Can I attempt to use a spell which had the target being 1 target you can see be an object? I believe there is a single adventure path which says an object can be the target of a spell effect but I am not sure if this is accurate. Example, can I use Ignition to break a prison lock and escape the prison?
Classic PF2 question: Can I Fireball a chair?
Ultimately, I think it is up to GM discretion. There are some spells (such as Shatter) that specifically list unattended objects as valid targets.
I'm not aware of a spell that lists its target as vaguely as 'one target you can see'. Usually they specify what category of target that it is.
Unless the spell states specifically that targets needs to be creatures you can use it vs objects. Also many AoE spell also damage objects. They usually are just ignored by must GM because most GMs don't want to do damage everything in a range of a fireball every time that a caster casts it.
Also who in practice defines what's targetable or not as objecto or creature is the GM. Just talk with your GM if you can cast a creature focused spell in an object.
I'm already made some some of my players destroing itens due some not well planned fireballs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An effect that says it can target objects would work. You can only target an attended object if an effect says so, like Grease. And if an area effect only describes its effect on creatures, the GM decides what happens to unattended objects in the area.
Complicating things is that the Item Damage rules say you can attack objects, but most attacks can only target creatures by RAW. This is all well and good because a player character's power depends heavily on their items. But it veers into stupid territory when you realize that even the Strike action doesn't let you attack an unattended object.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's also a section in GM Core called Saying "Yes, But..." The advice there describes how to handle things outside the rules that should logically work. The example provided is casting ignition on an oil barrel.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In short, you can target objects with Strikes, spells, and effects, but it is entirely up to the GM how to adjudicate it. And that's what the developers intended.
There are just too many abilities in the game that rely on the assumption that you can target objects for anyone to say "no you can't" without being disingenuous.
That being said, the exact effects of doing so is a deliberately-by-design gray area of the rules.
This way, if a GM wants to create an encounter that takes place in a library in which players risk setting fire to to the literature if they decide to use fire effects during the battle*, they can. It also means a player can fireball a chair to ash or force barrage it to splinters once they get tgeir GM's blessing. It also means other players don't have to worry about the plot-critical macguffin the dying enemy dropped earlier in the encounter accidentally getting turned into slag.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A nuance: the Strike rules describe using it on creatures.
They don't say you can't Strike objects, they just don't mention it. Not mentioning how to do it shouldn't be stretched into "the rules forbid it". Especially since there are quite a few abilities that actually relate to Striking objects, such as the Razing weapon trait, wall spells with AC and HP, and traps often having an AC.
Lacking a central and formal description of how attacking objects works, the best general rule I can boil down from all the individual cases would be this:
- If you want to Strike something with an AC, you can just use the same procedure as when striking a creature with AC.
- Many objects are easy to hit (like a whole wall). These have AC 10, often some hardness, have a HP total. They're immune to critical hits and precision damage. Of course since they have low AC you'll crit them often. And because of how critical hit immunity works, fatal still gives you a bigger damage die, just not doubling the damage. Which means that picks are pretty good against walls. That seems like it's working as intended.
- Some objects are hard to hit, such as hazards with high AC. I would not afford these critical hit immunity. If the statblock doesn't list immunity to precision damage then they're not immune, however...
- Objects don't use creature conditions, such as off-guard/flat-footed. So you're not often going to be able to deal precision damage to them.
- Check the object's description (or for the category of object, such as structures/hazards/traps) to see if you need to deal enough damage to destroy it, or if just enough damage to make it Broken is already enough to achieve what you want.
- Not all objects have saving throws listed. Attended objects use the attender's saving throw, if they can even be targeted. Unattended objects with their own saving throw bonus listed would use those.
- For objects without saving throws listed, consider that most Will and Fortitude based effects don't apply to them anyway (charm, disease), or specify what would happen (disintegrate). The object can't move out of the way, but also can't stumble extra into the way. So for reflex saves, if the object has no stats for it, I'd rule it always has a normal failure, but not a critical failure. That seems most in line with how walls tend to have low AC but immunity to critical hits.
They don't say you can't Strike objects, they just don't mention it.
Sorry that just seems false to me. Strike says it targets creatues. So it is up to the GM to be reasonable about it.
|
|
They don't say you can't Strike objects, they just don't mention it.Sorry that just seems false to me. Strike says it targets creatues. So it is up to the GM to be reasonable about it.
What I'm getting at is that people have read the Strike rules in two ways:
1) They only mention striking creatures, so you're forbidden from striking anything else.
2) They only mention striking creatures because that's the 99% most common thing to happen in the game. If you want to strike something else, the GM should figure out a reasonable way to handle that.
Obviously I think 2 is a better way to read it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They don't say you can't Strike objects, they just don't mention it.
By that logic, you can say 'they don't say you can't Strike 3 creatures with a single strike, they just don't mention it' or 'they don't say you can't Strike creatures outside your reach or range, they just don't mention it.' As such, #2 clearly runs into issues with its logic and isn't a viable read IMO.
Especially since there are quite a few abilities that actually relate to Striking objects, such as the Razing weapon trait, wall spells with AC and HP, and traps often having an AC.
But most of those do NOT require a strike on normal objects: there are spell attack spells that target an items AC and spells that deal damage to items. There are actually only 2 or 3 things that actually rely on a Strike and even those do not require a Strike on a normal item: for instance, Razing works on shields, animated objects, structures and vehicles and there are rules for attacks/damage on those. Or a goblins Vandal that works against traps and unattended objects [like hazards and vehicles]: it works without the ability to target any normal object with a Strike.
You are overthinking about this.
I agree that Strike says specifically about creature but there are many objectes that has HP that game allows to Strike.
So in general I agree with Ascalaphus you can Strike or attack in any other way almost any unattended object with almost any effect that aren't listed in object immunities and it's up to GM to give a stats to this object (usually using Material Statistics) if it doesn't have one or even decide that you are or not able to damage it for many different reasons or if this object has any additional characteristics like for example giving a stone wall a pretty high fire resistance.
In general the CRB doesn't enter too much in this because it's more a GM side decision. An GM may not want that a barbarian is able to smash the walls of a maze trying to ignore the puzzle instead of solve it reinforcing its stats or just saying that you are unable to damage it at same time that it's pretty reasonable that this barbarian could break a wall inside a residence on fire and the GM allows to damage it more easilly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They don't say you can't Strike objects, they just don't mention it.Sorry that just seems false to me. Strike says it targets creatues. So it is up to the GM to be reasonable about it.What I'm getting at is that people have read the Strike rules in two ways:
1) They only mention striking creatures, so you're forbidden from striking anything else.
2) They only mention striking creatures because that's the 99% most common thing to happen in the game. If you want to strike something else, the GM should figure out a reasonable way to handle that.
Obviously I think 2 is a better way to read it.
I've seen loads of GMs go for option 3.
3) Use Force Open any time someone wants to physically break or damage an object since it has more on-point rules than Strike does (and even allows for the breaking down of walls).
A GM may not want a barbarian that is able to smash the walls of a maze trying to ignore the puzzle instead of solving it...
My dream of using my barbarian's Bashing Charge feat in the best possible scenario is ruined! RUINED I say!!!
;)
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."
Many effects had the words "or object" or "or unattended object" removed in an errata, with the developers explicitly saying it was to limit the number of ways that creatures can damage objects. I'm fairly certain Strike is intended to be able to target unattended objects, but I'm not interpreting that from the fact that it doesn't explicitly forbid it. It's more that an inability to swing an axe at a door is just too stupid to be true.
The developers should amend the Strike description with "or unattended object" or perhaps "The GM may allow you to Strike an unattended object if your weapon or unarmed attack is appropriate for the task."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM, I almost never allow strikes against unattended objects, and instead use force open against a DC that is appropriate for the object or for the level of difficulty for the situation. There is no dramatic tension at all to having PCs essentially just rolling damage over and over again until an object is destroyed. If a thing is automatic, I will just say it happens. If there is the real possibility of consequence for failure, then a mechanic like force open is much better for representing that tension.
The idea that adventurers are attacking doors with really expensive weapons finely crafted for war is far more ridiculous to me than the idea that you are generally more effective using tools to break objects and not engaging in the same activity as attacking an enemy. Like stabbing doors with spears and swords really makes no sense at all. Even pounding on a door with a war hammer instead of knocking off the hinges or trying to break the lock seems silly and likely to take a long time and result in hurting yourself before doing anything useful. Force open makes way more sense than an attack roll.
I do think that there is inconsistency in house for how these situations should be handled, and different adventures will have different rules for different kinds of encounters, which can easily over complicate running these scenarios for GMs.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no dramatic tension at all to having PCs essentially just rolling damage over and over again until an object is destroyed. If a thing is automatic, I will just say it happens. If there is the real possibility of consequence for failure, then a mechanic like force open is much better for representing that tension.
The only consequence for failing to Force Open is that you have to try again, maybe with a -2 circumstance penalty. If time isn't an issue, and unless that penalty suddenly renders the door invincible, then Force Open can be spammed just as easily as Strike.
And why is it weird to use weapons in this way? Stabbing a door, sure, but have you never heard of The Shining?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The barbarian feat Shattering Blows, which allows your melee Strikes to ignore part of an object's hardness also seems like a pretty clear case of the system assuming it is possible to Strike objects.
There is no dramatic tension at all to having PCs essentially just rolling damage over and over again until an object is destroyed. If a thing is automatic, I will just say it happens. If there is the real possibility of consequence for failure, then a mechanic like force open is much better for representing that tension.The only consequence for failing to Force Open is that you have to try again, maybe with a -2 circumstance penalty. If time isn't an issue, and unless that penalty suddenly renders the door invincible, then Force Open can be spammed just as easily as Strike.
And why is it weird to use weapons in this way? Stabbing a door, sure, but have you never heard of The Shining?
I said in my previous post that if there is not supposed to be a consequence for failure, than the GM should just make success automatic. And I agree that there is not enough consistency in the rules or adventures about arbitrating these situations to make it an “everyone should always do it the exact same way” ruling. But a difficult DC with a potentially -2 circumstance penalty can make for a much more effective “don’t try this unless you can commit to it” situation than attack rolls against an AC 10. I don’t think having a d12 weapon and a striking runes should mean “all locks are optional.” Building to be good at athletics, and possibly carrying a crow bar or otherwise specializing in breaking objects should be worth while.
I also agree that some feats and weapon abilities complicate and confuse how to handle these situations, but intrinsically, it is better for the game to rest the success or failure of consequential actions on a D20 roll as much as possible.
The barbarian feat Shattering Blows, which allows your melee Strikes to ignore part of an object's hardness also seems like a pretty clear case of the system assuming it is possible to Strike objects.
Yeah, that's pretty unambiguous. And if a damage type makes no sense against a given object, just give it resistance or immunity to that damage.
Force Open is a good way to open doors that have high Hardness, though, and a crit success let's you avoid damaging the door. And Strike would be a good way to break doors that are difficult to Force Open.
Per the Say Yes, But section of Adjudicating the Rules, yes. You can target an object with a spell that specifies a creature if your GM allows it.
Yes that is clearly the intent. Excepting the specific abilities you mention, there is no right to strike objects. It is specifically a GM call. Paizo have clearly made an effort to keep that as an active GM call.
Which is fair.Typically when I GM the relatively light stuff can be damaged by almost all weapons. Medium objects I allow to be damaged by weapons like axes, hammers, picks etc. The heavier objects I say sorry you just can't do enough damage in a few actions - this is going to take minutes or hours if it is even possible. What is in which category is a bit blurry and it is under the control of the GM.
Paizo have clearly made an effort to keep that as an active GM call.
I'd think that making every effort to keep Striking objects a GM call would include some text in the Strike action stating that Striking objects is a GM call. Just like every other rule that entails a GM call.
Paizo have clearly made an effort to keep that as an active GM call.I'd think that making every effort to keep Striking objects a GM call would include some text in the Strike action stating that Striking objects is a GM call. Just like every other rule that entails a GM call.
Or, even better - put the rule in the General Rules about gamemastering so that the rule applies to more than just Strike actions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Excepting the specific abilities you mention, there is no right to strike objects. It is specifically a GM call. Paizo have clearly made an effort to keep that as an active GM call.I disagree. There's always the right to Strike objects, at least unattended ones, most of those make the assumption of that. There's no right that it's going to do damage though, generally only not happening if it's an artifact or particularly sturdy structure.
Basically all of what I linked is worded in a "this is a thing you can generally do, unless you're breaking into a castle with a dagger, now you can do it better" way, not a "now you can aim an axe at a table, congratulations" way.
Not true. It is a specific rule. Strike only allows you to only target creatures. You have to ask to Strike objects. Not just ask to do damage.
Or, even better - put the rule in the General Rules about gamemastering so that the rule applies to more than just Strike actions.Paizo have clearly made an effort to keep that as an active GM call.I'd think that making every effort to keep Striking objects a GM call would include some text in the Strike action stating that Striking objects is a GM call. Just like every other rule that entails a GM call.
We're not talking about a player's creative idea beyond what the rules provide. We're talking about swinging an axe at a door. The need to Strike an unattended object comes up so frequently that it should be mentioned in the actual Strike description.
Imagine if by RAW, only player characters had their Hit Points lowered when they took damage. The GM could fix that with "Yes, But" by saying, "Swinging a greatsword at a kobold warrior? Surely that should have some effect!" But this is really something the rules should already cover.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really worry about Strike so much. I think most people can agree during actual play when it's reasonable to Strike objects (effectively) and when not. Try to take down a castle with a dagger? No. Hack your way through a door with an axe? Sure.
Spells are a bit different. For some spells it clearly makes no sense to target objects (Daze) but for others it could make a lot of sense (Ignition, set something on fire). And for some it makes sense that they would affect objects, but actually tracking it for all the objects in the room would be tedious (Fireball) so we don't always do it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's not confuse Strike with strike.
Even if you can't Strike an object (w/o some of the special abilities others listed above), you can still attack that object w/ a weapon with the intent to do damage. Nobody is saying you can't do that kind of strike, but it might be resolved via an Athletics check or w/ narrative re: how much time & weapon repair might be necessary to complete the task (if it's even reasonable). Or the GM might use actual Strike damage if they adjudicate that's the best method for resolving the action because the weapon fits the use.
Given the amount of abuse to settings and obstacles I've seen in 3.X/PF1, this is kinda necessary. And I say this as a fellow who often chose adamantine hammers/work tools for his martials because they simply were (too) effective at bypassing obstacles.
As for spells, there's a similar problem that the damage scales so much faster than the durability of the sets & set dressing (much less the props, macguffins, & other items which drive the narrative). Rather than limit one's adventuring environs, etc., Paizo (seems to) think it best to relegate that to a GM's call. Given that either direction stretches verisimilitude, I agree with this decision if only that trying to generate and enumerate materials for all levels would be a headache even while leaving so much uncovered.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even if you can't Strike an object (w/o some of the special abilities others listed above)...
What special abilities? The feats mentioned earlier don't grant you the ability to Strike unattended objects. They enhance your Strikes against unattended objects, which can only mean that Striking an unattended object is already supposed to be a base rule.
Rather than limit one's adventuring environs, etc., Paizo (seems to) think it best to relegate that to a GM's call.
And if they just said that (just like with every other thing left to GM discretion), it would be fine. Instead, we've had to look at Player Core, GM Core, the Advanced Player's Guide, and other books to try and reverse engineer what the intended mechanics are for swinging an axe at a door.
I'm glad there are so few blind spots in the rules compared to 5e, but... Is mentioning something about unattended objects in the Strike description asking too much?
How many enemies have shields at level 16+?That depends entirely on the campain i would say.
If you only fight animals and aberrations then it wont see mutch use.
Only if it's not possible to Strike unattended objects. And it's clear from the aforementioned feats that it's supposed to be possible.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think this conversation has confused itself.
If you are a player in a game, it is not a good idea to assume that the GM is always just going to let you just make a Strike against any object in the game at any time. The rules do not entitle you to making that assumption and there may be many different ways the GM may arbitrate a situation like trying to chop through a door. Nothing about trying to break a door down with an ax is the same as trying to swing your ax at a target that is moving around and fighting back, and it is entirely supported by the rules for a GM to decide such an action is really a force open check and to arbitrate the action that way (at higher levels, this will probably be the fastest way to get through a door anyway, as even bending iron bars is only a DC 30).
Sometimes they might, but there is going to be a lot of guess work and GM call involved. Can I shoot a rope holding up a chandelier? What is the AC? Do I need to be using a ranged slashing weapon to do so? With the AC alone, some GMs might say it is 10, because that is a generic number for objects, but many are going to say shooting a rope is going to be a lot harder than that, and maybe choose a level appropriate DC for the amount of damage the falling chandelier could cause. If you are choosing feats related to ignoring the hardness of objects, please, talk to your GM about how you imagine using those feats and how they might let you use them. If you just pick them and then tell your GM you have free reign to attack objects, you are being a bully at the table. The rules do not clearly defend that position and this is a very easy way for a game to devolve into hurt feelings.
If you are a GM, think about how you want to handle this. The rules are flexible here for your benefit. The rules want your game to run smoothly and in a narrative space that is fun for your table. A player trying to break the pillar holding up the ceiling over the room could be a fun "outside the box" idea for an action, or it could be one player repeatedly trying to invalidate encounters you have designed to be balanced and fun for the party. The rules for hardness and HP of objects do not line up as nicely with the game math as level-based and general difficulty DCs, because the game math is designed around rolling D20s for significant events, not damage dice against static objects. If something is going to slow down your game, and give you a head ache, don't feel like you have to allow it just because a player comes to your table with a feat that they didn't talk to you about ahead of time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even if you can't Strike an object (w/o some of the special abilities others listed above)...What special abilities? The feats mentioned earlier don't grant you the ability to Strike unattended objects. They enhance your Strikes against unattended objects, which can only mean that Striking an unattended object is already supposed to be a base rule.
The logic doesn't follow.
The feats that enhance ability to damage objects don't grant the ability to Strike an unattended object, true.
That does not mean that Striking an object is a base rule or that it will be allowed in all or any cases.
It means that if Striking an object is allowed, then the feat is properly defined for that scenario and works as described.
Running that backwards and saying since the feat defines that damaging an object works as described, then Striking an object must be allowed - is an example of Affirming the Consequent.
As a GM, I almost never allow strikes against unattended objects, and instead use force open against a DC that is appropriate for the object or for the level of difficulty for the situation. There is no dramatic tension at all to having PCs essentially just rolling damage over and over again until an object is destroyed. If a thing is automatic, I will just say it happens. If there is the real possibility of consequence for failure, then a mechanic like force open is much better for representing that tension.
The idea that adventurers are attacking doors with really expensive weapons finely crafted for war is far more ridiculous to me than the idea that you are generally more effective using tools to break objects and not engaging in the same activity as attacking an enemy. Like stabbing doors with spears and swords really makes no sense at all. Even pounding on a door with a war hammer instead of knocking off the hinges or trying to break the lock seems silly and likely to take a long time and result in hurting yourself before doing anything useful. Force open makes way more sense than an attack roll.
I do think that there is inconsistency in house for how these situations should be handled, and different adventures will have different rules for different kinds of encounters, which can easily over complicate running these scenarios for GMs.
What about a maul or an earthbreaker built for smashing things?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even if you can't Strike an object (w/o some of the special abilities others listed above)...What special abilities? The feats mentioned earlier don't grant you the ability to Strike unattended objects. They enhance your Strikes against unattended objects, which can only mean that Striking an unattended object is already supposed to be a base rule.The logic doesn't follow.
The feats that enhance ability to damage objects don't grant the ability to Strike an unattended object, true.
That does not mean that Striking an object is a base rule or that it will be allowed in all or any cases.
It means that if Striking an object is allowed, then the feat is properly defined for that scenario and works as described.
Running that backwards and saying since the feat defines that damaging an object works as described, then Striking an object must be allowed - is an example of Affirming the Consequent.
I'm not arguing that Strike can target unattended objects RAW. I'm saying the developers wouldn't write the feats around the assumption that Strike can target unattended objects if Strike wasn't supposed to be able to target unattended objects. Because the developers would not deliberately write an effect that never works. The feats make the intent quite obvious.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It has been mentioned before, though perhaps not in this thread, that traps are objects and are able to be attacked. They have AC and HP and everything.
So even if a GM rules that you can't smash a teacup with a warhammer, the feats and weapons that increase damage to items do still have effect.
And the game rule writers would be writing those feats and equipment with the assumption that some scenarios warrant allowing their use against items. But that doesn't mean that it is universally going to be allowed in every scenario that you personally feel that it should be. You might have to do some negotiating with your GM about it first.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
traps are objects and are able to be attacked. They have AC and HP and everything.
.
True but a Strike is not required. You have to use one of the legal pre allowed ways of making such attacks eg the Shatter spell.
Or you have to ask your GM saying you want to smack it with your weapon, and they can reply whether you can use a modified Strike action - or not.
It is frustrating as it is an obvious action , and goes against the design of PF2 which is explicit in nature and tells you the player and GM what you can do. The designers are not always perfectly in alignment.
What about a maul or an earthbreaker built for smashing things?
I am not sure what it means for a character to have a maul built for smashing things, as opposed to just a maul, but usually, as a GM, I might say a maul is suitable as a tool for forcing open a door and not give the character a penalty, nor require them to free up a hand.
Yes Finoan, hazards can be attacked, but those rules also mention that "Hazards are immune to anything an object is immune to unless specifically noted otherwise, and they can’t be targeted by anything that can’t target objects."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What about a maul or an earthbreaker built for smashing things?
I am not sure what it means for a character to have a maul built for smashing things, as opposed to just a maul, but usually, as a GM, I might say a maul is suitable as a tool for forcing open a door and not give the character a penalty, nor require them to free up a hand.
Earthbreaker is a razing weapon. It gives a pretty big bonus for striking objects, structures, and the like. I hope a razing weapon would work for striking objects.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm quite disappointed that AM DOGGO got put down as the analogy is a perfect one.
Game rules are and must always be prescriptive, in other words, they tell you what you can do and the Strike Action tells you what it can do which is target Creatures.
You can and SHOULD work with your GM on a case-by-case basis to handle attacking Objects that aren't Creatures or have their own special rules + AC but the rules do not allow this to function using the general Strike Action, instead, there is already one existing Skill Action, Break Through, that handles this. All other cases where you want to do this should be allowed but it ABSOLUTELY shouldn't use the normal Strike rules because doing so, even without special properties like Razing, would turn 99% of walls, doors, locks, floors, ceilings, and all manner of other unattended objects into trivially overcome obstacles, especially outside of combat. Any 1st-level PC who is holding a d6 Weapon (or even d4 if they have a +2 or greater Str Mod), if empowered to use Strike in this way could trivially tunnel through any (non-hardened steel/special extra hard material or magically reinforced) wall, floor, door, lock, or other structure in less than two minutes by simply attacking repeatedly and that's on the lowest end of what is possible right at character creation. Allowing carte blanche use of the Strike and the related Damage rules in such situations turns the whole world into a wet cardboard box.
The various options that provide bonuses to attacking objects exist for the things that have been mentioned before, Hazards, Traps, Animated Objects, Vehicles, and so on. Beyond that, there are a number of other options too such as abilities, attacks, effects, and spells that all specifically allow damaging Objects, the mere existence of these ALONE points to the fact that they are one of the prescribed options Paizo created to enable that sort of activity and tells us, by way of making the "Target Object" functionality is different from other options such as the Strike Action which specifies Creature.
Long story short, no interpretation of the rules that asserts that "The rules don't explicitly disallow X so it is allowed" is valid, the existence of any set of game rules almost always has to follow the "You can do X" principle because of just how astronomically large and unreadable the volume of rules would have to be to cover all intended cases to prohibit things that are not intended. You must always read the rules and abide by what they say that you CAN do. There doesn't NEED to be a rule that says a dog can't play basketball.
Sidenote: I REALLY think that the lack of an "Environment" classification for most of those being missing and being provided rules to handle and classify them was one of the biggest oversights in PF2 game design, sure, it would have tacked on a fair bit of extra playtesting and page count but it would have helped ensure this converstation that crops up every couple weeks and is argued bitterly to no end despite the RAW being super clear on this point would not occur and ensure consistency from one table to another for handling this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would letting Strike target unattended objects turn the world into wet cardboard? The Material Statistics section still says that sturdy structures are of higher Hardness and Hit Points than the table suggests, and it points to the Urban section saying that structures that are sturdier still require downtime to break down. If you down want your players to destroy the dungeon, just say the Hardness is too high.
Why would letting Strike target unattended objects turn the world into wet cardboard? The Material Statistics section still says that sturdy structures are of higher Hardness and Hit Points than the table suggests, and it points to the Urban section saying that structures that are sturdier still require downtime to break down. If you down want your players to destroy the dungeon, just say the Hardness is too high.
Mainly because you quickly find that the 'higher hardness structures' are meaningless in the face of higher damage from strikes and adamantine items [like a pickaxe] that cuts such hardnesses in half. Unless you say every item/structure is make out of adamantine, players are going to be able to damage them unless you plot armor them and that's pretty feels bad. Give a Giant Instinct barbarian an adamantine oversized pick and let them rage/strike something and even if every single thing is made of iron, their rage bonus alone gets through it's hardness [9 since it's halved]. Now make it an adamantine Earthbreaker instead and you add even more damage. Then we make it a goblin with Vandal and the harness drops more...
So, no one is REALLY going to believe 'it's too hard to break through', especially when it happens repeatedly. And you can buy an adamantine miner's pick at 8th level...
Why would letting Strike target unattended objects turn the world into wet cardboard? The Material Statistics section still says that sturdy structures are of higher Hardness and Hit Points than the table suggests, and it points to the Urban section saying that structures that are sturdier still require downtime to break down. If you down want your players to destroy the dungeon, just say the Hardness is too high.Mainly because you quickly find that the 'higher hardness structures' are meaningless in the face of higher damage from strikes and adamantine items [like a pickaxe] that cuts such hardnesses in half. Unless you say every item/structure is make out of adamantine, players are going to be able to damage them unless you plot armor them and that's pretty feels bad. Give a Giant Instinct barbarian an adamantine oversized pick and let them rage/strike something and even if every single thing is made of iron, their rage bonus alone gets through it's hardness [9 since it's halved]. Now make it an adamantine Earthbreaker instead and you add even more damage. Then we make it a goblin with Vandal and the harness drops more...
So, no one is REALLY going to believe 'it's too hard to break through', especially when it happens repeatedly. And you can buy an adamantine miner's pick at 8th level...
No, I'm talking about structures so reinforced that the values on the table won't suffice. Halving the Hardness of a reinforced stone wall won't do much good if the Hardness is only lowered to 100 or more. Only downtime will work against these.