PATHFINDER Are there bombardment rules?

[Calthropstu]

Let's see we have 100 giants behind a wall. They can't see over the wall, but they can certainly throw rocks over it. How is it handled if you can't see your target because they have full cover, but you could still technically reach them with attacks?

[Psyren]

I didn't do a lot of diggiing to see if this is specifically covered somewhere - but I'd probably start with the siege engine rules from Ultimate Combat, which cover the same sort of information for indirect catapult/trebuchet fire that similarly doesn't need line of sight.

[Calthropstu]

I didn't do a lot of diggiing to see if this is specifically covered somewhere - but I'd probably start with the siege engine rules from Ultimate Combat, which cover the same sort of information for indirect catapult/trebuchet fire that similarly doesn't need line of sight.

hmmmm. yeah, I was thinking of applying this as a flat -6 for catapults, but I was hoping there was something specific for giant fire or alchemist fire lobbed over walls.

[Psyren]

Siege-sized Alchemical Fire payloads are in that link as well, if that helps.

[Ashiel]

Let's see we have 100 giants behind a wall. They can't see over the wall, but they can certainly throw rocks over it. How is it handled if you can't see your target because they have full cover, but you could still technically reach them with attacks?

Throwing rocks blindly isn't going to be very effective. You'd basically be blindly picking a space to attack into and then throwing it towards that space. Even if you pick a space battleship style and there's someone there, you're probably looking at improved cover (+8 AC) since you're having to lob it over the cover rather than throwing it clearly and total concealment (50% miss chance) for throwing blind. Basically, exactly as effective as it should be (not).

Blindly firing over a wall should generally be relegated to firing into a fortress with attacks that inflict AoE damage. In core, this would probably be done with siege engines built using the trap rules.

[Calthropstu]

Throwing rocks blindly isn't going to be very effective. You'd basically be blindly picking a space to attack into and then throwing it towards that space. Even if you pick a space battleship style and there's someone there, you're probably looking at improved cover (+8 AC) since you're having to lob it over the cover rather than throwing it clearly and total concealment (50% miss chance) for throwing blind. Basically, exactly as effective as it should be (not).

Blindly firing over a wall should generally be relegated to firing into a fortress with attacks that inflict AoE damage. In core, this would probably be done with siege engines built using the trap rules.

In pathfinder, siege engines use a specific set of rules. Firing over walls gives a -6, with a +1/volley if you can't see the target (+2 if you can) over time at stationary targets. But it doesn't say for large creatures lobbing rocks. I will probably simply adopt this approach .

[Ashiel]

In pathfinder, siege engines use a specific set of rules. Firing over walls gives a -6, with a +1/volley if you can't see the target (+2 if you can) over time at stationary targets. But it doesn't say for large creatures lobbing rocks. I will probably simply adopt this approach .

If you're going to do that, you should probably do it for bows and stuff too. How do you intend to handle siege engine checks when not using siege engines?

[Psyren]

If you're going to do that, you should probably do it for bows and stuff too. How do you intend to handle siege engine checks when not using siege engines?

The checks are for a siege team working together to load and fire the weapon. I'd say its reasonable that a giant tossing a boulder doesn't have to make those, and can simply attack against the same DC (15, adding in the appropriate modifiers due to range increments/line of sight to target) in order to attempt to hit a desired square.

[Ashiel]

The checks are for a siege team working together to load and fire the weapon. I'd say its reasonable that a giant tossing a boulder doesn't have to make those, and can simply attack against the same DC (15, adding in the appropriate modifiers due to range increments/line of sight to target) in order to attempt to hit a desired square.

Just seems a bit...hm, "cheaty", to allow people (giant or otherwise) to circumvent cover and concealment for a mere +6 to AC, with an attack that isn't an AoE. Giant's boulders aren't large enough to just randomly throw them and cause tons of destruction, they actually have to be aimed. They're not walking catapults or trebuchets. They're small enough that if you've got two people standing next to each other, only one will get hit.

Honestly allowing them to target spaces protected by total cover that they can't actually attack over is being more than generous.

[Psyren]

I do think it's fair, and that your analysis isn't quite accurate - see below.

1) I'm not seeing where these rules let you beat concealment, so that miss chance would still apply. Beating cover meanwhile depends on a very specific kind of cover (a vertical wall.) If you can protect against high-arcing attacks in some way, like a forcecage on the target, then this doesn't defeat that. Siege attacks are also subject to other factors like extremely strong wind.

2) Despite not being an AoE, it does allow any targets in the square a reflex save even if the Giant successfully hits. The DC of this save is flat, making it auto-success for characters after a while, and no damage at all for ones with evasion.

3) This form of attack also requires a great deal of setup, since the giant will need a stockpile of rather bulky ammunition nearby, or else have to burn actions repositioning.

4) Giants may have advantages over catapults (not needing a team to reload for instance) but they have disadvantages too. The biggest is that they are making thrown attacks, which use Dex to aim properly by default - not a giant's best stat. They could be customized with feats that let them use Strength instead, but that will increase their challenge rating so they're likely to be up against more powerful opposition as a result. Other disadvantages include the fact that unlike catapults, giants can be blinded, charmed, confused, feared, fascinated, poisoned, tripped etc. They can also simply be threatened by melee attackers, causing them to provoke whenever they toss.

In short, I'm fine with using these rules for giants since they are fairly balanced with a regular catapult, and it's a cool visual to add to a fantasy game's siegecraft.

[Calthropstu]

I do think it's fair, and that your analysis isn't quite accurate - see below.

1) I'm not seeing where these rules let you beat concealment, so that miss chance would still apply. Beating cover meanwhile depends on a very specific kind of cover (a vertical wall.) If you can protect against high-arcing attacks in some way, like a forcecage on the target, then this doesn't defeat that. Siege attacks are also subject to other factors like extremely strong wind.

2) Despite not being an AoE, it does allow any targets in the square a reflex save even if the Giant successfully hits. The DC of this save is flat, making it auto-success for characters after a while, and no damage at all for ones with evasion.

3) This form of attack also requires a great deal of setup, since the giant will need a stockpile of rather bulky ammunition nearby, or else have to burn actions repositioning.

4) Giants may have advantages over catapults (not needing a team to reload for instance) but they have disadvantages too. The biggest is that they are making thrown attacks, which use Dex to aim properly by default - not a giant's best stat. They could be customized with feats that let them use Strength instead, but that will increase their challenge rating so they're likely to be up against more powerful opposition as a result. Other disadvantages include the fact that unlike catapults, giants can be blinded, charmed, confused, feared, fascinated, poisoned, tripped etc. They can also simply be threatened by melee attackers, causing them to provoke whenever they toss.

In short, I'm fine with using these rules for giants since they are fairly balanced with a regular catapult, and it's a cool visual to add to a fantasy game's siegecraft.

We're literally talking 100 giants here, so I will likely treat them as a single unit. Maybe just an area attack. I'd rather not roll 100d20.

[Ashiel]

I think most of those are fair points, though giants already have advantages when it comes to attacking over walls (low obstacles and cover rules are based on your height). There's a few other things I wanted to address as well.

Indirect attacks per siege engine rules don't target creatures directly. They basically cannot be affected by concealment because they damage based on what space they land in. If they miss the space they're shooting for they just land in a nearby space. There is indeed a saving throw, but it's a saving throw based on the siege engine (the giant has no such save, and if it were based on the giant it would be 10 + 1/2 HD + an associated modifier) unless you want to start creating even more random exceptions.

4) Giants may have advantages over catapults (not needing a team to reload for instance) but they have disadvantages too. The biggest is that they are making thrown attacks, which use Dex to aim properly by default - not a giant's best stat.

Largely irrelevant due to differences in BAB. Unless your catapult is being manned by a team of super heroes, giants will still probably have a better to-hit by virtue of their BAB alone.

They could be customized with feats that let them use Strength instead, but that will increase their challenge rating so they're likely to be up against more powerful opposition as a result.

Changing feats does not change CR.

Other disadvantages include the fact that unlike catapults, giants can be blinded, charmed, confused, feared, fascinated, poisoned, tripped etc. They can also simply be threatened by melee attackers, causing them to provoke whenever they toss.

All of these things are effectively true for people manning siege engines as well. Usually more easily as well since they are often more vulnerable to AoE effects like deeper darkness, sleep (due to low individual crew HD, again unless being manned by super heroes), fog cloud, or even just a smokestick because they often cannot move effectively or at all, and charm effects tend to be close range. Giants have better resistances to boot (more hit points, higher saves, more hit dice, etc) and would be much more capable of surviving an attack. Being inanimate objects, a siege engines are also very vulnerable to attacks and AoEs (-5 Reflex saves, -5 AC before size modifiers), if they are even entitled to a save at all (not unless they are magical siege engines).

3) This form of attack also requires a great deal of setup, since the giant will need a stockpile of rather bulky ammunition nearby, or else have to burn actions repositioning.

According to Rock Throwing, any large bulky object with hardness 5+ is suitable. That can literally just be a wooden ball or some bricks. Either way, giants can carry a rather enormous amount of ammunition, especially if you're just going to have them chillin' off in the distance throwing stuff (and they can just free-action drop them if enemies close).

----

But yeah, long story short, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If Giants can do it all of a sudden, then everyone else probably should be able to do it too. Arrows can be fired at an arc from bows over walls, so if we're going to start making exceptions to the rules and allowing indirect fire for this, there's some other questions that will need to be addressed, if only for verisimilitude.

[Ashiel]

We're literally talking 100 giants here, so I will likely treat them as a single unit. Maybe just an area attack. I'd rather not roll 100d20.

That is a rather enormous number of giants (320,000 XP worth of giants in fact, if we're talking about the lowly hill giant). I'm mostly left wondering at that point "why"? If you have a literal army of hill giants (or worse), what sort of obstacle is a wall anyway (a few giants power attacking a wall with a big hammer or something will make short work of most walls, as a single hill giant will inflict about 37 hit points worth of stone wall per round with a maul, which destroys a 10 x 10 section of superior masonry in about 3 rounds). Having a hundred hill giants would just be a matter of charging them up to the walls and knocking them all over.

[Psyren]

@ Ashiel - I have point-for-point responses, but before I continue this debate, it's worth asking what alternative do you have in mind for modelling this? Should giants be capable of throwing rocks over walls or participating in a siege at all your view, or is that something you think should be banned from the game? If you and I disagree at that fundamental level then it might be better to stop here and agree to disagree.

@ Calthropstu - I agree that once you're at 100 giants (or even 100 catapults, for that matter), you've gone to a scale well beyond what the normal combat rules are trying to model. This is something that you might want to consider a hazard of some kind instead, e.g. the PCs are located somewhere in the fray and you're just rolling % chances for boulders or whatnot to come into contact with them, instead of rolling for attacks normally.

[Rynjin]

We're literally talking 100 giants here, so I will likely treat them as a single unit. Maybe just an area attack. I'd rather not roll 100d20.

In that case you'd be best off making them a Troop and giving them a ranged AoE Troop attack, similar to the Hobgoblin Grenadier troop that Ironfang Invasion likes using so much.

[Ashiel]

@ Ashiel - I have point-for-point responses, but before I continue this debate, it's worth asking what alternative do you have in mind for modelling this? Should giants be capable of throwing rocks over walls or participating in a siege at all your view, or is that something you think should be banned from the game? If you and I disagree at that fundamental level then it might be better to stop here and agree to disagree.

Well as I said before, I think that if you'd allow lobbed shots (which seems reasonable) that doing so using the existing rules for improved cover and total concealment should suffice. Doing so nets a 50% miss chance and a +8 cover bonus to AC. Said mechanic could also rather fairly be used to emulate things like arcing a bow shot over a wall or any similar thing that could be argued to not be direct fire (if you were arcing over a transparent wall, such as a wall of force, glass, etc, you would just skip the concealment). This would ensure that it was do-able but not very effective unless you were really good, which I think is fair since D&D is largely about people (be they PC or NPC) that make the impossible possible.

I think where the disagreement comes in, is that I don't think that the Pathfinder siege rules are a good option for several reasons, much of which involves the extra effort needed to patch the divide between creatures and siege engines, as well as the unique mechanics for some siege engines that are used for indirect firing (which don't really care about things like AC at all, and instead just inflict damage in/around the space where the projectile lands), and so on.

I'm not specifically against doing things that are "neat" (I've done things like had earth elementals hurled via catapults into fortifications). Merely that often keeping things simple is a virtue for both sides of the screen. By an extension, I personally dislike most of the siege engines themselves because I think that you can make more effective ones with the core trap rules.

Personally I think a more interesting use of rock throw would be to use it to hurl explosive, oil filled, or poison filled barrels from 600 ft. away, rather than just trying to be a siege engine (a hill giant with a tower shield is actually a more effective siege engine than a bunch of them on a hill throwing rocks blindly no matter which rules you try to use). Really ham it up and make a spectacle of it rather than just being a regular ranged attack for some damage. Throw something that's really going to cause some ruckus and doesn't care very much about a "miss".

@ Calthropstu - I agree that once you're at 100 giants (or even 100 catapults, for that matter), you've gone to a scale well beyond what the normal combat rules are trying to model. This is something that you might want to consider a hazard of some kind instead, e.g. the PCs are located somewhere in the fray and you're just rolling % chances for boulders or whatnot to come into contact with them, instead of rolling for attacks normally.

I concur. If the giants aren't even taking part in the battle and are just randomly hurling a bajillion rocks, you'd probably be better off treating the mechanics of it in a battle like a giant trap (such as everyone in the open makes Reflex saves every round to avoid getting hit by a stray rock until the giants are dealt with somehow, favors dodging out of the way), or some sort of reverse-concealment mechanic (such as every round you're out in the open there's a 20% chance you happen to be in the way of an oncoming rock throw using the usual attack modifiers, which makes armor matter), or some other method.

My general advice would be to stick as close to the rules as possible for everyone's sanity and ideally be useful when players or other creatures attempt similar tactics.
1. Normal combat modifiers.
2. Try trap mechanics.
3. Reverse concealment modification.

Or something else. Just sharing coppers here.

[Calthropstu]

That is a rather enormous number of giants (320,000 XP worth of giants in fact, if we're talking about the lowly hill giant). I'm mostly left wondering at that point "why"? If you have a literal army of hill giants (or worse), what sort of obstacle is a wall anyway (a few giants power attacking a wall with a big hammer or something will make short work of most walls, as a single hill giant will inflict about 37 hit points worth of stone wall per round with a maul, which destroys a 10 x 10 section of superior masonry in about 3 rounds). Having a hundred hill giants would just be a matter of charging them up to the walls and knocking them all over.

"Why?" because 6xPC * 6x Leadership apparently = "Let's do an all out assault on the enemy stronghold several levels before we should do so." And no, it's frost giants. Not Hill.

[Psyren]

I think where the disagreement comes in, is that I don't think that the Pathfinder siege rules are a good option for several reasons, much of which involves the extra effort needed to patch the divide between creatures and siege engines, as well as the unique mechanics for some siege engines that are used for indirect firing (which don't really care about things like AC at all, and instead just inflict damage in/around the space where the projectile lands), and so on.

I don't think it's extra effort at all. You take a catapult of the same size as the giant, and remove any parts that deal with a team or engineering - done.

Moreover, you get benefits from this model that regular thrown attacks don't:
- full damage to objects, which boulders should get
- Hitting a square hits everything in that square, including objects or multiple stacked creatures (e.g. mounted creatures or swarms.)
- A missed throw lands somewhere else (with rules to determine exactly where), causing collateral damage, which is more realistic than a regular thrown attack where the projectile is destroyed
- Rules for non-rock payloads, including splash and scattershot
- Rules for how large/damaging a payload a giant can throw based on its size

Well as I said before, I think that if you'd allow lobbed shots (which seems reasonable) that doing so using the existing rules for improved cover and total concealment should suffice. Doing so nets a 50% miss chance and a +8 cover bonus to AC. Said mechanic could also rather fairly be used to emulate things like arcing a bow shot over a wall or any similar thing that could be argued to not be direct fire (if you were arcing over a transparent wall, such as a wall of force, glass, etc, you would just skip the concealment).

The concealment rule doesn't make as much sense because it doesn't account for stationary targets. Unlike a regular attack, a thrown boulder hits the whole square, so a reflex save makes more sense because it means that immobile targets in that square are guaranteed to get hit instead of randomly being missed. It also means that very dextrous targets have a higher than 50% chance of getting out of the way, which is also intuitive.

As for the cover rule, I'm pretty sure that's what the -6 on the siege attack is doing, so we're only 2 points different from one another.

[Calthropstu]

I don't think it's extra effort at all. You take a catapult of the same size as the giant, and remove any parts that deal with a team or engineering - done.

Moreover, you get benefits from this model that regular thrown attacks don't:
- full damage to objects, which boulders should get
- Hitting a square hits everything in that square, including objects or multiple stacked creatures (e.g. mounted creatures or swarms.)
- A missed throw lands somewhere else (with rules to determine exactly where), causing collateral damage, which is more realistic than a regular thrown attack where the projectile is destroyed
- Rules for non-rock payloads, including splash and scattershot
- Rules for how large/damaging a payload a giant can throw based on its size



The concealment rule doesn't make as much sense because it doesn't account for stationary targets. Unlike a regular attack, a thrown boulder hits the whole square, so a reflex save makes more sense because it means that immobile targets in that square are guaranteed to get hit instead of randomly being missed. It also means that very dextrous targets have a higher than 50% chance of getting out of the way, which is also intuitive.

As for the cover rule, I'm pretty sure that's what the -6 on the siege attack is doing, so we're only 2 points different from one another.

Yeah, I think this seems reasonable. At the very least it's a good baseline from which to start.

[Rynjin]

In that case you'd be best off making them a Troop and giving them a ranged AoE Troop attack, similar to the Hobgoblin Grenadier troop that Ironfang Invasion likes using so much.

I guess there was something wrong with using the already existing mechanic made specifically for situations like this?

[Ashiel]

I don't think it's extra effort at all. You take a catapult of the same size as the giant, and remove any parts that deal with a team or engineering - done.

Moreover, you get benefits from this model that regular thrown attacks don't:
- full damage to objects, which boulders should get
- Hitting a square hits everything in that square, including objects or multiple stacked creatures (e.g. mounted creatures or swarms.)
- A missed throw lands somewhere else (with rules to determine exactly where), causing collateral damage, which is more realistic than a regular thrown attack where the projectile is destroyed
- Rules for non-rock payloads, including splash and scattershot
- Rules for how large/damaging a payload a giant can throw based on its size



The concealment rule doesn't make as much sense because it doesn't account for stationary targets. Unlike a regular attack, a thrown boulder hits the whole square, so a reflex save makes more sense because it means that immobile targets in that square are guaranteed to get hit instead of randomly being missed. It also means that very dextrous targets have a higher than 50% chance of getting out of the way, which is also intuitive.

As for the cover rule, I'm pretty sure that's what the -6 on the siege attack is doing, so we're only 2 points different from one another.

It seems to me that a big part of the disconnect seems to be in concept of boulders. To me, rock throw is just an attack, as that's what it's presented as in the rules. It's just a ranged attack that follows ranged attack rules, like a giant throwing hammer or something. It can target a space the same way an arrow can target a space, but displacement protects against rock throw as effectively as it does an arrow.

I think this comes down to visualization. I get the feeling you're imagining some giant hurling massive man-sized rock spheres that are crushing anyone and anything unfortunate enough to get caught in their paths, whereas I basically see it as they're just throwing heavy stones, bricks, tree limbs, etc. This also would explain why you implied that gathering ammunition for them would somehow be a logistic challenge, whereas that seems trivial to me.

You seem to be thinking something like this and I something like this.

[Ashiel]

"Why?" because 6xPC * 6x Leadership apparently = "Let's do an all out assault on the enemy stronghold several levels before we should do so." And no, it's frost giants. Not Hill.

I'm a bit confused yet again. Are the giants defending the enemy stronghold or laying siege to it?

100 giants, even the small ones like hill giants, is an enormous amount of "meat". Even if you're playing in a Tippyverse sort of setting where they're being fed by create food and water resetting traps, what sort of fortress has any practical way of housing and fielding 100 giants? Is it only giants? Are there non-giants there? Is their boss a giant or is there someone who casually commands a CR 22 gathering of giants?

I'm legitimately just curious at this point.

[Zanos]

"Why?" because 6xPC * 6x Leadership apparently = "Let's do an all out assault on the enemy stronghold several levels before we should do so." And no, it's frost giants. Not Hill.

100 frost giants in melee would probably be far more effective.

That said I second the idea to just give it a single large AoE attack. Instead of rolling 100d20s to attack individual squares, just assign a large area as the target of the barrage, and have everyone in it make a dc15 reflex save or take thrown rock damage. Keep in mind that frost giants are 'only' large, so the rocks they are throwing probably aren't hitting more than one square.

[Psyren]

I think this comes down to visualization. I get the feeling you're imagining some giant hurling massive man-sized rock spheres that are crushing anyone and anything unfortunate enough to get caught in their paths, whereas I basically see it as they're just throwing heavy stones, bricks, tree limbs, etc. This also would explain why you implied that gathering ammunition for them would somehow be a logistic challenge, whereas that seems trivial to me.

What I'm envisioning is something like how Cyclopes from Heroes of Might & Magic 3 could either lob their boulders over a castle wall at the defenders behind, or target the wall itself (and any towers/crenellations protecting archers) directly - just like catapults could. You can ignore the ammo logistics part of that though if there are plenty of big rocks lying around, but the OP seemed to be interested in specialized ammunition (like barrels of alchemical fire) too.

It seems to me that a big part of the disconnect seems to be in concept of boulders. To me, rock throw is just an attack, as that's what it's presented as in the rules. It's just a ranged attack that follows ranged attack rules, like a giant throwing hammer or something. It can target a space the same way an arrow can target a space, but displacement protects against rock throw as effectively as it does an arrow.

I understand, but that leads to one of the problems I articulated above; when you use the regular thrown rules to target a square with a rock (or an arrow) and you miss, the projectile is effectively deleted from play. That doesn't make much sense for massive projectiles, which could have an impact (no pun intended) even when they miss - which is why I feel better about using the siege rules for this. It also opens interesting and realistic tactics up to the opposition - if they can cause the giants to miss badly enough (say, by blinding or cursing them), then suddenly they could be a liability to their own side of the conflict, as their projectiles begin falling short or careening off in unexpected directions.

I guess there was something wrong with using the already existing mechanic made specifically for situations like this?

I agree that a troop works for large numbers of giants, though it seems you have to make up your own "Volley" attack for them - and again, has the same problem of how you model the effects of a miss or striking cover. Not a big issue for arrows, which are generally what the example troops use, but for boulders it becomes less able to be handwaved.

[Rynjin]

I agree that a troop works for large numbers of giants, though it seems you have to make up your own "Volley" attack for them - and again, has the same problem of how you model the effects of a miss or striking cover. Not a big issue for arrows, which are generally what the example troops use, but for boulders it becomes less able to be handwaved.

Well, Volleys don't miss. They're like a Swarm attack, they just hit.

[Psyren]

Well, Volleys don't miss. They're like a Swarm attack, they just hit.

My bad, scratch the "miss" part of that, but the rest is still there. A line of arrows striking a stretch of wall with a wooden gate in it for 2d8 is one thing, a line of boulders is something else entirely.

[Ashiel]

I understand, but that leads to one of the problems I articulated above; when you use the regular thrown rules to target a square with a rock (or an arrow) and you miss, the projectile is effectively deleted from play. That doesn't make much sense for massive projectiles, which could have an impact (no pun intended) even when they miss - which is why I feel better about using the siege rules for this. It also opens interesting and realistic tactics up to the opposition - if they can cause the giants to miss badly enough (say, by blinding or cursing them), then suddenly they could be a liability to their own side of the conflict, as their projectiles begin falling short or careening off in unexpected directions.

That only applies to ammunition. Thrown weapons aren't lost or destroyed on impact (save for shuriken which are treated as ammunition).

Ammunition: Projectile weapons use ammunition: arrows (for bows), bolts (for crossbows), darts (for blowguns), or sling bullets (for slings and halfling sling staves). When using a bow, a character can draw ammunition as a free action; crossbows and slings require an action for reloading (as noted in their descriptions). Generally speaking, ammunition that hits its target is destroyed or rendered useless, while ammunition that misses has a 50% chance of being destroyed or lost.

Although they are thrown weapons, shuriken are treated as ammunition for the purposes of drawing them, crafting masterwork or otherwise special versions of them, and what happens to them after they are thrown.

It's not practically different from using an improvised weapon. If you wouldn't "delete" a barstool, a table, or a greataxe thrown around, you needn't delete a hefty rock, brick, ball, branch, or whatever else just happens to be an object with 5+ hardness that you decide to throw.

[Rynjin]

My bad, scratch the "miss" part of that, but the rest is still there. A line of arrows striking a stretch of wall with a wooden gate in it for 2d8 is one thing, a line of boulders is something else entirely.

I mean, it's a higher CR troop, so it'll be a higher damage attack.

Maybe toss on some extra minor properties; creates difficult terrain, ignores a bit of Hardness, or whatever and call it a day.

[Psyren]

That only applies to ammunition. Thrown weapons aren't lost or destroyed on impact (save for shuriken which are treated as ammunition).



It's not practically different from using an improvised weapon. If you wouldn't "delete" a barstool, a table, or a greataxe thrown around, you needn't delete a hefty rock, brick, ball, branch, or whatever else just happens to be an object with 5+ hardness that you decide to throw.

But it won't damage anything else either - it just misses. Not particularly realistic for a boulder.

[Ashiel]

But it won't damage anything else either - it just misses. Not particularly realistic for a boulder.

That's just game logic for you. You can fire a dozen arrows into a crowd of people and a miss doesn't result in someone else getting skewered.

If you want to solve that "issue", you're tackling something much bigger. I'm not trying to tackle that because consistency is a virtue. Also, I don't think that it's that big, since nothing in the mechanics implies that it's so large as to cause collateral damage on a miss or fumble. You're attributing features to rock throw that don't exist. It's throwing a big hard object like a weapon. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you wanted to rewrite the ability and patch that into the system, that could be an option as well. Just trying to explain where I'm coming from from a design standpoint. You can casually hurl a huge sized maul through the air as a PC without much issue and even then it's just a ranged weapon. I don't really see much of a difference, save that giants can do it one-handed, without improvisation penalties, and at great distances, as long as the object has hardness 5+.