Wrecker

[Lucerious]

The animal companion speciality Wrecker allows for the AC to ignore half an object’s hardness. Would this apply to a shield if one were being used to block an attack? Say if the AC did 21 damage and the target used Shield Block with a shield of 20 hardness, would half of that hardness be ignored allowing the AC to do 11 damage, or would it still be just 1?

[breithauptclan]

Yeah, breaking shields is probably the most common use case of that ability.

[graystone]

breithauptclan wrote:

Yeah, breaking shields is probably the most common use case of that ability.

Shields and hazards are the only things that actually have a mechanic for damaging them.

[Lucerious]

graystone wrote:

breithauptclan wrote:

Yeah, breaking shields is probably the most common use case of that ability.

Shields and hazards are the only things that actually have a mechanic for damaging them.

Constructs too. In fact, that was all I could think of at first when I was going through the abilities until the thought of shields entered my brain.

[graystone]

Lucerious wrote:

graystone wrote:

breithauptclan wrote:

Yeah, breaking shields is probably the most common use case of that ability.

Shields and hazards are the only things that actually have a mechanic for damaging them.

Constructs too. In fact, that was all I could think of at first when I was going through the abilities until the thought of shields entered my brain.

Wrecker doesn't affect constructs: "Its unarmed attacks ignore half an object's Hardness." It's worded as only affecting an objects hardness and not all hardness's.

[Ascalaphus]

Not objects in general, but it might apply to creatures (mainly animated objects) with Construct Armor. Consider the phrasing of that ability in Bestiary 3:

Animated Silverware wrote:

Construct Armor Like normal objects, an animated silverware swarm has Hardness. This

Hardness reduces any damage the swarm takes by an amount equal to the Hardness.
Once an animated silverware swarm is reduced to fewer than half its Hit Points,
or immediately upon being damaged by a critical hit, its construct armor breaks,
removing the Hardness and reducing its Armor Class to 12.

I think the idea is that animated objects are abnormal objects, but still objects, in addition to being a creature. (There is no "object" trait to check for in the system.)

An Elder Sphinx (Bestiary 3) can turn into a statue and then gains hardness. That could count as an object too.

A Tupilaq (Bestiary 3) also has Hardness, but again with construct armor: "Construct Armor Like normal objects, a tupilaq has Hardness."

Hardness is really rare among creatures. The only creature I've found with Hardness where it wasn't construct armor is the Spinning Centurion (Bestiary 2). I wonder why they didn't give it resistance to all damage instead. That might just be something that was missed in editing.

[Guntermench]

I think the idea is exactly what it says, taking out objects. Like breaking down a wall or door or something.

[breithauptclan]

Guntermench wrote:

Like breaking down a wall or door or something.

Doors are usually handled with Force Open - which doesn't do damage.

And walls are - as far as I can tell - supposed to be impervious to players trying to break through them. For plot and design reasons.

Also attended items such as weapons, armor, or magic items don't generally have the HP to handle level 14 non-Wrecker Animal Companions dealing damage to them. Wrecker would just be overkill.

[graystone]

breithauptclan wrote:

And walls are - as far as I can tell - supposed to be impervious to players trying to break through them. For plot and design reasons.

Walls are listed under Force Open too: "With a high enough result, you can even smash through walls." Since they don't define what "high enough" means, it's totally up to the DM if you could or couldn't affect a paticular wall or if you even can do so.

Ascalaphus wrote:

Not objects in general, but it might apply to creatures (mainly animated objects) with Construct Armor.

I'd count animated objects as objects over creatures as hey are more objects with effects that move them around than actual creatures that are made like the usual constructs.

[Guntermench]

Both walls and doors are listed under material statistics, so they aren't impervious to anything.

[graystone]

Guntermench wrote:

Both walls and doors are listed under material statistics, so they aren't impervious to anything.

That's kind of moot unless you have the means to attack them though: currently, there is only a handful of spells that allow you to do so. The Wrecker specialization doesn't grant an animal companion the ability to do so nor does Strike.

[Guntermench]

That argument is incredibly tiresome. The rules include multiple instances of requiring you to strike objects, and an example.of using an attack roll spell on a barrel.

With your very rigid reasoning Wall spells are immortal and shouldn't have stats, nor should they have included stats for items in the books.

[Squiggit]

Guntermench wrote:

That argument is incredibly tiresome.

It is, which would make it nice if Paizo would address it in some way.

It's easy to start to dismiss Graystone's concern as overly technical, but allowing objects to be cheaply and easily destroyed via direct HP damage by just hitting it warps other assumptions about the game and heavily degrades the value of alternative actions in a way that definitely does not feel intended either.

[aobst128]

The RAI certainly does not prevent you from striking objects. No reasonable GM would say you cannot. It's normal and expected with object statistics as well as common sense when it comes to playing with even a small degree of understanding this is a simulation with reasonable expectations of what characters can do in any given situation.

[graystone]

Guntermench wrote:

That argument is incredibly tiresome. The rules include multiple instances of requiring you to strike objects, and an example.of using an attack roll spell on a barrel.

It's NOT tiresome: it just is that way. None of those thing you say requires Striking things gives a mechanic for damaging them outside specific spells that target items.

Guntermench wrote:

With your very rigid reasoning Wall spells are immortal and shouldn't have stats, nor should they have included stats for items in the books.

Not at all: spells do what they say they do and wall spells something that normal objects do not and that's give a mechanic to attack them. For instance, giving you an AC to attack a least. There still isn't a way to strike them though. This means you need a spell to attack them OR you have to make a houserule to allow it. This means what you have o de can vary each and every table you sit down a.

[graystone]

aobst128 wrote:

It's normal and expected with object statistics as well as common sense when it comes to playing with even a small degree of understanding this is a simulation with reasonable expectations of what characters can do in any given situation.

ALL that object statistics tells us is that there should be ways to damage items and there are: spells like disintegrate or rusting touch. As such, Striking isn't requirement for those stats to have meaning.

[aobst128]

It's from an AP but barbarians annihilating swing would suggest you could target objects with strikes normally. Or maybe only with annihilating swing but it doesn't seem to make that exception. It really does seem like common sense. It's a reasonable expectation that the swordsman in your party can cut a rope. It's absurd and very likely unintended otherwise.

[Guntermench]

graystone wrote:

Guntermench wrote:

That argument is incredibly tiresome. The rules include multiple instances of requiring you to strike objects, and an example.of using an attack roll spell on a barrel.

It's NOT tiresome: it just is that way. None of those thing you say requires Striking things gives a mechanic for damaging them outside specific spells that target items.

Guntermench wrote:

With your very rigid reasoning Wall spells are immortal and shouldn't have stats, nor should they have included stats for items in the books.

Not at all: spells do what they say they do and wall spells something that normal objects do not and that's give a mechanic to attack them. For instance, giving you an AC to attack a least. There still isn't a way to strike them though. This means you need a spell to attack them OR you have to make a houserule to allow it. This means what you have o de can vary each and every table you sit down a.

Shattering Blows wrote:

Your forceful blows shatter objects with ease. While you are raging, your melee Strikes ignore 5 points of an object's Hardness. If you have the devastator class feature, you instead ignore 10 points of an object's Hardness.

Shattering Blows

Vandal wrote:

You have a knack for breaking and dismantling things. Putting them back together is the boring part, so you largely don't bother with that. You become trained in Thievery. If you would automatically become trained in Thievery (from your background or class, for example), you instead become trained in a skill of your choice. In addition, whenever you hit with a Strike against a trap or an unattended object, you ignore the first 5 points of the object's Hardness.

Vandal

Clearly the baseline assumption is that players aren't idiots and can figure out if you can swing a sword at a creature you can swing a sword at an inanimate object.

[aobst128]

Guntermench wrote:

graystone wrote:

Guntermench wrote:

That argument is incredibly tiresome. The rules include multiple instances of requiring you to strike objects, and an example.of using an attack roll spell on a barrel.

It's NOT tiresome: it just is that way. None of those thing you say requires Striking things gives a mechanic for damaging them outside specific spells that target items.

Guntermench wrote:

With your very rigid reasoning Wall spells are immortal and shouldn't have stats, nor should they have included stats for items in the books.

Not at all: spells do what they say they do and wall spells something that normal objects do not and that's give a mechanic to attack them. For instance, giving you an AC to attack a least. There still isn't a way to strike them though. This means you need a spell to attack them OR you have to make a houserule to allow it. This means what you have o de can vary each and every table you sit down a.

Shattering Blows wrote:

Your forceful blows shatter objects with ease. While you are raging, your melee Strikes ignore 5 points of an object's Hardness. If you have the devastator class feature, you instead ignore 10 points of an object's Hardness.

Vandal wrote:

You have a knack for breaking and dismantling things. Putting them back together is the boring part, so you largely don't bother with that. You become trained in Thievery. If you would automatically become trained in Thievery (from your background or class, for example), you instead become trained in a skill of your choice. In addition, whenever you hit with a Strike against a trap or an unattended object, you ignore the first 5 points of the object's Hardness.

Clearly the baseline assumption is that players aren't idiots and can figure out if you can swing a sword at a creature you can swing a sword at an inanimate object.

Good catches. Yeah, it should be straight forward with this context

[Guntermench]

aobst128 wrote:

It's from an AP but barbarians annihilating swing would suggest you could target objects with strikes normally. Or maybe only with annihilating swing but it doesn't seem to make that exception. It really does seem like common sense. It's a reasonable expectation that the swordsman in your party can cut a rope. It's absurd and very likely unintended otherwise.

Annihilating Swing wrote:

You have learned from the brute destructive power of xulgaths and their kind. You make a melee Strike that ignores any resistances the target has. If you target a solid unattended object or surface with your Strike, you might automatically destroy it without an attack roll. If you target any object or surface with Hardness 20 or less that isn't a magic item or the effect of a spell, you destroy it. If the target object or surface is a magic item or the effect of a spell, you attempt to counteract it using your attack bonus with the Strike for the counteract check. On a successful counteract check, you destroy the object or surface unless it has Hardness greater than 20, is an artifact, or is similarly difficult to destroy. You destroy up to a 5-foot cube of an object or surface larger than Medium.

Annihilating Swing

[Guntermench]

Squiggit wrote:

Guntermench wrote:

That argument is incredibly tiresome.

It is, which would make it nice if Paizo would address it in some way.

It's easy to start to dismiss Graystone's concern as overly technical, but allowing objects to be cheaply and easily destroyed via direct HP damage by just hitting it warps other assumptions about the game and heavily degrades the value of alternative actions in a way that definitely does not feel intended either.

What would it devalue and/or warp?

[The Contrarian]

aobst128 wrote:

No reasonable GM would say you cannot.

Quite presumptive you are!

[graystone]

Guntermench: sure... Now what's the AC? What action do you take to do such attacks? AGAIN, the game doesn't say you can make a Strike against an object or what the rules are if you could do so. It's PLAINLY clear that the game ignores objects and attack for the most part and goes into exactly 0% about how one would go about it.

Now to the exact abilities in question:

Annihilating Swing isn't a normal Strike: you either destroy things automatically or make counteract checks to destroy an item with a counteract check. It actually has very little to do with a normal Strike.

Shattering Blows: Works just fine against hazards, one of the few objects that has actual stats for attacks against them.

Vandal: Much like Shattering Blows, traps can be hazards. It mentions unattended object, but unlike Annihilating Swing doesn't give a way to damage them in the feat. This in the only ability to mention Striking an unattended object, that isn't it's own special action [Annihilating Swing], but again doesn't tell you how you would do it. Seems like a one off error and/or someone assuming you could Strike objects [like they use a houserule to do so for instance] because there sure isn't any actual rules for making a Strike against a non-creature except notable exception like vehicles and hazards.

[graystone]

Guntermench wrote:

What would it devalue and/or warp?

Mainly things like sunder, just plowing through the wall instead of dealing with obstacles ect. They make things like teleport uncommon for similar reasons.

The Contrarian wrote:

aobst128 wrote:

No reasonable GM would say you cannot.

Quite presumptive you are!

Yep. Some DM's remember the old sunder rules and/or people tunneling through dungeons with an adamantine pocket knife and aren't too keen to see it come back...

[Guntermench]

graystone wrote:

Guntermench: sure... Now what's the AC? What action do you take to do such attacks? AGAIN, the game doesn't say you can make a Strike against an object or what the rules are if you could do so. It's PLAINLY clear that the game ignores objects and attack for the most part and goes into exactly 0% about how one would go about it.

Now to the exact abilities in question:

Annihilating Swing isn't a normal Strike: you either destroy things automatically or make counteract checks to destroy an item with a counteract check. It actually has very little to do with a normal Strike.

Shattering Blows: Works just fine against hazards, one of the few objects that has actual stats for attacks against them.

Vandal: Much like Shattering Blows, traps can be hazards. It mentions unattended object, but unlike Annihilating Swing doesn't give a way to damage them in the feat. This in the only ability to mention Striking an unattended object, that isn't it's own special action [Annihilating Swing], but again doesn't tell you how you would do it. Seems like a one off error and/or someone assuming you could Strike objects [like they use a houserule to do so for instance] because there sure isn't any actual rules for making a Strike against a non-creature except notable exception like vehicles and hazards.

Clearly you take the strike action.

AC is irrelevant since objects have crit immunity.

[graystone]

Guntermench wrote:

Clearly you take the strike action.

AC is irrelevant since objects have crit immunity.

Object Immunities

Source Core Rulebook pg. 273
"Inanimate objects and hazards are immune to bleed, death effects, disease, healing, mental effects, necromancy, nonlethal attacks, and poison, as well as the doomed, drained, fatigued, paralyzed, sickened, and unconscious conditions. An item that has a mind is not immune to mental effects. Many objects are immune to other conditions, at the GM’s discretion. For instance, a sword has no Speed, so it can’t take a penalty to its Speed, but an effect that causes a Speed penalty might work on a moving blade trap."

Where is crit immunity? Since I don't see it, AC is REALLY, REALLY needed as you need to know if you hit or crit the object. AGAIN, we REALLY, REALLY don't have rules for Striking an object: not even a little.

[aobst128]

Given 2 good examples of clear expectations, although, I'll give it to you that they should be somewhere in the crb and not in the APG, it's fairly obvious that you should be able to target objects. Maybe paizo thought it was too obvious to include it but there's little reason to forbid it given the basic nature of the game along with these abilities in question.

[aobst128]

Not having AC for objects is a little annoying though. Has issues with disintegrate as well since you still have to hit with a spell attack for it to do anything. Could of used another row in material statistics to cover that.

[Guntermench]

I could have sworn they did. My mistake.

However, I don't think it matters. From rereading the Item Damage section on 272 and the Urban section sidebar on page 515, it looks like you just say you're attacking an object and roll damage.

And the GM can just say "No, you need to use downtime for this" if they feel the need to.

[aobst128]

Yeah, more context that would be very out of place if you aren't meant to be able to target objects.

[Captain Morgan]

Personally, I'm inclined to just treat strikes on most objects as automatic hits with no crits. IMO, most immobile hazards shouldn't have ACs either.

There's an interesting question over whether high level monks should be able to punch down buildings. The GM has the authority to rule you need special equipment to damage structures, but picks, hammers, and axes are popular weapons already.

[SuperBidi]

graystone wrote:

Where is crit immunity? Since I don't see it, AC is REALLY, REALLY needed as you need to know if you hit or crit the object. AGAIN, we REALLY, REALLY don't have rules for Striking an object: not even a little.

And I think it's done on purpose.

Objects cover so many realities that a rule would take pages for nothing. A rope is easy to cut with a sword but impossible with a maul. A door is easy to put down with a maul but not with a spear, and so on.
And Paizo said they don't want Sunder to come back as it's in general way easier to destroy a character's equipment than the character itself.

In my opinion, you block on a technicality, as if Strike had to mention objects for GMs to rule you can cut a rope. It enters basic GM adjudication, that's all.

Also, most objects can't be missed. Having to roll a check to hit a door looks ridiculous. What happened if you miss, someone opened it at the same time?

[egindar]

Same thing that happened if you missed a creature with low Dex but a high natural AC bonus in 1e, I'd imagine.

I'm with Captain Morgan regarding the actual rules issue at hand, to be clear, just quibbling over what game mechanics should translate to in the narrative. AC's already fairly broad as far as what it represents.

[Ravingdork]

I hear lots of people just use Force Open whenever something needs breaking.

[Guntermench]

For things that move/open that fits. Despite it saying you can use it on walls there's also no guidance on how that works either.

[Ravingdork]

Guntermench wrote:

For things that move/open that fits. Despite it saying you can use it on walls there's also no guidance on how that works either.

Don't walls have break DCs?

[Guntermench]

Not really? They aren't even listed in the proficiency thing at the bottom of the action.

[Ravingdork]

I'm sure I saw some example DCs somewhere.

[aobst128]

Page 515 I believe

[graystone]

aobst128 wrote:

Given 2 good examples of clear expectations

Only 1 clear expectation: Vandal. Annihilating Swing is really it's own action as you skip damage to either auto-destroy or counteract [it's really just shorthand for using your weapon/proficiency bonuses for counteract than an actual strike].

aobst128 wrote:

Maybe paizo thought it was too obvious to include it but there's little reason to forbid it given the basic nature of the game along with these abilities in question.

For me, it's the fact that it's completely missing from the rules: I've seen a dozen different answers to 'can I attack that object' and that's a huge pain in the butt: It's pure DM fiat if and how you do it, making it a houserule instead of anything you could have a common understanding of when you sit down at a new table.

Guntermench wrote:

However, I don't think it matters. From rereading the Item Damage section on 272 and the Urban section sidebar on page 515, it looks like you just say you're attacking an object and roll damage.

And the GM can just say "No, you need to use downtime for this" if they feel the need to.

It matter a lot: page 272 and 515 in no way imply how you attack objects. 272 makes NO reference to how you attack and 515 only mentions Force Open. In fact, the only other way mentioned is "requires downtime", which is the opposite to a single action Strike.

[Guntermench]

Quote:

Rules for climbing and breaking walls are in the sidebar on page 515.

The Walls entry just points you at a table with Hardness, HP and Broken Threshold.

Quote:

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.

This is why I don't think there's a check, it just happens. What the object going to do? Move out of the way? Just roll damage, compare to chart.

[graystone]

SuperBidi wrote:

It enters basic GM adjudication, that's all.

That's my basic issue with it. They could at least give some optional rule and/or basic guidelines so I could ask 'do you follow the attacking items optional rule?' if I have an idea for a character that is likely to want to attack objects.

SuperBidi wrote:

Also, most objects can't be missed. Having to roll a check to hit a door looks ridiculous. What happened if you miss, someone opened it at the same time?

I beg to differ: ever see someone hit their thumb hammering a nail in... Or see someone chopping wood and only giving it a glancing hit? That and crits also make sense as you can hit it in a weak structural point like a weak hinge, water/insect damaged wood, rusted connection, ect.

As to why missing matters, it's be the same question on why Quick Unlock matters: if you need to get through that portcullis before water fills the room how quickly you pick the lock or pry off enough bars to squeeze through can matter: if it's not a matter of time, Force Open or 'requires an exploration/downtime activity' can fit the bill as well if not better.

[aobst128]

graystone wrote:

aobst128 wrote:

Given 2 good examples of clear expectations

Only 1 clear expectation: Vandal. Annihilating Swing is really it's own action as you skip damage to either auto-destroy or counteract [it's really just shorthand for using your weapon/proficiency bonuses for counteract than an actual strike].

aobst128 wrote:

Maybe paizo thought it was too obvious to include it but there's little reason to forbid it given the basic nature of the game along with these abilities in question.

For me, it's the fact that it's completely missing from the rules: I've seen a dozen different answers to 'can I attack that object' and that's a huge pain in the butt: It's pure DM fiat if and how you do it, making it a houserule instead of anything you could have a common understanding of when you sit down at a new table.

Guntermench wrote:

However, I don't think it matters. From rereading the Item Damage section on 272 and the Urban section sidebar on page 515, it looks like you just say you're attacking an object and roll damage.

And the GM can just say "No, you need to use downtime for this" if they feel the need to.

It matter a lot: page 272 and 515 in no way imply how you attack objects. 272 makes NO reference to how you attack and 515 only mentions Force Open. In fact, the only other way mentioned is "requires downtime", which is the opposite to a single action Strike.

The 2 I was referring to were shattering blows and vandal. The downtime stipulation is to prevent players from just tunneling through walls like you were talking about earlier.

Edit: well, technically, it explicitly allows players to tunnel through walls just with the expectation that it will take a while. Cutting through a rope though? C'mon. That's an action.

[graystone]

aobst128 wrote:

The 2 I was referring to were shattering blows and vandal.

Shattering blows in no way mentions Strike and we know that there ARE objects, like hazards and vehicles, that can be attacked with Strike, so it's not any real evidence for Striking 'normal' objects. Compare that to Vandal, where unattended objects are specifically called out.

aobst128 wrote:

The downtime stipulation is to prevent players from just tunneling through walls like you were talking about earlier.

Edit: well, technically, it explicitly allows players to tunnel through walls just with the expectation that it will take a while. Cutting through a rope though? C'mon. That's an action.

*shrug* It's total DM fiat, just like a fireball doesn't automatically set fire it paper and other flammable items in the area: It doesn't have to make logical sense for it to be within expectations for the game. For instance, it seems silly to me that a halfling can carry 3 other halflings on an 8 hr march and not get exhausted but it's within the expectation in the game.

[aobst128]

Halflings. Strong. Together.

[graystone]

aobst128 wrote:

Halflings. Strong. Together.

3 times your weight as dead weight... 8 hrs... outpacing a naked dwarf... Maybe if you filled them with helium first. :P

[Ascalaphus]

So about this crit immunity. Both wall of force and wall of stone have AC 10, significant hardness, crit immunity, and immunity to precision damage.

As a GM I think that's enough to extrapolate from if someone attacks a regular wall.

[aobst128]

Shattering blows does mention strikes. The difference is "objects" vs "unattended objects". Otherwise, they're pretty much identical except one's probably a waste of a level 16 ability. Why is thing so high level? As far as I'm concerned though, an object is an object. If the intent was these only work on a small subset of objects, it should say so. The surrounding mechanics are too intricate for just hazards and vehicles which came much later than the CRB. Or animated objects I guess.

[graystone]

aobst128 wrote:

Shattering blows does mention strikes.

Sorry, I remembered that wrong, but the main point is correct: there ARE objects, hazards and vehicles, that it works with, hence it in no way requires strikes be possible against 'normal' objects.

aobst128 wrote:

As far as I'm concerned though, an object is an object.

The difference is that some objects have stats, hazards and vehicles, while others do not: the addition of unattended means it can't be hazards and vehicles unlike a generic object. that's the difference.

aobst128 wrote:

If the intent was these only work on a small subset of objects, it should say so.

If it's intended to work on all objects, they should have actual rules for doing so... My point is that only 1 ability actually would require it to work on all objects: the other abilities can work without that.

aobst128 wrote:

The surrounding mechanics are too intricate for just hazards and vehicles which came much later than the CRB.

You forget that there where a bunch of spells that could target objects in the first printing of core, including cantrips. So the core mechanics 100% fit with that. As to these particular abilities... Yeah, they aren't great no matter how you look at it: you have GM fiat for stats, DM fiat for how to attack them, Dm fiat if you can do it at al and/or a very limited/niche number of things you can affect.

[Guntermench]

All objects have stats.