So if you're smashing it, or taking some other action, rather than prying it, you don't take the -2 penalty for not having a crowbar?
Examples:
- Kicking in a door
- Smashing a window
- Ripping a lock off a chest
- Oh Yeah!ing through a wall
|
Prying a lock off of a chest would require a crowbar. Unless you have some really strong fingernails.
Kicking open a door would be easier than trying to pry it open without a crowbar, but prying it open with a levered crowbar would be easier than kicking it open.
"Prying" isn't a game term. In this case it's just the commonly understood definition.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
IMO, EVERY single Force Open check without a crowbar is -2. It's the equivalent of using shoddy/improvised tools.
IMO, EVERY single Force Open check without a crowbar is -2. It's the equivalent of using shoddy/improvised tools.
That was my original thinking too, until I reread the rules and realized it was situational. Using a crowbar doesn't even make sense in a lot of situations (like jumping through a wall).
If you're not trying to pry something off to begin with, it doesn't look like you have to deal with the penalty.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
IMO, EVERY single Force Open check without a crowbar is -2. It's the equivalent of using shoddy/improvised tools.That was my original thinking too, until I reread the rules and realized it was situational. Using a crowbar doesn't even make sense in a lot of situations (like jumping through a wall).
If you're not trying to pry something off to begin with, it doesn't look like you have to deal with the penalty.
I'd agree IF there was a pry action, but there isn't: it seems to be flavor text. Look at the rest of the action.
Critical Success You open the door, window, container, or gate and can avoid damaging it in the process.
Success You break the door, window, container, or gate open, and the door, window, container, or gate gains the broken condition. If it’s especially sturdy, the GM might have it take damage but not be broken.
Critical Failure Your attempt jams the door, window, container, or gate shut, imposing a –2 circumstance penalty on future attempts to Force it Open.
Sample Force Open Tasks
Untrained fabric, flimsy glass
Trained ice, sturdy glass
Expert flimsy wooden door, wooden portcullis
Master sturdy wooden door, iron portcullis, metal bar
Legendary stone or iron door
Note there isn't ANYTHING about how you are forcing things open. The task is material based, not bashing or prying or charging. Success is open. broken or jammed, again nothing about a specific type of force open. So, IMO, it'd be up to a DM to add such things into the action/game. I don't see it as situational unless the DM goes out of their way to make it so as I see "prying something open" as a colorful/flavorful way of them saying Force Open.
If we go down the pry vs other kinds of Force Open then it leads to a whole bunch of issues like different DC's depending on your action type. For instance, some glass french doors might be sturdy glass to charge through but a sturdy wooden or metal door because of the frame and edge holding the glass and/or the quality of the locking mechanism. Same with a window.
|
Forcing something open is not the same as smashing it with your weapon or against the ground. If you want to break it open, then make a Strike, with the risk of damaging things on the other side/whatever is inside. If you want to open with brute force without damaging anything other than what you're forcing, use Force Open. If you want to get inside something without breaking it in the process, and without making a ton of noise, use Pick a Lock.
I agree that the -2 apply on every Force Open check without a crowbar*.
* I'd also say that "crowbar" is a stand-in as the most recognizable Force-Open tool. For other skill actions you have generic Thieves Tools or Healer Kits. Just here it's a concrete item.
So the mechanical item could be generalized to Force-Open Tools. Where you have a crowbar for chests and doors, a portable ram for walls, and so on... like the other kits.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So the mechanical item could be generalized to Force-Open Tools. Where you have a crowbar for chests and doors, a portable ram for walls, and so on... like the other kits.
Unlike other kits, it would have a bulk of about 22.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So the mechanical item could be generalized to Force-Open Tools. Where you have a crowbar for chests and doors, a portable ram for walls, and so on... like the other kits.Unlike other kits, it would have a bulk of about 22.
Use a halfling instead: they are only 3 bulk. ;)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Forcing something open is not the same as smashing it with your weapon or against the ground. If you want to break it open, then make a Strike, with the risk of damaging things on the other side/whatever is inside. If you want to open with brute force without damaging anything other than what you're forcing, use Force Open. If you want to get inside something without breaking it in the process, and without making a ton of noise, use Pick a Lock.
Strikes only target creatures.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Forcing something open is not the same as smashing it with your weapon or against the ground. If you want to break it open, then make a Strike, with the risk of damaging things on the other side/whatever is inside. If you want to open with brute force without damaging anything other than what you're forcing, use Force Open. If you want to get inside something without breaking it in the process, and without making a ton of noise, use Pick a Lock.Strikes only target creatures.
Please don't get into this pedantic stuff again. If you want to be so strict and anti-fun and enforce that for your games then fine, but it's obvious that's not the intent and to continue to insist it is just confuses people about the rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please don't get into this pedantic stuff again. If you want to be so strict and anti-fun and enforce that for your games then fine, but it's obvious that's not the intent and to continue to insist it is just confuses people about the rules.Forcing something open is not the same as smashing it with your weapon or against the ground. If you want to break it open, then make a Strike, with the risk of damaging things on the other side/whatever is inside. If you want to open with brute force without damaging anything other than what you're forcing, use Force Open. If you want to get inside something without breaking it in the process, and without making a ton of noise, use Pick a Lock.Strikes only target creatures.
I can't help it if the rules are limited and, at times, confusing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Use a halfling instead: they are only 3 bulk. ;)So the mechanical item could be generalized to Force-Open Tools. Where you have a crowbar for chests and doors, a portable ram for walls, and so on... like the other kits.Unlike other kits, it would have a bulk of about 22.
Well, sure. But I would still be taking the -2 penalty for using an improvised pry bar.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please don't get into this pedantic stuff again.
Nothing pedantic about reading and understanding the literal words in the book... It's hard to say taking the rules at face value is that. Correctly pointing out what the target is of an ability is not a small errors or minor details, hence it can't be, by definition, pedantic.
If one wanted to be pedantic, they'd note that pedantic is known insulting word, and is even noted as such in dictionaries, and as such is a violation of the forum rules.
If you want to be so strict and anti-fun and enforce that for your games then fine, but it's obvious that's not the intent and to continue to insist it is just confuses people about the rules.
I think it's wrong to give people the impression that they CAN strike objects without pointing out that is 100% a houserule and totally NOT how the action is written. We also have no possible way to claim it's obvious intent to ignore the standing rule. I wish you wouldn't post as if people are crazy for pointing the actual rules: feel free to advocate for houserules but we're in the rules section of the forum and striking an object isn't a rule in the game.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Given that there are multiple sections in the CRB that deal with what happens when you attack an object (item damage page 272 & demolishing walls page 514) it is pretty safe to assume that the intent is that you can Strike objects. Refusing to let a player Strike an object because the rules for the Strike action are confusingly worded is just being deliberately too literal. GMs exist to fairly adjudicate the rules and that includes making rulings when things are unclear or contradictory - even if you are playing PFS.
Given that there are multiple sections in the CRB that deal with what happens when you attack an object (item damage page 272 & demolishing walls page 514) it is pretty safe to assume that the intent is that you can Strike objects.
There are attacks that have LISTED targets of object, hence you can't claim it's an obvious conclusion of intent. for instance Shatter and Disintegrate use those tables.
Refusing to let a player Strike an object because the rules for the Strike action are confusingly worded is just being deliberately too literal.
But it's not even a little confusing. "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)." Looks mighty clear to me.
GMs exist to fairly adjudicate the rules and that includes making rulings when things are unclear or contradictory - even if you are playing PFS.
Sure: any DM that wants you to strike objects can houserule it. That doesn't alter the actual rule and people shouldn't say the rules are different than they are. I prefer being able to attack an object, but a lot more houseruling has to go into it like what the AC or saves are on non-hazards. If the intent is clearly that you can attack them, then there should be the a mechanism in place to do so but it isn't there.
IMO, it's not that there is clear intent but clear desire from people to attack objects even when it's not allowed by default.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Refusing to let a player Strike an object because the rules for the Strike action are confusingly worded is just being deliberately too literal.But it's not even a little confusing. "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)." Looks mighty clear to me.
I mean, that's just flat out wrong. Take the Vandal Feat for example. It says "whenever you hit with a Strike against a trap or an unattended object" but nowhere in the feat does it say "You can Strike a trap or an unattended object". The feat doesn't unlock the ability to make strikes on objects or traps, but modifies what happens when you make a strike on an object or trap.
If what you say is true, that the designers intended that you not be able to Strike objects, then why wouldn't the wording of this feat unlock that ability, rather than modify it?
Furthermore, the argument that "some Attacks target objects" is also a red herring. Only certain spells can target creatures or objects, nothing else a PC can get explicitly targets unattended objects. This means a Barbarian would be completely incapable of attacking a door in front of them while the wizard would have to waste a spell slot to break it down instead.
And don't even get me started on Hazards with an AC and HP...
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think I remember someone pointing out that this can be used for Mimic detection.
Player: "I want to Strike this table."
GM: "You can't Strike the table. It is an item."
Player: "I want to Strike this door."
GM: "You can't Strike the door."
Player: "I want to Strike this barrel."
GM: "Roll initiative."
I think I remember someone pointing out that this can be used for Mimic detection.
Player: "I want to Strike this table."
GM: "You can't Strike the table. It is an item."
Player: "I want to Strike this door."
GM: "You can't Strike the door."
Player: "I want to Strike this barrel."
GM: "Roll initiative."
XD
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say you can just use table 11-4 in Material Statistics. You're attacking a stationary object, you shouldn't need an AC IMO.
Then you are doing something OTHER than a Strike as a Strike is a weapon attack roll vs an AC and with the possibility of a critical hit. In essence, you suggest a houserule to make a new type of action that deals damage without a roll vs an object: that's fine but still a houserule.
Take the Vandal Feat for example.
I don't particularly care what the feat says: it doesn't override the requirements of the Strike action nor give any special rules for making such an action. Seems like it's in need of errata and rewording, instead of it's being proof of anything: for instance, it would make a WHOLE lot more sense if it read 'against a trap or HAZARD' as those 2 things actually have a way to adjudicate attacks against them unlike generic objects. Third, I'll again say that pulling intent out of something like this is an act of futility: IMO, the CLEAR intent of specifying creatures only in the action isn't even close to being overcome by off comments in other parts of the rules that are much LESS specific to the action. As to the specific feat, it's not like feats MUST be correct: look at the first Prone Shooter feat in PF1 that did literally nothing as it seemed the person that edited the feat didn't understand how the rules worked.
And even if you did manage to find incontrovertible evident on intent... So what? It still wouldn't alter the actual rules: at best, you'd have a good reason to make a houserule as the actual written rules are very clear.
Furthermore, the argument that "some Attacks target objects" is also a red herring. Only certain spells can target creatures or objects, nothing else a PC can get explicitly targets unattended objects. This means a Barbarian would be completely incapable of attacking a door in front of them while the wizard would have to waste a spell slot to break it down instead.
How is it a red herring? The argument was 'there are stats on object so that MUST mean you can strike them' and that is patently false because there ARE attack that target object so it's very much relevant in disproving that notion. What the barbarian can or can't do is irrelevant as it's a moot point: the material table can be used without Strike, full stop. The fact that you don't like the fact that that doesn't allow the barbarian to Strike is meaningless and not a reason to claim 'red herring'.
I think I remember someone pointing out that this can be used for Mimic detection.
I think the party would knock the player out long before any mimic was found if they point to each and every object in a dungeon and attack it... It's going to be a very long and arduous slog. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the party would knock the player out long before any mimic was found if they point to each and every object in a dungeon and attack it... It's going to be a very long and arduous slog. ;)
I know some very paranoid players...
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Take the Vandal Feat for example.I don't particularly care what the feat says: it doesn't override the requirements of the Strike action nor give any special rules for making such an action.
The whole point of my argument was this; It doesn't change the targets of the Strike action, but modifies the results of it. It then suggests that you can Strike objects. Ignoring valid evidence that opposes your viewpoint isn't going to win this argument.
Seems like it's in need of errata and rewording, instead of it's being proof of anything:
The same can be said of the Strike action. In fact, it would make more sense to errata Strike as there are plenty of instances in the rules that assume you can Strike an object. Why change all those instances to meet the requirement of a single action when you can just change that one action to say "or unattended object"?
for instance, it would make a WHOLE lot more sense if it read 'against a trap or HAZARD' as those 2 things actually have a way to adjudicate attacks against them unlike generic objects.
Traps are Hazards... That's like saying a Strike can target Humanoids and Creatures. One is a subset of the other, so it would make no sense to have the more specific one there.
Third, I'll again say that pulling intent out of something like this is an act of futility: IMO, the CLEAR intent of specifying creatures only in the action isn't even close to being overcome by off comments in other parts of the rules that are much LESS specific to the action.
You yourself are pulling intent from a single line and ignoring all evidence to the contrary.
As to the specific feat, it's not like feats MUST be correct: look at the first Prone Shooter feat in PF1 that did literally nothing as it seemed the person that edited the feat didn't understand how the rules worked.
Yea, feats can be written poorly, but maybe try to come up with an example in the same system? Yes it's the same publisher, but they have come a long way since then and this system is fundamentally different.
And even if you did manage to find incontrovertible evident on intent... So what? It still wouldn't alter the actual rules: at best, you'd have a good reason to make a houserule as the actual written rules are very clear.
In many places in the CRB and GMG it suggests the GM adjust things that may not make sense to what they think is best. Saying you can Strike objects isn't a house rule, it's an interpretation of the rules. Claiming it's a house rule just diminishes it as a valid interpretation.
Furthermore, the argument that "some Attacks target objects" is also a red herring. Only certain spells can target creatures or objects, nothing else a PC can get explicitly targets unattended objects. This means a Barbarian would be completely incapable of attacking a door in front of them while the wizard would have to waste a spell slot to break it down instead.How is it a red herring? The argument was 'there are stats on object so that MUST mean you can strike them' and that is patently false because there ARE attack that target object so it's very much relevant in disproving that notion. What the barbarian can or can't do is irrelevant as it's a moot point: the material table can be used without Strike, full stop. The fact that you don't like the fact that that doesn't allow the barbarian to Strike is meaningless and not a reason to claim 'red herring'.
Your argument of "Certain attack actions can target objects, therefore it's clear Strikes only works on Creatures" neglects to mention those attack actions are Spells only. The red herring is that you claim this as irrefutable proof to your claim but it has nothing to do with Strikes. Spells have a different set of rules for Targets than other actions. They are also a limited resource, so you would only be able to smash so many doors each day.
Furthermore, the claim that you can't Strike objects means one could never Strike a trap. Traps have an AC and HP for a reason. Imagine a scenario where a trap was killing the party. It's the fighter's turn, and he wants to attack the trap with his Greatsword. The GM says "Oh sorry, you can only Strike creatures and this is a Hazard. You'll need to use an ability that specifically mentions objects or hazards, or Disable the trap." Of course the fighter doesn't have anything like this as they aren't a spell caster, and they didn't invest in Trickery. So the fighter just sits there and twiddles their thumbs while the rest of the party tries to save everyone.
Is this the world you want? For martial characters to be forced to invest in casting or skills they don't want to have, just so they would have something to contribute in these cases? Because it sure sounds like this is what you want.
I really don't understand why they made it so spells can't target ANY objects, rather than just letting them target unattended ones.
Developers didn't want casters burrowing through walls with their cantrips I guess?
|
|
I usually allow spells to affect objects as well, especially if they have Saves (which Traps will usually have, sans a Will save). If someone casts Fireball in an empty bar, those chairs and tables are going to take some damage, if not be completely incinerated. The building might even catch fire too, depending on if I think it would be cool or if I can be bothered running a spreading fire on top of combat. Casting Acid Splash on a wall over and over would be extremely tedious though, and while I wouldn't disallow it, I would encourage them to find an alternate way to tunnel through if only to save everyone's sanity.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I rule item targeting/destruction on a case by case basis, which is what I feel the developers intended, and only if the situation demands it, or a player asks for it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I rule item targeting/destruction on a case by case basis, which is what I feel the developers intended, and only if the situation demands it, or a player asks for it.
So we need a 'Rare' tag for rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At low levels, hardness makes burrowing through walls impossible to impractical for most characters. Stone walls have hardness 14, so cantrips won't usually start damaging it until level 5.
At higher levels, you need to start making decisions about how you feel about monks punching over buildings.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
By Lv 5 a martial would have magically/supernaturally augmented weapons, so yeah, I think it's fair to be able to smash a wall sometimes in the fiction. (Whether you, the GM, want to deal with that is another story.)
I can't help it if the rules are limited and, at times, confusing.
I know you just mentioned you adjudicate case by case, but I want to emphasize that it is the explicit job of a GM to help it.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
IMO, EVERY single Force Open check without a crowbar is -2. It's the equivalent of using shoddy/improvised tools.
Back to the original question: that's not how I read it at all. If the -2 penalty were meant to apply to all Force Open checks, then the words "prying something open" wouldn't have been added to the start of the sentence. It's one of the basic things about read rules that you assume every word was placed there deliberately and is not "mere surplusage." (Sorry to pull the lawyer card!)
To "pry open" something generally means to raise, move, or pull apart with a lever. So this would apply to a chest lid, or raising a portcullis. But not knocking down a door.
I just don't see myself looking at my players and saying "You would've busted down that door, had you had a crowbar." And it doesn't follow the text.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rot Grub, you have a point in any game that's not deliberately written in 'casual language'.
Unfortunately that means your point falls apart because Pathfinder 2nd edition has been written in casual language and is intended to be read in casual form, rather than with the level of technicality you're suggesting.
That's funny. I'd argue Rot Grub is correct BECAUSE of the casual language.
|
|
IMO, EVERY single Force Open check without a crowbar is -2. It's the equivalent of using shoddy/improvised tools.Back to the original question: that's not how I read it at all. If the -2 penalty were meant to apply to all Force Open checks, then the words "prying something open" wouldn't have been added to the start of the sentence. It's one of the basic things about read rules that you assume every word was placed there deliberately and is not "mere surplusage." (Sorry to pull the lawyer card!)
To "pry open" something generally means to raise, move, or pull apart with a lever. So this would apply to a chest lid, or raising a portcullis. But not knocking down a door.
I just don't see myself looking at my players and saying "You would've busted down that door, had you had a crowbar." And it doesn't follow the text.
Just try opening a locked door without some sort of tool.
As mentioned before, the Crowbar is just the most common tool used to Force Open. It could be replaced by any other viable tool, like a battering ram for a door, and mechanically it would work the same way in my book. Also as mentioned before, if every tool required to Force something Open came in a single kit, it would weigh a ton.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say just apply the crowbar where it is the appropriate tool (aka prying something open, be it container, sarcophagus, window or door) and do not apply it where it is not. For example I can not see a crowbar helping much when trying to lift portcullis (also see page 511) or needing to bend bars quickly.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say just apply the crowbar where it is the appropriate tool (aka prying something open, be it container, sarcophagus, window or door) and do not apply it where it is not. For example I can not see a crowbar helping much when trying to lift portcullis or needing to bend bars quickly.
You can totally lift a portcullis with a crowbar, you just need a fulcrum.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say just apply the crowbar where it is the appropriate tool (aka prying something open, be it container, sarcophagus, window or door) and do not apply it where it is not. For example I can not see a crowbar helping much when trying to lift portcullis or needing to bend bars quickly.You can totally lift a portcullis with a crowbar, you just need a fulcrum.
And a long enough crowbar...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say just apply the crowbar where it is the appropriate tool (aka prying something open, be it container, sarcophagus, window or door) and do not apply it where it is not. For example I can not see a crowbar helping much when trying to lift portcullis (also see page 511) or needing to bend bars quickly.
This makes sense to me. In uncertain scenarios, ask the GM for a quick ruling.
For example, I could see a locked door being pried open with a crowbar just as easily as I could see it being kicked in (firemen do both all the time). In that case, I'd base it off of how the player describes it. Trying to pry it open with naught but your fingertips? Penalty!
It's like my big brother often says: If it's difficult, it's because you're doing it wrong.
I was also confused by the idea of a crowbar used against a portcullis.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's funny. I'd argue Rot Grub is correct BECAUSE of the casual language.Rot Grub, you have a point in any game that's not deliberately written in 'casual language'.
Unfortunately that means your point falls apart because Pathfinder 2nd edition has been written in casual language and is intended to be read in casual form, rather than with the level of technicality you're suggesting.
Yes, in the sense that trying to expand the -2 penalty to all Force Open checks requires "lawyerizing" (a.k.a. twisting) that sentence, not taking it at face value, and reading it separate from the imagined reality of the fantasy world.
Not all legal principles are meant simply to confuse; they also try to codify common sense. (Though often worded in an admittedly technical and confusing way lol)
I can imagine a crowbar could be helpful in bending open a portcullis.
I can also imagine a portcullis would be useful in bending the crowbar!
Oy.
Using the crowbar line as an example, I lean toward needing the right tool for the obstacle though I can understand the counterargument that maybe Paizo's making a point when it comes to prying where one lacks a handhold.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rot Grub, you have a point in any game that's not deliberately written in 'casual language'.
Unfortunately that means your point falls apart because Pathfinder 2nd edition has been written in casual language and is intended to be read in casual form, rather than with the level of technicality you're suggesting.
Not at all.
That Pathfinder is written non-technically has basically nothing to do with rot grub's point, though. They're just pointing out that the sentence everyone is hanging on calls out a specific type of action and that if it was meant to apply to every use of Force Open, why not just say that? It creates needless ambiguity if that was the goal.
From a 'rules are written casually and should be intuitive' standpoint, the idea that you suffer a -2 to kick open a door, smash a window or demolish a wall if you aren't holding a crowbar in one hand is the exact kind of overly specific RAW nonsense that casual reading is meant to sidestep in the first place.
From a 'rules are written casually and should be intuitive' standpoint, the idea that you suffer a -2 to kick open a door, smash a window or demolish a wall if you aren't holding a crowbar in one hand is the exact kind of overly specific RAW nonsense that casual reading is meant to sidestep in the first place.
No one said it had to be in one hand: 2 handed is quite expectable. ;)
Kinda like how before I confirmed my color deficiency I thought other people were wrong when I said "that's purple" and they said "it's blue." or "that's yellow" and they said "it's green."
Right there with you, except it's me saying saying 'it's red' or 'it's blue' and them saying 'it's purple'.