What should the expectations be for players wrecking their surroundings with this trait? It's an atypical tactic but it's a hefty enough damage bonus that it'll be on players minds with one in hand. Doors and windows are obvious choices. Maybe cover as well if it's a turned over table or some crates. I can imagine a barricade buster earning its name that way. Brings up a relevant point about a hole in the rules it seems though with targeting objects with strikes in general.
I'm assuming this is also coming out in Treasure Vault.
Once we actually get the published rules, I might have more to say about it.
aobst128 wrote: What should the expectations be for players wrecking their surroundings with this trait? Shields [#1]... Hazards. Vehicles. Everything else depends on what your DM lets you Strike.
breithauptclan wrote: I'm assuming this is also coming out in Treasure Vault.
Once we actually get the published rules, I might have more to say about it.
When you attack objects, structures and vehicles you deal extra damage [2xdice number].
graystone wrote: aobst128 wrote: What should the expectations be for players wrecking their surroundings with this trait? Shields [#1]... Hazards. Vehicles. Everything else depends on what your DM lets you Strike.
breithauptclan wrote: I'm assuming this is also coming out in Treasure Vault.
Once we actually get the published rules, I might have more to say about it.
When you attack objects, structures and vehicles you deal extra damage [2xdice number]. Structures too. Damaging structures is described in the CRB. Just doesn't specify strikes, but I don't know how else you're expected to damage them with a razing weapon.
Objects are technically different from structures but I don't think that distinction really matters with this trait in mind. Aside from that you probably couldn't sunder a structure.
aobst128 wrote: Structures too. Damaging structures is described in the CRB. Just doesn't specify strikes, but I don't know how else you're expected to damage them with a razing weapon. I covered that in "Everything else depends on what your DM lets you Strike." If they allow you to Strike structures, it applies. A DM could let you damage structures as a downtime activity, as a Force Open check, allow a Strike or just not allow you to attack them at all. There jus isn't a set rule on how it works outside a few select things.
aobst128 wrote: Objects are technically different from structures but I don't think that distinction really matters with this trait in mind. Aside from that you probably couldn't sunder a structure. Structure is a trait too so it could mean that too. That doesn't make it any easier to figure out if or how you can attack them with a weapon with the trait in question.
graystone wrote: aobst128 wrote: Structures too. Damaging structures is described in the CRB. Just doesn't specify strikes, but I don't know how else you're expected to damage them with a razing weapon. I covered that in "Everything else depends on what your DM lets you Strike." If they allow you to Strike structures, it applies. A DM could let you damage structures as a downtime activity, as a Force Open check, allow a Strike or just not allow you to attack them at all.
aobst128 wrote: Objects are technically different from structures but I don't think that distinction really matters with this trait in mind. Aside from that you probably couldn't sunder a structure. Structure is a trait too so it could mean that too. That doesn't make it any easier to figure out if or how you can attack them with a weapon with the trait in question. With the context of razing, it is reasonable to expect to be able to damage structures. There's mostly one thing that you can do with weapons and that's to do damage with them. The writing here makes that extremely straight forward. It would be ludicrous to simply ignore that and say that you cannot damage the door with the thing that's designed to do just that.
Consider the barricade buster. Blasting apart doors and cover is pretty clearly the intended fantasy. It's in the name. It's not the "Hazard breaker"
aobst128 wrote: With the context of razing, it is reasonable to expect to be able to damage structures. There's mostly one thing that you can do with weapons and that's to do damage with them. The writing here makes that extremely straight forward. It would be ludicrous to simply ignore that and say that you cannot damage the door with the thing that's designed to do just that. I don't see how you can expect a DM to allow you to attack structures JUST because the game has this trait. The game very specifically tells a Dm that damaging things like walls can be restricted to downtime and nothing about the trait makes a DM ignore that or forces them to allow striking of them. The whole section on item statistics makes it very clear it's in the DM's hands on how they deal with it.
aobst128 wrote: Consider the barricade buster. Blasting apart doors and cover is pretty clearly the intended fantasy. It's in the name. It's not the "Hazard breaker" Just because a teleportation spell exists, doesn't mean a DM is required to allow it in a game even though here is an "intended fantasy" attached: the same applies here. A weapon with the trait works JUST fine if it only ever adds damage to shields and hazards.
graystone wrote: aobst128 wrote: With the context of razing, it is reasonable to expect to be able to damage structures. There's mostly one thing that you can do with weapons and that's to do damage with them. The writing here makes that extremely straight forward. It would be ludicrous to simply ignore that and say that you cannot damage the door with the thing that's designed to do just that. I don't see how you can expect a DM to allow you to attack structures JUST because the game has this trait. The game very specifically tells a Dm that damaging things like walls can be restricted to downtime and nothing about the trait makes a DM ignore that or forces them to allow striking of them. The whole section on item statistics makes it very clear it's in the DM's hands on how they deal with it.
aobst128 wrote: Consider the barricade buster. Blasting apart doors and cover is pretty clearly the intended fantasy. It's in the name. It's not the "Hazard breaker" Just because a teleportation spell exists, doesn't mean a DM is required to allow it in a game even though here is an "intended fantasy" attached: the same applies here. A weapon with the trait works JUST fine if it only ever adds damage to shields and hazards. It really doesn't work just fine. Plus, it's not only this trait. You need to account for everything else. This is just yet another point against your position. You can go a long way with minimal amount of logic with this. No reasonable GM will say the barricade buster can't bust barricades. Or a sword can't cut a rope. We've got enough to conclude that at least. Maybe a GM is expected to figure it out but don't you think they should be reasonable about it? There's enough layed out that we should expect this to happen. If I want to break a board in half, I wouldn't expect to need downtime for it.
I think rather than strikes specifically, because without AC, you can't really do much about that, players should expect to be able to damage stuff but it's up to GMs how it's done. That's my revised position on the matter. I don't think it's a reasonable expectation with everything we have for it to simply not be possible. It would be nice if we had a couple lines about damaging things with weapons though. As far as a rulling, I'd probably do AC 10, crit immunity like wall spells and just allow strikes. Eh, what would you say graystone?
aobst128 wrote: It really doesn't work just fine. It doesn't add extra damage to shields and hazards?
aobst128 wrote: Plus, it's not only this trait. You need to account for everything else. I did though. For instance, core page #515 specifically tells DM that walls can take downtime to damage and typically structures have walls.
aobst128 wrote: This is just yet another point against your position. IMO, nothing has changed. NOTHING in the trait forces a DM to alter how they deal with attacking/damaging items.
aobst128 wrote: You can go a long way with minimal amount of logic with this. Real life logic is meaningless when some things in the game are done for things other that that: You can stuff a non-vast amount of shuriken in your belt, carry 3 others without effort and other such things that where done for playability more that strict logic. If a DM doesn't want players from just plowing through walls and such, then they can't and the game specifically tells them hat hat is an option.
aobst128 wrote: No reasonable GM will say the barricade buster can't bust barricades. HARD disagree as you are getting into structures and damage: I think a LOT of DM don' want players just blasting through walls instead of dealing with traps and locks.
aobst128 wrote: Or a sword can't cut a rope. *shrug* Most likely hey can do so, but how many are rolling strikes and then damage and then adding razing... This seems like the other extreme from needing downtime.
aobst128 wrote: Maybe a GM is expected to figure it out but don't you think they should be reasonable about it? I think it's quite reasonable to not want to return to PF1 sundering and adamantine daggers chopping through walls: once you start allowing the small stuff, the players will start to think i's ok with he bigger stuff. Just like I can see reasons a DM might no want a fireball to burn down a city block by igniting all the wooden buildings, so to I can see reasons a DM might not want to open the Pandora's box that is Striking Objects.
aobst128 wrote: There's enough layed out that we should expect this to happen. If I want to break a board in half, I wouldn't expect to need downtime for it. IMO, it's the opposite: there is enough layed out that there shouldn't be ANY doubt that it's 100%, total DM fiat on how damaging items works. There is more evidence that the game expects Force Open to be the go to way to damage/break through things like walls: for instance, Bashing Charge doesn't have you attack a barrier [door, window, fence, wall, or similar obstacle] but uses Force Open.
Razing gives a damage bonus damage if Strike against structures is allowed but doesn't enforce any one ruling on damaging structures.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
I think it is important to start any conversation about using PF2 system rules to deal with attacking general objects to admit that the system itself doesn’t try to arbitrate this and it is largely a GM decision to integrate pieces of these rules to the specific kind of encounter or situation in their game. Expecting them always to use the rules in the same way is going to result in rediculous situations that are too easily exploited.
Critical immunity is weird and not good for representing attacking objects generally. Long bows should not generally be better door ousting weapons than a battle ax. Weapons taking damage from being beaten against stone and reinforced metal is not something worked into the game at all. It is very reasonable to assume most characters would no better than to attack objects with their expensive weapons and not tools that might better be simulated by a skill check.
Situationally, it might be fine to let players attack objects with weapons, especially ones designed for it, but that doesn’t make it a good idea to try to codify a system like AC 10, crit immunity and no consequence for taking a long time to destroy your weapon…I mean a door
aobst128 wrote: I think rather than strikes specifically, because without AC, you can't really do much about that, players should expect to be able to damage stuff but it's up to GMs how it's done. I partially agree: I can totally understand the DM saying some things can't be damaged normally. For something like cutting a rope though, it seems reasonable.
aobst128 wrote: That's my revised position on the matter. I don't think it's a reasonable expectation with everything we have for it to simply not be possible. It would be nice if we had a couple lines about damaging things with weapons though. As far as a rulling, I'd probably do AC 10, crit immunity like wall spells and just allow strikes. Eh, what would you say graystone? I'm fine with whatever a DM rules as it's totally up in the air. I've seen strikes vs Ac10; strikes vs AC10 with size modifiers; only force open; only downtime; only force open or downtime; Strike vs a variable AC based on material and magic; strikes with specific types of weapons needed [like axe vs wood]; spells only; just saying NO; [I'm sure there are others I'm forgetting...]. It's a cluster-fubar. :P
Unicore wrote: I think it is important to start any conversation about using PF2 system rules to deal with attacking general objects to admit that the system itself doesn’t try to arbitrate this and it is largely a GM decision to integrate pieces of these rules to the specific kind of encounter or situation in their game. Expecting them always to use the rules in the same way is going to result in rediculous situations that are too easily exploited. *Nods* This has been my point: no particular ability necessitates that a DM rules a particular way.
Unicore wrote: Critical immunity is weird and not good for representing attacking objects generally. Long bows should not generally be better door ousting weapons than a battle ax. Weapons taking damage from being beaten against stone and reinforced metal is not something worked into the game at all. It is very reasonable to assume most characters would no better than to attack objects with their expensive weapons and not tools that might better be simulated by a skill check. *nods* I assume that's what Force open and Downtime activities are doing.
Unicore wrote: Situationally, it might be fine to let players attack objects with weapons, especially ones designed for it, but that doesn’t make it a good idea to try to codify a system like AC 10, crit immunity and no consequence for taking a long time to destroy your weapon…I mean a door Well the static AC10 seems odd to me as hitting a 10' section of wall should be easier to hit than a swinging rope or a 2" lock when you're swinging a 10' polearm. And criticals make total sense to me to as items can have weak points too. Now weapon taking damage itself when striking I'd gloss over as you're expected to beat Adamantine Golem and Fire Elementals with your steel and wood weapons so it's a bit a realism I'd ignore.
graystone wrote: aobst128 wrote: It really doesn't work just fine. It doesn't add extra damage to shields and hazards?
aobst128 wrote: Plus, it's not only this trait. You need to account for everything else. I did though. For instance, core page #515 specifically tells DM that walls can take downtime to damage and typically structures have walls.
aobst128 wrote: This is just yet another point against your position. IMO, nothing has changed. NOTHING in the trait forces a DM to alter how they deal with attacking/damaging items.
aobst128 wrote: You can go a long way with minimal amount of logic with this. Real life logic is meaningless when some things in the game are done for things other that that: You can stuff a non-vast amount of shuriken in your belt, carry 3 others without effort and other such things that where done for playability more that strict logic. If a DM doesn't want players from just plowing through walls and such, then they can't and the game specifically tells them hat hat is an option.
aobst128 wrote: No reasonable GM will say the barricade buster can't bust barricades. HARD disagree as you are getting into structures and damage: I think a LOT of DM don' want players just blasting through walls instead of dealing with traps and locks.
aobst128 wrote: Or a sword can't cut a rope. *shrug* Most likely hey can do so, but how many are rolling strikes and then damage and then adding razing... This seems like the other extreme from needing downtime.
aobst128 wrote: Maybe a GM is expected to figure it out but don't you think they should be reasonable about it? I think it's quite reasonable to not want to return to PF1 sundering and adamantine daggers chopping through walls: once you start allowing the small stuff, the players will start to think i's ok with he bigger stuff. Just like I can see reasons a DM might no want a fireball to burn down a city block by igniting all the wooden buildings, so to I can see reasons a DM might not want... I mean, when I say reasonable, having a solid stone wall in your way is probably not where you're using handheld weapons to do damage with. Structures can easily be like a simple wooden door, which is reasonable to be able to bust through with weapons. A reasonable ruling doesn't need to have a slippery slope attached to it. If I read in a weapon I pick up or an ability that has to do with object damage, I'm not going to assume it's not going to function on anything but hazards. I would expect it to work as intended even if it requires a GM to tell me how it works. The idea of it is exceedingly obvious with everything we have. When there's a thing a player may want to break like a leaky barrel or a chain holding a chandelier, it's reasonable to be able to target those. From a GM perspective, yeah, just don't let them break the walls down. Sundering is also probably not a good idea to have but, hey, you don't need it.
Eh, maybe it is best that it's on a case by case basis but surely, you agree that there aught to be some cases at least where these abilities and rules would function outside of just hazards and vehicles. That's my expectation anyways. I never played 1st edition though. Were slippery slopes a big problem?
aobst128 wrote: I mean, when I say reasonable, having a solid stone wall in your way is probably not where you're using handheld weapons to do damage with. Structures can easily be like a simple wooden door, which is reasonable to be able to bust through with weapons. Structures are building and the like: he trait gives a good set of examples. Structures, Kingmaker Adventure Path pg. 544, references structures as buildings: the Build Structure activity is used to make buildings. Collapsing Structure (Mogaru) hazard says "Mogaru brushes against a structure, severely compromising the building's stability and possibly causing it to collapse." Collapsing Structure (Ebeshra) hazard also mentions buildings. I don't see any mention of things smaller than a building being called a structure.
aobst128 wrote: A reasonable ruling doesn't need to have a slippery slope attached to it. We're talking about what a reasonable DM might do: the fact that a slippery slope COULD happen can be enough to err on the side on more conservative resolutions.
aobst128 wrote: If I read in a weapon I pick up or an ability that has to do with object damage, I'm not going to assume it's not going to function on anything but hazards. Of course not: the first thing you should think is that you'll mainly be damaging shields. If you've played the game before, especially with different DM's, it shouldn't come as a shock that attacking items/buildings is up to the DM to adjudicate.
aobst128 wrote: I would expect it to work as intended even if it requires a GM to tell me how it works. The idea of it is exceedingly obvious with everything we have. When there's a thing a player may want to break like a leaky barrel or a chain holding a chandelier, it's reasonable to be able to target those. From a GM perspective, yeah, just don't let them break the walls down. Sundering is also probably not a good idea to have but, hey, you don't need it. Sure, but he DM has several options available to him other than a strike that deals damage. He could say no, he could have you Force Open hat barrel or chandelier, he could require you to cast a spell, he could handwave it and just say it works without a roll or adding damage from the trait, ect.
graystone wrote: aobst128 wrote: I mean, when I say reasonable, having a solid stone wall in your way is probably not where you're using handheld weapons to do damage with. Structures can easily be like a simple wooden door, which is reasonable to be able to bust through with weapons. Structures are building and the like: he trait gives a good set of examples. Structures, Kingmaker Adventure Path pg. 544, references structures as buildings: the Build Structure activity is used to make buildings. Collapsing Structure (Mogaru) hazard says "Mogaru brushes against a structure, severely compromising the building's stability and possibly causing it to collapse." Collapsing Structure (Ebeshra) hazard also mentions buildings. I don't see any mention of things smaller than a building being called a structure.
aobst128 wrote: A reasonable ruling doesn't need to have a slippery slope attached to it. We're talking about what a reasonable DM might do: the fact that a slippery slope COULD happen can be enough to err on the side on more conservative resolutions.
aobst128 wrote: If I read in a weapon I pick up or an ability that has to do with object damage, I'm not going to assume it's not going to function on anything but hazards. Of course not: the first thing you should think is that you'll mainly be damaging shields. If you've played the game before, especially with different DM's, it shouldn't come as a shock that attacking items/buildings is up to the DM to adjudicate.
aobst128 wrote: I would expect it to work as intended even if it requires a GM to tell me how it works. The idea of it is exceedingly obvious with everything we have. When there's a thing a player may want to break like a leaky barrel or a chain holding a chandelier, it's reasonable to be able to target those. From a GM perspective, yeah, just don't let them break the walls down. Sundering is also probably not a good idea to have but, hey, you don't need it. Sure, but he DM has several options available to him other than a... Well, the door is attached to the building right? Heh. Going through AON, I thought the structure trait in the CRB would be a little more useful. It's mostly got to do with magic that makes structures for some reason. Anyways, from my perspective, the outlines of object damage along with relevant abilities make player agency with it a clear intent. I'm skeptical of slippery slopes in general on this. On a case by case basis, breaking objects is something GMs have enough to work with without needing to derail anything if they don't want to. Sometimes, you'd probably want to roll damage for something that might take more than one swing or shot like a tipped over table acting as cover or something.
aobst128 wrote: Eh, maybe it is best that it's on a case by case basis but surely, you agree that there aught to be some cases at least where these abilities and rules would function outside of just hazards and vehicles. That's my expectation anyways. I never played 1st edition though. Were slippery slopes a big problem? The big issue was the old adamantine weapon: It had "a natural ability to bypass hardness when sundering weapons or attacking objects, ignoring hardness less than 20." this meant that it cut through normal walls, doors, foes weapons, floors, ships, ect like a hot knife through butter. I've seen several adventures short-circuited by just cutting though walls, floors ect to get to the goal. Then sundering with one could just obliterate armor/weapons in a hi or 2 when you specialized in it.
Now, to put it in PF2, take an adamantine greataxe [1/2 hardness] and put it in the hands of a giant barbarian. A Iron plate wall is hardness 18 [9 to adamantine] and 72hp. You swing once and it's 10 from rage, 6 from specialization, 3d12 from weapon damage and maybe a 1d6 or 2 from elemental runes for 3d12+1d6+16 for @56 damage/attack, meaning something like a trivial AC10 might take 2 attacks to blow through metal walls and still having actions o move through the hole. Need to get into a castle? Stone wall have a hardness of 14 and 56hp: on a good hit, he blows through it on a single hit. Reinforced door? Hardness 10 hp40, so the average hit blows through it. Find a chest? Hardness 5 hp20 to chop the lid off. Standing on a bridge? a few attack drops an enemy [or you] as the section you're on is destroyed.
aobst128 wrote: Anyways, from my perspective, the outlines of object damage along with relevant abilities make player agency with it a clear intent. This is where I disagree with you the most: player agency doesn't come into this as everything is in the DM's hands and the abilities still have effects on hazards, shields and vehicles. There jus isn't any player agency in play here IMO.
graystone wrote: aobst128 wrote: Eh, maybe it is best that it's on a case by case basis but surely, you agree that there aught to be some cases at least where these abilities and rules would function outside of just hazards and vehicles. That's my expectation anyways. I never played 1st edition though. Were slippery slopes a big problem? The big issue was the old adamantine weapon: It had "a natural ability to bypass hardness when sundering weapons or attacking objects, ignoring hardness less than 20." this meant that it cut through normal walls, doors, foes weapons, floors, ships, ect like a hot knife through butter. I've seen several adventures short-circuited by just cutting though walls, floors ect to get to the goal. Then sundering with one could just obliterate armor/weapons in a hi or 2 when you specialized in it.
Now, to put it in PF2, take an adamantine greataxe [1/2 hardness] and put it in the hands of a giant barbarian. A Iron plate wall is hardness 18 [9 to adamantine] and 72hp. You swing once and it's 10 from rage, 6 from specialization, 3d12 from weapon damage and maybe a 1d6 or 2 from elemental runes for 3d12+1d6+16 for @56 damage/attack, meaning something like a trivial AC10 might take 2 attacks to blow through metal walls and still having actions o move through the hole. Need to get into a castle? Stone wall have a hardness of 14 and 56hp: on a good hit, he blows through it on a single hit. Reinforced door? Hardness 10 hp40, so the average hit blows through it. Find a chest? Hardness 5 hp20 to chop the lid off. Standing on a bridge? a few attack drops an enemy [or you] as the section you're on is destroyed. I might expect that tactic with the bridge or chests. Walls are the kicker. Would have to say you can't disintegrate the walls either. It is probably what I would want to do with it though. Since it is meant to delete objects of up to a 10 foot cube. I haven't done much dungeon delving with APs, but usually, I assume the walls are too thick to smash through.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Why use an axe? Fatal and deadly still give extra dice on a crit. I suppose this could make sense for a great pick, but deadly weapons? Better use my rapier, that hand axe will never cut through this wood!
As a GM I am much more likely to use force open for any check that involves forcing something open or thievery to disable a device by cutting a rope or messing with the mechanisms. Sometimes crafting or a magic recall skill if that feels more appropriate. It is a lot easier to set a meaningful and appropriate DC based on the quality level and sturdiness of the object, then give a circumstance bonus or penalty if the tool used is appropriate or not, than it does to look up materials in play, track another HP bar and have no consequence for critical failure.
graystone wrote: aobst128 wrote: Anyways, from my perspective, the outlines of object damage along with relevant abilities make player agency with it a clear intent. This is where I disagree with you the most: player agency doesn't come into this as everything is in the DM's hands and the abilities still have effects on hazards, shields and vehicles. There jus isn't any player agency in play here IMO. It's both right? Player agency is apparent with the abilities that deal with object damage and GMs have the agency to tell you how it works. I don't believe the basic intent is just hazards, shields, and vehicles even if those are the only ones with rules. It's too specific for something that appears to be very general.
Unicore wrote: Why use an axe? Fatal and deadly still give extra dice on a crit. I suppose this could make sense for a great pick, but deadly weapons? Better use my rapier, that hand axe will never cut through this wood!
As a GM I am much more likely to use force open for any check that involves forcing something open or thievery to disable a device by cutting a rope or messing with the mechanisms. Sometimes crafting or a magic recall skill if that feels more appropriate. It is a lot easier to set a meaningful and appropriate DC based on the quality level and sturdiness of the object, then give a circumstance bonus or penalty if the tool used is appropriate or not, than it does to look up materials in play, track another HP bar and have no consequence for critical failure.
These are all reasonable. A situation where there's a bookshelf wedged in a hallway and I need to get through, that dwarven flail could be just the tool and would also be reasonable I'd say to deal damage with it.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
The problem with razing as a trait for smashing objects that are going to be given a flat 10 AC and crit immunity is that Fatal weapons will always be better. Deadly hits some weird curves where it will be above and bellow razing as well, but fatal raises the damage dice and adds an extra one, so that is going to be very hard to beat. Thus razing weapons fall off quickly in the barricade busting, and really are best against objects with competitive ACs. Thus the original problem of striking static objects stays pretty much the same as it was before Razing existed, but now players will feel like they are being led by the system into expecting to be able to strike any object they want to, because their weapons can have bonuses to it. In my opinion, the razing trait is going to cause more table issues than it is going to enable player choice.
On the plus side, more visibility and collision of expectations might result in more advice being given in a future book for dealing with the awkward space attacking objects currently resides in.
Unicore wrote: The problem with razing as a trait for smashing objects that are going to be given a flat 10 AC and crit immunity is that Fatal weapons will always be better. Deadly hits some weird curves where it will be above and bellow razing as well, but fatal raises the damage dice and adds an extra one, so that is going to be very hard to beat. Thus razing weapons fall off quickly in the barricade busting, and really are best against objects with competitive ACs. Thus the original problem of striking static objects stays pretty much the same as it was before Razing existed, but now players will feel like they are being led by the system into expecting to be able to strike any object they want to, because their weapons can have bonuses to it. In my opinion, the razing trait is going to cause more table issues than it is going to enable player choice.
On the plus side, more visibility and collision of expectations might result in more advice being given in a future book for dealing with the awkward space attacking objects currently resides in.
That was just a quick guess on my part to be honest. I don't know what the best way to do it is. Yeah, hopefully there's more to come on this subject from paizo.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Unicore wrote: The problem with razing as a trait for smashing objects that are going to be given a flat 10 AC and crit immunity is that Fatal weapons will always be better. Deadly hits some weird curves where it will be above and bellow razing as well, but fatal raises the damage dice and adds an extra one, so that is going to be very hard to beat. Thus razing weapons fall off quickly in the barricade busting, and really are best against objects with competitive ACs. Thus the original problem of striking static objects stays pretty much the same as it was before Razing existed, but now players will feel like they are being led by the system into expecting to be able to strike any object they want to, because their weapons can have bonuses to it. In my opinion, the razing trait is going to cause more table issues than it is going to enable player choice.
On the plus side, more visibility and collision of expectations might result in more advice being given in a future book for dealing with the awkward space attacking objects currently resides in.
They were already led by the system to Strike objects. There's a number of feats that require it to function.
Recent threads in Rules Discussion
|
