks and damage. They have rules for item hardness and hit points. I can easily make an educated guess how many HP an item has based on its construction. I don't think they need to create a specific set of rules and actions that only apply to inanimate objects. We have enough to work with to resolve this issue.
That can work for the home group. I've seen at least 6 ways people have taken those rules and made different educated guesses. This makes things difficult talking about/advising on the subject as well as using the tactic from game to game.
This harkens back to the passive-aggressive argument that came up at a con years ago when a GM made some kind of fiat ruling because the text did not specifically allow a player's action. The player snapped and said, the rules don't specify how I'm supposed to cook my food, eat it, and s+@$ it back out so I guess I cannot do any of this either and my PC has died of malnutrition and toxic backup. It still makes me chuckle. YMMV
I know I'm in no way against house rules in general [I might have something against a particular one]. This more irks me that it HAS to be houserules and it's not something uncommon. I honestly think attacking an object comes up more often than disarm does but disarm gets the action stated out. I mean we have swashbucklers and we can't even cut the rope so we can drop a chandelier? ;)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think that's fair
meh. I am comfortable with my own GM fiat and that of most other GMs. I am quite sure that by the time this issue would come up in play, I would have either already left the game because it was not my style, or built enough trust in the GM to follow their lead. This does not seem like a hill to die on. We've already spent much more time on this than it deserves.
It is clear to me that the designers intentionally wanted sunder to not be a part of 2E and removed most instances of attacking/damaging objects. If they spend too much time on crafting specific rules for doing so, it might be seen as an encouragement to sunder. If you want to create rules for it for your game, go ahead, but its no more intended by the designers than chaotic or good worshipers of Asmodeus.
As far as unattended objects, we have everything we need except an action that specifies object as a target. IMO, it is unnecessary as simply allowing a Strike to apply to an unattended object works perfectly well and is probably what they would advise if they commented on this topic.
we can't even cut the rope so we can drop a chandelier?
Disagree. I see a difference between "not permitted by rule" and "not defined by the rules." I have plenty of information to adjudicate that scenario. In fact, it is so mundane that I doubt I would even require any dice as long as the PC had a slashing weapon and a free hand. It just happens. But, I also recognize that providing descriptive analogies rarely go the way the writer intends so I wouldn't place too much value in my ruling. YMMV
It is clear to me that the designers intentionally wanted sunder to not be a part of 2E and removed most instances of attacking/damaging objects. If they spend too much time on crafting specific rules for doing so, it might be seen as an encouragement to sunder. If you want to create rules for it for your game, go ahead, but its no more intended by the designers than chaotic or good worshipers of Asmodeus.
I really like this thought from a game design perspective. If you put extensive rules on something that does 2 important things that it seems the devs didn't want to happen for damaging / breaking objects:
1. It takes power out of the hands of GMs that don't (or perhaps can't due to it being a pfs game or something like that) change RAW in their games.2. If they're not careful it could be abused, or at the very least used more than they'd like. Even if we throw balance out the window, perhaps Paizo just doesn't like the idea of that being a standard option that players or GMs have to deal with every enemy and PC having access to since it's a standard action. That's not to say there's anything wrong with the playstyle, or that there aren't a million ways to counter it, just that these are the kinds of things that devs have to think about to make the game feel right.
It is clear to me that the designers intentionally wanted sunder to not be a part of 2E and removed most instances of attacking/damaging objects.
I'm totally fine with ditching sunder: IMO, THAT is a niche activity and it'd be ridiculously easy to destroy them without a complete reword of object stats.
As far as unattended objects, we have everything we need except an action that specifies object as a target. IMO, it is unnecessary as simply allowing a Strike to apply to an unattended object works perfectly well and is probably what they would advise if they commented on this topic.
Even if you allow Strike vs object you still have to adjudicate AC's: it's unmoving but if you make it too easy, it's free crits... So it's not quite simple. It's why I've seen people remove the roll to hit and allow auto damage like a magic missile.
Disagree. I see a difference between "not permitted by rule" and "not defined by the rules."
I see those as synonymous statements. You can define a way to do it, but by definition you are no longer using the rules to do so so the rules still don't allow it, the houserules do. That's like saying Monopoly lets me pick up a free property when I pass go and collect $200: you can do that, but it's not the rules of the game that allows it.
I have plenty of information to adjudicate that scenario.
Does a dagger work? A thrown dagger? An arrow/bolt [for those classic robin hood moves]? When does the difficulty move from auto-hit to needing a hit? Can an animal companion, like a Hyena, chew through it? I've seen these kind of questions change the answers given.
I really like this thought from a game design perspective.
I really loathe it. The more you build in 'ask your dm' as an answer to your rules questions, the more each game varies from each other while not actively playing differently. It can feel like playing different versions of d&d/pathfinder at times with how differently the games run without someone houseruling to alter the rules to change things. PF2 is a lot less friendly to those that see multiple DM's than PF1 was.
|
|
AC is irrelevant for an unattended object, IMO, so I would ignore it. No AC, no crits. Simple. You wanna do a lot of damage, hit it multiple times. Done
I disagree. House rules are for changing existing rules to work differently than they were published. If you want to use Acrobatics to resolve trip when using a finesse weapon? That would be a house rule since Paizo has specifically commentated that is not how the maneuver system works. Adjudicating circumstances that are not specifically defined in the game rules is not a house rule, IMO, it is the GM following the rules and making a judgement to move the game along which is specifically and intentionally part of the published rules.
For Christ’s sake, I’m sure we can all come up with situations that even a defined system doesn’t cover. No set of rules is going to cover every situation. The designers have provided guidance for resolving this topic and yes it requires some GM fiat, but that’s okay. If you don’t trust your GM to make these rulings in good faith then there are bigger issues to resolve.
AC is irrelevant for an unattended object, IMO, so I would ignore it. No AC, no crits. Simple. You wanna do a lot of damage, hit it multiple times. Done
Sure, you can do that but then you aren't doing a Strike anymore. ;)
I disagree. House rules are for changing existing rules to work differently than they were published.
It's changing 'no rule for attacking objects' to 'having a rule for attacking objects' from my point of view. Adding is as much of a change as removing or altering. So I adamantly say you're houseruling. To me, using the existing rules is where I can go to any table and expect the same base rules to be in place. Tacking on something that wasn't there isn't something that is a constant. Now, I wouldn't count an ambiguous rule as a houserule as the rule is the same even if the interpretation is different.
The designers have provided guidance for resolving this topic and yes it requires some GM fiat, but that’s okay.
Sure, but that's a houserule. I'm not sure why you're treating that word like it's bad: it's just something that I can't look up in my book or on nethys because it's not in the rules.
If you don’t trust your GM to make these rulings in good faith then there are bigger issues to resolve.
LOL Trust has so little to do with it that it's laughable. It's the fact that I have lots of DM's and each point of GM fiat is another learning curve and having to relearn each of them. I don't mind any of the solutions for for attacking items but it's a pain in the butt that when I move to another table it's something I have to ask all over again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If this thread was even vaguely on the topic of damaging objects, I would revisit the many threads that have talked about that topic and point out that the way you break through a door in PF2 is very clearly laid out. It is an attack. It is not a strike. Striking, HP and AC are not the best ways to represent everything that is attacking in the world of PF2, and unfortunately there are a number of applications of the athletics skill that are not clearly codified enough, running along side some poor game decisions, like having tables of hardness and HP but no AC, to pretty thoroughly confuse the matter and leave this an area of the game that requires some table discussion.
But this really isn't the thread to have that conversation is it? Other than maybe pointing out that there are still a number of places where the game requires consensus building and not rules lawyering to run smoothly.
Honestly I agree with Mark in that it seems like multiple ideas were floating around how flanking was going to work when a lot of abilities and spells were being written, and the exact wording that got chosen is not super compatible with everything else in the game. While it would make sense for spells like produce flame to have the advantage of getting to benefit from flanking, it is incredibly punitive to more important spell slot spells that seem like they were written realizing that the distinction between melee spell attack and ranged spell attack were meaningless, and thus just call for a spell attack roll instead. Thus while I think that some developers at least were writing with the idea that flanking was going to be melee dependent, some don't seem like they were and thus "melee attack" vs "ranged attack" is only really an established distinction consistently in basic strikes.
Given that default state, I think it is easier to take the rules as they are and not try to enforce "melee" vs "ranged" back out over everything else in the game. Maybe produce flame will get a bit of a boost in a future errata when used to attack an adjacent ally, maybe like a +1 circumstance bonus to the spell attack roll, and the 1 or 2 other specific elements that don't interact well with the current wording of flanking change as well, and that is going to be a lot less disruptive than fixing the fact that many spells just call for spell attack rolls, not melee or ranged spell attack rolls, and what it means to use the reach metamagic feat to make melee spell attack rolls (like Shocking grasp and produce flame) at range.
If this thread was even vaguely on the topic of damaging objects, I would revisit the many threads that have talked about that topic and point out that the way you break through a door in PF2 is very clearly laid out.
It's clearly laid out for a barrier/opening. So their are rules to 'coolaid man' through a wooden wall but nothing for a tree. ;)
Given that default state, I think it is easier to take the rules as they are and not try to enforce "melee" vs "ranged" back out over everything else in the game.
I think that ranged flank in melee is pretty niche so I'd question the need for a fix even if someone thought it felt off: IMO, most pick ranged to stay away from a foe and not to get close enough to spit on them.
Maybe produce flame will get a bit of a boost in a future errata
I don't think it really needs a boost. There things that work or work better vs ranged attacks too [like Current Spell, weather related circumstance penalties, ect] and you can Feint with it too so it seems good to me.
yeah, but what if you use produce flame with the reach spell to make a melee spell attack roll at 30ft? The reach feat does not interact with melee vs ranged, spells don't really fall into that category at all except for a couple of called out exceptions.
Are we even sure that a spell that doesn't call out requiring a ranged spell attack roll would be susceptible to things that only effect ranged attacks? And then does a caster with spectral hand cast effectively threaten every square in 120ft?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you use Reach on a Melee spell attack it becomes a Ranged spell attack. There is mechanically no difference for the caster, but it matters for the target and anyone around them for the sake of reactions.
The benefit Produce Flame has is that you can bypass the "ranged attack" trigger, which some reactions use. Sure, attacks of opportunity would be triggered by the Manipulate action from casting the spell, but other reactions don't use that trigger but do have "ranged attack", such as Impossible Riposte for example. So if Produce Flame were ONLY a ranged attack, that would severely weaken it.
If you use Reach on a Melee spell attack it becomes a Ranged spell attack. There is mechanically no difference for the caster, but it matters for the target and anyone around them for the sake of reactions.
Yep, it increases range not reach: if it truly stayed a melee attack, it wouldn't do anything as melee interacts with reach and ranged interacts with range or range increment.
I agree with this for the reach feat, even though it probably should have a different name if it doesn't actually increase your reach with spells, but the spectral hand moves and delivers your spell. So while you don't threaten every square in 120ft as far as allowing others to accomplish flanking, I think you can use spectral hand to gain flanking with all spells that have a range of touch, regardless of whether they are melee spell attack rolls or not. In fact, it doesn't seem like you could cast produce flame through a spectral hand because it has a range of 30ft and is not a touch spell.
Overall, there is clearly a rules disconnect with spells and the words "melee" and "ranged" Mark Seifter essentially acknowledged this in the link above. The question is whether or not the words melee and ranged really only matter for weapons and unarmed attacks. The way the rules are written now. For example, electric arc is a spell that has a range, and can do damage, but it does not have the attack trait, so it interacts with the rules in kind of awkward ways because the word attack only has a specific rules meaning in the context of the attack trait and attack rolls.
Luckily for flanking, it is fine that saving throw spells don't interact at all with melee or ranged attacks, because flanking only matters for targeting AC, but it does make for some other confusing situations
I agree with this for the reach feat, even though it probably should have a different name if it doesn't actually increase your reach with spells, but the spectral hand moves and delivers your spell. So while you don't threaten every square in 120ft as far as allowing others to accomplish flanking, I think you can use spectral hand to gain flanking with all spells that have a range of touch, regardless of whether they are melee spell attack rolls or not. In fact, it doesn't seem like you could cast produce flame through a spectral hand because it has a range of 30ft and is not a touch spell.
You can't use it to gain flank: "A line drawn between the center of your space and the center of your ally's space must pass through opposite sides or opposite corners of the foe's space" and "you must both have the enemy within reach." Nothing says the hand has any reach much like a sprite has to move into a square to attack and can't then flank. So you can't prove you can draw that line from the hand or that that the hand has reach.
Hm, that is interesting and a huge nerf on that spell and maybe further proof that something here little more clarity than we currently have. I am not saying that creatures with a reach of 0 need to be capable of flanking, but the spectral hand spell might need to specify that it has a reach of 0, instead of making it seem like it gives you an essential reach of 120ft, but only for your own casting of spells.
And I am definitely getting back off in the weeds of this post.
Produce flame being able to make melee spell attack rolls doesn't really help in avoid triggering ranged attack triggers though because most spells are not ranged spell attacks, even if they use attack rolls. Having melee attacks, ranged attacks and spell attacks as three separate groups is always going to lead to confusion for players.