Hi everyone,
I was reading Spectral Hand and I find it's massively unclear regarding damage.
"You create a semicorporeal hand out of your essence that delivers touch spells for you. Whenever you Cast a Spell with a range of touch, you can have the hand crawl to a target within range along the ground, touch it, and then crawl back to you. When making a melee spell attack with the hand, you use your normal bonuses. The hand can move as far as it needs to within range. The hand has your AC and saves, but any damage to the hand destroys it and causes you to take 1d6 damage."
First, what's the hand? A lot of abilities only target creatures (Strike...). But it has an AC suggesting it can be attacked with weapons (which seems logical).
Also, can the hand be damaged through positive or negative damage (is it alive, undead, or an object)?
Overall, how can the hand be destroyed?
"Strikes can only target creatures" is a dubious statement. The actions says target creatures, but the system frequently assumed otherwise with things like Shattering Blows, a barbarian feat that only applies when you make melee Strikes against objects
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Strikes can only target creatures" is a dubious statement. The actions says target creatures, but the system frequently assumed otherwise with things like Shattering Blows, a barbarian feat that only applies when you make melee Strikes against objects
Animated Objects have Hardness, so Shattering Blows works fine as is.
Also, the ... I've put after Strike is there to indicate that I find the strict RAW regarding Strike dubious. But spells like Chain Lightning also have creatures as targets and it's clear Chain Lightning can't target objects (as otherwise the limitation of distance between creatures will be voided by just targeting objects in-between).So, what do you think of the hand? How can it be damaged? Does Positive/Negative damage affect it?
I'd say it can be struck and caught in all sorts of AoEs, at a bare minimum. Absolutely not going to try to make a claim about positive and negative, because I can see lines of reasoning someone might follow to get to it being damaged by either or neither.
For spells that target a creature rule case by case whether it's something that only targets creatures for a reason, or another Strike situation, just like you should when PCs end up trying to bash some complex hazard apart with damage.
For AoEs, I think it's quite clear (even if there's still the issue of Negative and Positive damage).
Would you play it as triggering Attacks of Opportunity and similar reactions? It's no creature per se, and it doesn't use Move actions per se, but at the same time I can see the reasoning behind allowing it.
Well, it's not just the move action the provokes, leaving a threatened square also provokes. So even if it's not using a move action, I'd say it still provokes when it leaves the squares. And since it talks about having AC, saves, and HP (in the sense that any successfully attack destroys it) I'd treat it as a creature for the purposes of strikes or spells to attack it.
Well, it's not just the move action the provokes, leaving a threatened square also provokes. So even if it's not using a move action, I'd say it still provokes when it leaves the squares. And since it talks about having AC, saves, and HP (in the sense that any successfully attack destroys it) I'd treat it as a creature for the purposes of strikes or spells to attack it.
You need to leave a square as part of a Move action to trigger Attack of Opportunity. If it's not using a Move action, it doesn't provoke.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, it's not just the move action the provokes, leaving a threatened square also provokes. So even if it's not using a move action, I'd say it still provokes when it leaves the squares. And since it talks about having AC, saves, and HP (in the sense that any successfully attack destroys it) I'd treat it as a creature for the purposes of strikes or spells to attack it.You need to leave a square as part of a Move action to trigger Attack of Opportunity. If it's not using a Move action, it doesn't provoke.
I realize those are the verbatim rules. It was written so that forced movement doesn't provoke because it would be too strong. But obviously the rules didn't really cover what happens when something moves without using a move action but under the control of "itself".
The devs created problems by making the spectral hand not a creature, IMO.
It's kind of like a familiar, in that it doesn't have stats, the numbers needed to target/hit it are based on the caster and it never explicitly states if they are "alive, undead, or an object". For myself I count the hand as a mindless construct.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thinking more about it, allowing spell effects to trigger reactions is opening a can of worms. It would open up Champion's Reactions on a Wall of Force or No Escape on an Aqueous Orb. I think it's best to consider it a spell effect and avoid any problematic reactions as it could otherwise be exploited to trigger allies (or your own) reactions (like Goblin/Skittering Scuttle on yourself every time the hand comes back).
I definitely would not allow it to trigger any reactions based on move or manipulate. Regarding damage, I think I would allow positive, negative, as well as alignment to work IFF (if and only if) the caster would be affected by that type of damage.
is there to indicate that I find the strict RAW regarding Strike dubious.
Yep. When you realise that by default the game doesn't have a natural way to target objects, the game just becomes a whole lot fuzzier. We are in the realm of GM interpretation for so many things, which is just deeply disappointing. Looking at you Paizo.
So, what do you think of the hand? How can it be damaged? Does Positive/Negative damage affect it?
Up to you. Make it up.
My guess would be, whereever it is not clear, to just treat it like a summoned creature.
As a spectral hand, with such limited things you can do with it, I don’t really understand why it needs to be something that can be targeted generally. As a GM I would be inclined to treat it as incorporeal instead of “semi-corporeal” since that feels too nebulous to me. I’d say it can be destroyed by the positive or negative damage type that hurts the caster, but otherwise cannot really be attacked.
But I also tend not to make AoE effects destroy familiars that are in the same space as the character because it generally makes the game less fun for players.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Strikes can only target creatures" is a dubious statement. The actions says target creatures, but the system frequently assumed otherwise with things like Shattering Blows, a barbarian feat that only applies when you make melee Strikes against objects
"Strikes can only target creatures" is how the rules are written. It is a true statement. Yes it is stupid. Yes the rules elsewhere clearly imply that you can strike objects. I have never seen a GM refuse to allow you to strike an object. I hope I never do.
I bring this point up just to show that some GM interpretation is required. If you are getting hung up over some minor rules knot, and doing something obviously stupid because of some minor wording, then just don't. Apply some common sense, as this game requires it. This is it's own rule.
Unfortunately it means that everyone will draw the lines in different places. I really do prefer that Paizo would clearly fix the major holes like this.
Shattering Blows is just one of many inconsistances in the game. Obviously it means that Strike needs errata. Which is depressing as it is one of the most central elements of the game.
The problem with using strike against objects in the game is that just giving objects hardness and HP with an AC of 10 and no crits is both really, really boring, and doesn't effectively represent how smashing two objects together is as likely to damage both objects as just one of them.
It creates no tension in the vast majority of situations and has no consequences for failure except time. I really wish that there had been a commitment to go all in on an action like "break" that would have been similar to force open, instead of half deciding you can attack objects and half deciding that you cant. It is a glaring rules issue in the game that luckily doesn't really matter much because telling stories about breaking things is not easy to make fun enough for most parties to want to spend a whole lot of time on it.
|
Not to mention the fact that allowing Strikes, ala Weapon Dice Damage + Modifiers + Bonuses, would completely trivialize EVERY obstacle that isn't made of some extremely valuable hardened metal in that no door, lock, wall, or floor would stand a shadow of a chance against a reasonably armed and well equipped martial PC who wants to just tunnel through them one Action at a time.
This issue extends to Spell Attacks as well and in many cases the issue is even more pronounced because via Cantrips you don't even risk damaging your Weapon or injuring yourself should the GM decide to inject a bit of fiat.
I'm ALL for being able to use Skill Checks to break and attack objects but in terms of using the mechanical scaffolding behind the Strike Action, no way.
Both these last posts are valid objections. I do find that invulnerable structures get a bit trite. Given enough time and noise most doors will not be able to stand up to tools and attacks from fire cold and acid. Nor should they unless they are protected with magic or special materials.
The situation can easily be fixed by a few simple rules. Structures and objects are not the same things. Don't treat them the same.
1) Just rule that most weapons do minimal damage to structures, and require tools and a lot of time. Perhaps allow certain weapons excludes axes, picks, hammers to count as crude tools. Not that it will matter much as the PCs will start carrying tools. The time can be as little as a minute, or as long as a month. It depends on the structure. Use a skill check, and do damage based on the result of a check in a time frame of the GM's choosing. As a GM then you have the choice to give your players that amount of time or not.
2) Create a uncommon ritual that protects structures from damage, and make it difficult to dispel. No need for special valuable materials. Simple detect magic tells the players what is going on. So if you need the GM can just say no.
The only complication would be for balance reasons treat all spell created walls as objects. In fact the dividing line between object and structure probably should start with a reinforced door or wall counting as a structure, everything less including anything spell created as objects.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The situation can easily be fixed by a few simple rules.
That's my point of view: I consider the lack of RAW about damaging objects a feature and not a bug. Damaging objects cover so many realities that a proper ruling for such a thing would take a lot of book space for something that nearly never happens. Or, you can come up with a simple rule and end up with tons of shenanigans the GM will have to deal with.
No rule to damage object doesn't mean you can't damage objects. It just means that anytime such thing has to happen, it's the GM who decides how it is handled. And using the rules for Strike is the most common way of handling it, but there are situations where other rules have to be used.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, bashing charge hints that doors and thin walls are supposed to be fair game for destruction as early as level 2.
This also suggests using force open on walls is valid so there's your action to damage walls without strike (although strike probably fits better if you have a hammer or a pick).
Sometimes an item is even less sturdy than the Hardness and Hit Points provided for a thin object; for instance, a twig doesn’t take 9 damage to break, even though it’s made of thin wood. Similarly, a particularly sturdy item or structure might have even higher Hardness and Hit Points.
The sidebar on p515 of the CRB also says
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.
Looks like there's plenty of failsafes to keep the GM is in control, the material statistics are just a good resource to save the GM some headaches, not an important balance statistic.