My understanding is that the restriction "Target 1 creature" is there to keep objects from being targeted. But Strikes can be used to target unattended objects. We know this because there are feats that allow the user's Strikes to bypass an object's hardness. So an action saying it can target "1 creature" isn't enough to suggest that it cannot target 1 unattended object instead. What would an action have to say for me to be able to target creatures but never objects?
I imagine Strike saying "1 creature" instead of "1 creature or unattended object" is an error, and that "1 creature" elsewhere means "1 creature."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The game doesn't provide much to attack objects, it's roughly up to the GM.
And creatures can have Hardness, like Animated Objects, so there's no issue with Shattering Strike.
So "1 creature" means 1 creature.
I'd guess that '1 creature' normally does exclude objects, but that Strikes are conditionally given exceptions based on 'Normally an item takes damage only when a creature is directly attacking it—commonly targeted items include doors and traps.' from AoN's current pre-remaster version. Hopefully you brought a Razing weapon to help out ...
And creatures can have Hardness, like Animated Objects, so there's no issue with Shattering Strike.
Yep, Razing covers it well: "Whenever you deal damage to an object (including shields and animated objects), structure, or vehicle". There are lots of things you can attack like hazards, traps, wagons, ect what have hardness and rules for attacking them outside the normal objects.
'Normally an item takes damage only when a creature is directly attacking it—commonly targeted items include doors and traps.'
I take this to mean spells that target items and items with rules to attack them like hazards. IMO, things that target creatures only target them unless something else allows it to extend to objects. For instance, Shatter allows you to target an object with an attack spell.
And as far as the remaster, Strike says "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)."
From an intuitive standpoint, it would be ridiculous if you couldn't smash open a door with a hammer, especially since doors often have specific AC and hit point values. I guess the problem is that there's an unstated expectation that the GM will adjudicate whether or not you can target any given object with an effect that specifically targets creatures. Though given that objects are specifically immune to certain effects, I think it's probably fine for a GM to allow most creature-targeting spells to also work on unattended objects.
Though, on the other hand, being TOO loose with object targeting might cause some unforeseen loopholes. For instance, Chain Lightning normally only targets creatures, but if a GM allows you to target objects as well, you could theoretically use the spell to damage one creature and also smash apart every single door in the room so that nobody needs to Interact to open them later on in the fight.
'Normally an item takes damage only when a creature is directly attacking it—commonly targeted items include doors and traps.'I take this to mean spells that target items and items with rules to attack them like hazards. IMO, things that target creatures only target them unless something else allows it to extend to objects. For instance, Shatter allows you to target an object with an attack spell.
And as far as the remaster, Strike says "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)."
I see where you're coming from, but this does lead to an absurd situation of being unable to attack and break down a door. In this case, what I'm thinking is 'how else do you resolve breaking it?'. Or otherwise using brute force to smash up something -- locked door, stuck box, piggy bank fifty feet away, whatever.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Usually I use Force Open to break down a door or smash things.
Not Strike.
From an intuitive standpoint, it would be ridiculous if you couldn't smash open a door with a hammer, especially since doors often have specific AC and hit point values.
I see where you're coming from, but this does lead to an absurd situation of being unable to attack and break down a door.
The game has absurd things baked into it for various reasons. For instance, your wolf animal companion can NEVER catch up or keep pace with another wolf as they can only ever spend 2 actions moving while the wild wolf has 3. Or how a halfling barbarian can carry around 3 other halflings around all day and not be hindered or slowed down in the least. Or the fact that a musket can be reloaded in 2 seconds. So being absurd and ridiculous isn't a reason to disprove a rule [though it might be a good reason to houserule one].
Usually I use Force Open to break down a door or smash things.
Not Strike.
Yes, this seems to be the go-to action for breaking into things.
FORCE OPEN "Using your body, a lever, or some other tool, you attempt to forcefully open a door, window, container or heavy gate. With a high enough result, you can even smash through walls. Without a crowbar, prying something open takes a –2 item penalty to the Athletics check to Force Open.
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 it 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.
The game doesn't provide much to attack objects, it's roughly up to the GM.
And creatures can have Hardness, like Animated Objects, so there's no issue with Shattering Strike.
So "1 creature" means 1 creature.
Actually, Shattering Strike describes your Strikes shattering objects without actually granting your Strikes the ability to target them in the first place.
The force of your considered blow shatters objects and defenses alike. Make an unarmed Strike. It bypasses the target’s resistances. If the target has Hardness, the Strike treats the Hardness as if it were half its value.
...which can only mean that Strikes are already allowed to target unattended objects, which is great. Strikes should absolutely be able to do that.
My issue is this: What else says it targets one creature but can also be used against an unattended object? Perhaps any attack (effects with the attack trait) in accordance with the Item Damage and Object Immunities rules and the Damaging a Hazard rules? I suppose that doesn't explain Hydraulic Push, an attack spell that feels the need to say you can target 1 creature or unattended object, but perhaps that's not an exception to some hidden rule.
There are also plenty of non-attack spells that specifically state that they can affect unattended objects, such as Shatter. Though the utility of these spells seems dependent on whether or not basically any attack can get the job done.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The GM Core has the following Glossary entry for Creature (p328):
creature An active participant in the story and world. This
includes monsters and nonplayer characters (played by the Game Master) and player characters (played by the other players).
creature is whatever the GM's story considers an active participant. It can be an animate or inanimate. The example definition describes a sub-set of creatures "monsters, NPC, and PC" included as creatures, but not all things. A door blocking your path forward or any other object that is actively part of the story can be a creature.
think of creatures as being the important things in the story vs the background things that PCs don't interact with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The GM Core has the following Glossary entry for Creature (p328):
creature An active participant in the story and world. This
includes monsters and nonplayer characters (played by the Game Master) and player characters (played by the other players).creature is whatever the GM's story considers an active participant. It can be an animate or inanimate. The example definition describes a sub-set of creatures "monsters, NPC, and PC" included as creatures, but not all things. A door blocking your path forward or any other object that is actively part of the story can be a creature.
think of creatures as being the important things in the story vs the background things that PCs don't interact with.
Doors are not active participants. That's the whole point of including that word, to exclude passive objects. Your sword is not a creature either, important though it is to the story.
Actually, Shattering Strike describes your Strikes shattering objects without actually granting your Strikes the ability to target them in the first place.
So? You can target a creature and hit an object [a shield]. As such, there is no super secret not written alowance for strikes targeting unattended objects. Or you attack a wall spell or hazard or trap. Again, nothing presented alters the targeting of Strike or requires such an alteration.
It means it's up to the GM.
The GMG had a section on "Saying yes, but" that included this line:
Require a directed attack against an object, then allow foes to attempt saving throws against the object’s effect at a DC you choose. Example: cast a produce flame spell at a barrel of explosives.
Well, yes the DM can houserule anything they want just like they can have stone walls catch fire from a fireball but it's not the default rules.
It means it's up to the GM.
The GMG had a section on "Saying yes, but" that included this line:
Require a directed attack against an object, then allow foes to attempt saving throws against the object’s effect at a DC you choose. Example: cast a produce flame spell at a barrel of explosives.
That's rather alarming if it always requires GM adjudication. Hazards can't be affected by things that can't affect objects, so what can or cannot get the job done is very much a matter of life or death. I feel there should at least be some default assumption to plan around, even if the GM decides to make exceptions for exceptionally appropriate spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's rather alarming if it always requires GM adjudication. Hazards can't be affected by things that can't affect objects, so what can or cannot get the job done is very much a matter of life or death. I feel there should at least be some default assumption to plan around, even if the GM decides to make exceptions for exceptionally appropriate spells.It means it's up to the GM.
The GMG had a section on "Saying yes, but" that included this line:
Require a directed attack against an object, then allow foes to attempt saving throws against the object’s effect at a DC you choose. Example: cast a produce flame spell at a barrel of explosives.
You can usually assume things with listed defenses [traps, hazards, wall spells] ae vulnerable to attack and that things without them usually aren't. For myself, I'd expect a DM if inform me if either of those assumptions are changed for a game.
There are also rules for attacking hazards, while there are not any for attacking a door.
PF2 intentionally sidelined damaging items, hence the loss of Sunder & leaving AoE effects on terrain/objects up to the GM (with the default implied to be nothing unless there's a reason). As well as possibly losing important plot items accidentally, there's how valuable items are to a PC's power level. In a looser game, like early D&D, the ebb & flow of gaining/losing items mattered less than in the tight math of PF2 where you kinda have to key items at certain levels or the next.
Which is to say, these items need to be protected for balance reasons, and the disproportionate impact they'd have on the narrative too. It's too hard for the durability of every key item to match the escalation in damage (especially when factoring in bosses), and it often led to abuse in earlier editions or a "death through poverty" if an AoE hit a PC's corpse.
Plus there's too much wonkiness of what can effect what for the guides to list every combination, like clubs vs. ropes, swords vs. walls, etc. Best let the GM control the reins to suit their playstyle.
So yeah, items meant to be broken for story purposes can be broken, and if your GM stresses how dry the tomes are in the library abstain from Fireballs even if last session a Fireball couldn't ignite a candle sitting on the evil mayor's table. And it's doubtful you can target the staff the BBEG's using in the ritual or by sheer damage numbers tunnel around every obstacle through direct destruction/Strikes (which I saw often enough in PF1).
Note that you could always say "I (try to) hit that object w/ my weapon", it's just it may or may not be a Strike w/ the most likely alternative being an Athletics check.
Usually I use Force Open to break down a door or smash things.
Not Strike.
Yes, this seems to be the go-to action for breaking into things.
FORCE OPEN "Using your body, a lever, or some other tool, you attempt to forcefully open a door, window, container or heavy gate. With a high enough result, you can even smash through walls. Without a crowbar, prying something open takes a –2 item penalty to the Athletics check to Force Open.
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 it 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.
It still seems to close off using brute force or a Razing weapon to smash down a door or wall.
I'm now remembering a scene from The Blues Brothers, near the end. The police are charging up the stairs to a barricaded door. When the leader isn't able to open the door, he's told to stand back, and the door (and barricade behind) are shot apart with rifles. That's not an Athletics check. And if I were setting this up in Pathfinder, I'd just replace the rifles with a barricade buster. Which one would assume should help in busting barricades, what with the Razing trait and all.
If nothing else, how will a barricade buster or bec de corbin damage an object that isn't a shield or animated object and apply that trait?
It still seems to close off using brute force or a Razing weapon to smash down a door or wall.
I'm now remembering a scene from The Blues Brothers, near the end. The police are charging up the stairs to a barricaded door. When the leader isn't able to open the door, he's told to stand back, and the door (and barricade behind) are shot apart with rifles. That's not an Athletics check. And if I were setting this up in Pathfinder, I'd just replace the rifles with a barricade buster. Which one would assume should help in busting barricades, what with the Razing trait and all.
If nothing else, how will a barricade buster or bec de corbin damage an object that isn't a shield or animated object and apply that trait?
It's not that it's off limits - it is that the GM has to adjudicate things like that.
Being able to attack objects allows things like smashing through walls Kool-aid Man style in order to bypass a locked/trapped door. And other such shenanigans of players trying to 'creatively' bypass the challenges that the GM put time and effort into crafting for the party to experience. If the GM wants to allow that, they can. But they don't have to.
As far as the rules go, the GM still has to adjudicate things regarding the Barricade Buster. Because in order to Strike the door, you first have to know the door's AC...
It's not really a house rule when it's in one of the rulebooks.
It's a rule that lets you know that your dm might houserule that element of the game; a ruling that is made that isn't in the game is the definition is a houserule and that's the case for striking/attacking most items [they don't even have defenses and those would be a pure houserule]. A rule that the DM can rule 0, doesn't mean doing so isn't a houserule.
It still seems to close off using brute force or a Razing weapon to smash down a door or wall.
I'm now remembering a scene from The Blues Brothers, near the end. The police are charging up the stairs to a barricaded door. When the leader isn't able to open the door, he's told to stand back, and the door (and barricade behind) are shot apart with rifles. That's not an Athletics check. And if I were setting this up in Pathfinder, I'd just replace the rifles with a barricade buster. Which one would assume should help in busting barricades, what with the Razing trait and all.
If nothing else, how will a barricade buster or bec de corbin damage an object that isn't a shield or animated object and apply that trait?
It's not that it's off limits - it is that the GM has to adjudicate things like that.
Being able to attack objects allows things like smashing through walls Kool-aid Man style in order to bypass a locked/trapped door. And other such shenanigans of players trying to 'creatively' bypass the challenges that the GM put time and effort into crafting for the party to experience. If the GM wants to allow that, they can. But they don't have to.
As far as the rules go, the GM still has to adjudicate things regarding the Barricade Buster. Because in order to Strike the door, you first have to know the door's AC...
GM judgment is fine. I just like having it as an option.
Some house ruling on what can target objects is definitely necessary because otherwise you've got guns made to destroy doors that don't work against doors.
But I wonder how much house ruling is actually needed. Will allowing Strikes to target unattended objects suffice?
a ruling that is made that isn't in the game is the definition is a houserule
Attacking objects is up to the GM and still everyone uses the same rules... So it looks like it's no houserule, it's just an unwritten one. Not all rules are written in the book, there are a lot of implications.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't get too emotionally attached to the words. 'Houserule' may or may not be seen as having a lot of negative connotation.
graystone and I use 'houserule' to mean 'A ruling that applies at a particular table (at our house, we do it <this way>.)' And this is necessary because not all of the rules are fully unambiguous or completely defined - such as attacking objects, or minions being given commands outside of combat.
Other people use 'houserule' to mean 'something that changes the rules'. And often means 'if you are using houserules, then your logic doesn't apply here on the rules forum'.
So do try to be clear on which meaning you are meaning.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Other people use 'houserule' to mean 'something that changes the rules'. And often means 'if you are using houserules, then your logic doesn't apply here on the rules forum'.
That is a big concern. The Strike action specifically lets you target one creature within reach or range but doesn't give the option to target one unattended object. There are rules saying you can attack unattended objects, but seemingly none that state that you can Strike unattended objects, and an inability to Strike unattended objects would severely limit what options there are to do so.
Stating that the Strike action does let you target one unattended object is literally a house rule that changes the rules. But we have to allow it or else a lot of other rules just break. And changing the rules tends to complicate rules discussions, as the default assumption in a rules discussion is that there are no such house rules.
Ugh, I just wish the developers would add "or unattended object" to the description of Strike. But it's been four printings and one remaster and this annoying discrepancy is still here.
Other people use 'houserule' to mean 'something that changes the rules'. And often means 'if you are using houserules, then your logic doesn't apply here on the rules forum'.That is a big concern. The Strike action specifically lets you target one creature within reach or range but doesn't give the option to target one unattended object. There are rules saying you can attack unattended objects, but seemingly none that state that you can Strike unattended objects, and an inability to Strike unattended objects would severely limit what options there are to do so.
Stating that the Strike action does let you target one unattended object is literally a house rule that changes the rules. But we have to allow it or else a lot of other rules just break. And changing the rules tends to complicate rules discussions, as the default assumption in a rules discussion is that there are no such house rules.
Ugh, I just wish the developers would add "or unattended object" to the description of Strike. But it's been four printings and one remaster and this annoying discrepancy is still here.
Solution, allow the unattended object to be an active part of the story which makes it fall within the creature definition.
Other issues:
Does the spell wall of stone create a creature? It has an AC and hit points. Is it any different than a non-magical wall of stone?
Is a chair a creature? It is if it's an animated object, even if it never moves.
Ugh, I just wish the developers would add "or unattended object" to the description of Strike. But it's been four printings and one remaster and this annoying discrepancy is still here.
That small wording change isn't all that is needed though.
I want to use a warhammer to Strike this teacup on the table. What AC do I need to make my attack roll against?
By adding the option in Strike to allow attacking unattended objects, they would have to define an AC for literally every unattended object in the game.
While that could be done in bulk, like with the item HP and hardness tables for common materials, that still requires GM adjudication.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm... this looks like a bit of internal miscommunication, honestly. Let's look at the base rules for attacking and item damage, and also anything else I can find:
- 1. The Strike action is explicitly described as "targeting one creature" and comparing the Strike's result to "the target creature's AC", with no mention of objects anywhere in its description. As written, it cannot target or successfully hit objects.
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). Roll the attack roll for the weapon or unarmed attack you are using, and compare the result to the target creature's AC to determine the effect.
--
- 2. The Item Damage rules state that an object typically "takes damage only when a creature is directly attacking it", and lists doors & traps as common examples. This could in theory refer to Force Open, which has the potential to deal damage and has the [Attack] trait, but that doesn't appear to be the intent; Force Open uses different language than the Item Damage rules (it's called out as prying the object open and takes a penalty if you don't use a crowbar, and usually skips damage & breaks objects directly)... and more importantly, as written, it cannot be used on traps, and is thus invalid for one of the two aforementioned common Item Damage examples. (There is potential for Force Open's target list being examples instead of limitations, since it mentions smashing walls with a high enough result. However, this conflicts with critical successes, the highest distinguishable result, explicitly doing no damage, so it falls squarely in the nebulous realm of "ask your GM".)
Regardless of the circumstances, the Item Damage rules' (and by extension, the game's) assumption is that attended objects will rarely if ever be attacked, unless the objects' attendants intentionally place them in harm's way (most frequently with Shield Block); even monsters being able to damage your items are the exception and not the rule. There seems to be no such assumption for unattended objects, however; typical obstable and obstacle-like objects appear to be presumed to be valid attack targets by the rules.
An item can be broken or destroyed if it takes enough damage. Every item has a Hardness value. Each time an item takes damage, reduce any damage the item takes by its Hardness. The rest of the damage reduces the item’s Hit Points. Normally an item takes damage only when a creature is directly attacking it—commonly targeted items include doors and traps. A creature that attacks you doesn’t normally damage your armor or other gear, even if it hits you. However, the Shield Block reaction can cause your shield to take damage as you use it to prevent damage to yourself, and some monsters have exceptional abilities that can damage your items.
Using your body, a lever, or some other tool, you attempt to forcefully open a door, window, container or heavy gate. With a high enough result, you can even smash through walls. Without a crowbar, prying something open takes a –2 item penalty to the Athletics check to Force Open.
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.--
- 3. The Material Statistics list provides relevant statistics for damaging and breaking all sorts of objects, and specifically calls out shields, armour, and walls as typical examples of thin, ordinary, and reinforced/durable objects respectively. This tells us that these sorts of item are intended to be breakable, but doesn't say anything about how to break them, so it's irrelevant to the discussion.
--
- 4. The Doors, Gates, and Walls sidebar provides relevant statistics for breaking through those three objects, while also distinguishing between climbing, smashing, and forcing open. Notably, it also mentions that sufficiently strong walls require downtime to break through, which implicitly confirms that walls which aren't strong enough can be broken down without downtime (and thus, by extension, can be broken down as part of a normal adventurer's day, using the rules defined in the book). Unfortunately, it doesn't specify how the game intends for you to demolish objects, which does hamper it somewhat; the only rules attached to the word "demolish" are a downtime activity from Kingmaker and a rune from Fumbus, neither of which was out when the CRB was released. (Not going to quote this in full, since the most relevant parts are the subsection names. It's mostly an addon to the Item Damage rules. I will quote the strong walls thing I mentioned, though, for quick reference.)
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.
--
- 5. The [Razing] trait is used to indicate that a weapon does extra damage when damaging objects, structures, and vehicles. This, by extension, states that rules exist (and/or are intended to exist) which allow you to deal damage to non-creature targets with these weapons. In particular, explicit inclusion of shields (which can take damage in place of the intended target, via Shield Block and similar abilities) and animated objects (objects which are mechanically creatures) implies that these aren't the only objects the trait is meant to be used against, and the mention of vehicles means that these weapons can be used to damage vehicles (with an unspecified action, that may or may not be Strike).
Razing weapons are particularly good at damaging objects, structures, and vehicles. Whenever you deal damage to an object (including shields and animated objects), structure, or vehicle with a razing weapon, the object takes an amount of additional damage equal to double the number of weapon damage dice.
--
- 6. Vehicle rules make an interesting assumption about what sorts of attack are allowed to be used against a vehicle. This would be considered a case of Specific Beats General if it was explicitly stated; however, it's taken for granted, as if the writers assume everyone knew it already. Namely, the rules for uncontrolled vehicles assume that vehicular movement can trigger an AoO, which conflicts with AoOs explicitly only being triggerable by creatures. (It's hard to say whether this is a typo, whether it implies that the vehicle should be treated as a creature, whether it means that the driver is the target creature, or whether it assumes that vehicles are valid AoO targets despite not being creatures. The context suggests that it might be treating the vehicle as an extension of the driver, though, since the AoO can paralyse or knock out the driver.)
Some situations can cause a pilot to lose control of their vehicle. Most commonly, this is due to a failed piloting check for a reckless action, but it can also occur if a round passes without a pilot using a move action to control the vehicle or Stopping the vehicle. A vehicle can also become uncontrolled if the pilot becomes unable to act during a move action to control the vehicle. For example, if a vehicle’s movement triggers an Attack of Opportunity that knocks the pilot unconscious or paralyzes them, the vehicle becomes uncontrolled.
--
- 7. We know that Hazards can be damaged, and even destroyed. The language used allows them to be attacked, with a more in-depth subsection to describe the results thereof. (And, significantly, to point out that the rules for attacking hazards also apply to "most damaging spells or other effects in addition to attacks." This is important, since it distinguishes between damage spells, damage effects, and attacks; it tells us that there is at least one way to directly attack a hazard, which deals damage but is neither a damage spell nor a damage effect. Or, more pointedly, it clarifies that skill effects which deal damage are not considered to be "attacks" for the purpose of attacking hazards, but are instead "damaging effects".
The main section here also states that damaging mechanical traps & other physical hazards "works like damaging objects"; while it means that hazards use the Item Damage system, it might also mean that the above applies to objects as well: Effects which deal damage (which would include Force Open on regular success) are considered to be "damaging effects" and not "attacks", for the purpose of attacking objects & hazards. (...Or it might not mean that. It's also possible that damaging hazards works like damaging objects, but damaging objects doesn't work like damaging hazards. There's no explicit statement that it works both ways; the rule implying the reciprocal is a natural reading, but not the only possible reading.)
Rather than trying to carefully disable a hazard, a character might just smash it. Damaging a mechanical trap or another physical hazard works like damaging objects: the hazard reduces the damage it takes by its Hardness. In most cases, hitting the hazard also triggers it, as explained in Attacking a Hazard below. If a hazard’s Hit Points are reduced to its Broken Threshold (BT) or lower, the hazard becomes broken and can’t be activated, though it can still be repaired. If it’s reduced to 0 HP, it’s destroyed and can’t be repaired. (See page 272 in Chapter 6 for more information on damaging objects.)
If someone hits a hazard—especially if it’s a mechanical trap—they usually trigger it, though you might determine otherwise in some cases. An attack that breaks the hazard might prevent it from triggering, depending on the circumstances. If the hazard has multiple parts, breaking one part might still trigger the trap. For example, if a trap has a trip wire in one location and launches an attack from another location, severing the trip wire could still trigger the attack. Destroying a trap in one blow almost never triggers it. These rules also apply to most damaging spells or other effects in addition to attacks.
--
- 8. Moving to the GMG, the section on Saying "Yes, But" lists making a directed attack against an object, and then making foes save against that object's effect, as an example. The directed attack the example uses is produce flame, which targets "1 creature" (and thus is directly comparable to a Strike); we clearly see that the GM allows it to target an object, which overrides the wording, so now we have to Jeopardy out where the "Yes, But" applies here.
There are two potential interpretations: Either the question is "Can I attack this object?", or the question is "Can I blow up this barrel of explosives?" Of the two, the latter is more likely, because it almost directly matches an example given in the first paragraph, of "a player who wants to use a fire spell to deliberately ignite a barrel of oil". If we assume that the correlation is meaningful, then we can observe that the player implicitly assumes they can use their fire spell on an object, and only needs to ask whether they can do so to deliberately ignite it specifically. The implicit automatic permission to use a "Target 1 creature" attack on an object tells us that either narrative overrides rules here (and creature-targeting attacks can also target objects if it makes sense, and/or that real-world logic trumps rules here), attacks that specify that they target a creature are meant to also be valid against objects even without GM permission, or whoever wrote this section assumed attacking objects is automatically valid. (Note that this is just one inerpretation. It's also possible that the example player is asking both for permission to ignite the barrel, and to attack an object with a creature-targeting effect. This feels like a less natural interpretation, though.)
It may also be relevant to note that this may potentially contradict the rules for attack hazards, depending on whether spells with the [Attack] trait count as "attacks" or "damaging spells" here. This sort of internal inconsistency makes it harder to answer the overarching question, sadly.
Some of the most memorable moments come from situations that inherently call for a rules interpretation, like when a player wants to do something creative using the environment. The variety of these situations is limited only by the imagination of your players. It’s usually better to say “yes” than “no,” within reason. For example, imagine a player wants to do something borderline nonsensical like grabbing a spider and squeezing it to force it to use its web attack. But what about a player who wants to use a fire spell to deliberately ignite a barrel of oil? Surely that should have some effect!
This is where you can use a variant of the well-known improv “Yes, and,” technique: you can say “Yes, but.” With “Yes, but,” you allow the player’s creative idea, but tie it into the world and the game rules via some sort of additional consequences, potentially adding the uncertainty of an additional roll.
Here are some simple ways you might implement this tool. Almost all of these require an action or are part of another action.
• Get a fleeting benefit without a roll. Example: dip a sword into a burning brazier to add 1 fire damage on the next attack against a troll.
• Require a check, then apply a circumstance bonus to the PC’s action. Example: swing from a chandelier above a foe.
• Require a check, then apply a circumstance penalty or condition to a foe. Example: throw a barrel over a monster’s head.
• Require an attack roll or skill check to deal minor damage and gain another benefit. Examples: jump from a higher elevation down onto a foe for a small amount of damage, potentially knocking the foe prone; throw sand in an opponent’s eyes.
• Require a directed attack against an object, then allow foes to attempt saving throws against the object’s effect at a DC you choose. Example: cast a produce flame spell at a barrel of explosives.--
- 9: Perhaps most relevantly, there's a significant errata that communicates part of the designer intent here, and probably explains a lot of the inconsistencies.
Pages 316-407 and 573: Damaging spells and items meant to harm PCs do way too much damage for your gear to survive if it could be targeted, so such spells almost never are supposed to be able to damage objects. A few target lines slipped by with "creatures or objects." Remove the ability to target or damage objects from acid splash, acid arrow, eclipse burst, polar ray, sunburst, fire ray, moon beam, force bolt, and the horn of blasting. Limit hydraulic push to "creatures and unattended objects."
(It also shows that acid splash is considered a "damaging spell", despite having the [Attack] trait and making a spell attack roll. Despite produce flame having the same properties and being a directed attack, and the rules for attacking hazards implicitly stating that "damaging spells" and "attacks" are not the same thing. Looks like a little bit of inconsistency, perhaps indicative of when specific rules and terms were creative.)
-----
There may be more rules that are relevant to the discussion, but if so, I'm not sure which. Even if there are, though, this feels like a reasonably thorough examination, enough to draw conclusions from. And my personal conclusion is this:
Being able to attack objects was originally part of PF2's design, when it was initially conceived. Along the way, they realised that sundering is inherently more crippling to the players than it can ever be to both enemies and NPCs, and rewrote things to write it out. The rules for item HP, Hardness, and the like are remnants of this; they're the sole remaining evidence of unfinished, dummied-out content that was mainly left in either because Shield Block already used it, or just in case they found another use for it (such as, say, Shield Block); the intended replacement is probably Force Open and similar mechanics, that use skill checks and are mainly meant to be used by the PCs specifically.
The item damage system isn't all bad, all things said, but it does have a few notable flaws. Most pointedly, barring certain exceptions (mostly vehicles & hazards), items do not have a listed AC. Depending on how we interpret this, it either means that they cannot be targeted by anything that makes an attack roll without explicit GM permission, or that they effectively have AC 5 (default 10 AC, -5 Dex adjustment for being immobile), neither of which is especially viable in-system. Adding in proper AC values would make targeting objects both workable and not a crit-fest, or even just assuming automatic hits (but no crits) outside of combat.
But as written, the item damage system is a contradictory mess, at least when used with the intent of actually attacking objects. Paizo didn't want to risk players' precious inventories being ruined, which is a valid concern with how integral items are to the game's math, so they basically hotpatched the game to turn targeting items off. "Target 1 creature" is relevant because of this, more than anything else.
...That said, does it harm anything to turn it back on? Not really, no. As long as the GM isn't intentionally trying to sunder your gear, and you aren't intentionally trying to sunder other peoples' gear, letting things like Strikes and the errata'd spells target objects is perfectly fine, and won't cause significant harm to the game; if anything, it can make it more dynamic, since now you can bust walls and have another option for unlocking doors (at the cost of letting everyone on the other side know you're there, potentially costing you an opportunity to ambush them). It does mean a bit more work for the GM, since they have to figure out how to handle the lack of AC, but apart from that it should be fine as long as everyone is respectful.
(Assuming base CRB & GMG, for ease of reference. I assumed it was miscommunication, but further examination suggests I was wrong.)
Setting the AC for every item isn't necessarily a hassle. CRB Chapter 10 has this to say about setting DCs that aren't predefined.
The produce flame cantrip actually can set its target on fire with a critical success, and would do so even to targets immune to critical hits. It's possible that the produce flame example in Saying "Yes, But" is posing possible answers to the question "Can I target this flammable barrel with my fire spell even though it only says it targets creatures?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
that still requires GM adjudication.
The errata brought up by Omega Metroid is very helpful, as it tells us that the developers went out of there way to ensure that hydraulic push could target unattended objects and that other attack spells could not. Which means that when a spell says "Targets 1 creature", it usually means it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I want to use a warhammer to Strike this teacup on the table. What AC do I need to make my attack roll against?
I most definitely would not have a player make a roll for this, unless there was some circumstance that made it possible to fail.
I want to use a warhammer to Strike this teacup on the table. What AC do I need to make my attack roll against?I most definitely would not have a player make a roll for this, unless there was some circumstance that made it possible to fail.
Neither would I.
However...
that still requires GM adjudication.
The errata brought up by Omega Metroid is very helpful, as it tells us that the developers went out of there way to ensure that hydraulic push could target unattended objects and that other attack spells could not. Which means that when a spell says "Targets 1 creature", it usually means it.
Pretty much, yeah. As far as I can tell, they're fine with being able to attack and damage objects, their biggest hangup is that they don't want easily-available options to target players' items. (Most likely on the grounds that the game's balance is noticeably dependent on your items, so sundering them can actually break certain characters until the items are replaced. Or that seems to be the underlying assumption, at least.) They errata'd most options that would work on objects, preferring instead effects that skip straight to Broken and ignore the item damage system entirely, but as others & myself have noticed, that doesn't work properly with certain feats and options that key off of attacking objects specifically. But at the same time, they didn't make it impossible to attack objects altogether, they just removed (almost) all official actions that do so.
Really, it comes across as Paizo saying that attacking objects is fine, but they aren't giving you the tools to do so. If you want to attack them, you have to put some thought & effort into it yourself, probably so you think about the gravity of the change and what it would affect.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The use of the Strike damage formula, in the hands of any Str positive PC wielding a d6 or greater Weapon means that anything that isn't at least as durable as a 5ft thick iron block is simply a 1-3 action road bump and once a PC can reliably deal 10-15 damage on a strike you need to bump your assumptions to requiring all walls, floors, ceilings, doors, and locks to be made of even stronger stuff than that, otherwise your party is adventuring in wet cardboard box land which they can carve their own hallways/doors/openings by spending 6 to 18 seconds, or if you have two such physically able PCs less than that. Sundering and destroying PC/NPC equipment isn't anywhere NEARLY as big of a problem compared to carte blanche allowing Strikes against objects because, for all intents and purposes, your environment is comprised of dozens to thousands of individual objects each which could have their own individual Hardness and HP which in the vast majority of cases is insufficient to even keep a terminally ill blind rogue with a dagger from breaking through.
Any instance where a player wants to do this they will either need to rely on the limited rules that specifically allow targeting and damage dealt to objects, use the Force Open Skill Action, or work with their GM to determine the effect and difficulty.
Seems like a slippery slope argument. Any reasonable gm would put a stop to players minecrafting their way through the campaign. Doesn't mean striking shouldn't be used for any other purpose.
I heard about some party beating Tomb of Horrors by minecrafting their way to the end over the course of years.
Everything at some point brakes from written mechanics into storytelling and vice versa. If a player wants to chain lighting the doors its breaking out of mechanics into story telling its fine to allow it and it doesn't have to be in the rules. If you feel players are doing it constantly because they think its all benefit to them throw in something negative that makes sense now that they blasted all the doors in the room. I feel getting to strict on applying the mechanics stifles players from RPing and makes them object more often when your attempting to story tell. you end up with less creative moments where players want to do something wild that you never thought of.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, Shattering Strike describes your Strikes shattering objects without actually granting your Strikes the ability to target them in the first place.The force of your considered blow shatters objects and defenses alike. Make an unarmed Strike. It bypasses the target’s resistances. If the target has Hardness, the Strike treats the Hardness as if it were half its value....which can only mean that Strikes are already allowed to target unattended objects, which is great. Strikes should absolutely be able to do that.
Yes there are many rules that suggest you can hit objects. But the action hasn't changed. Strike is target one creature. It is annoying that hitting objects is not explicit. But it is totally GM control.
If you want to Strike an object then you have to ask the GM.
They will likely say something to the effect of:
That is just not practical. Your rapier cannot harm the stone door. The blade will just break. Your character doesn't think that will work.
Or they might just say the teacup breaks.
Or resolve it as a normal Strike. Use this AC. Maybe some modifiers apply.
Agree. I guess for reasonable GMs and working collaboration among players that will yield practical results.
I'm annoyed too because I like rules clarity AND plausible, atmospheric worlds. Whereas a rule that - in other group configurations - allowed to present a weird, old-school-video-game-like world of unassailable, quasi-adamant objects is not in accordance with that preferences.
PS:
Omega Metroid, epic post, btw! Special thanks for compiling all this.