The old spell, Resilient Sphere, gave the force field AC 5. The new spell, Containment, doesn't provide the AC at all. What should its AC be treated as?
yea its abit wierd.
what i can see its one of the following
- ither you auto hit it,
- or they missed to type out the AC,
- or you cant attack the field directly and only attacks that are blocked by the field damages it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really feel items shouldn't have an AC unless they are somehow moving or extremely small. That would simplify attacking them. Because rolling an attack roll on an AC 5 item is mostly a waste of time (and a very sad experience when you roll a nat 1).
|
I don't really see the need for "AC: pointless", no.
Of course there are also hazards with actually challenging AC for their level. Good to note that those also normally aren't listed as immune to crits. Seems like the design paradigm is that crit immunity goes hand in hand with AC so low that crits would be really frequent.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really feel items shouldn't have an AC unless they are somehow moving or extremely small. That would simplify attacking them.
Not having an AC implies that you can't attack them at all with Strike or with spells with a spell attack roll. So I don't see how that is going to simplify attacking them unless you are also proposing that the houserule that you can automatically hit them becomes an actual printed rule.
With the current printed rules any action with a check vs AC has to meet or exceed the AC in order to be considered a success and deal damage.
So simply removing AC from all items will not, by itself, make running the game easier.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not having an AC implies that you can't attack them at all with Strike or with spells with a spell attack roll.
You already can't attack items with Strike or spells with spell attack roll. They all target creatures only.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You already can't attack items with Strike or spells with spell attack roll. They all target creatures only.
Not having an AC implies that you can't attack them at all with Strike or with spells with a spell attack roll.
There has always been the presumption of non-listed uses beyond target requirements.
For Strikes, and even spells.
As one example, there was a wall, and it seemed breakable.
I didn't even ask if it was possible, I just informed the GM I wished to cast Gouging Claw on it.
Without an AC, the GM treated it as an auto hit.
There's even issues with certain wordings around "constructs" being both creatures and not creature objects if you get too text-only literal.
.
From another angle:
The text providing the flowchart for how to use the action against a creature does *not* state that the only permissible use of Strike is that one procedure.
I'm like 85% sure there is some higher level rule / advice somewhere in the book about letting players use actions outside of their prescribed use-case, and this 100% applies to Strike.
Strike not being able to target objects at all is too bad to be true. If a basic Strike can't even target a piece of paper on the ground, then items on your person are actually in MORE danger than items on the ground, because there are monsters and at least one weapon rune designed specifically to damage them. Furthermore, there are features that explicitly enhance your Strikes against unattended objects, but none at all that enable Strikes against objects. So Striking objects must be possible, even if it is frequently not the best solution.
But spells that say "Targets 1 creature" are a different story. Many of those spells used to say "Targets 1 creature or object." But then this errata happened.
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."
The devs deliberately limited the ability of spells to damage items, taking care to ensure hydraulic push could still damage unattended items. This suggests that spells should often be incapable of doing things to objects that the spell does not say it does to objects. But there's also the GM guidance Trip.H is referring to, which uses casting ignition on explosive barrels as an example of a rules deviation and how the GM might making a ruling about its effects instead of disallowing it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Strike not being able to target objects at all is too bad to be true.
Just read Strike and you'll see.
Now you don't need Strike to attack an object. The GM just adjudicates on a case by case basis.
Using Strike to attack objects actually doesn't work. If I want to cut a rope with my Sap, it shouldn't work. Similarly, I shouldn't be able to destroy a door with a bow. But Strike doesn't cover such questions.
Attacking objects would need many rules. But at the same time it's a story element, not a combat one. For story elements, it's better to give a few guidelines and let the GM do their work. That's why neither Strike nor spells describe effects on items (besides a few that are meant to target items like Disintegrate). I don't think anyone needs a precise rule to determine how much time it'll take the Barbarian to hack a door to pieces, the effects of a Fireball inside a library or Ignition on an explosive barrel.
|
|
That's an interesting bit of spelunking. It's weird though that hydraulic push doesn't really do any less damage, when heightened to the same rank, than a lot of these other spells.
I think a cleaner solution might have been to say that you can't target attended objects with attacks unless an effect specifically says so.
And as for area effects, clearly some kind of middle ground is needed. It'd be absurd if you could throw fireballs in a library without worrying about collateral damage, but also borderline unplayable if fireballs destroy loot on fallen foes (who, after all, are no longer attending their objects).
And as for area effects, clearly some kind of middle ground is needed. It'd be absurd if you could throw fireballs in a library without worrying about collateral damage, but also borderline unplayable if fireballs destroy loot on fallen foes (who, after all, are no longer attending their objects).
I didn't thought about this one :D
Clearly, damaging objects should be entirely under GM fiat, for story reasons, and not something you can have rules for without creating more issues than solutions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[...]
Using Strike to attack objects actually doesn't work. If I want to cut a rope with my Sap, it shouldn't work. Similarly, I shouldn't be able to destroy a door with a bow. But Strike doesn't cover such questions.
[...]
I think this shows the contradictory split that's causing the odd claim.
Using Strike on an object *is* something players should be able to do, 100% certainly, imo. If a player said they wanted to Strike a rope, imo the GM can(should) only "yes, and" or "yes, but" the player, not deny them with a "you can't hit it with your weapon, that's an object, not a creature."
.
But this is NOT a claim that one can cut a rope w/ a sap Strike.
You seem to be banning the object use of strike due to presuming certain outcomes would be mandatory, when it is the opposite.
The whole point of the "book written use-case" of Strike being creature-only is exactly so that off-book uses need the GM's custom "what happens" to be used. Once you are "off book" there's not even reason to roll the normal damage dice.
Restated: The point of not having a object target Strike written down is *not* to ban it, but to ensure that no one claims it's RaW to use the creature-Strike when they naturally swing their weapon at an object.
This is also why objects don't have AC; so that tables do not auto-pilot into using the creature-target strike procedure (and damage!), and instead the GM must adjudicate (think about) the desired action within the unique circumstance of that specific context.
And as for area effects, clearly some kind of middle ground is needed. It'd be absurd if you could throw fireballs in a library without worrying about collateral damage, but also borderline unplayable if fireballs destroy loot on fallen foes (who, after all, are no longer attending their objects).I didn't thought about this one :D
Clearly, damaging objects should be entirely under GM fiat, for story reasons, and not something you can have rules for without creating more issues than solutions.
Not entirely GM fiat. We still want players to be able to take those features, which means the item damage rules have to at least be partially defined. And they are. We have a fairly comprehensive material statistics table to refer to as needed, and the GM has leeway to declare that certain structures require downtime to break. All we are missing is... the ability to swing an axe at a piece of wood.
The funny thing is, 5e actually addresses the issue of a strange damage type being used to attack objects.
The DM determines an object's Armor Class and hit points, and might decide that certain objects have resistance or immunity to certain kinds of attacks. (It's hard to cut a rope with a club, for example.)
Well, PF2e does kind of say this, but in a weird way.
Many objects are immune to other conditions, at the GM’s discretion. For instance, a sword can’t move, so it can’t take a penalty to its Speed, but a spinning blade trap might be affected.
It gives the GM permission to add more conditions to the object's immunities, but then provides an example that is clearly a penalty, not a condition, suggesting that the added immunities aren't limited to conditions.
Strike not being able to target objects at all is too bad to be true.
It would be too bad to be true if (iirc) this weren't more of a remnant of playtest 2E, where creatures and monsters were treated a bit more differently than they are now. Force Open also exists to serve most (though not all, annoyingly) of the same functions as attacking an object.
The hesitance to allow attacking objects was understandable, too—DC+10 critting means that the old ways of treating objects scaled weirdly. they probably wanted to avoid having to give objects scaling AC (why is an adamantine door harder to aim at than a wooden door?), using a flat check to hit them instead of an attack roll (clunky and unintuitive), or something else. You run into the same issues as people asking about targeting squares instead of creatures, something else intuitively doable but absolutely outside the scope of what the rules seem to intend you to be able to do. Is it too bad to be true if you can't target a square with expansive spellstrike or a splash weapon?
===
This isn't to say that I don't let people attack objects, though, or that I don't think the game intends to let you attack objects. There's lots of places that imply you can attack objects. It'd be asinine to not let your players attack objects, even.
It is to say that I think stuff like "Strike only targets a creature" is something that slipped through the cracks, and it was probably a band-aid fix for a perceived issue with the system during development.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We did so much abuse of attacking objects in PF1. For example, sundering a priest's holy symbol, which NPCs often only had one listed of in their statblock. And which had like a tiny amount of HP of course. Suddenly the GM has to go look up every prepared spell to see if it uses a holy symbol.
There was also the case where the sunder maneuver (attacking a held/worn object) could have a lot lower DC than attacking AC, but with the right feats any excess damage would flow on to the creature. So you'd destroy someone's shirt, then their belt, then their shoes...
PF2 is much better off not having that a thing players are gaming the system for.
The crit chance with the static DC isn't much of an issue since most objects with low AC are immune to crits anyway (though hydraulic push bypasses that).
The HP and hardness not scaling can be an issue, though, even before considering if Strike can target an unattended object. I recently ran a PFS adventure featuring black puddings. F*** black puddings.
The devs had the right idea when they introduced reinforcing runes for shields, but if they intend to keep effects that damage attended items, they should add more ways to protect those items. No one wants to shell out hundreds of gold pieces to recover from a single critical hit, let alone one that they themselves dealt.
Also note that Strike & hit are separate concepts. Strike is a specific game action that targets creatures*. You can still hit non-creatures with your weapon. The action simply becomes a lot less specific. Though for ease GMs can employ the Strike mechanics. At the higher levels, this difference becomes increasingly important, at least if one wants to maintain the integrity of having castles, fleets, & set dressing plus AoEs as mentioned above.
*And many Hazards, Traps, etc.
ETA: This spell really needs stats to be attacked via Strikes! If intentionally left out (because the default would be to carry over the old version, right?), then "what happens if hit?" should have been addressed.
We did so much abuse of attacking objects in PF1. For example, sundering a priest's holy symbol, which NPCs often only had one listed of in their statblock. And which had like a tiny amount of HP of course. Suddenly the GM has to go look up every prepared spell to see if it uses a holy symbol.
There was also the case where the sunder maneuver (attacking a held/worn object) could have a lot lower DC than attacking AC, but with the right feats any excess damage would flow on to the creature. So you'd destroy someone's shirt, then their belt, then their shoes...
PF2 is much better off not having that a thing players are gaming the system for.
In general, sunder had... problems. It is exciting or clever once or twice. By the third time, well... you've explained it. It can be nearly as strong as a save-or-suck, and the only real downside is potentially ruining your loot. Not a terribly balanced mechanic from a gameplay perspective.
Disarm had annoyingly similar issues in practice.
I agree that PF2E saying "you can't target attended objects and have to target the creature" was the right decision for the kind of game it was trying to be, for sure.
The crit chance with the static DC isn't much of an issue since most objects with low AC are immune to crits anyway (though hydraulic push bypasses that).
They aren't immune to crits as a class, though, unless I'm missing something; it has to be specifically called out for the object. Immunity to critical hits isn't listed under object immunities.
It's interesting from a purely game mechanics standpoint that Containment doesn't have a listed AC, because there could be ANY number of valid readings, even if they're in hindsight ridiculous due to being Too Good or Bad To Be True.
-It doesn't list an AC, therefore its AC is 0 and you auto-hit. Not necessarily Too Bad to be true? 40 HP and immunity to crits means it'd take at least two Barb-level Strikes to get through a fully-formed one.
-It's a misprint, and so we should look to the Premaster version to see it's still AC 5. Much the same as the above reading, except there's now more room to Fail a Strike against the barrier, which is funny in a sad way.
-It doesn't list an AC, therefore Strikes cannot target it and only Area damage that can damage spell effects/objects can damage it? Seems Too Good, since that means without VERY specific "lockpick" spells (not even Disintegrate anymore lol) you're boned even if you Succeed the save.
-It doesn't list an AC, so you use your Spell DC as the AC. Almost certainly Too Good, especially given the Premaster version. But man, imagine poor mooks literally unable to even touch your immaculate charge coated in your glittering invulnerability field, and even the Big Bad has to waste an action or two to break it.
|
|
The crit chance with the static DC isn't much of an issue since most objects with low AC are immune to crits anyway (though hydraulic push bypasses that).They aren't immune to crits as a class, though, unless I'm missing something; it has to be specifically called out for the object. Immunity to critical hits isn't listed under object immunities.
You didn't miss anything - I think there's no such general rule.
* There's a bunch of wall spells and other spells/effects that create things with 5 AC that are immune to crits.
* Most oozes have really low AC, but are immune to crits.
* Hazards often have quite competitive AC, and don't mention crit immunity.
Seems pretty fair to me.
You didn't miss anything - I think there's no such general rule.The crit chance with the static DC isn't much of an issue since most objects with low AC are immune to crits anyway (though hydraulic push bypasses that).They aren't immune to crits as a class, though, unless I'm missing something; it has to be specifically called out for the object. Immunity to critical hits isn't listed under object immunities.
I found this out myself not too long ago. There is no general rule saying to double damage dealt on a crit. That is a rule specifically for Strike. Spells with attack rolls have to specify what they do on a critical success. Spells with saving throws can shorthand the process by using the Basic Save designation.
But since objects are not generally valid targets for Strike or spells, they don't need to have blanket immunity to crits. They already have blanket immunity to the attack options to deal damage. Options to deal damage to objects have to be adjudicated by the GM on a case-by-case basis.
Now, I'm not saying that those options to deal damage to objects don't or shouldn't exist - just that they have to be adjudicated by the GM. The GM will have to decide what action needs to be taken, what check needs to be made (if any), what the resulting damage will be, and what happens on a crit. There are plenty of things already in the game to use for examples or inspiration to guide the ruling.
I find it difficult to believe that the developers both:
1. intentionally wrote Strike to be generally incapable of targeting objects, and
2. intentionally created multiple player-facing options to enhance your Strikes against objects.
I think what Strike needs is an explanation of its use against objects. Something like:
(attack) 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 an attack roll using the attack modifier for the weapon or unarmed attack you're using, and compare the result to the target creature's AC to determine the effect.
The GM may allow you to target an unattended object instead of a creature, as long as your weapon or unarmed attack is deemed appropriate enough for the task. If the object has no AC, you automatically succeed instead of rolling an attack roll.
Critical Success You make a damage roll according to the weapon or unarmed attack and deal double damage (see Doubling and Halving Damage for rules on doubling damage).
Success You make a damage roll according to the weapon or unarmed attack and deal damage.
That way, you can't cut a rope with a club, but you can still attack the rope with a sword, and you features designed to help you attack the rope actually do what they say they do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find it difficult to believe that the developers both:
1. intentionally wrote Strike to be generally incapable of targeting objects, and
2. intentionally created multiple player-facing options to enhance your Strikes against objects.
Your difficulty in believing it doesn't make it any less true that that is exactly what they did.
Your proposal is a reasonable one. One among many reasonable options though.
And the rule that we have printed in the rulebook is this one.
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.
...
Here are some simple ways you might implement this
...
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 an ignition spell at a barrel of explosives.
The game developers deliberately left the specifics of how to damage objects undefined so that the players at the table can come up with their own options.
The existence of player facing options that increase the damage dealt to objects does not change that. The mechanics of how to deal damage to objects is still undefined by RAW.
|
|
I think the communication problem here is that people write something a bit too broad and absolute, like:
You already can't attack items with Strike or spells with spell attack roll. They all target creatures only.
... which sounds a lot like you could never ever do it. Which is clearly not true because there are enough specific cases when you can. And probably not quite what SuperBidi meant.
But because we're geeks we get riled up by that sort of language. We've had this discussion with more or less the same people multiple times already. But we keep stumbling into it again.
I think the communication problem here is that people write something a bit too broad and absolute
From my experience, the problem is that it's not a conversation by itself. So you have multiple people posts intermingled and getting a good view of what everyone thinks in this condition is hard.
I was answering to someone pointing out that removing ACs from objects would prevent Striking them. So I pointed out that there was no such need as Striking an object was already not possible from a strict RAW point of view. But if someone only reads my post, they could understand that I consider it's not possible to attack an object at all, which is not what I think.
Your difficulty in believing it doesn't make it any less true that that is exactly what they did.I find it difficult to believe that the developers both:
1. intentionally wrote Strike to be generally incapable of targeting objects, and
2. intentionally created multiple player-facing options to enhance your Strikes against objects.
Yes, the developers made a bunch of options for enhancing Strikes against unattended objects, and by strict RAW they do not work because Strikes cannot target unattended objects. But does that sound like something they would do on purpose? The developers do encourage us to deviate from RAW for the fun of the table, but unlike WotC, they don't use that as an excuse to not try to publish something that works RAW.
The only reasonable conclusion is that one of these two things is a mistake. Either:
1. The Strike action is intended to be able to target unattended objects. Perhaps not in all cases, but often enough to warrant the creation of multiple player options to specifically enhance Strikes against unattended objects.
2. Every player option for enhancing Strikes against unattended objects is instead supposed to enhance an unnamed, undefined attack action that uses your weapon or unarmed attack against an object and whose effects are all GM fiat enforced by Saying "Yes, But."
I lean towards the first assumption since the second one undermines the players IMO. If the player wants to add 2 extra damage to their Strikes against objects, that becomes a bit meaningless if the GM is just going to make everything up whenever the player attacks an object. It's like if the GM didn't track a boss's HP and instead just had them die after 3 rounds.
The specifics of how to damage items ARE defined in the item damage rules. You attack the item directly, you deal damage, and you apply Hardness. That's it. The only thing we are missing is an action that allows us to target the item and swing a weapon at it. And according to multiple player options, that action is supposed to be Strike.
It really just feels like a bit of "we had a bunch of people working on this, and guy A wrote Strike, and guy B wrote the stuff about damaging items, and the editors didn't notice they didn't square because they too assumed you could just attack an item."
It really just feels like a bit of "we had a bunch of people working on this, and guy A wrote Strike, and guy B wrote the stuff about damaging items, and the editors didn't notice they didn't square because they too assumed you could just attack an item."
And then we discuss it on these forums for years in several 100+ post threads. And 4 revisions of the CRB, a Remaster rework of the entire core system, and another couple of errata passes later and it is still there.
I think the communication problem here is that people write something a bit too broad and absolute, like:
You already can't attack items with Strike or spells with spell attack roll. They all target creatures only.... which sounds a lot like you could never ever do it. Which is clearly not true because there are enough specific cases when you can.
I would definitely agree with that.
There is no defined RAW way to damage objects. That doesn't mean that it can never happen.
And 4 revisions of the CRB, a Remaster rework of the entire core system, and another couple of errata passes later and it is still there.
The devs have been busy. They're reworking the entire ruleset to use the ORC license and publishing new content to stay in business. Errata takes a long time with a backlog like this. Remember how long it took to nerf Inner Radiance Torrent? How long did it take to fix the Steal action, where distracted bystanders had a higher chance of noticing the theft?
And 4 revisions of the CRB, a Remaster rework of the entire core system, and another couple of errata passes later and it is still there.The devs have been busy. They're reworking the entire ruleset to use the ORC license and publishing new content to stay in business. Errata takes a long time with a backlog like this. Remember how long it took to nerf Inner Radiance Torrent? How long did it take to fix the Steal action, where distracted bystanders had a higher chance of noticing the theft?
It is still a very weak argument. How many other things that we have complained about for years have been confirmed as being intended? Such as the Rogue's strange save benefit, or the Clay Golem's counteract level override.
Even if it was separate developers who wrote Strike and the notes in adjudicating actions, the one who wrote the adjudicating actions section very clearly thought that damaging objects was not something covered in the basic rules.
It is indeed a weak argument to point to a longstanding lack of errata and claim that the rule is or is not exactly what the author meant. Sometimes errata and clarifications really do take four printings and a remaster to be published.
Adjudicating Actions doesn't talk about item damage. I think you mean Saying "Yes, But".
That said, the author of that section never says it's beyond the scope of the rules to damage an object. Rather, the thing the player wants to do with the spell is beyond the scope of the rules. They want the oil to ignite, or the barrel to explode. Many fire spells don't have any clause for setting objects on fire. Not even Fireball. But since the objects in question logically should be affected by fire in this way, it's an example of "Yes, But."
...(not even Disintegrate anymore lol)...
Containment doesn't mention disintegrate, but disintegrate does describe its own effect against force constructs (such as wall of force). Disintegrate should still destroy it.
Targets 1 creature, unattended object, or force construct
...
If you hit an object or force construct (such as a wall of force), it's destroyed with no save unless it's an artifact or similarly powerful. A single casting can destroy no more than a 10-foot cube of matter.
I support the notion that any attack against Containment automatically hits, and it's just a HP sponge. Even without the omitted AC, the OGL version's 5 AC means that attacks at that level are going to auto-hit anyway, so I think we can safely assume that that's the intent here as well.
Although this goes far beyond the scope of that particular spell, I do think there's merit to the idea of having a specific subset of entities, including objects, that have 0 AC or something similar that guarantees auto-hits, along with crit immunity. In my opinion, when you hit a brick wall and do no damage, it's not because the brick wall dodged or you failed spectacularly at that incredibly basic action, it's because the wall's Hardness was high enough that it negated your damage.
In order to fail to hit AC 5 on a nat 1, you must beat its AC by no more than 9, so a result of 14 or less is needed, so an attack bonus of +13 has a 5% chance of missing.
A level 3 or 4 creature could have an attack bonus that low. For instance, if a level 3 or 4 party was fighting a level 7 spellcaster boss, who then used the spell against the party. Alternatively, a level 7 spellcaster could summon a level 3 creature, then that creature could be trapped in the spell.
So it's possible, but extremely unlikely, for AC 5 to be relevant.
That said, the author of that section never says it's beyond the scope of the rules to damage an object. Rather, the thing the player wants to do with the spell is beyond the scope of the rules. They want the oil to ignite, or the barrel to explode. Many fire spells don't have any clause for setting objects on fire. Not even Fireball. But since the objects in question logically should be affected by fire in this way, it's an example of "Yes, But."
Right. And I am not arguing against that.
Your proposal is a reasonable one. One among many reasonable options though.
The game developers deliberately left the specifics of how to damage objects undefined so that the players at the table can come up with their own options.
Ruling that Strike automatically hits and deals weapon damage, but cannot crit - is a reasonable ruling. But one among many.
Some other options:
Force Open vs standard DC of the item's level with a circumstance penalty for the item's size if the damage attempt is done during combat. If the check succeeds, deal weapon damage.
Same as Force Open, but use Strike and make an attack roll vs the item's standard DC with optional circumstance penalty.
Either of the above two options, but allow the check to crit for double damage.
So that is now five options that I would be happy to run with in a game. On either side of the screen.
There are some other options that I don't like as well:
Strike or Force Open vs DC based on character level of the character making the attack.
Auto-crit success and deal double weapon damage.
-----
So with that in mind, my main point is that there is no one 'right' way of running attacking an item or anything else that doesn't have a listed AC. And in fact it may change based on circumstances.
Smashing a cup on a table I would probably run either as auto hit, or Strike vs item level DC.
Trying to destroy a magical ring with an axe while it sits on a table I would run as Strike vs item level DC and may give it a hardness appropriate for its item level rather than the material that it is made from.
Chopping through a door with a battleaxe I would run as Force Open vs the DC based on the encounter level of the dungeon.
And in all of those cases, I would allow feats like Vandal to work to increase the damage dealt (including Vandal being used on Force Open of the door instead of Strike on the door - because that is the intent of the ability).
I don't think Force Open makes sense as a means of deliberately damaging items. Plenty of objects one might want to damage just aren't containers or doors or anything you would want to "open." Moreover, the critical success effect of Force Open is to not damage the item. Force Open seems like something you would want to use to get what's in the container or beyond the door without having to break or destroy it.
But there is another weird way to damage items that I've seen written into an adventure. If you avoid triggering a particular trap, the monsters who created it will set it off manually by smashing an urn with "a single Interact action."
I don't think Force Open makes sense as a means of deliberately damaging items.
Even though I gave a practical example scenario where I would do exactly that.
Are you actually trying to say that the option must never be used? What rule does it violate?
I don't think Force Open makes sense as a means of deliberately damaging items.Even though I gave a practical example scenario where I would do exactly that.
Are you actually trying to say that the option must never be used? What rule does it violate?
I'm just saying that Force Open's degrees of success make it strange when used to deliberately damage an item. If you noncritically succeed, you break the door/window/container/gate, or the GM decides that it takes some damage. On any other result, the target is unharmed. In fact, critically failing makes it harder to Force Open, so breaking the target might become easier if your crit success chance was too high or harder if your crit success chance was low.
This is like trying to destroy an item by being terrible at Repairing it. Surely there's a better way to do this.
You could just ignore the degrees of success and have it do the weapon damage on a success. But in that case, why even bother with Force Open? Especially if you goal really isn't to open anything, but to literally strike it with a weapon.
But to be fair, using Force Open against a wall (as the action suggests) is similarly weird. Imagine being so strong that you accidentally phase through the wall, or so weak that trying to break down the wall reinforces it instead.
why even bother with Force Open? Especially if you goal really isn't to open anything, but to literally strike it with a weapon.
Because it is an Athletics check instead of an Attack Roll check. That is why I would use the one instead of the other.
Yes, I am modifying the Force Open action to use weapon damage as the result instead of the normal Force Open success results. Was that not clear?
The purpose of using the Athletics check is because it always uses the strength of the character doing the attacks. I don't want to allow strange things in this case like a Rogue battering down a door with their Dexterity attack with their Rapier, or an Investigator want to do it with their Intelligence - because they have higher numbers in those attributes and "hey, I am using Strike, after all. So why can't I use my Finesse weapon for the job?"
I don't think the Attribute used matters all that much. Is stabbing a door with Dexterity or Intelligence really any stranger than stabbing a creature made of the same material with Dexterity or Intelligence? You're essentially trying to stab the right part of the target. Whether the target is a creature has little to do with that.