
Bluemagetim |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

The more I think about it, the more silly it all seems to me.
If a player tells me they want to cut a rope, they cut the rope. If they tell me they want to smash a vase or windw, they smash the vase or window.
Unless there is an extreme time limitation (such as cutting the noose of an ally with an areow as they are being hanged) or the item is extraordinarily tough (such as with a magical item) why on Golarion would such mundane tasks require a check of any kind?
This seems right to me.
Unless there a reason the action is uncertain to succeed dont make players roll.
Guntermench |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You absolutely can punch a clay jar. You just don't necessarily use Strike as the game mechanic to do it with.
Like seriously - is it better if that warrior that just defeated a Tarrasque rolled their Strike attack roll against a clay jar and missed?
Then why are there so many ways to increase my Strike damage against jars?

SuperParkourio |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Can we at least agree that Strike is supposed to work against hazards? Paizo didn't go into detail about how much HP, AC, and Hardness to give hazards from levels -1 to 24 just for the sake of hydraulic push or making up what actions are allowed as we go.

Finoan |

Finoan wrote:Then why are there so many ways to increase my Strike damage against jars?You absolutely can punch a clay jar. You just don't necessarily use Strike as the game mechanic to do it with.
Like seriously - is it better if that warrior that just defeated a Tarrasque rolled their Strike attack roll against a clay jar and missed?
Can we at least agree that Strike is supposed to work against hazards? Paizo didn't go into detail about how much HP, AC, and Hardness to give hazards from levels -1 to 24 just for the sake of hydraulic push or making up what actions are allowed as we go.
For both of these cases it looks to me like the other rules are written a bit inexactly.
I mentioned before that these ways of increasing Strike damage against an unattended object should instead be increasing damage dealt to an object. Is there really any good reason that you only get the benefit of those feats against unattended objects? Like, if you hold the object in one hand and hit it with the weapon in your other hand, then you yourself are attending the object - and no longer get the damage boost?
As for attacking traps, there are rules for that. The error there is the line here:
Hazards' AC, applicable saving throw modifiers, Hardness, HP, and BT are listed in their stat blocks. A hazard that doesn't list one of these statistics can't be affected by anything targeting that statistic. For example, a hazard that has HP but no BT can't be broken, but it can still be destroyed. 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.
The dev who wrote that forgot that Strike doesn't target objects. Probably thinking that Strike would work against anything with an AC listed. Yes, this is a thing that should be fixed - in the rules for damaging a hazard. There are also hazards that it does make sense should not have an AC listed and should not be able to be targeted with Strike - such as haunts.
So it still seems to me like the proper place to fix this is not Strike. Strike has no reason to be used against jars, window panes, castle walls, or other unattended objects. Not without additional adjudication.

graystone |

Then why are there so many ways to increase my Strike damage against jars?
There are only a few that deal with unattended items and most don't actually increase damage but allow you to bypass a certain amount of hardness: this means that vs a jar, you might not deal any different damage with or without those abilities as the hardness for such items starts at 0.
Can we at least agree that Strike is supposed to work against hazards? Paizo didn't go into detail about how much HP, AC, and Hardness to give hazards from levels -1 to 24 just for the sake of hydraulic push or making up what actions are allowed as we go.
Most likely intended but it's not conclusive from the other rules as the game started with quite a few spells that targeted objects: they have pared them down quite a bit but they still exist. Shatter [just works], Withering Grasp [spell att], Moonburst [ref], Hydraulic Torrent [fort], Magnetic Acceleration [spell attack], Disintegrate [spell att/fort], Heaving Earth [ref], Sudden Bolt [ref], Cry of Destruction [fort], Hydraulic Push [spell att], Rusting Grasp [fort or crit fail] and Elemental Breath [metal vs unattended metal item crit fail]. Note 4 target AC.
These mean that you can't conclude that Strikes MUST work on hazards as theses spells interact with HP, AC, and Hardness. Withering Grasp is a level 1 focus spell and Hydraulic Push is a level 1 Arcane/Primal meaning PC's can interact with a hazards HP, AC, and Hardness without need for strikes.

SuperParkourio |

Wizard: I cast Hydraulic Push to damage the hazard. 21 to hit.
GM: Success, roll 3d6 damage.
Fighter: I smash the hazard with my great club. 21 to hit. 15 damage on a regular hit.
GM: Blasphemy. You can only attack an object if I say so.
Wizard: But that was my only hydraulic push. We don't have enough resources to break this hazard if we can't Strike it.
GM: Good point. I don't know why this thing has Hit Points since it's clearly indestructible without the perfect party composition. I guess I'll just have to make something up.
Fighter: Maybe the devs just forgot to put "or unattended object" in the Strike action.
GM: No, it's clearly every other affected rule that is wrong.

graystone |

Hazards have a series of defenses and ways to bypass them. You might use a Craft check, a Thievery check, an Athletics check, ect... you're playing the worlds smallest violin if you expect me to feel bad that you MIGHT need more than one spell to brute force a hazard.
Second, most times do not have to reduce it to 0 hp or even BT. "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." So the fighter in your scenario isn't going to be attacking anyway as it's already triggered; "GM: sorry Fighter, you just got shot in the face with an arrow as you rushed forward with your club... *rolls damage*"
third, once again, it's Hazard that's the issue: hazards are VERY specific what works on them. If they wanted Strikes to work on them, it's quite easy to state that. If you plan to have a party that takes the brute force method, well go all in on that plan. Honestly, even if you COULD Strike one, you'll most likely trigger a Hazard: at that point, you're better off using a cantrip like Spirit Object to trigger it and stay out of the attack range. Or toss a familiar at it.
You'd have a better argument, IMO, if you argued about Vehicles as they don't talk about attacking them outside of calling out that they are objects. I'd still argue though that items that are expected to be attacked with strike should have a call out about that instead of allowing EVERYTHING be a target for Strike.

SuperParkourio |

You're forgetting about complex hazards. They may not deal as much damage as simple hazards, but it's still high damage, and it happens every round.
And yes, damaging the hazard is obviously not the best way to deal with it even if you could Strike it, but the devs gave them Hit Points specifically so that they could be broken.
And what would be so wrong with objects not needing to give Strike permission to work on them? Are you worried it's going to turn the game into Wrecking Crew or something? Sturdy enough walls can already only be destroyed with downtime.

graystone |

You're forgetting about complex hazards. They may not deal as much damage as simple hazards, but it's still high damage, and it happens every round.
I'm not forgetting them at all, it's just we're moving away from your 'but i only have 1 1st level spell to use' scenario.
And yes, damaging the hazard is obviously not the best way to deal with it even if you could Strike it, but the devs gave them Hit Points specifically so that they could be broken.
And they made spells like shatter and disintegrate specifically to attack such things. Again, nothing in this argument requires Strike to work.
And what would be so wrong with objects not needing to give Strike permission to work on them? Are you worried it's going to turn the game into Wrecking Crew or something? Sturdy enough walls can already only be destroyed with downtime.
With Adamantine, things needing Downtime don't really exist unless they are stronger then adamantine as we're talking rounds to burrow through things, not minutes or hours. That and sunder is something I'd rather not see again. Needing plot armor on things is fine in one instance [downtime needed] but not in others [strikes don't target items]?

SuperParkourio |

I'm not forgetting them at all, it's just we're moving away from your 'but i only have 1 1st level spell to use' scenario.
My point is that triggering the hazard doesn't always end the threat. There are even some simple hazards that continue to pose a threat after they've been triggered.
And they made spells like shatter and disintegrate specifically to attack such things. Again, nothing in this argument requires Strike to work.
Except that only the highest level spell slots are likely to overcome the hazard's Hardness. So the resources available for those spells are quite finite. And while spellcasters can explicitly prepare spells that work against objects, martials usually just get new ways to Strike things and better weapons to Strike them with. So unless one of those options for martials says "Congratulations, you've figured out how to Strike an unattended object," there's a balance problem, too.
I remember running a particular complex hazard that could only be disabled with Thievery. Only one character was trained in Thievery, so everyone else had to resort to Strikes, because they didn't have any spells ready at the moment that could deal damage to unattended objects. If I didn't even let them Strike, they'd basically be unable to participate at all.
With Adamantine, things needing Downtime don't really exist unless they are stronger then adamantine as we're talking rounds to burrow through things, not minutes or hours. That and sunder is something I'd rather not see again. Needing plot armor on things is fine in one instance [downtime needed] but not in others [strikes don't target items]?
Adamantine does not let you burrow through walls so sturdy that they explicitly require downtime. And no one's talking about bringing Sunder back. Being able to attack unattended objects without spending daily resources will not bring Sunder back.

Ravingdork |

Anyone using multiple spells to damage a hazard when they could be using a single spell to disable it entirely aren't using their abilities to their full potential.
Using wall of stone to block a hail of arrows trap, an aqueous orb spell to extinguish the fire trap down a hallway, or levitate the source of a trap so that it can more easily turned away or pushed off a cliff or up into the rafters, is the way to go.

The Daily Absalom |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |

Obituaries
"Our paper is sad to report the death of Oogla the Barbarian, famed far and wide for his tremendous strength.
Oogla reportedly went for a walk on the woods and lay down on a flat boulder beneath a walnut tree to take a nap.
While he slept, an ordinary spider attached a web to both him and the boulder.
Lacking any spell casting ability, Oogla was, of course, unable to break the web and eventually starved to death.
Compounding the tragedy is the fact that the many fallen walnuts around the boulder would likely have sustained him until he was discovered — if only he had possessed the spells needed to break open the walnut shells."

graystone |

Except that only the highest level spell slots are likely to overcome the hazard's Hardness. So the resources available for those spells are quite finite. And while spellcasters can explicitly prepare spells that work against objects, martials usually just get new ways to Strike things and better weapons to Strike them with. So unless one of those options for martials says "Congratulations, you've figured out how to Strike an unattended object," there's a balance problem, too.
That just isn't true: there are hazards with NO Hardness and ones that are bypassed by Shatter [2nd level spell] ignoring 4 hardness. In 0-2 Hazards, only the Spear Launchers Hardness of 8 poses a chance of not damaging it.
Second, "In most cases, hitting the hazard also triggers it" and not damaging it so even is your hydraulic push fails to do a single point of damage to a Spear Launcher, it sets it off.
I remember running a particular complex hazard that could only be disabled with Thievery. Only one character was trained in Thievery, so everyone else had to resort to Strikes, because they didn't have any spells ready at the moment that could deal damage to unattended objects. If I didn't even let them Strike, they'd basically be unable to participate at all.
How is that different from Hazards that DON'T have stats to attack it, like a Shrinking Hall or a Electric Latch Rune? When was there an expectation that everyone can participate in Hazards?
Adamantine does not let you burrow through walls so sturdy that they explicitly require downtime. And no one's talking about bringing Sunder back. Being able to attack unattended objects without spending daily resources will not bring Sunder back.
You 100000% missed my point: the exact same logic that you want to use to allow Strikes on non-creatures also means that that link is, well meaningless and moot unless said structures are harder than adamantine: you don't need dedicated work and proper tools when your tool/weapon cuts through it like butter. The only way it works as/is is if it has plot armor, much like objects have from Strikes. If you can attacks anything willy nilly with Strikes, I don't see a justification for a Downtime limitation when Adamantine items are in play. If the DM can make any structure immune to normal attacks and requiring some unspecified method for damaging them, why is it so controversial to have that normal objects follow that too?

SuperParkourio |

That just isn't true: there are hazards with NO Hardness and ones that are bypassed by Shatter [2nd level spell] ignoring 4 hardness. In 0-2 Hazards, only the Spear Launchers Hardness of 8 poses a chance of not damaging it.
And that can still easily result in a hazard with too much staying power to be defeated with a limited amount of resources. Needing to expend daily resources to inflict damage at all when your life is threatened by an object is too bad to be true.
Second, "In most cases, hitting the hazard also triggers it" and not damaging it so even is your hydraulic push fails to do a single point of damage to a Spear Launcher, it sets it off.
Again with the simple hazards. Of course it's that easy for those. I'm talking about the hazards that remain a threat after being triggered.
How is that different from Hazards that DON'T have stats to attack it, like a Shrinking Hall or a Electric Latch Rune? When was there an expectation that everyone can participate in Hazards?
Both simple hazards. But yes, some hazards just aren't given HP because they are meant to be immune to brute force. The ones that do have HP are obviously not meant to be immune to brute force.
If the DM can make any structure immune to normal attacks and requiring some unspecified method for damaging them, why is it so controversial to have that normal objects follow that too?
Because the former is reasonable to expect, as structures are beefier than ordinary jars, and it's necessary for structures to have this protection to prevent hours of GM work from being wasted. The latter makes no sense for most objects and isn't necessary at all.

graystone |

And that can still easily result in a hazard with too much staying power to be defeated with a limited amount of resources. Needing to expend daily resources to inflict damage at all when your life is threatened by an object is too bad to be true.
But that's just the thing... you DON'T have to: you 100% opted for the harder option instead of Skill rolls like Disable. As such, I don't feel any sympathy if it takes longer and uses more resources... Not every option is equal.
Again with the simple hazards. Of course it's that easy for those. I'm talking about the hazards that remain a threat after being triggered.
AGAIN, low level ones generally aren't resetting ones and once you're higher, you have more resources to throw at it. If it seems too onerous, try the Skill checks instead.
Both simple hazards. But yes, some hazards just aren't given HP because they are meant to be immune to brute force. The ones that do have HP are obviously not meant to be immune to brute force.
They are listed as vulnerable to damage NOT brute attacks: you have not shown anything that necessitates brute force is required.: it would make it easier, sure, but it's not needed for it to work.
Because the former is reasonable to expect, as structures are beefier than ordinary jars, and it's necessary for structures to have this protection to prevent hours of GM work from being wasted. The latter makes no sense for most objects and isn't necessary at all.
I can't say I agree: all you have to do is look at the list of material stats. The toughest, Iron or steel structure, have a Hardness 18 and hp 72... With Adamantine tools and a feat, this is 1 rounds worth of attacks to destroy... It isn't reasonable for rounds to change into days because it's thicker. It's CLEARLY plot armor. not some reasonable conclusion that 'some things are just SOOOO tough 1920 times longer to get through' unless it's 1920 times thicker. :P

Finoan |

graystone wrote:If the DM can make any structure immune to normal attacks and requiring some unspecified method for damaging them, why is it so controversial to have that normal objects follow that too?Because the former is reasonable to expect, as structures are beefier than ordinary jars, and it's necessary for structures to have this protection to prevent hours of GM work from being wasted. The latter makes no sense for most objects and isn't necessary at all.
The reason there isn't a blanket permission allowing Strike to target objects is for the very reason that weapon damage greatly exceeds the material stats for things like stone and wood and other things that dungeon walls are made out of, as well as wood, iron, gems, glass, or whatever else that important plot items are made out of. Allowing Strike to damage terrain and items like that does indeed become a problem.
Which is why the fix for being able to break an unimportant jar is to not use Strike for that either. You really don't need to make an attack roll, do you? Why do you have such an emotional attachment to being able to use Strike specifically instead of a generic action with no attack roll?

SuperParkourio |

But that's just the thing... you DON'T have to: you 100% opted for the harder option instead of Skill rolls like Disable. As such, I don't feel any sympathy if it takes longer and uses more resources... Not every option is equal.
...
AGAIN, low level ones generally aren't resetting ones and once you're higher, you have more resources to throw at it. If it seems too onerous, try the Skill checks instead.
Disabling with skills isn't always an option. Sometimes, the only people with the skills and the needed proficiency to disable the hazard are the ones who got caught by the hazard in the first place and aren't in a position to use them. Sometimes, disabling the hazard just isn't possible, and damage has to be used to end the threat it poses. The only way to damage the hazard cannot be to dedicate EVERY HIGH LEVEL SPELL SLOT the mages have to breaking objects while not letting martials do anything. Prewritten adventures often have PL+2 complex hazards acting as boss fights with no enemies to fight alongside them.
They are listed as vulnerable to damage NOT brute attacks: you have not shown anything that necessitates brute force is required.: it would make it easier, sure, but it's not needed for it to work.
You are disqualifying the most basic of tasks on the basis that magic can do it. Doing something as basic as attacking an object should not necessitate reality bending powers, even if some objects are impervious to weapons.
I can't say I agree: all you have to do is look at the list of material stats. The toughest, Iron or steel structure, have a Hardness 18 and hp 72... With Adamantine tools and a feat, this is 1 rounds worth of attacks to destroy... It isn't reasonable for rounds to change into days because it's thicker. It's CLEARLY plot armor. not some reasonable conclusion that 'some things are just SOOOO tough 1920 times longer to get through' unless it's 1920 times thicker. :P
So your saying that adamantine weapons ARE proper tools to cut through walls like butter? This sounds less like a reason to disallow swinging weapons at any unattended object and more like a reason to allow players to just use their weapons to tunnel through walls at rapid speed.
Why do you have such an emotional attachment to being able to use Strike specifically instead of a generic action with no attack roll?
What generic action? How exactly does this generic action work? Do I just automatically hit? Do I automatically crit (often vacuously if the object is immune to crits)? Can I deal quadruple damage if I just put enough gusto into it?

Finoan |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

What generic action? How exactly does this generic action work? Do I just automatically hit? Do I automatically crit (often vacuously if the object is immune to crits)? Can I deal quadruple damage if I just put enough gusto into it?
That is up to the GM to determine. I think it was a different thread that this came up recently, but it applies here too. This is where the Adjudicating Rules guidelines becomes important.
There isn't a better answer that I can give you. The rules are pretty clear on this.
Strike doesn't work on objects. For good reason - to prevent players from destroying important things that the GM doesn't want destroyed such as dungeon walls and plot-necessary items.
Effects of spells and characters damaging the terrain and unattended objects is up to the GM to determine how it works. For good reason - so that many different scenarios can be handled.
Why is this a problem? Yes, you will have to ask your GM nicely if you can destroy a jar. If the GM pushes back on allowing it, there is hopefully a good reason for it that will make the story better. If there isn't a good reason for not allowing that, maybe that is just a litmus test for your compatibility with that GM.

Finoan |

Quote:Why do you have such an emotional attachment to being able to use Strike specifically instead of a generic action with no attack roll?Because Paizo put in a bunch of things that affect striking objects.
And like I said - those bunch of things is where the problem is. Not in the inability to have Strike target objects.
Has anyone come up with a good reason why Vandal doesn't work if you are holding the item that you are attacking? Or if an ally is holding the object on an anvil so that you can hit it easier?

SuperParkourio |

Strike doesn't work on objects. For good reason - to prevent players from destroying important things that the GM doesn't want destroyed such as dungeon walls and plot-necessary items.
Well, mission failed. Hydraulic push still exists and can explicitly be used to damage unattended items, even plot-necessary ones. And that's not a mistake. The developers made an errata where they went out of their way to ensure that hydraulic push could still do it, even as they took away the ability of other spells to damage objects at all.
Effects of spells and characters damaging the terrain and unattended objects is up to the GM to determine how it works. For good reason - so that many different scenarios can be handled.
This is only true for area spells that only specify their effect on creatures. Other area spells and some single target spells give you the explicit capability to damage unattended objects.
And like I said - those bunch of things is where the problem is. Not in the inability to have Strike target objects.
Has anyone come up with a good reason why Vandal doesn't work if you are holding the item that you are attacking? Or if an ally is holding the object on an anvil so that you can hit it easier?
Well, the developers probably just didn't anticipate the user attacking items in the user's possession or an ally's possession. Why does that mean that Vandal is wrong about the ability of Strike to target unattended objects? And that every other ability that enhances Strikes against unattended objects is wrong? And that hazards can only be damaged with magic or other special abilities RAW?
Wouldn't it make more sense if the mistake was in the Strike action itself? It requires far fewer assumptions to reach that conclusion.

Guntermench |
Well, mission failed. Hydraulic push still exists and can explicitly be used to damage unattended items, even plot-necessary ones. And that's not a mistake. The developers made an errata where they went out of their way to ensure that hydraulic push could still do it, even as they took away the ability of other spells to damage objects at all.
They also left in an example of attacking an explosive barrel with a spell, not even missing to change that spell from produce flame to ignition.

Finoan |

Finoan wrote:Well, the developers probably just didn't anticipate the user attacking items in the user's possession or an ally's possession. Why does that mean that Vandal is wrong about the ability of Strike to target unattended objects?And like I said - those bunch of things is where the problem is. Not in the inability to have Strike target objects.
Has anyone come up with a good reason why Vandal doesn't work if you are holding the item that you are attacking? Or if an ally is holding the object on an anvil so that you can hit it easier?
It means that these abilities were written without a full interaction check to the other rules. It means that there are considerations in these abilities that have not been properly accounted for and that these abilities need reviewed.
And that every other ability that enhances Strikes against unattended objects is wrong? And that hazards can only be damaged with magic or other special abilities RAW?
Wouldn't it make more sense if the mistake was in the Strike action itself? It requires far fewer assumptions to reach that conclusion.
No. It doesn't mean that. Fewer assumptions (Occam's Razor) is only valid as a heuristic between equally possible explanations if there are no other considerations to indicate one is more likely than the other. One, it doesn't prove truth. And two, in this case it is ignoring the game balance considerations.
And please stop arguing against only part of what I am proposing. Strike can't target objects, and abilities that have benefits when using Strike on objects need updated to give their benefits any time you damage an object, and hazards should not be immune to targeting by effects that can't target objects (they should only be immune to targeting by effects for which they have no defensive stat listed).
You seem to stop reading once you see 'Strike can't target objects'.

Finoan |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Quote:Well, mission failed. Hydraulic push still exists and can explicitly be used to damage unattended items, even plot-necessary ones. And that's not a mistake. The developers made an errata where they went out of their way to ensure that hydraulic push could still do it, even as they took away the ability of other spells to damage objects at all.They also left in an example of attacking an explosive barrel with a spell, not even missing to change that spell from produce flame to ignition.
Yes. I would note that they did so in the Adjudicating Rules section that I linked to.
I would absolutely agree that GMs should generally allow attacking and damaging items and terrain - with GM involvement. Not as a unilateral 'I have decided to use Strike on this item' decision made by the player alone.

Finoan |

I'd go the other way, hit whatever you'd like but the GM can definitely just say "your weapon bounces off with no effect" when that makes sense.
That... still requires GM involvement. Such as assigning an AC for these items that you decide to Strike, or deciding that the attack roll can be ignored.
Or forbidding damage... and somehow that is an improvement over just forbidding Strike.

SuperParkourio |

SuperParkourio wrote:It means that these abilities were written without a full interaction check to the other rules. It means that there are considerations in these abilities that have not been properly accounted for and that these abilities need reviewed.Finoan wrote:Well, the developers probably just didn't anticipate the user attacking items in the user's possession or an ally's possession. Why does that mean that Vandal is wrong about the ability of Strike to target unattended objects?And like I said - those bunch of things is where the problem is. Not in the inability to have Strike target objects.
Has anyone come up with a good reason why Vandal doesn't work if you are holding the item that you are attacking? Or if an ally is holding the object on an anvil so that you can hit it easier?
I hope they do get reviewed. That will cause the developers to realize that they've been writing certain parts of the rules while mistaken about what the Strike action RAW says it can do, and this discrepancy will hopefully be fixed.
SuperParkourio wrote:No. It doesn't mean that. Fewer assumptions (Occam's Razor) is only valid as a heuristic between equally possible explanations if there are no other considerations to indicate one is more likely than the other. One, it doesn't prove truth. And two, in this case it is ignoring the game balance considerations.And that every other ability that enhances Strikes against unattended objects is wrong? And that hazards can only be damaged with magic or other special abilities RAW?
Wouldn't it make more sense if the mistake was in the Strike action itself? It requires far fewer assumptions to reach that conclusion.
What considerations am I missing? Defanging Strike of its ability to target items doesn't "save the GM's plans," because players can damage items even without Strike. And it doesn't keep the game balanced either. If anything, Strike being unable to damage objects makes the task outright impossible depending on your class. And I know Occam's Razor isn't foolproof, but all these contradicting rules and features (and the ridiculousness of not being able to swing a hammer at a jar without permission) still suggest the developers' intent.
And please stop arguing against only part of what I am proposing. Strike can't target objects, and abilities that have benefits when using Strike on objects need updated to give their benefits any time you damage an object, and hazards should not be immune to targeting by effects that can't target objects (they should only be immune to targeting by effects for which they have no defensive stat listed).
You seem to stop reading once you see 'Strike can't target objects'.
No, I've been reading your entire posts. I just don't always have a response for everything, especially if I rebut something in the course of responding to a different thing. I haven't been ignoring anything important, have I?
Anyway, I think that's just an obnoxious amount of things to have to house rule to get the game working. Yes, I could house rule the hazard damage rules so that anything that works against creatures also works against hazards (barring immunities). I could also add a Sunder action to the game that lets players attack unattended objects. I could also house rule all those abilities so that they instead buff this Sunder action (that I completely made up) and also every means by which they would damage items.
Or I could just let Strikes target unattended objects with a caveat that it doesn't work against particularly sturdy structures and objects. It's just easier for me as a GM.