Even more Mike Mearls

[Irda Ranger]

Grr. I like Sunder and hate item dependence (that's why I play Iron Heroes). I was hoping (really, really hoping) that D&D was getting away from "I am only as good as my sword."

Looks like my house rules document will be lengthy ....

 

[Fifth Element]

Is it just me? The reason why DR is bad is because it's too REALISTIC? Balance? Fah! In the medieval crusades there was a reason why the knights were called 'Iron men' and could take on many more than their number in a foreign environment. It was armor's damage resistance, not the ability to avoid being hit.

But if the armour is blocking the blows, then the knight is not getting hit - the armour is. If weapons can't penetrate your armour, then you are harder to hit. That's you, not your armour.

Edit: There isn't really the hard dividing line between getting hit and taking damage that we pretend there is.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Grr. I like Sunder and hate item dependence (that's why I play Iron Heroes). I was hoping (really, really hoping) that D&D was getting away from "I am only as good as my sword."

Looks like my house rules document will be lengthy ....

If they manage to chop a bit of the Christmas Tree and leave us only with "The Big 2" (Armor and Weapon for Fighters, and Orb and Staff for a Wizard), it might at least become a lot easier to estimate the effects of house rules on balancing encounters...

 

[Najo]

Mike Mearls on Why Sunder is Lame
original thread
Here's why I think sunder is lame:

It doesn't respect the DM's control of the campaign. Sunder can destroy items that are important to the plot. It's an end point, rather than an extra complication. Contrast that with disarm: if you're disarmed, the weapon is still there, you just need to take a risk to get it back.

In particular, since so much of 3.5's firepower for PCs and NPCs is tied up in gear, giving you a way to destroy that gear works against the system.

If D&D's system didn't rely on items at all, sunder would be fine, but it does, so I don't think it helps the game.

Sunder also gives you another reason to stop adventuring. I think D&D works best when the PCs are playing a game where they worry about diminishing hit points and spells. Adding other resources to drain or destroy muddies the waters.

I have two points I like to make about Mike Mearls comments here:

1) I am not hijacking this thread, but for the reasons Mike doesn't like Sunder is the very same reason feats that drag fluff into the game are bad (here is looking at you Golden Wyvern Adept). It doesn't respect a DM's campaign and takes away the DM's control of his story and setting. We are discussing the named feats here: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=213695

2) I disagree that Sunder is as determental as Mike makes it sound. Characters shouldn't be as item dependant and Sunder should be more rare than it is now. Having to reforge a magic weapon can become an interesting part of the story and be heroic in itself. A key encounter can become very tense when the fighter's weapon is destroyed and he has to fit the BBEG without it.

Currently, I think Sunder is to easy to do in D&D, and overall, doesn't need to be so prominant in the combat rules. Because of this it is easier to just remove, but I think they should find a way to leave it in but lessen its impact on the game. Sunder has its place, just as disarming, grappling, etc. Likewise, sunder works for as well for as against the heroes when heroes sunder an enemy's weapon. Those scenes can be intense too.

 

[StarFyre]

armour

I like the 'realistic' nature of DR in armour. It does make it possible for some characters to not be able to harm certain enemies, but then, they have to think and find something else to do.

Maybe you can trip them? or blind them? or maybe switch weapons? pick up something else? distract them? There are tons of options there, if you start making combat more than just stand toe to toe and hack n' slash. Our battles are almost like tactical puzzles; so I may experiment with my own customized armour system (we don't use it, since it takes more time, due to all the aspects it simulates) but players have wondered if I were to write a small program that could do all the data crunching for us, and return an output, it may be fun to try for a month or so and see how it incorporates.

Regards,

Sanjay

 

[Irda Ranger]

Oh, as I meant to say in my first post ... Merric, thank you for collecting all this stuff. It's good work.

Mike Mearls on Why Sunder is Lame
original thread
Here's why I think sunder is lame:

It doesn't respect the DM's control of the campaign. Sunder can destroy items that are important to the plot. It's an end point, rather than an extra complication. Contrast that with disarm: if you're disarmed, the weapon is still there, you just need to take a risk to get it back.

I already mentioned how I dislike D&D's philosophy of "It's not the man that makes the hero, but his gear", so I want to address this point now.

I think taking out Sunder also doesn't respect the DM's control of the campaign. What if I want Sunder? What if I care more about letting PC's and NPC's choose the best strategy over rail-roading them down a certain plotline?

Everyone here I am sure has seen Raiders of the Lost Ark. Remember how that big dude came out of the crowd, did all that scimitar waiving, and Indy just pulled out a pistol and shot him? That was awesome! I would love it for a player to use his brain and take the "short-cut" to victory.

Likewise, remember when Gimli tried to destroy the One Ring at the Council of Elrond and (in the movie at least) his axe shattered? Cool. That's what you get for trying to Sunder the One Ring.

al'Lan Mandragoran shattered his best dagger on one of the Seals of the Dark One's prison.

And of course, we all know what happened to Narsil.

Needless to say, if Sunder is not in the Core Rules, it's going right back in on Day 1. That's me taking back control over my campaign, despite what kind of game Mearls might prefer.

I think D&D works best when the PCs are playing a game where they worry about diminishing hit points and spells. Adding other resources to drain or destroy muddies the waters.

I don't. Competing interests and concerns make for more interesting stories. Deliberately sacrificing one thing, to save another, is good, and makes for great stories. Reducing everything to one variable takes all the depth and flavor out of the world. It also ignores the very real, and very human, fact, that some things just aren't fungible.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I have two points I like to make about Mike Mearls comments here:

1) I am not hijacking this thread, but for the reasons Mike doesn't like Sunder is the very same reason feats that drag fluff into the game are bad (here is looking at you Golden Wyvern Adept). It doesn't respect a DM's campaign and takes away the DM's control of his story and setting. We are discussing the named feats here: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=213695

2) I disagree that Sunder is as determental as Mike makes it sound. Characters shouldn't be as item dependant and Sunder should be more rare than it is now. Having to reforge a magic weapon can become an interesting part of the story and be heroic in itself. A key encounter can become very tense when the fighter's weapon is destroyed and he has to fit the BBEG without it.

Currently, I think Sunder is to easy to do in D&D, and overall, doesn't need to be so prominant in the combat rules. Because of this it is easier to just remove, but I think they should find a way to leave it in but lessen its impact on the game. Sunder has its place, just as disarming, grappling, etc. Likewise, sunder works for as well for as against the heroes when heroes sunder an enemy's weapon. Those scenes can be intense too.

Disarm can provide the same benefits, but the fighter gets the weapon back at the end of he encounter. Sometimes I'd like if D&D was less equipment dependent than it is, but it also has it perks (from just the fun of finally getting your +1 Sword or getting enough money to bet your personal favourite sword with all the special abilities, or just the option of giving unique abilities to weapons). Once gear comes with some abilities (even if they aren't magical), it becomes important to the game. If a longspear is different from a shortsword, a character using a longspear will not want to switch to a shortsword, and once he is even able to specialise his abilities in a specific item, taking it away _always_ hurts.

Maybe you can trip them? or blind them? or maybe switch weapons? pick up something else? distract them? There are tons of options there, if you start making combat more than just stand toe to toe and hack n' slash. Our battles are almost like tactical puzzles; so I may experiment with my own customized armour system (we don't use it, since it takes more time, due to all the aspects it simulates) but players have wondered if I were to write a small program that could do all the data crunching for us, and return an output, it may be fun to try for a month or so and see how it incorporates.

I hope you're not really advocating a system that is so complex that players want a calculator to use it, but only use it as a starting point to streamline it to something that can be used without technical aid.

D&D combat offers already a lot of options, and they aren't bad. But no matter what tactical options you use, the end goal is to bring down the enemies hit points to a point where he cannot continue to fight (either because he is dead or because he gives up). Blinding, tripping, disarming, sundering his weapons, bullrushing him, whatever else you do, it's just to get you into a position to take away his hit points. (Unless there are unique situations, like trying to avoid a coup-de-grace by disarming your opponent, or destroying a magical wand to stop the fireballs).

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Oh, as I meant to say in my first post ... Merric, thank you for collecting all this stuff. It's good work.


I already mentioned how I dislike D&D's philosophy of "It's not the man that makes the hero, but his gear", so I want to address this point now.

I think taking out Sunder also doesn't respect the DM's control of the campaign. What if I want Sunder? What if I care more about letting PC's and NPC's choose the best strategy over rail-roading them down a certain plotline?

Everyone here I am sure has seen Raiders of the Lost Ark. Remember how that big dude came out of the crowd, did all that scimitar waiving, and Indy just pulled out a pistol and shot him? That was awesome! I would love it for a player to use his brain and take the "short-cut" to victory.

Likewise, remember when Gimli tried to destroy the One Ring at the Council of Elrond and (in the movie at least) his axe shattered? Cool. That's what you get for trying to Sunder the One Ring.

<*snip because I don#t know that reference and can't comment on that*>

And of course, we all know what happened to Narsil.

Needless to say, if Sunder is not in the Core Rules, it's going right back in on Day 1. That's me taking back control over my campaign, despite what kind of game Mearls might prefer.

The situations aren't regular sunders, though. The One Ring certainly didn't make a sunder attack on Gimlis Axe! Indy shooting someone wielding a scimitar is not sundering a weapon.
Narsil might be a nice point, but it was still very unique. Nobody tried to sunder Legolas bow, for instance, which would definitely have been a good choice.

I don't. Competing interests and concerns make for more interesting stories. Deliberately sacrificing one thing, to save another, is good, and makes for great stories. Reducing everything to one variable takes all the depth and flavor out of the world. It also ignores the very real, and very human, fact, that some things just aren't fungible.

He was talking about the "game" part, not the full role-playing game. The game part boils down to being out of spells and hit points. Sunder has no relation to sacrifices, because someone else shatters your sword, it's not your decision to make, thus not your sacrifice. It's only another kind of loss.
Sacrifices might be giving up rescuing a friend to survive on your own or get a new ally.

 

[stonegod]

I agree the sunder attack RAW isn't a great idea or implementation, but it doesn't mean it can't happen from other effects.

Everyone here I am sure has seen Raiders of the Lost Ark. Remember how that big dude came out of the crowd, did all that scimitar waiving, and Indy just pulled out a pistol and shot him? That was awesome! I would love it for a player to use his brain and take the "short-cut" to victory.

Not a sunder attempt. More something like a catch-you-off-your-guard-sneak-attack. (Of course, if you were felling like Harrison Ford was on that day of shooting, you'd want that scene over as well).

Likewise, remember when Gimli tried to destroy the One Ring ...

al'Lan Mandragoran shattered his best dagger on one of the Seals of the Dark One's prison.

While all these ended up sundering the weapon, not of these were sundering attempts in combat. They were consequences of trying to improperly destroy and artifact.

And of course, we all know what happened to Narsil.

A plot point, and it didn't serve Elendil too well after. And it was destroyed by a weapon wielded by a demi-god, essentially---an extension of Sauron.

I don't think sundering attacks makes the rules any quicker, but I'm not ruling out an ability to destroy a weapon through rarer special attacks.

 

[Waylander the Slayer]

D&D combat offers already a lot of options, and they aren't bad. But no matter what tactical options you use, the end goal is to bring down the enemies hit points to a point where he cannot continue to fight (either because he is dead or because he gives up). Blinding, tripping, disarming, sundering his weapons, bullrushing him, whatever else you do, it's just to get you into a position to take away his hit points. (Unless there are unique situations, like trying to avoid a coup-de-grace by disarming your opponent, or destroying a magical wand to stop the fireballs).

No- the point is defeating your enemy not necessarily killing him or bringing down his hit points. All of the above noted often leads to the opponent surrendering- there are other ways to this also, including the use of diplomacy and scheming, none of which have anything to do with hit points.